2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Kyriakos]

I just disagrees with you. They stopped ethnic cleansing, the North Koreans and Iraqis both invaded other nations.

Croatia (and even Bosnia) was doing its own serious ethnic cleansing, so no, that intervention wasn't humanitarian either.
Also pretty funny how Croatia sort of magically got an army in a few days. Nothing to do with their old nazi friends illegally moving weapons, I am sure

 

[Zardnaar]

Croatia (and even Bosnia) was doing its own serious ethnic cleansing, so no, that intervention wasn't humanitarian either.
Also pretty funny how Croatia sort of magically got an army in a few days. Nothing to do with their old nazi friends illegally moving weapons, I am sure

Croatia raided federal army depots.

Early 90s it was easy to buy weapons from old Warsaw pact.

Even here some people aquired tanks they were being sold for 5k. You could buy a red army soldiers weapon for $75 iirc.

Freight to get the tank to NZ was more than the tank, I knew a farmer who tried to buy a T-34.

All sides were guilty to some extent, Serbs were worse and still advocate for it.

There's some documentaries on you tube.

I'm sure your views have nothing to do with Greek volunteers helping the Serbs murder people en masse.

 

[Kyriakos]

Croatia raided federal army depots.

Early 90s it was easy to buy weapons from old Warsaw pact.

Even here some people aquired tanks they were being sold for 5k. You could buy a red army soldiers weapon for $75 iirc.

Freight to get the tank to NZ was more than the tank, I knew a farmer who tried to buy a T-34.

All sides were guilty to some extent, Serve were worse and still advocate for it.

There's some documentaries

Those army depots must have had a lot of tanks...
In reality there was massive arms movement through Austria and Hungary.

 

[Zardnaar]

Those army depots must have had a lot of tanks...
In reality there was massive arms movement through Austria and Hungary.

Serbs got weapons as well. Plenty of freighter's from black Black Sea ports sent weapons.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Croatia (and even Bosnia) was doing its own serious ethnic cleansing, so no, that intervention wasn't humanitarian either.
Also pretty funny how Croatia sort of magically got an army in a few days. Nothing to do with their old nazi friends illegally moving weapons, I am sure

Partly to do with the defence policies of the old Yugoslav Republic.
It knew it couldn't win a war against a superpower so its policy was "Total People's Defence" which meant virtually every adult male had military training and access to weapons.

 

[r16]

Rhee Syngman, the President of South Korea at the time, was not a better leader than Kim Il-sung. He, too, was a brutal, authoritarian, bloody-handed, arrogant tyrant with a cult of personality.

commie hating Christian extremist very willing to occupy North . He had but jeeps and not that many , because America was yet to learn that Cold War really ran red hot when it came to expenditure . While the North had T-34s and just a little bit of starvation , like the same kind of starvation of the South .

there was no need for Yugoslavia to break up , except Milosevic was drunk with power of playing ethnic BS . ln which he was quite matched by Tudjman . Bosnians are real latecomers to that game , and not because they are white skinned , alcohol consuming and uhm , very cool skirts or something . They were like given talks on Yugoslavia being better , because this is good old Balkans where everybody kills each other . The meek response to early days and everybody remembers the Croats in WW ll it was ideas that fell on deaf ears , and yet Bosnians avoided being a threat and whatever . Only when NATO arranged enough observation power around , the Serbians decreased their operations against Croats and whatever and turned on the Bosnians . Who provided a lot of good copy to the Media , too . With people getting killed by sniper fire and you could like pay 100 thousand Marks to Serbians or whatever and shoot your own Bosnian , with rifle and ammo included in the price , but of course the Serbian choice was posting video tapes of their "men" raping the Bosnian women . For a while they were even on sale as regular stuff in Germany , too . Then finally Tudjman and Milosevic met in a restaurant somewhere and after the meal took out the pen and draw the map and no more Bosnia , not even as a name . CFC people will now say America saved the Bosnians ! No , America discovered lranians in Bosna ! America discovered Sunni Jihadists were temperamental against lranians even in temperate climes ! Hell yeah , here comes the Bombcat F-14s , accompanied with Russian rumours of being even deadlier than ever reported . Serbians in 99 always said they were deceived in 95 but they were still alive to rant about it , right ?

 

[Farm Boy]

Nevertheless, it is incorrect to describe the Korean war as simply a US invasion.

The UK government led by the socialist PM Clement Attlee sent UK troops to fight,
neither labour Harold Wilson nor conservative Ted Heath PMs intervened in Vietnam.

