Plan B Forum

OK I get John Bolton; and I think the middle one is Michael; but who is the top one?

ex-khobar Andy wrote:OK I get John Bolton; and I think the middle one is Michael; but who is the top one?

Not a GOT fan, I take it...

Makes sense no, but is that Wilford Brimley on the bottom? He lost some weight--maybe his diabat-us?

You know when the ayatollahs are complaining, something happened.

Big RR wrote:Makes sense no, but is that Wilford Brimley on the bottom? He lost some weight--maybe his diabat-us?

That's not Wilford Brimely... this is:

Is little Kim paying attention? You can bet your ass the Chinese and the Iranians are.

So are your allies who just saw any last trace of sanity evaporate from your foreign policy.

Scooter wrote:So are your allies who just saw any last trace of sanity evaporate from your foreign policy.

Maybe they'll grow a pair too. Anyone who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened doesn't get any sympathy from me. That includes Iran. Here's wishing for a successful Green Revolution in Iran. We're close to being able to use oil as a weapon. The nice thing about that is the government doesn't have to do anything. You can always count on greed. It will be a race to the bottom as Middle Eastern countries pump more and more to maintain their income level.

Grow a pair? What is this, high school? And who needs to grow a pair when, to distract from whatever was the kerfuffle du jour and oblivious to the capitulation it represented, Trump decided he would throw 70 years of U.S. policy out the window and agree to meet with North Korea with no preconditions, giving Kim Jong Un a propaganda coup the likes of which he could never have imagined in the wildest of his masturbatory fantasies. And leaving poor Sarah Saunders completely dumbfucked once more as she had to figure out how she was supposed to walk it back.

Scooter wrote:Grow a pair? What is this, high school? And who needs to grow a pair when, to distract from whatever was the kerfuffle du jour and oblivious to the capitulation it represented, Trump decided he would throw 70 years of U.S. policy out the window and agree to meet with North Korea with no preconditions, giving Kim Jong Un a propaganda coup the likes of which he could never have imagined in the wildest of his masturbatory fantasies. And leaving poor Sarah Saunders completely dumbfucked once more as she had to figure out how she was supposed to walk it back.

Somehow that 70 years of U.S. policy looked the other way while the North Korean not only achieved the ability to build nuclear weapons but also start building and testing rockets with ever increasing range. And trading know how to Iran for cash. That was 70 years of FAILED U.S. policy producing a threat we're now facing. Instead of high school, our path now reminds me of Roosevelt and the Big Stick. Sucks to be Kim and his apologists.

So remind me again how agreeing to meet Kim without getting anything in return represents "the big stick"?

Scooter wrote:So remind me again how agreeing to meet Kim without getting anything in return represents "the big stick"?

Good friends GIVE, without expecting anything in return. Where's the love?

The Holy Triad: Kim Jong-un, Dennis Rodman, Donald Trump. Keep in mind, none of them are politicians. Creating greatness together.

Oh yeah, and in the end, what did Roosevelt's big stick get you? A dozen or so military interventions in Latin America over the next twenty years that did nothing but create instability and foster anti-American resentment.

Roosevelt and the Big Stick.

The full TR quote is of course, "speak softly, and carry a big stick."...

I'm all for carrying a big stick, (I fully support the increases in defense spending) but to whom, (aside from Vladimir Putin of course, and those who kiss his ass) has Il Boobce ever "spoken softly"?

(In fact the way he has systematically decimated the State Department, he has made it nearly impossible for this country to "speak" to other nations at all...)

I don't have a problem with decimating some of the federal agencies. I do have a problem with more military spending especially given the direction of the Navy. We've gone too far with the "All the eggs in one basket" concept of the aircraft carrier and its protective screen. We're ignoring lessons of the past. Destroyers built in the past had so many weapons systems on board that the superstructure had to be built out of aluminum to provide a modicum of stability. They could not keep up with aircraft carriers in heavy seas. The fire on the USS Belknap which melted the aluminum superstructure down to the main deck seems to be forgotten given the use of aluminum again. The Navy seems to be at another crossroad similar to the aircraft vs. battleship fiasco of the past.