You think I'm bullshitting - Check this out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfster

Haha..stopping the reporting of drone strikes somehow makes him peaceful? The bombs didn't stop, they just stopped reporting.




Yet the report from Brown University shows that under Trump there had been an escalation in warfare, through the use of air strikes, including from drones, and they had led to an increase in civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

In Trump's first year of office, his administration eased two restrictions for drone strikes: removing the limitation that only allowed strikes on high-ranking militants and removing the previous vetting process for drone strikes.

The US also relaxed a restriction on its rules of engagement so that it no longer had to be in direct contact with enemy forces to conduct air strikes.

"The consequences of the relaxed rules of engagement were immediate," the Cost of War project's report said.

This trend exists across the Middle East as well, with the US repeatedly using drone strikes in Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Yemen.

In 2017, drone strikes in Yemen increased by 300 percent from the previous year, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The number of drone strikes in Somalia also increased significantly under Trump.

Still, the full picture of these attacks is not clear. In March, the US Central Command stopped publishing monthly summaries of its air strikes in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, rights groups have criticised the United States Africa Command (US Africom) for failing to properly record civilian deaths in air strikes in Somalia.

Airwars, a UK-based war monitor, found that at least 86 civilians had benn killed in Yemen in 2020 as a direct result of US air strikes. The US has not declared a drone strike in Yemen since 2019.

---

President Trump is the first President in recent history not to get us into another war and withdrew forces from existing wars.

I know that bothers you.. because your media told you that Trump was going to start WW3. Sorry :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

So you are against taking sole nuclear launch responsibility from Biden?

---

Back - It's not about Biden.

If they don't want Biden to have control, invoke the 25th. Mechanisms are already in place, and established, for situations like that.

I'm not going to, and can't, explain my reasons for thinking the way I do in this forum. I understand you may disagree. I understand you will have your own thoughts. I understand it's okay to disagree. I also hope I'm wrong, that's why I caveat it with - we're not there 100% yet - but it's very, very close and why the 2022 election cycle will be telling.

Those are my assessments and hence where my concerns stem from. I want all the citizenry, you included, to have the freedom to do what you want and live your life. I still have about 30+ years to live in this country, and I would like to enjoy it. I want everyone else to enjoy their lives. But what I want, and what we end up with are two very different things.

As said, I'll happily be proven wrong. That means that both you and I can continue living a relatively free existence. I currently don't see it heading that direction unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

I understand you will have your own thoughts.

---

That's a low blow.. you know he doesn't.

Apologize imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfster

Haha..stopping the reporting of drone strikes somehow makes him peaceful? The bombs didn't stop, they just stopped reporting.




Yet the report from Brown University shows that under Trump there had been an escalation in warfare, through the use of air strikes, including from drones, and they had led to an increase in civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

In Trump's first year of office, his administration eased two restrictions for drone strikes: removing the limitation that only allowed strikes on high-ranking militants and removing the previous vetting process for drone strikes.

The US also relaxed a restriction on its rules of engagement so that it no longer had to be in direct contact with enemy forces to conduct air strikes.

"The consequences of the relaxed rules of engagement were immediate," the Cost of War project's report said.

This trend exists across the Middle East as well, with the US repeatedly using drone strikes in Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Yemen.

In 2017, drone strikes in Yemen increased by 300 percent from the previous year, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The number of drone strikes in Somalia also increased significantly under Trump.

Still, the full picture of these attacks is not clear. In March, the US Central Command stopped publishing monthly summaries of its air strikes in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, rights groups have criticised the United States Africa Command (US Africom) for failing to properly record civilian deaths in air strikes in Somalia.

Airwars, a UK-based war monitor, found that at least 86 civilians had benn killed in Yemen in 2020 as a direct result of US air strikes. The US has not declared a drone strike in Yemen since 2019.

---

86? Wow. Big number there.

All civilian causalities are to be mourned. That number would be a lot larger, not to mention the loss of US personnel, if it had been ground forces used instead of drones. And if you think more civilians died/suffered in Afghanistan from drone strikes vs. the previous 19 years and what ground combat entails, then you are misinformed.

We can debate the concepts of "noble warfare" and how best to utilize resources available to achieve an objective (diplomatic, militarily, economically, etc.) - but Trump is the only one in multiple decades to reduce and actively deter force-on-force confrontation as a stated Policy and strategic goal.

You can hate Trump - that is your right - but facts and policy matter more to me than personality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Back - It's not about Biden.

If they don't want Biden to have control, invoke the 25th. Mechanisms are already in place, and established, for situations like that.

I'm not going to, and can't, explain my reasons for thinking the way I do in this forum. I understand you may disagree. I understand you will have your own thoughts. I understand it's okay to disagree. I also hope I'm wrong, that's why I caveat it with - we're not there 100% yet - but it's very, very close and why the 2022 election cycle will be telling.

Those are my assessments and hence where my concerns stem from. I want all the citizenry, you included, to have the freedom to do what you want and live your life. I still have about 30+ years to live in this country, and I would like to enjoy it. I want everyone else to enjoy their lives. But what I want, and what we end up with are two very different things.

As said, I'll happily be proven wrong. That means that both you and I can continue living a relatively free existence. I currently don't see it heading that direction unfortunately.

---

I appreciate the concern and feel the same about your freedoms and security. Truth is we have been living very well compared to most of the world while peacefully amongst each other. I don't see that changing unless the people who want us to fight keep dividing us. I'm convinced the people who want us to fight are the ultra wealthy because they are afraid of being taxed fairly. But back to the subject of nuclear codes...

Is it really a great idea to give 1 individual the sole power to throw the entire world into a post-apocalyptic wasteland? What are the merits of having just 1 person as opposed to 3-10 people?

