Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

McCain was Schrodinger's Veteran... whatever angle that status worked best or worst for him was the one his backers ran with and his opponents picked on.

His veteran/POW status was used at various times to justify his desire for a military response (he's a veteran and a former POW, he knows what he's asking for!) mock him for not knowing any better and wanting same (For Chrissakes he's a veteran and a former POW, how does he not know what he's asking for?!) and near the end it all homogenized into this general "Be patient with me, I have autism PTSD from being a veteran and a POW" catch-all so that no gaffe was ever his fault, and no positive action could go un-praised as "continued heroism for his country, just like you'd expect from a veteran and a POW!"

It was only near the end when he decided to screw the Republican establishment out of Presidential bid remorse that the media fully got on his side and turned the volume up to 11 that it really got insufferable.
 
If you'll allow me to put my Internet Psychologist hat on for a moment...
I've always thought that McCain's War Hawk behavior and general fixation on the Military was all part of him overcompensating after what happened to him in Vietnam.
A way for him to purge his demons and guilt about that time of his life by proving how tough and unbreakable he was.
Most Veterans tend not to talk or brag about what they went though but for McCain it seemed impossible to move on from those years.
All rumors about "Songbird" aside I'm sure that no one in this thread thinks they could do or endure better what McCain went through. But personally I think something just broke in McCain during those times.

Well there's also the fact the NeoCon base--of which McCain absolutely was a hardliner--has a relationship with the military I can only describe as obsessive autism.
 
Childish Gambino’s new music video has Michelle Obama hugging Kayne who’s wearing a MAGA hat.

Well stop sucking the DNC’s dick and actually do your job.

Well he’s more popular than you guys, so...

But how will you guys own the Republicans in November when you continue to have SJWs in your party?

Sperging From Vox.
 
Well there's also the fact the NeoCon base--of which McCain absolutely was a hardliner--has a relationship with the military I can only describe as obsessive autism.
It's mostly lip-service.

In 1988 when 54th Combat Engineers and 1/68th Armor and 108th Military Intelligence as well as 144th Ordnance Company wrote to their senators complaining about the conditions of their barracks (largely unrepaired shoddily made buildings or WW2 buildings with minimal maintenance) Dick Cheney (Who was then the Sec-Def) as well as some Republican political aides showed up in the late summer (right before REFORGER) to check out the barracks.

Furnaces needed repair, water heaters needed replaced, 1/68 and 54th needed walls patched (Several rooms had gaps between the wall and window that you could put you fist through. They'd shove wool blankets into the cracks during the winter blizzards), 144th had electrical problems in the winter (the whole building would lose power for days or weeks in the middle of goddamn winter in West Germany on top of a fucking mountain), 108th would lose water and had weatherization problems.

Instead of getting the buildings repaired, instead Cheney and the others checked it out, left, and then it came down through the grapevine.

We all should be grateful to have such excellent barracks, and be grateful we weren't at war. People in Vietnam and Korea would have appreciated the barracks, so stop complaining. Germany was supposed to be cold, and men had fought through World War 2 without such nice barracks.

Republicans talk mad shit about helping the military, but unless it involves massive spending, privatizing sections of the military, defense contractors getting mad cash, they couldn't give a shit less.

It didn't surprise me one bit that Cheney, when he was the VP, and Rumsfeld (who was on his second term as Sec-Def, his first right after Vietnam where he proved to be a total shitbag) gave that "You go to war..." speech, completely ignoring the fact that the invasion of Iraq was on our timetable and that there was no excuse to deploy entire divisions without the proper gear.
 
DmDX91xU0AA4dwM.jpg

I legitimately thought that said "elephant daughter" at first and I had to read it back over again a few times.
 
Last edited:
It's mostly lip-service.

In 1988 when 54th Combat Engineers and 1/68th Armor and 108th Military Intelligence as well as 144th Ordnance Company wrote to their senators complaining about the conditions of their barracks (largely unrepaired shoddily made buildings or WW2 buildings with minimal maintenance) Dick Cheney (Who was then the Sec-Def) as well as some Republican political aides showed up in the late summer (right before REFORGER) to check out the barracks.

