uziq
Member
+493|3667

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I am annoyed by people who think a war with Iran would be easy or even winnable at all though. There is no way this works out well for the U.S. And even if someone couldn't care less about the loss of American life, they should acknowledge that there would be better ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[1] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.

After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6321|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Do you really believe they were going to honor any of it? I don't.
Trump broke the deal remember, for no apparent reason. The Iranians were following it.

Once again, this all seems like bizarre directionless chaos - encourage Iraq to invade Kuwait then attack them but don't defeat them, sit back and allow Saudi terrorists to attack your own country using a plan you've been warned about in detail, invade Afghanistan but deliberately allow Bin Laden to slip into Pakistan, invade an unconnected country on a pile of lies, half defeat the army but let them keep their weapons and stop paying their salaries, install a partisan political system certain to fail, let the Shia execute the Sunni President, make no effort to secure the borders with a much larger neighbouring threat, mooch around gormlessly while your troops die by the thousand, support and abandon disparate groups in rotation,  etc etc.

There was a plan and they've stuck to it - destabilise and sow chaos, keep prodding the various factions in the region until the whole place is burned to the ground.
That was the neo-con 'cauldron' plan and they've delivered on it.
Bad luck for the civilians and servicemen killed and injured - as long as they're not Israelis they don't matter.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-06 04:40:56)

Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6321|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I am annoyed by people who think a war with Iran would be easy or even winnable at all though. There is no way this works out well for the U.S. And even if someone couldn't care less about the loss of American life, they should acknowledge that there would be better ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[1] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.

After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]
Iran is going to get nuked at some point.
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Do you really believe they were going to honor any of it? I don't.
Trump broke the deal remember, for no apparent reason. The Iranians were following it.

Once again, this all seems like bizarre directionless chaos - encourage Iraq to invade Kuwait then attack them but don't defeat them, sit back and allow Saudi terrorists to attack your own country using a plan you've been warned about in detail, invade Afghanistan but deliberately allow Bin Laden to slip into Pakistan, invade an unconnected country on a pile of lies, half defeat the army but let them keep their weapons and stop paying their salaries, install a partisan political system certain to fail, let the Shia execute the Sunni President, make no effort to secure the borders with a much larger neighbouring threat, mooch around gormlessly while your troops die by the thousand, support and abandon disparate groups in rotation,  etc etc.

There was a plan and they've stuck to it - destabilise and sow chaos, keep prodding the various factions in the region until the whole place is burned to the ground.
That was the neo-con 'cauldron' plan and they've delivered on it.
Bad luck for the civilians and servicemen killed and injured - as long as they're not Israelis they don't matter.
You're so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole on all fronts that you really have no idea what is real anymore.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3935
The opposition force general who did the Millennium Challenge apparently broke a bunch of rules and parameters of the exercise. So a lot of people disregard the results. It still is a good example of our military being unready for fighting an enemy who is thinking outside the box.

Iran and North Korea are both fortress nations that have spent decades preparing for what they see as an inevitable apocalyptic American invasion. Our Gen Z kids aren't ready to fight an enemy who is unafraid of death and completely radicalized against them.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I am annoyed by people who think a war with Iran would be easy or even winnable at all though. There is no way this works out well for the U.S. And even if someone couldn't care less about the loss of American life, they should acknowledge that there would be better ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[1] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.

After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]
You should watch Periscope Down
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6321|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

You're so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole on all fronts that you really have no idea what is real anymore.
You explain why Trump is trying to start a war with Iran then, it makes no sense otherwise.
Fuck Israel
uziq
Member
+493|3667

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Do you really believe they were going to honor any of it? I don't.
Trump broke the deal remember, for no apparent reason. The Iranians were following it.