The history is a bit tenuous on Korea, these days, it seems. Makes sense. The combatants are in their 80s, 90s, or dead.

The Yamato is a cute little cartoon girl. Not the collective fascist suicide of 2,500 souls.

The kids calling it an American invasion, they'll forget. They forgot.

 

[sophie]

Not really as I said the US did plenty of moronic interventions.

Korea, Kuwait and Balkans in 95 were morally justifiable IMHO.

lol, Kuwait was not "morally justifiable" either.

 

[Narz]

Nevermind the fact that it's Carlson, who has a tenuous track record with the truth, the problem isn't events happening. It's shaming someone for them. It also happens far more against women than men.

I don't like Harris, but don't buy into stuff just because you don't like her. Especially from Tucker Carlson.

You're saying the truth isn't important?

 

[Gorbles]

You're saying the truth isn't important?

What about slutshaming someone involves any form of truth? If any truth is present, it's completely irrelevant to the act of shaming someone. It's a moral condemnation. It doesn't have to have any roots in a "truth", just the virtue of the person doing the shaming.

For a (nominal) Christian like Carlson, "slutshaming" becomes incredibly easy because religion in general offers a ton of moral high horses from which to shame people from.

 

[Commodore]

lol, Kuwait was not "morally justifiable" either.

Yes it was. Unless you are the kind of person who agrees with Saddam that Kuwait was somehow the "rightful territory" of Iraq that was "stolen" from them by British colonial redrawing of borders.

Not to mention Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was condemned by an overwhelming majority of the world's nations and the US/Coalition were given a mandate by the UN to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait's territory.

Doesn't get more morally justifiable than that. Unless there is some other US intervention in Kuwait you are referring to?

 

[Narz]

What about slutshaming someone involves any form of truth? If any truth is present, it's completely irrelevant to the act of shaming someone. It's a moral condemnation. It doesn't have to have any roots in a "truth", just the virtue of the person doing the shaming.

For a (nominal) Christian like Carlson, "slutshaming" becomes incredibly easy because religion in general offers a ton of moral high horses from which to shame people from.

You're dancing around the issue of truth... The issue of truth is never irrelevant.

Carlson makes his bread & butter appealing to people's emotions, it's not a surprise but why give him ammunition (by choosing someone for VP so blatantly corrupt)?

I love sluts, I have many good (or at least half-decent) memories with them. You insult sluts by lumping them in with women who use their sexuality immorally for power purposes. Kamala doesn't come off as a slut, she comes off sociopathic.

Pointing out that some women use their sexuality for nefarious purposes is about as sexist as pointing out some men are rapists.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Michael Cohen Vows Trump ‘Golden Showers’ Revelation In New Book Excerpt
“I know where the skeletons are buried,” he writes, “because I was the one who buried them.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-cohen-donald-trump-golden-showers_n_5f35ef31c5b6959911e1f920

Michael Cohen, the former longtime personal attorney to President Donald Trump, is promising to release salacious details about his old boss, including an incident involving “golden showers in a sex club in Vegas.”

Cohen makes the claim in the foreword of his upcoming book about the president, “Disloyal: A Memoir.”

“I know where the skeletons are buried,” he writes, “because I was the one who buried them.”In the excerpt, Cohen confirms that Trump colluded with Russia to help win the 2016 election, “but not in the sophisticated ways imagined by his detractors.” Instead, he promises to detail in the book how Trump used “Russian connivance” to cheat during the election.

Cohen also details what he’s done for Trump and plans to reveal within the book: “I stiffed contractors on his behalf, ripped off his business partners, lied to his wife Melania to hide his sexual infidelities, and bullied and screamed at anyone who threatened Trump’s path to power. From golden showers in a sex club in Vegas, to tax fraud, to deals with corrupt officials from the former Soviet Union, to catch and kill conspiracies to silence Trump’s clandestine lovers, I wasn’t just a witness to the president’s rise — I was an active and eager participant.”

Read the full excerpt on the book’s website.

The reference to “golden showers” calls to mind a salacious incident detailed in the unverified Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Steele alleged that Trump hired sex workers to urinate on a bed in a Moscow hotel room that had once been used by then-President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama. The hotel room, the dossier claimed, was outfitted with cameras by Russian intelligence ― raising the possibility of a “pee-pee tape.”

The incident remains unverified, and no such tape has ever surfaced. However, the report compiled by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team mentions a text Cohen received from a Russian associate who claimed to have “stopped flow of tapes from Russia.” It’s not clear what he was referring to. Cohen served as Trump’s personal attorney and fixer for years, a job that included both media appearances as well as threatening the media behind the scenes.

