You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

[Lord Jim]

This betrayal of the Kurds situation is really turning my stomach; I can barely stand to watch the news stories about it...

On top of everything else, The POS actually seems to sound gleeful at the prospect of 1000s of ISIS terrorists descending on Europe...

I REALLY wish the vile motherfucker would just DROP DEAD...

There's no corner in hell hot enough for him....

[BoSoxGal]

The bigger issue is that DJT violated the privacy of the families whose Dover AFB reunifications he attended. He’s only bothered with this twice in his term, but he thinks nothing of describing their grief in excruciating detail - it doesn’t matter if their names weren’t revealed, it was disgusting for him to violate the sanctity of those moments. But this is a guy who shat on Gold Star families and POWs before, so I suppose we can’t be surprised.

eta: this post replies to the one above LJ’s; we cross-posted. I endorse LJ’s thoughts 1000%. Die, DJT, DIE!

[wesw]

yeah, the kurds w0uld never have had t0 fight isis if it weren t f0r us.....



the Syrian kurds and the iraqui kurds are n0t the same

there are at three maj0r facti0ns f kurds.

perhaps this acti0n will all0w us t0 distance 0urselves fr0m turkey.

y0ur thinking is shall0w and, I must say, vile, wishing peple dead is quite 0ffputting t0 civilized f0lk.

even trump is better than y0u, 0n that c0unt.

chicken hawk.

[Lord Jim]

y0ur thinking is shall0w and, I must say, vile, wishing peple dead is quite 0ffputting t0 civilized f0lk.

I see you've cranked up your projector again, wes...

The "shallow thinking" here is all yours...

Your understanding of the dynamics of the Kurds/Syria/ISIS situation and the disastrous implications that The Traitor President's decision has for US national security is clearly on a par with your understanding of the US Constitution...

"Complete and total ignorance of the topic" would probably be the best way to describe your "understanding"...

And what is truly "off putting to civilized folk" is an American President who would step aside to allow a thug to wreak carnage against not just fighters who have been reliable allies of our country, but also on thousands of innocent civilians...

That is the act of a barbarian chieftain, not the leader of a civilized country...

And wes, the next time you breeze through here would you care to provide a defense of "Arms for Dirt"?

[Scooter]

[RayThom]

I think I may know the source of our Grifter-in-Chief's loyalties.

[Bicycle Bill]

Pretty much the same thing I said earlier this week in another area on this forum ....
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19833&p=275573#p275573

All you need to do, Scooter, is follow the money.
The Kurds have nothing; Turkey has this —



and Trump h⃥a⃥s⃥ had a 'conflict of interest'...

“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump boasted in response.  “It’s a tremendously successful job.  It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one; it’s two.  And I’ve gotten to know Turkey very well.  They’re amazing people, they’re incredible people.  They have a strong leader.”
(his own words, in an interview to Breitbart in December 2015)

So it shouldn't come as any surprise that when the situation demanded it, Trump decided to do the right thing ... for Trump.

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

Ah, that's where I saw this.

Oh, well, at least you get a different view of it.

[ex-khobar Andy]

When did force protection become a thing? On CNN this morning I listed to some assistant secy of defense telling me that - in the context of pulling all US troops out northern Syria - the safety of our men and women in uniform is their top priority.

Since fucking when? Surely the point of a military is to project and protect the national interests - trade, foreign policy, even the interests of our friends when they are threatened - against foreign enemies. Now I don't agree with US foreign policy in many instances (there's an understatement for you) but the notion that the point of a military is to protect itself leads us to a conclusion that we'd be better off leaving them at their home base or fort.

But this protection/projection comes at some risk. I'd like to see that risk as low as possible, but if minimizing it means that the force is no longer fit for purpose, then we're all wasting a lot of time and a lot of $$$.

[Burning Petard]

"the safety of our men and women in uniform is their top priority " Only if everything is top priority and thus no priority.

I recently had a long talk with an active duty US Navy Chaplain. Our topic was suicide. He agreed with me that the US military has a big problem with this now. He agreed with me that it is getting lots of attention from the top command. The surprise (for me) was that he also agreed that from the very top at the pentagon right down to his own personal staff, nobody has any fuckin confidence that they can do anything about it. The current mission demands are just too much.