Furnaces needed repair, water heaters needed replaced, 1/68 and 54th needed walls patched (Several rooms had gaps between the wall and window that you could put you fist through. They'd shove wool blankets into the cracks during the winter blizzards), 144th had electrical problems in the winter (the whole building would lose power for days or weeks in the middle of goddamn winter in West Germany on top of a fucking mountain), 108th would lose water and had weatherization problems.

Instead of getting the buildings repaired, instead Cheney and the others checked it out, left, and then it came down through the grapevine.

We all should be grateful to have such excellent barracks, and be grateful we weren't at war. People in Vietnam and Korea would have appreciated the barracks, so stop complaining. Germany was supposed to be cold, and men had fought through World War 2 without such nice barracks.

Republicans talk mad shit about helping the military, but unless it involves massive spending, privatizing sections of the military, defense contractors getting mad cash, they couldn't give a shit less.

It didn't surprise me one bit that Cheney, when he was the VP, and Rumsfeld (who was on his second term as Sec-Def, his first right after Vietnam where he proved to be a total shitbag) gave that "You go to war..." speech, completely ignoring the fact that the invasion of Iraq was on our timetable and that there was no excuse to deploy entire divisions without the proper gear.

I was mostly talking about NeoCon voters. You know the kinds of people who repost image macros captioned "If you can't stand behind our troops then try standing in front of them" and shit like that. You're right about actual Capital Hill Republicans not actually caring. It's just corporate war. Which is the case for the Democrats as well but at least the Republicans are open about their profiteering jingoism.
 
Well that and to exploit Libya's resources collaborated with the French to get the oil.

That had already happened with Gaddafi mellowing out an starting to toe the international line back in the early 2000's; the seeds had been laid in the late 90's, and he was able to use 9/11 of all things to jump start the process of re-normalizing relations by being one of the first Arab leaders to condemn the attack. This culminated in the 2003 acknowledgement & settlement for Pan Am 103 (allowing the Scottish government an excuse to completely cuck out, release one of the bombers because of "humanitarian grounds" as he supposedly had only weeks to live- turned out to be about 150 weeks that he got to spend at home with his family. After murdering 300 civilians who never got a last chance to see theirs.)
This had already opened Libya up to private investment.
All this is part of the reason for the sluggish and anemic international response in Libya.

Gaddafi's overthrow was a net-negative to the region and to Libya in particular; but what was the alternative? Turn a blind eye while he slaughtered his own citizens?
 
Gaddafi's overthrow was a net-negative to the region and to Libya in particular; but what was the alternative? Turn a blind eye while he slaughtered his own citizens?

There's things in nature called Necessary Evil. Gaddafi was a sonofabitch (as was Saddam Hussein) but the alternative to them was far worse.
 
DmDX91xU0AA4dwM.jpg

I legitimately thought that said "elephant daughter" at first and I had to read it back over again a few times.

I was waiting for some Hollywood star to run up to the microphone and go, "TRUMP SHOULD BE IN THAT CASKET!" they aren't trying hard enough.

5b8aca15b354cdbd228b4c2f-750-375.jpg


Gaddafi's overthrow was a net-negative to the region and to Libya in particular; but what was the alternative? Turn a blind eye while he slaughtered his own citizens?

Well you could have some people go over there to try and hug it out to show the world free love, oh wait those people were raped and killed weren't they.
 
I was waiting for some Hollywood star to run up to the microphone and go, "TRUMP SHOULD BE IN THAT CASKET!" they aren't trying hard enough..

Congrats to the Hollywood-DC establishment, though, they actually managed to dance on a dead Senator's grave for social media "likes" while convincing everyone it was respectful.
 
There's things in nature called Necessary Evil. Gaddafi was a sonofabitch (as was Saddam Hussein) but the alternative to them was far worse.

Saddam I would argue in 2003 had started to lose his value as a Necessary Evil. He was doing a worse and worse job of maintaining control, and was setting his sons, who were real peices of work, up as the successors. You know how some shows stop when things are declining but still good, while others get run in the ground? "Who's Iraq is it Anyway?" was canceled when it was still good, but it was on its well on its way to becoming shit.
But its the leadership they deserve. Iraqis have been untrustworthy shit bags since at least 680AD.