Once again, this all seems like bizarre directionless chaos - encourage Iraq to invade Kuwait then attack them but don't defeat them, sit back and allow Saudi terrorists to attack your own country using a plan you've been warned about in detail, invade Afghanistan but deliberately allow Bin Laden to slip into Pakistan, invade an unconnected country on a pile of lies, half defeat the army but let them keep their weapons and stop paying their salaries, install a partisan political system certain to fail, let the Shia execute the Sunni President, make no effort to secure the borders with a much larger neighbouring threat, mooch around gormlessly while your troops die by the thousand, support and abandon disparate groups in rotation,  etc etc.

There was a plan and they've stuck to it - destabilise and sow chaos, keep prodding the various factions in the region until the whole place is burned to the ground.
That was the neo-con 'cauldron' plan and they've delivered on it.
Bad luck for the civilians and servicemen killed and injured - as long as they're not Israelis they don't matter.
as with every crank, you take a germ of truth and then contaminate it with a virus of conspiratorial anti-semitic thinking.

it's pretty well-established that the top-level hawks in the neocon establishment wanted to invade/create regime change in 2-3 middle eastern states. i'm pretty sure even kissinger was advocating for it, way before rumsfeld/cheney took the reins.

as for 'deliberately allowing' bin laden to escape and everything else: i think you're attributing far too much to design. better to always assume that simple incompetence and chance gets in the way. there really is only a tiny degree of control and aforethought available in such matters.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-06 05:51:13)

uziq
Member
+493|3667

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

You're so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole on all fronts that you really have no idea what is real anymore.
You explain why Trump is trying to start a war with Iran then, it makes no sense otherwise.
because it shores up his base? because presidents leading/going into a war do well at the polls? because it distracts from his impeachment?

there are a lot of very immediate, at-hand, practical suggestions as to why trump is stoking up conflict with iran. why do you go for the deep conspiracy view? as if trump has any real continuity with the foreign policy of bush and co. trump is a creation of the media machine, not some deep pentagon/washington state, his aims have nothing whatsoever to do with the aims of policy wonks or ideologues in the iraq/afghan era (he has been vocally critical of those wars, that foreign policy, and even obama's approaching conflict with iran, ffs). and, being a media creation, he knows how to flip or disrupt a narrative.

the news this week could have been full of forensic details about his impeachment, close scrutiny, and an inevitable blackening of his name. now it's full of footage of millions of iranians chanting 'death to america' instead. making your average middle american quake in their armchair at the thought of evil islam is far more effective for the election than the dry, boring, legal process of the impeachment proceedings.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-06 05:54:53)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3935
It's an election year and Trump is being impeached. He needs a conflict with Iran to rally Republicans to vote for him.

It will work too. The more people he kills the more likely he is to win in 2020. President AOC will have to clean things up in 2025.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

You're so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole on all fronts that you really have no idea what is real anymore.
You explain why Trump is trying to start a war with Iran then, it makes no sense otherwise.
because it shores up his base? because presidents leading/going into a war do well at the polls? because it distracts from his impeachment?

there are a lot of very immediate, at-hand, practical suggestions as to why trump is stoking up conflict with iran. why do you go for the deep conspiracy view? as if trump has any real continuity with the foreign policy of bush and co.
I don't think he's using it for political purposes. Another middle eastern war is not in his political interests. No one wants Code Pink running around again.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+493|3667

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You explain why Trump is trying to start a war with Iran then, it makes no sense otherwise.
because it shores up his base? because presidents leading/going into a war do well at the polls? because it distracts from his impeachment?

there are a lot of very immediate, at-hand, practical suggestions as to why trump is stoking up conflict with iran. why do you go for the deep conspiracy view? as if trump has any real continuity with the foreign policy of bush and co.
I don't think he's using it for political purposes. Another middle eastern war is not in his political interests. No one wants Code Pink running around again.
he doesn't want a war, i don't doubt that. but it's a nice displacement activity during the impeachment/election. not a war, but enough conflict and international crisis to postpone things until he's secured a second term. it's that simple. voters, pumped full of media cycle, have very short-term memories and limited attention spans. this sense of crisis is going to do a lot for 'rallying around' the national leader and showing 'patriotism' during a strained time, and it'll make all the unsavory aspects of his impeachment seem trivial.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-06 05:56:38)

Larssen
Member
+99|2103
That too is a conspiracy theory I can't subscribe. Trump was eager to show the world and the American people that he's a 'serious' individual who shouldn't be taken lightly. The assassination of Soleimani is actually quite consistent with his rhetoric on foreign policy, America #1 ideology, and his insistence on protecting US assets/interests by all means necessary. You can absolutely count on him to bully his opponents into submission with little regard for consequence.

