President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
How very convenient. Your politics are woefully inconsistent as we saw time and time again with Brexit.
its very typical of liberals. they all support mass murder of children in far away lands. they just are mad that the Republicans and Trump are having all of the fun right now. they think they could kill much better.
who are reporters repeating lies from when creating original reports? their sources? do they only interview upper management as their sources?
lol ****ing idiot.
imagine typing this after beheaded baby hoax and the mass rape hoax. it pains these people that they cant revel in the mass murder like they did for Biden bc now the orange man is doing it.
yep. all the posts on 2p2. specifically yours.
by the way, when you say that liberals are just mad about not being able to commit the mass murder, are you making the claim that that is the exclusive reason that liberals are mad at Trump? Do you have any evidence of that claim either or is this also just based off 2+2 posts?
by the way, when you say that liberals are just mad about not being able to commit the mass murder, are you making the claim that that is the exclusive reason that liberals are mad at Trump? Do you have any evidence of that claim either or is this also just based off 2+2 posts?
It just cracks me up how stupid victor and his dumb ideas are. And he's just so convinced of this crap.
Maybe the US should change it's strategy and team up with Iran to take down Israel.
Or better yet ofc is for us to mind our own business and let the ME countries duke it out among themselves.
imagine typing this after beheaded baby hoax and the mass rape hoax. it pains these people that they cant revel in the mass murder like they did for Biden bc now the orange man is doing it.
you sure bout that? all i'm seeing from libs is taco trump is a pussy for not nuking iran yet
its very typical of liberals. they all support mass murder of children in far away lands. they just are mad that the Republicans and Trump are having all of the fun right now. they think they could kill much better.
I agree with the first part, but I think they're glad Trump is doing it now and not their boy so they can hypocritically throw their hands in the air and proclaim "Oh that's terrible!" when the death toll reaches critical mass.
Argue in favor of increased nuclear proliferation while simultaneously accusing everyone else of being bloodthirsty warmongers is certainly an interesting take.
I generally take some caveats when offering analysis of conflicts and policy, but if there is one thing I am absolutely certain in regards to, it is this: Iran's situation, the Iranian regime's situation, The Iranian people's situation, the region's situation or anyone else's situation will not in any way, shape or form be improved by Iran completing a nuclear weapons programme. There will not be less war, there will not be less oppression, there will not be less unrest and there will not be less scarcity of water, food or money.
If we were a sensible species, we would take every damn nuclear weapon, dismantle them and never ever again pretend they were a good idea. Of course, we aren't a sensible species and we won't do that, but that is no excuse to glorify nuclear weapons.
Mutually assured destruction as a peacekeeper is an illusion. The cold war was never cold. Even if we ignore the times nuclear weapons were actually deployed (which would be an extremely stupid thing to do), near nuclear-war incidents in the past did not stop because of rational policy or informed decision making. The parties involved largely operated blind, and we avoided catastrophe because we got lucky.
And this is the moderated take, gleaned from what we have actually been allowed to learn from those past events. A ton of information is still sealed in closed archives, and anyone who thinks those archives are closed because they showed the people in control were on top of things and we were kept safe in a competent manner are deluding themselves.
I don't want iran or n korea etc have nukes but I understand why they want them. I also don't want the likes of them and putin etc to have them without us having them. The fact it would be better if no-one had them doesn't help.
There's no good solution to this problem. A trusted system of international law and international cooperation is our only good bet but the best prospect for building that was shredded by the iraq war. There also needs to be some balance or power - no regime including the usa can be trusted without some counter power.
If we were a sensible species, we would take every damn nuclear weapon, dismantle them and never ever again pretend they were a good idea. Of course, we aren't a sensible species and we won't do that, but that is no excuse to glorify nuclear weapons.
Chimpanzees don’t wage war in anything like the human sense: no battles, just coordinated raids when they have overwhelming odds, often something like an 8:1 advantage against isolated individuals. And with bonobos, our closest relatives, lethal violence appears to be extremely rare, with only a very small number of suspected cases of killings at all. They're also very matriarchal, which most advanced societies are becoming more and more so.