Gaddafi on the other hand was, by most accounts, becoming much less shit, opening up the country and starting to give more powers to the local councils. He was still kind of fucking crazy in a way that would have been amusing if he didn't hold literal life-or-death power over people's lives, but he was really serious about rejoining the international community and playing nice with others. The son he was grooming to be his successor was better than Dad on just about every front, and speculated to be behind the reforms. In proof that this is a God and he loves irony, it was this releasing of his Iron grip that lead to Papa Gaddafi's downfall....but his son still might end up as taking over for daddy anyway.

But again, necessary or not, how else could the rest of the world have responded when he was carrying out airstrikes on protestors? That is, the value of a "necesary evil" dictator is in providing and maintaining control, keeping the trains running on time as it were. He'd obviously lost control, and was only going to get it back with lots of blood.
 
If you'll allow me to put my Internet Psychologist hat on for a moment...
I've always thought that McCain's War Hawk behavior and general fixation on the Military was all part of him overcompensating after what happened to him in Vietnam.
A way for him to purge his demons and guilt about that time of his life by proving how tough and unbreakable he was.
Most Veterans tend not to talk or brag about what they went though but for McCain it seemed impossible to move on from those years.
All rumors about "Songbird" aside I'm sure that no one in this thread thinks they could do or endure better what McCain went through. But personally I think something just broke in McCain during those times.
McCain just always felt deep regret for being forced to say on videotape as a POW that America was murdering Vietnamese citizens.
 
But again, necessary or not, how else could the rest of the world have responded when he was carrying out airstrikes on protestors?
This always bothers me because unless we have a vested interest - be it through the economy, a military alliance or cultural exchange/influence - we really shouldn't care what another nation does. Unless of course it spills into our borders then we can pretty much fuck them up for it, but I still feel nations like Libya or Yemen really only have a population that responds to violence or strength. Iraq was the same problem, Hell I knew of a guy who basically sat there trying to explain to me why it's impossible to enact democracy in that shithole of his former country unless we're willing to invest fifty fucking years into raising the next generation that will inherit the country.

All of that said, killing their fucking leader did no one any favors. We should have worked with the son into easing his father out as fast as possible instead of creating a vacuum... might have been able to participate in their infrastructure enough to make China blush with envy. Gaddafi might have been left behind by his population -- judging from his erratic behavior and insistence on violence, but when you create anarchy most everyone is back to square one.
 
All of that said, killing their fucking leader did no one any favors. We should have worked with the son into easing his father out as fast as possible instead of creating a vacuum... might have been able to participate in their infrastructure enough to make China blush with envy. Gaddafi might have been left behind by his population -- judging from his erratic behavior and insistence on violence, but when you create anarchy most everyone is back to square one.

Final Gaddafi post before I take this to Convos:
There would have been a lot that could have been done before things snowballed out of control, but once they had...options were limited. Machine guns and bombs were going to be the only thing that would have sent the people back to their houses. Even if Gaddafi had promised reforms in good faith, people would have been thinking "if we go home now, tomorrow the secret police will show up".

Gaddafi's death was arguably the best outcome for the stability of the country once it was obvious he could not maintain control. There is a still a sizeable minority of Gaddafi loyalists - and there are more and more people looking back on the Gaddafi regieme with glasses are are rosier and rosier as the country falls back into tribalism. Gaddafi would have been symbolic figure for loyalist groups, and would have likely resulted in reprisals against people in his tribe.

Your friend isn't wrong, societies can't go from zero to democracy. Even in the US and France, long histories Parliamentary Monarchy allowed for both society and governance to have time to adapt to power in the hands of individuals and not simply tribal/regional power-brokers before things went to full democracy federated republic.
 
But again, necessary or not, how else could the rest of the world have responded when he was carrying out airstrikes on protestors?.

This has been happening for months now in Yemen and I don't see "the world" responding. Should America go in and bomb Saudi Arabia for the same reasons you claim we had to bomb Libya?

But oh yeah those are civilians so you may not think they need intervention to protect. Well then how about the protestors that Egypt massacred? No action taken there. Should America have bombed Sisi?
 
Last edited:
Back