He certainly doesn't understand the Middle East or the significance of a figure like Soleimani, chances are he doesn't even care to.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:


because it shores up his base? because presidents leading/going into a war do well at the polls? because it distracts from his impeachment?

there are a lot of very immediate, at-hand, practical suggestions as to why trump is stoking up conflict with iran. why do you go for the deep conspiracy view? as if trump has any real continuity with the foreign policy of bush and co.
I don't think he's using it for political purposes. Another middle eastern war is not in his political interests. No one wants Code Pink running around again.
he doesn't want a war, i don't doubt that. but it's a nice displacement activity during the impeachment/election. not a war, but enough conflict and international crisis to postpone things until he's secured a second term. it's that simple. voters, pumped full of media cycle, have very short-term memories and limited attention spans. this sense of crisis is going to do a lot for 'rallying around' the national leader and showing 'patriotism' during a strained time, and it'll make all the unsavory aspects of his impeachment seem trivial.
Maybe I'm a fool, but I'm honestly chalking it up to coincidental timing. The military was apparently given the green light to kill Soleimani months ago.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+493|3667
it's hardly on the order of a 'conspiracy theory' to say that trump realizes fucking with iran has implications for his own electability/presidential campaign. the guy spent several years during the obama administration accusing obama of doing the same thing with iran.

https://images.lbc.co.uk/images/109538?crop=16_9&width=660&relax=1&signature=t78kqZEHGFkopLDCzwP6ajAsjLQ=

but sure, it's not a factor at all.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

Larssen wrote:

That too is a conspiracy theory I can't subscribe. Trump was eager to show the world and the American people that he's a 'serious' individual who shouldn't be taken lightly. The assassination of Soleimani is actually quite consistent with his rhetoric on foreign policy, America #1 ideology, and his insistence on protecting US assets/interests by all means necessary. You can absolutely count on him to bully his opponents into submission with little regard for consequence.

He certainly doesn't understand the Middle East or the significance of a figure like Soleimani, chances are he doesn't even care to.
Agreed
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+493|3667

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

I don't think he's using it for political purposes. Another middle eastern war is not in his political interests. No one wants Code Pink running around again.
he doesn't want a war, i don't doubt that. but it's a nice displacement activity during the impeachment/election. not a war, but enough conflict and international crisis to postpone things until he's secured a second term. it's that simple. voters, pumped full of media cycle, have very short-term memories and limited attention spans. this sense of crisis is going to do a lot for 'rallying around' the national leader and showing 'patriotism' during a strained time, and it'll make all the unsavory aspects of his impeachment seem trivial.
Maybe I'm a fool, but I'm honestly chalking it up to coincidental timing. The military was apparently given the green light to kill Soleimani months ago.
where's your source for this? all the rest of the news are presenting it as very last-minute decision: in fact, they even had to scramble in the 24hrs preceding the assassination to even find the guy, as reported elsewhere.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/p … imani.html

After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shiite militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense Department and administration officials.

By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.

General Milley and Mr. Esper traveled on Sunday to Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s Palm Beach resort, a day after officials presented the president with an initial list of options for how to deal with escalating violence against American targets in Iraq.

The options included strikes on Iranian ships or missile facilities or against Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq. The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable.

Mr. Trump chose strikes against militia groups. On Sunday, the Pentagon announced that airstrikes approved by the president had struck three locations in Iraq and two in Syria controlled by the group, Kataib Hezbollah.

