Watching Four Women Promote War With Syria

[clubgop]

Well, women are the primary victims of war...

According to the NYT?

HRC

Same thing.

[kybkh]

Only logical reason I can think of is in hopes of provoking a reaction/reason to escalate vs Iran or even possibly Russia.

Worst case scenario is whatever Trump does, nothing changes. Best case is something changes. What we are trying to change...

What you, and every other empire or major power has tried to change since the beginning of time: Its access to more ressources, more markets and more influence over other countries, so that when you make diplomatic deals with both rivals and friends, you do so from a position of greater and greater strength.

That's why I am ready to go full AmeriNazi. If we are going to do this shit (attempt to maintain global hegemony), let's do it the best we can. Right now we are running this empire like a woman throws a baseball. Let's cut the pretense and just start mass slaughtering. 200 years from now, after we write the Trump edition history books we can blame it all on the Russians.

[Fife]

Right now we are running this empire like a woman throws a baseball.

There's no crying in the Persian Gulf.

[BjornP]

That's why I am ready to go full AmeriNazi. If we are going to do this shit (attempt to maintain global hegemony), let's do it the best we can. Right now we are running this empire like a woman throws a baseball. Let's cut the pretense and just start mass slaughtering. 200 years from now, after we write the Trump edition history books we can blame it all on the Russians.

Because that worked so well for the Nazis... Those Russians being your primary rival are probably also not going to let you slaughter what few allies they have left that also happen to be your enemies. Even Nazimerica would be hesitant to throw its dick around with no restraint if it meant the possibility of three thousand nukes headed your way.

[Speaker to Animals]

Our government is run like a woman playing baseball because more than half the electorate are women that literally have no stake in the consequences of their votes.

[Ex-California]

Only logical reason I can think of is in hopes of provoking a reaction/reason to escalate vs Iran or even possibly Russia.

Worst case scenario is whatever Trump does, nothing changes. Best case is something changes. What we are trying to change...

What you, and every other empire or major power has tried to change since the beginning of time: Its access to more ressources, more markets and more influence over other countries, so that when you make diplomatic deals with both rivals and friends, you do so from a position of greater and greater strength.

That's why I am ready to go full AmeriNazi. If we are going to do this shit (attempt to maintain global hegemony), let's do it the best we can. Right now we are running this empire like a woman throws a baseball. Let's cut the pretense and just start mass slaughtering. 200 years from now, after we write the Trump edition history books we can blame it all on the Russians.

On the newest History on FIre, Daniele, Darryl Cooper, and Jocko discuss more of the failures in leadership that caused Sand Creek and Mai Lai. At one point, Jocko is talking about how good our troops are at only getting the targets, and this is what makes us better than others. We are not razing the homes and salting the earth

I thought about that and think he's totally wrong

History has taught us that it is impossible to win hearts and minds, and we've seen in recent history that nation-building is nearly impossible. The Romans, Mongols, and every other conquering empire throughout the ages did raze the homes, massacre the people, and salt the earth. We even did it ourselves in our quest of Manifest Destiny

So yeah, I agree. If we're going to conquer we need to CONQUER. Otherwise we need to stay the fuck out. I'm not getting raped fiscally by this government to deal with other people's issues

[Smitty-48]

The part you're missing, is that in order to conquer, the Romans had to go and live in the lands they conquered, and absorb the locals into their empire, making them Romans as they did, that's how empires work, that's how conquest is effected. Americans do not want to conquer, because Americans do not want to go live in the lands of the conquered, nor do they want to make them into Americans, so conquest would be a fool's errand for America.

Funny thing about the Mongols, they conquered China, they went to the Forbidden City in Beijing, but when they got there, they hated it, they literally set their tents up in the in field behind the imperial palace, because they couldn't stand living in it, they wanted to go home. Then what happened was, they stayed so long, they stopped being Mongols, they became Chinese for all intents and purposes, and couldn't even remember where they came from anymore, their own heritage became alien to them, they were the ones who were absorbed by the Chinese in the end.

Just going out and shooting the place up, killing a bunch of people, that doesn't conquer anything, Americans always want to go home, so all they gotta do is wait you out, which is what everybody does, you'll go home eventually, it's just a matter of them being patient.

The Chinese are conquering Tibet, but not by going around slaughtering people, they are moving millions of Chinese in to displace the Tibetans, Americans ain't gonna do that.

Even the British Raj in India, they didn't really conquer it by force of arms, they fought the French there and acquired it by treaty in the Seven Years War, but the method of conquest, was Britons moving to India to run the place from there, they didn't run it with the 3,000 mile screwdriver from London, if they had tried that, the Indians could have just ignored them, same way everybody in the ME ignores Washington.

[Hastur]

So there is no US equivalent of FILTH? (Failed In London Try Hong Kong) How do they expect to get an empire going then? Can't remote control everything from Washington.
Thanks for that insight, Smitty. Clears up plenty.

[Smitty-48]

Well you know what's interesting about the British odyssey in India, is that originally, they didn't go as conquerors, the first Britons to move to India went as adventurers, to seek their fortunes, yes, but not at the expense of the Indians, they embraced the Indians, they became Indians, they married Indian women, they had mixed race children, they adopted Indian ways, the whole sneering British imperial overlord thing, those people didn't come until much later.

At first India was perceived as a wild and exotic place where only the most adventuresome would go, it took quite awhile before it was cultivated into a playground for the rich.

[Hastur]

They were a curious people back then, the Brits. Must be the Viking heritage. The Vikings also tended to go native everywhere they conquered. Faded into the general population, just retaining a few customs from the old country. The same thing happened in Brittain, France, Byzantium and Russia.