So humans are hardly a “sensible species” in any simple sense, but that’s not the whole story either. We’re not driven purely by instincts, and we’re not just irrational or destructive. So we’re capable of both cooperation on massive scales and serious conflict, and which one shows up depends a lot on our social structures, incentives, and norms rather than any single hardwired trait.
A trusted system of international law and international cooperation is our only good bet but the best prospect for building that was shredded by the iraq war. There also needs to be some balance or power - no regime including the usa can be trusted without some counter power.
There's no good solution to this also needs to be some balance or power - no regime including the usa can be trusted without some counter power.
A large part of the reason why the Attlee government initiated the British nuclear programme (and the V-bomber force) was to counter the dangerous US monopoly. (At the time, Soviet nuclear development, largely based on espionage, was still underestimated, not least by Truman, who thought the Soviets hadn't a clue, but the idea of a US-Soviet duopoly, potentially incinerating a helpless and unconsulted Western Europe in some stupid face-off, wasn't attractive either.)
It's also dangerous for smaller powers/countries when two superpowers exist. They can go into dividing the spoils mode or fighting battles in unfortunate hosts
It should be highly motivating the EU/UK/etc getting their act together. We should be able to, and need to be able to, stand up for ourselves.
A large part of the reason why the Attlee government initiated the British nuclear programme (and the V-bomber force) was to counter the dangerous US monopoly. (At the time, Soviet nuclear development, largely based on espionage, was still underestimated, not least by Truman, who thought the Soviets hadn't a clue, but the idea of a US-Soviet duopoly, potentially incinerating a
It's also dangerous for smaller powers/countries when two superpowers exist. They can go into dividing the spoils mode or fighting battles in unfortunate hosts
It should be highly motivating the EU/UK/etc getting their act together. We should be able to, and need to be able to, stand up for ourselves.
It's completely bananas for a country to outsource their security to another country if they don't have to. And it's not just because the US is unreliable, you should never do that. I realize it helps pay for a sweet social safety net, but eventually its going to be a problem and then its too late.
Chimpanzees don’t wage war in anything like the human sense: no battles, just coordinated raids when they have overwhelming odds, often something like an 8:1 advantage against isolated individuals. And with bonobos, our closest relatives, lethal violence appears to be extremely rare, with only a very small number of suspected cases of killings at all. They're also very ma
There is a dreadful logic to any arms race. Your neighbour gets big cannons, and if he ever uses them, you are in trouble. Thus you also get some big cannons. Of course, to properly scare your neighbour, you need more cannons and preferably even bigger cannons. Now it is your neighbour who worries about your cannons, and so the cycle spins.
However, with nuclear weapons this comical and absurd reality reaches its eventual conclusion: You can destroy your neighbour, his response is to be able to destroy you.
However, at that point, the initial logic has actually been laid dead. Your arms race is no longer about protecting you, and your neighbours response is no longer about protecting him. Any invasion itself is now irrational, as there is no gain from the hypothetical war. At this point, you're in an arms race simply because it is the only thing response you know. Since there is never zero chance of mutual destruction, the logic you based your arms race on is false.
Thus, nuclear weapons demonstrates perfectly the limitations of game theory and realpolitik when it comes to war, politics, policy and diplomacy. A world based on those principles can ultimately only become the ouroboros of legend.
Of course, reality is a bit more complex with differences in range, anti-ballistic systems and the horribly named "tactical nukes". However, anti-ballistic systems are hit and miss, range of your enemies weapons are unknowns, and the "tactical" part of tactical nukes is a naming convention whose only purpose is to use very flimsy evidence to argue that careening towards nuclear war does not have to be cataclysmic.
Trump rambling in his cabinet meeting about a pen. I honestly don't understand how one person in his cabinet doesn't think he's an absolute moron.
Trump rambling in his cabinet meeting about a pen. I honestly don't understand how one person in his cabinet doesn't think he's an absolute moron.
You really do not think if they were asked that question with a polygraph on we would know the truth