Our US active duty military is running way beyond exhaustion at every level and the equipment is failing from lack of down time for routine maintenance-- major renewal never happens.

[RayThom]

Lip service -- sounds good, but accomplishes absolutely nothing of value.



And it's ugly, too.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Our US active duty military is running way beyond exhaustion at every level and the equipment is failing from lack of down time for routine maintenance-- major renewal never happens.

Of course the Trump $800 billion or whatever the number now is will mostly vanish into the pockets of military contractors aka Trump BFFs.

At the risk of incurring BSG's wrath I'll tell you a story about how difficult it is to save money for the guys in uniform. As usual with my stories, I come out as the hero but you should be used to that by now.

I've spent most of my career as an environmental scientist, and because the military is one of the largest landowners in the country and one of the dirtiest - in environmental terms - much of that work has been for them. We had a job for a major military entity in a major US state. (I am still bound by confidentiality so I won't be more specific.) Essentially it was a Base Realignment and Closure investigation. At typical bases you have pollution from machine shops, pesticides, explosives, historic chemical weapons, fuel storage, fire training, sewage treatment, just about all the environmental evils you can find in one place. This base was hundreds of hectares and I think something like 80 years of continuous operation.

I ran the initial estimate for just the lab testing for all the soil and groundwater samples we'd have to take and came to $1.6 million. My boss and company owner, a dyed in the wool conservative (think Reagan not Trump) and his pinko lab director (me) were agreed on one thing: this is fucking ridiculous. Yes we would have loved the $$$ but in the end we were taxpayers too. This must have been around 1990. He told me to think outside the box - or whatever term we used in those days - it might have been to think laterally - and come up with a cheaper estimate. So I thought for a few days and came up with a scheme involving some new methods we could develop and an alternative strategy which we could do for around $600,000. We would have to sell this to the state, to the feds (USEPA) and to the major military entity. I spent several hours in conference calls with two roomfuls of attorneys - one EPA and state, one military - to convince them that this approach would work. Briefly, we would develop screening techniques which would cheaply, and with a positive bias, identify those samples which needed further investigation. So if the screening test cost $50 and the full EPA sanctioned test cost $250 and if, as is usual, only 10% of samples are positive, I could do with my procedures 100 samples for (100 x $50) + (15 x $250) = $8750. (It's 15 for the full EPA testing and not 10 because the screening test has a positive bias: it gets it wrong sometimes and mistakenly identifies a negative sample as a hit, but does not miss positive samples.) Doing them the full EPA way would have cost 100 x $250 = $25,000. I've shortened the story and simplified the numbers but the point remains. I had to convince EPA that it was technically valid and I had to convince the military attorneys that the feds and state would buy it. They were more than willing to spend the $1.6 million. There was also a certain amount of disbelief that a military contractor (us) had an idea which might actually save money.

In the end my boss and I prevailed. I can't say that he was thrilled to see a million dollars in revenue disappear through his fingers, but he never gave me a hint of a complaint. We saved the taxpayer a million bucks but I don't recall getting a presidential honor for it. But I did see where the $800 hammer comes from.

All this is to agree with BP's point that equipment and systems are falling apart, although of course that is no excuse for betraying our allies. But I am doubtful that Trump's much vaunted investment in the military will find its way to where it is needed: there are too many piggy fingers in the trough.

[BoSoxGal]

At the risk of incurring BSG's wrath

So because I’ve disagreed with you a few times recently, now I’m out to get you?

If you looked back over our years posting here together you’d see me agreeing with and applauding your posts probably 80% of the time. Just like a man to cry and play the victim when a strong minded woman contradicts him publicly a few times.

[RayThom]

x-kA, that sounds a lot like Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indiana.

I thought all prior military use government land is eventually sold as brown fields. As such, I've always understood it to be the buyers' responsibility to pay for its remediation.

It seems to me that the $1.6M cost you mention would have eventually gone into someone's pocket. I think the project you were hired for may have been a ruse and they only needed you to make the paperwork look official.

[ex-khobar Andy]

x-kA, that sounds a lot like Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indiana.

Nope

I thought all prior military use government land is eventually sold as brown fields. As such, I've always understood it to be the buyers' responsibility to pay for its remediation.

