Meanwhile in Iraq & Syria

[Okeefenokee]

Soldier-sniffers have a total miscomprehension of the basis of America's Liberty society, probably colored by religiosity. We are only allies. As soon as it becomes better to break the alliance than to keep it, it's over, everyone get their guns. I know you're all looking forward to that but so are they. Let's rumble.

It's pretty sad to see that your go to message is, "pay me welfare, or I'll revolt."

[TheReal_ND]

And what happened in Qamishli ?
Russia suspended non-agression pact with US, cut the telephone hotline and allowed SAA to target foreign airplanes and generally all invaders.
So here's what we've got in sources:
Four #USA army helicopters spotted flying very low altitude near Tell Brak northeast of Hasaka & they were heading to unknown site.. #Syria
https://twitter.com/RamiAILoIah/status/ ... 6811588612
Followed by:
Confirmed by military source: Syrian Army fired at US reconnaissance aircraft in Al-Qamishli.
https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/8 ... 5024454656
A soldier from Regiment 54 is now saying his unit did in fact target a US reconnaissance plane flying over their base in Al-Qamishli.
https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/8 ... 0724002818

[Okeefenokee]

This is why I think we should limit enfranchisement to veterans.

If you think firing "warning shots" at Russia makes military sense, then you shouldn't vote.

That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of veterans who support stupid shit, but it's certainly limited compared to what I see in the general population.

The only time "warning shots" makes sense is against a vastly inferior force and you are telling them they are about to get annihilated in short order if they don't surrender or disperse.

If you are going to shoot at Russia, you better make it count.

Smedley Butler kind of hinted at that in his War is a Racket pamphlet. The problem I have with this idea is the formation of an us vs. them mentality among veterans. There is already a huge divide in mentality between civilians and military, but I think that enfranchisement solely on military service would lead to a kind of Praetorian guard. When Claudius took over from Caligula, he put the Guard on his coins because they had killed the previous emperor and he knew that his power came solely from them. Rome as a republic was long gone at this point, but the people took notice of Claudius and knew where the real power rested. It scared the Roman people even more. While all of us owe a large debt of gratitude to our military, I think that giving them extra electoral privileges could lead to some dark things including a fundamental shift in our political institutions. I do agree with you that most of our current conflicts are bad choices though. It kind of sickens me to see liberals and progressives becoming chickenhawks for conflicts they will never fight in. They are cool with some 18 year old they don't know getting 3rd degree burns on 60% of his body from an IED to make sure that Assad doesn't use chemical weapons, as long as they don't have to enlist.

I promise you, there already is an us vs them mentality among veterans. Sixteen years of endless war with fucking zero shared sacrifice from the civilian population will do that.

[Martin Hash]

Soldier-sniffers have a total miscomprehension of the basis of America's Liberty society, probably colored by religiosity. We are only allies. As soon as it becomes better to break the alliance than to keep it, it's over, everyone get their guns. I know you're all looking forward to that but so are they. Let's rumble.

It's pretty sad to see that your go to message is, "pay me welfare, or I'll revolt."

What do you not understand about bread & circuses.

[Smitty-48]

I promise you, there already is an us vs them mentality among veterans. Sixteen years of endless war with fucking zero shared sacrifice from the civilian population will do that.

Sixteen years? Try 250 years, son, as if the permanent Semi-War just started in 2001? Please, this is America, as it has always been, was there "shared sacrifice" in the Revolution? Was there shared sacrifice in the Civil War? Nope, the vast majority of Americans took a pass, newsflash; "shared sacrifice" is a Unicorn, so quit asking.

Enough with the populist drivel and nostalgia for an America that never was, all you're doing is demanding Unicorns which no one can give you, and then crying about being hard done by ceaselessly, eventually, society is just going to be forced to club you into submission like baby seals, just to get something done for a change, rather than having to put up with the rabble in the way.

[Montegriffo]

Do you think it seems plausible that after Assad leveled Allepo and has all but defeated ISIS and the rebels, that he would then resort to a chemical attack to kill about a hundred people and draw the ire of the rest of the world? Because it doesn't seem plausible to me.