In one infamous instance, he threatened a Daily Beast reporter on Trump’s behalf: “What I’m going to do to you is going to be fudging disgusting.” However, Cohen later turned on Trump, cooperating with federal investigators and testifying before Congress. He also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to campaign finance violations for hush-money payments on behalf of Trump to porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Both claim to have had affairs with Trump, which the president has denied. Cohen was initially sent to prison for his three-year sentence but was released to home confinement amid the coronavirus pandemic. He was returned to custody for violations of his agreement, which a judge later ruled was retaliation for the upcoming book, and he was released again to home confinement. “Disloyal” is set for release Sept. 8, when it will become the latest in a long line of books from former Trump insiders, most of which have been highly critical of the president.

“This is a book the President of the United States does not want you to read,” he writes.

 

[Gorbles]

You're dancing around the issue of truth... The issue of truth is never irrelevant.

Carlson makes his bread & butter appealing to people's emotions, it's not a surprise but why give him ammunition (by choosing someone for VP so blatantly corrupt)?

I love sluts, I have many good (or at least half-decent) memories with them. You insult sluts by lumping them in with women who use their sexuality immorally for power purposes. Kamala doesn't come off as a slut, she comes off sociopathic.

Pointing out that some women use their sexuality for nefarious purposes is about as sexist as pointing out some men are rapists.

I'm not dancing around anything. The entire concept of slutshaming doesn't exist based on truth. This is what you're using as justification for him doing it. That's why you're hung up on it - because that's how you make it make sense (to you). It's not like you'd change your mind about Harris if it weren't true. You have tons of other (valid!) reasons for not liking her.

You do what you want, it's not like I'm going to change your mind nomatter how eloquent I am, but I just recommend picking better battles to argue against Harris about. And no, I'm not going to touch that analogy you made, it's all sorts of silly offensive.

 

[Commodore]

Michael Cohen Vows Trump ‘Golden Showers’ Revelation In New Book Excerpt
“I know where the skeletons are buried,” he writes, “because I was the one who buried them.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-cohen-donald-trump-golden-showers_n_5f35ef31c5b6959911e1f920

This is a perfect demonstration of why HuffPo is not a credible media organization. This is tabloid journalism. I mean damn, they seriously used Daily Beast as one of their sources on this article.

 

[Gori the Grey]

some women use their sexuality for nefarious purposes

Is it your suspicion that she misrepresented herself as genuinely interested in him sexually, when what she was really interested in was the ways he could help her career?

If it could be established that he knew it was a quid pro quo and was perfectly happy with the quo that he was getting for his quid, would it change your view of the situation?

 

[Gorbles]

This is a perfect demonstration of why HuffPo is not a credible media organization. This is tabloid journalism. I mean damn, they seriously used Daily Beast as one of their sources on this article.

So it's okay to dismiss any journalistic source based on the reader not liking it?

This has made a lot of my arguments against right-wing or otherwise conservative media easier

 

[Commodore]

So it's okay to dismiss any journalistic source based on the reader not liking it

It's not a matter of not liking the source, it's a matter of the source not even engaging in the most basic tenets of journalistic integrity.

There are plenty of media organizations that are like this, both conservative and liberal. That's why you won't ever see me citing any Breitbart articles here.

 

[Narz]

Is it your suspicion that she misrepresented herself as genuinely interested in him sexually, when what she was really interested in was the ways he could help her career?

If it could be established that he knew it was a quid pro quo and was perfectly happy with the quo that he was getting for his quid, would it change your view of the situation?

Hes more at blame than her since he was married.

Power hungry people seek power by whatever means necessary. And the ones who rise to the top tend to be the dirtiest/most ruthless.

Calling Kamala out on her sexual immorality isn't sexist anymore than calling Trump out on his.

 

[Gorbles]

It's not a matter of not liking the source, it's a matter of the source not even engaging in the most basic tenets of journalistic integrity.

There are plenty of media organizations that are like this, both conservative and liberal. That's why you won't ever see me citing any Breitbart articles here.

Except the two (Breitbart and HuffPo) are barely comparable. Claiming that an outlet isn't engaging in journalistic integrity is something that needs proving. I would do the same for Breitbart if asked (it's remarkably easy because so many of their "controversies" have made mainstream record, like Wikipedia or the like). I believe that doing so for the Huffington Post would be something that's a lot more arguable.