I can see the point of having 1 person we ultimately trust with that power. But what if the electorate votes a complete incompetent jackass to the executive office? Maybe its a good idea to have another opinion regardless of who is in the executive position. If they are competent and just the other people involved will follow, if they are incompetent and dumb we save the world from Armageddon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjp5...o-launch-nukes

Telling you - it's coming.

Trying to blame Trump - when he's the first President in decades who wanted, and actually reduced, US military engagements around the world. Think what you will about him, that is a fact.

People better start waking the fuck up.

---

"IT'S COMING!!!shift+1111!!!11!!!"

What's coming?

"IT'S COMING!!!!!!!!"

You're right, Shaps. You should be very afraid. Perhaps you should hide in your bunker, seal it air-tight, and not come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I like how they blame President Trump.. who was the most peaceful President in modern history...

---

Trump:

1) brought us to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea for no reason
2) risked starting WWIII by assassinating one of Iran's leaders with one of those drone strikes you used to pretend to hate Obama for
3) repeatedly brought the United States' commitment to NATO into question, and would've withdrawn us without the universal, bipartisan criticism he faced each time he tried.

The notion that Trump was "the most peaceful" is mind-bogglingly retarded -- even for you -- which REALLY says something. Are you having another stroke, or this your usual intellectual dishonesty at work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

and it has nothing to do with President Biden's rapidly declining cognitive ability....

---

You and Shaps voted for Trump, whose mind is swiss cheese. Trump can't coherently talk about anything without veering off into WILD tangents and meaningless word salad, railing about conspiracy theories about wind mills causing cancer, repeatedly claimed that he signed bills that Obama signed into law, randomly walked OFF STAGE during events, randomly walked AWAY FROM BILLS he was about to sign, etc. Trump's mental decline was severe, just as Reagan's was, and just as we now know Reagan's staff was constantly scrambling to hide from the public.

Biden is, and always has, been a gaffe machine, but his decline is nowhere near Trump's level which, magically, you had no problem with. But if you didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

I appreciate the concern and feel the same about your freedoms and security. Truth is we have been living very well compared to most of the world while peacefully amongst each other. I don't see that changing unless the people who want us to fight keep dividing us. I'm convinced the people who want us to fight are the ultra wealthy because they are afraid of being taxed fairly. But back to the subject of nuclear codes...

Is it really a great idea to give 1 individual the sole power to throw the entire world into a post-apocalyptic wasteland? What are the merits of having just 1 person as opposed to 3-10 people?

I can see the point of having 1 person we ultimately trust with that power. But what if the electorate votes a complete incompetent jackass to the executive office? Maybe its a good idea to have another opinion regardless of who is in the executive position. If they are competent and just the other people involved will follow, if they are incompetent and dumb we save the world from Armageddon.

---

Without weighing my explanation down with particulars - the President can not push the button themselves. Mechanisms are already in place to ensure rational, legal, and necessary authorization to deploy a nuclear strike.

What I'm saying - safeguards are already in place.

What is being attempted by removing this power from the Office of the President, is a much more long term strategy than just the "on the surface" concept that you just expressed. It's all intertwined. This is not about one person, Biden or Trump are just proxies... this is about structures, systems, policies, laws, and concepts that ensure protections from totalitarian regimes.

On a separate note, for the first time you actually said in a post "the people who want us to fight keep dividing us". I'm happy to see that. I'm glad to see you might be starting to realize how they drive us, as neighbors, to assume the worst in one another so that they can retain their positions of power - when in reality - if they just did what was best for the citizenry, they would anyways. But that one phrase you used, gives me some slight hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I like how they blame President Trump.. who was the most peaceful President in modern history... and it has nothing to do with President Biden's rapidly declining cognitive ability....

---

Yeah, this is really contrary to reality. Did you read this in a Trump fundraising email?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

"IT'S COMING!!!shift+1111!!!11!!!"

What's coming?

"IT'S COMING!!!!!!!!"

You're right, Shaps. You should be very afraid. Perhaps you should hide in your bunker, seal it air-tight, and not come out.



Trump:

1) brought us to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea for no reason
2) risked starting WWIII by assassinating one of Iran's leaders with one of those drone strikes you used to pretend to hate Obama for
3) repeatedly brought the United States' commitment to NATO into question, and would've withdrawn us without the universal, bipartisan criticism he faced each time he tried.

The notion that Trump was "the most peaceful" is mind-bogglingly retarded -- even for you -- which REALLY says something. Are you having another stroke, or this your usual intellectual dishonesty at work?



You and Shaps voted for Trump, whose mind is swiss cheese. Trump can't coherently talk about anything without veering off into WILD tangents and meaningless word salad, railing about conspiracy theories about wind mills causing cancer, repeatedly claimed that he signed bills that Obama signed into law, randomly walked OFF STAGE during events, randomly walked AWAY FROM BILLS he was about to sign, etc. Trump's mental decline was severe, just as Reagan's was, and just as we now know Reagan's staff was constantly scrambling to hide from the public.

Biden is, and always has, been a gaffe machine, but his decline is nowhere near Trump's level which, magically, you had no problem with. But if you didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any at all.

---

Oh look, they must have woke up -

I didn't read it and will ignore them as usual, but I assume they said some "blah blah blah" and projected their insecurities on the rest of us.

As I said yesterday, don't give them recognition.. it's much calmer without feeding their delusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Yeah, this is really contrary to reality. Did you read this in a Trump fundraising email?

---

And you immediately go back to stupid. Do you have multi-personality disorder? That was such a flip in less than 5 minutes. Jesus Christ.