He's walking into the endzone with not much opposition left on the field. Why break out gas at the end of the fight when conventional munitions have been doing the job the whole time?

Chemical weapons work not because they kill the most people but because they spread the most terror.
Has no one considered the fact that Assad felt emboldened to use chemical weapons as a result of being supported by the only major power in the field whilst having an American president who stated he was not going to get involved in the ME any more.
I think Trump's military advisers managed to convince him that unless he made a stand his isolationist stance could lead to a lot more of this happening and in fact a red line needed to be drawn.

that was not an answer. that was an msm talking point you parroted like a good trained pet. answer the question or gtfo.

Which part of a vicious dictator using terror against his own people do you struggle to understand?
A man who regularly barrel bombs families and has used chemicals on them before.
I realise it suits your narrative to make up conspiracy theories about your hero being duped into bombing Assad's airfield with false stories about chemical attacks but often the simplest explanation is the truth.
Sure, Trump has exploited this tragedy to suit his own purpose but that does not mean the tragedy was not the fault of Assad. Whether he accidentally bombed a rebel store or as seems more likely deliberately dropped chemicals he was still attacking his own civilian population against the rules of war as set by international organisations such as the UN.
You can argue that it was not the responsibility of the US to act against Assad but don't try and excuse Assad from the guilt of killing Syrian babies.....

[Fife]

I promise you, there already is an us vs them mentality among veterans. Sixteen years of endless war with fucking zero shared sacrifice from the civilian population will do that.

Sixteen years? Try 250 years, son, as if the permanent Semi-War just started in 2001? Please, this is America, as it has always been, was there "shared sacrifice" in the Revolution? Was there shared sacrifice in the Civil War? Nope, the vast majority of Americans took a pass, newsflash; "shared sacrifice" is a Unicorn, so quit asking.

Enough with the populist drivel and nostalgia for an America that never was, all you're doing is demanding Unicorns which no one can give you, and then crying about being hard done by ceaselessly, eventually, society is just going to be forced to club you into submission like baby seals, just to get something done for a change, rather than having to put up with the rabble in the way.

I think Smits has a point here you should consider, Okie.

The state's only IRL stock-in-trade is warfare/violence.

The state IS violence. That doesn't mean, IMNSHO, that we shouldn't have a state. I do think we should treat the state like gasoline around a bonfire.

[Martin Hash]

It's so bizarre how the "America is the World's Policemen" role has switched over to The Left.

[Okeefenokee]

It is your duty as a citizen of a republic to serve.

If you are unwilling to actually fight when you decide our nation should fight, then why should I respect your right to decide whether we fight?

An electorate of plebs who don't fight is an anathema to all forms of self-rule.

Hail Caesar, I guess. He's probably better than this anyway..

These are the same people who think they are more entitled to your wealth than your own children are. They don't possess the faculties to see how debased and self serving their motives are. They want free shit without working for it, and don't see how there could be anything wrong with everyone behaving like them.

I remember the rabid backlash that I got years ago when I said there was something wrong with (at the time) something like ten years of war with no draft. Doc loliday especially was outraged that anyone would suggest that there was something wrong with the majority of a nation sitting the war out. The minute you bring it up, they know that they are on the wrong side of the line. They know that they are the ones who have chosen to chill at the house as long as they can get away with it.

There's very little math that needs to be done. When the topic comes up, everyone knows immediately where they fall, and those that fall on the side of civilian hangers on who will cheer for more and more wars, but never take part in them know instantly that they are the ones being discussed.

Kath is a perfect example. The first time she ever praised Trump was because he launched a bunch of missiles at another nation, but you can bet your fucking ass she would never consider an enlistment to take part in the military action she is cheering. Those are the people we are talking about. Will never even consider that they ought to provide something, only demand that others do. See brohash and his endless threat of revolution if you don't keep the welfare flowing.

[Fife]

It's so bizarre how the "America is the World's Policemen" role has switched over to The Left.

Bizarre?

It's utterly mundane.