Brown fields, correct. But usually (not always) the military does enough remediation under BRAC to make it safe for further use. You don't for example want civilians messing with residues of munitions and chemical agents. On a military site you can at least restrict access to people who know what they are dealing with.

It seems to me that the $1.6M cost you mention would have eventually gone into someone's pocket. I think the project you were hired for may have been a ruse and they only needed you to make the paperwork look good.

Not sure what you mean here. The project went ahead and some big chunk of the base (not all) was developed for civilian use.

[Bicycle Bill]

Ray, please tell me this image isn't legitimate but is a photoshop or something.  I cannot imagine for even a split second the thought processes that would drive someone to do this for real.

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

Thanks ex-K for your personal story. I was particularly attracted to your screening test example. For many years my job included convincing others (in and out of the company) of the value of bias in tests. There are situations where a positive bias can be useful and others where a negative bias is useful, particularly when the cost of a real accurate and precise and bias-neutral test is actually considered. The usual 'bias' of the customer about this stuff is 'we want a test that gives us the precise numbers so we can decide what to do' , never thinking about the (usually cheaper) test that just gives you the information you need to properly decide yes or no for the next step.

People do this in everyday life all the time: do you need to know the distance from home to work to within a 0.0001 of an inch to plan your daily commute?

Back to the current situation with the Kurds and Turkey. I believe they have expected this all along. The Kurds have a long history of promise and betrayal from their (temporary) Western allies. SofState Kissinger blatantly admitted it as just the reality of 'realpolitik' .

snailgate

[Joe Guy]

At the risk of incurring BSG's wrath......

Just like a man to cry and play the victim when a strong minded woman contradicts him publicly a few times.

Well, Andy... It's not what you wrote. It's how you wrote it. Or what you wrote before you wrote what you wrote later. Or what you meant even though you didn't mean it that way. Or your attitude.

Yeah, that's it. Your attitude...

[Scooter]

Michele Bachmann: Climate Change is a ‘fraud’ because God promised Noah there’d be no more floods

During an appearance on the Understanding the Times radio program this weekend, former Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann called on Christian pastors to reassure the people that climate change doesn’t pose a threat, thanks to a promise God made in the Old Testament.

“I would encourage pastors to start preaching on this issue of climate change and God’s view of climate change,” Bachmann told host Jan Markell in an audio clip flagged by Right Wing Watch. “The very covenant was established by God and Noah. And that covenant was that sin was so gross in the world that God had to bring about judgment, and then he had to bring about salvation, and from there came Abraham.”

“God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign of his covenant and he said very clearly to the entire world, ‘Never again will there be judgment, never again will the world be flooded,’” Bachman added.

According to Bachmann, when it comes to God’s word, you can “take it to the bank.”

“And what is it these frauds tells us with climate change?” she said. “That the world’s going to be flooded. Isn’t it interesting they’re saying it’s going to be another catastrophe, it’s flooding, we’re going to be flooded? God says we will never be flooded.”

[Bicycle Bill]

So Michele Bachmann is putting words into God's mouth?  Let's check the tape ..... er, the Scripture....
(all references KJV)

Genesis 6:5-8

• 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
  7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
  8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Genesis 6:17-18

• 17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
  18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Genesis 7:17-20

• 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
  18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
  19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
  20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Genesis 8:1-5

• 8 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;
  2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
  3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
  4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
  5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

And here's the important part --- Genesis 9:11-17

• 11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
  12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
  13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
  14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
  15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
  16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
  17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

So God did NOT say that there would not be floods any more; He promised that He would not destroy the entire world ("neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood").  So while rising ocean levels as a result of global warming would raise havoc with many areas already situated in low-lying areas (good-bye, New Orleans and a large portion of the eastern seaboard!), it would not flood the entire world.

Ms. Bachmann is like too many people today; they read something (or more likely skim it), select out of the material only the part(s) they want, and run from there while ignoring the rest.  I see the same thing every day in my work when people start bitching about their cell phone contracts/agreements because they didn't read them before they signed them; they just went by what they heard on a 20-second TV ad or what the store rep told them in order to make the sale....   She needs to re-read the story of Noah's flood, and if she still isn't sure of the meaning, ask someone to explain it to her in words she's likely to understand.

-"BB"-