When Mr. Trump chose the option of killing General Suleimani, top military officials, flabbergasted, were immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region. It is unclear if General Milley or Mr. Esper pushed back on the president’s decision.
this doesn't sound at all like what you're saying. but i'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-06 08:35:08)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England
As rocket attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq intensified over the last two months, the president had granted the Pentagon extraordinary latitude: The U.S. military had his permission to kill Soleimani the next time it had an opportunity to do so, according to a senior defense official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

“We had authority before the strike to take that action,” said the official, who wouldn’t say how recently Trump gave the Pentagon that authorization—whether it was hours, weeks or even months earlier. As recently as New Year’s Eve, the president was telling reporters that he didn’t want war with Iran.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/0 … ani-093371
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+493|3667
two contradictory accounts. interesting. one explicitly says that trump opted for another option prior to new years, with the understanding being that the pentagon routinely places 'extreme' options on the list to make the president more suggestible towards other courses of action. the other says that he had given the military carte blanche to kill soleimani pretty much whenever. one names its sources and generals; the other with-holds an unnamed source. those are almost diametrically conflicting views.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-06 09:37:06)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England
Published a day apart.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Larssen
Member
+99|2103
Of course I'm not familiar with the workings of the US pentagon but generally speaking you don't put wildly unrealistic policy options which you definitely want to avoid in front of a policymaker. They've worked with the man for close to four years now so I'm sure they're astutely aware of his somewhat extreme views. The option of targetting Soleimani must've passed the eyes of dozens of qualified people, all of whom signed off on it. I would bet many Pentagon officials saw Soleimani as a thorn in their eye and would gladly have him removed, sending off a powerful new signal that the US wants to re-establish its deterrence policy in the region. Absolutely not well considered, but military types can get lost in their own little chess game.

Whether it was the recommended option is something we'll never know, but they tabled it. Anything you pitch you're prepared to carry out. He may have rejected it and later accepted it, but I don't believe much sleep was lost over this among the people who analysed the case. Many journalists know barely half the story or misunderstand what they're told because they don't have insights into the right contextual information. Wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon plants contradictory leaks as well to preventively control or sabotage the media narrative.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-01-06 11:48:00)

uziq
Member
+493|3667
you still haven't responded to the fact that pointing out trump knows iran is an election play is 'a conspiracy theory'. the man spent years accusing obama of using Iran for electioneering. now its conspiratorial to point out that trump might be doing the same? what?
Larssen
Member
+99|2103
I don't believe that when deciding on life and death in the Middle East the impeachment trial played a dominant or even important role in the weighing of the options. Not on an emotional level, nor on a tactical level. The gravity of these sorts of developments quickly cast a long shadow over the perceived importance of domestic political squabbles. The senate is also securely in the hands of a very loyal republican party until at least the end of this year so the actual threat to the presidency posed by the impeachment is rather minimal. I believe the speaker stated that she wouldn't forward the impeachment to the Senate until it were to be taken seriously anyway, which probably means not before November/December 2020, if she can stall that long. If the killing of Soleimani happened while they were actually actively in the debate, you'd have a better case.

But the idea that it's all just one big ruse to distract from the impeachment is a political narrative that's being pushed by democrats who are angry over the fact that they've now lost the people's eye. It does enter the land of conspiracy as it implies a motive so sinister and cynical for the murder of one of the most important figures in the Middle East that it's almost comical. That Trump peddled the notion that Obama would do this isn't a surprise, considering his enthusiastic latching onto any conspiracy mumbo jumbo going the rounds in less civilised political circles. While it's certainly a potent political tool and by all means the democrats should push this narrative too, I think it's very unlikely this is anywhere close to the truth. It's a play on people's emotions and a powerful way of painting their opponent as a movie villain come to life.
uziq
Member
+493|3667
the election, not impeachment.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England
Agree with Larssen again.

This is good (rare for BI): https://www.businessinsider.com/what-qa … ion-2020-1
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard