Ratcliffe declassified Russian intelligence assessment that claims Hillary was setting up a plan to connect Trump campaign to Russian hacking

[ralfy]

So you just ignore all data you are shown and change the subject. Mhmm. Makes sense.

Civilian casualties INCREASED under Trump. They INCREASED from Obama's number. GO look at the information here. I linked it above. Not difficult to figure out if you actually bothered to read ANY of it.

Obama trying to prevent deaths is like trying to prevent rapes, not be gentler, it is stupid to suggest such. The military being able to act without needing presidential consent though also means they are allowed to kill people without presidential consent as well.

Don’t Forget: Civilian Casualties Are Skyrocketing Under Trump

Amid the impeachment inquiry, it’s important to remember that Donald Trump has committed other moral crimes — like the slaughter of civilians abroad.

theintercept.com

I'm not ignoring what you show. Rather, I'm pointing out that the fact that the very people you support turn out to be no different from the ones you oppose. The fact that you now engage in a morbid view of numbers (i.e., one is good because his civilian casualties are lower) shows the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your stance. Now, your even trying to argue that at least he prevented more deaths! And you call me stupid?

Your circus-like argument is absurd. First, you admit that no one tops Obama in terms of committing terror, and upon realizing that you just shot yourself in the foot, now struggle to climb out of the hole you dug for yourself! From a false sense of moral indignation and LMAOing, you've now degraded yourself to a stuttering bean counter status.

"But....but....but...his numbers are lower!"

 

[Thaluikhain]

the very people you support turn out to be no different from the ones you oppose

...

his civilian casualties are lower

That's a big difference. It's as wrong to say that there's no difference because both killed innocent people as to say that it's alright to kill innocent people as long as you do it less.

 

[ralfy]

That's a big difference. It's as wrong to say that there's no difference because both killed innocent people as to say that it's alright to kill innocent people as long as you do it less.

The fact that it's wrong to say that it's alright as long as one does less proves my argument!

Also,

Has Obama Delivered Change Or Continuity In US Foreign Policy?

As Obama departs office, his ability to deliver change and attitude to foreign policies is retrospectively assessed.

www.e-ir.info

Hypocrisy of awarding Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama and Aung San Suu Kyi

The Nobel panel demonstrated the lack of foresight and thoroughly erred in choosing two personalities for a great honour.

www.dailyo.in

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I'm thinking that planes rendered battleships obsolete because of the vastly greater range and that there was little effective way to stop planes without other planes.

That, and the mission for battleships in fleets was engaging targets with overwhelming firepower. Out at sea this means destruction of enemies ships but it also means engaging land based defences in support of landings, and not only could planes do these missions, they were much more effective and the loss of a single pilot/aircraft was much easier to stomach than the loss of a full sized ship.

 

[Silvanus]

That's a big difference. It's as wrong to say that there's no difference because both killed innocent people as to say that it's alright to kill innocent people as long as you do it less.

Also,

Hypocrisy of awarding Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama and Aung San Suu Kyi

The Nobel panel demonstrated the lack of foresight and thoroughly erred in choosing two personalities for a great honour.

www.dailyo.in

Yeah, Thaluikhain! Hand in your Nobel Committee membership card this instant, you fraud!

 

[Agema]

That, and the mission for battleships in fleets was engaging targets with overwhelming firepower. Out at sea this means destruction of enemies ships but it also means engaging land based defences in support of landings, and not only could planes do these missions, they were much more effective and the loss of a single pilot/aircraft was much easier to stomach than the loss of a full sized ship.

Maybe.

Normal army artillery was mostly ~10cm calibre, with larger pieces up to ~15cm, and only very rarely larger. So destroyers had guns slightly around land-based artillery, cruisers had guns at the high end of artillery, heavy cruisers at 8 inches plus much larger. So despite their super-big guns, I'm not actually sure you could do that much with a Battleship you couldn't do with smaller ships.

I think the value of ships also can be maintained - a ship is basically a floating artillery company. In theory, it's available for call up and rapid response in ways that (WW2) the air force was not: you had to just hope the air force was in the area if you wanted an airstrike, but you can call a ship captain and ask him to dump some shells on a target relatively quickly and at any time. Although broadly I agree that the development of air combat generally diminished the need for ships in land engagements too.

 

[lil devils x]

I'm not ignoring what you show. Rather, I'm pointing out that the fact that the very people you support turn out to be no different from the ones you oppose. The fact that you now engage in a morbid view of numbers (i.e., one is good because his civilian casualties are lower) shows the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your stance. Now, your even trying to argue that at least he prevented more deaths! And you call me stupid?

Your circus-like argument is absurd. First, you admit that no one tops Obama in terms of committing terror, and upon realizing that you just shot yourself in the foot, now struggle to climb out of the hole you dug for yourself! From a false sense of moral indignation and LMAOing, you've now degraded yourself to a stuttering bean counter status.

"But....but....but...his numbers are lower!"

I never said no one tops Obama in terms of Terror, do you even know what Terror Tuesdays are? It doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about is why there is so much LMAOing going on.

You keep saying things that make no sense. Terror Tuesdays were not for Obama to commit terror. It was that every Tuesday he got together with his council and determined which terrorist they were going to try to either capture or neutralize. Obama repeatedly refused to take out terrorists if it was too risky in terms of civilian casualties. Trump doesn't care about civilian causalities at all, and would take out the target anyhow regardless of how many other people he killed in the process. HUGE difference.

Obama refusing to take out targets if there were too many civilians that could be harmed is STILL BETTER than Trump not caring how many civilians he killed and would take out the target anyhow. You not seeing that as being worse is on you, not me.

OH and BTW, "Obama" wasn't "my guy" I openly supported McCain and quite vocally opposed Obama on the Escapist at the time . Obama proved me wrong and changed my mind through his actions.

When I talk about how expanding my understanding and having had my mind changed, this is one of the primary issues that I had my mind changed on. The only party I have been a registered member of is the Libertarian party until I grew up and realized that only makes the world a shitter place to live.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[happyninja42]

That, and the mission for battleships in fleets was engaging targets with overwhelming firepower. Out at sea this means destruction of enemies ships but it also means engaging land based defences in support of landings, and not only could planes do these missions, they were much more effective and the loss of a single pilot/aircraft was much easier to stomach than the loss of a full sized ship.

That's the main benefit of a carrier though, to be able to move those powerful fighter jets, into whatever theater they are needed, and operate as a base of operations. So they don't have to calculate for long flight times, and return fuel. Plus they will have a support crew and intelligence gathering equipment nearby, to feed them real time data about threats and objectives. So carriers are still pretty useful, depending on the situation. If the enemy in question is known to not have any significant navy, for example a landlocked country in the middle east, they can operate with relative safety regarding water based threats. Against larger enemies, that have an equivalent navy, yes they are more at risk, but that's why more of the navy would be deployed to counter that. their own subs, anti-sub ships, etc.

 

[happyninja42]

do you even know what Terror Tuesdays are?

A Taco Tuesday that went horribly wrong, and you find yourself on the toilet for the next 8 hours, begging for the sweet release of death?

 

[Agema]

What became apparent to everyone at that point was that Battleships were simply no longer cost effective, as technology had reached a point were armor could no longer realistically protect ships from weapons designed to kill them (a similar issue was seen in tank development in the 60's when both Germany and France simply decided to not heavily armor their Leopard 1 and AMX-30 tanks as it was seen as futile to try and prevent penetration from anti-tank weaponry and tank guns).

When you didn't armor your ships you didn't need the massive, super expensive design nightmares that were heavy battleship guns and since all naval weapons at this point were becoming increasingly accurate the doctrine shifted to large battle groups of smaller vessels, marking the return of corvettes and frigates as 'proper' fleet assets as Battleships and Cruisers were deemed obsolete by virtue of being too big and expensive.

Of course, it strikes me that this is not dissimilar to medieval armour. Once to an extent crossbows but much more firearms became common enough, a suit of full plate armour was mostly just an expensive burden.

But this is what makes me question aircraft carriers. If you can launch missiles from a few hundred km away and severely spoil a carrier's day, how viable actually are they?

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[ralfy]

Yeah, Thaluikhain! Hand in your Nobel Committee membership card this instant, you fraud!

You mean Benghazi Barry should return his prize.

 

[ralfy]

I never said no one tops Obama in terms of Terror, do you even know what Terror Tuesdays are? It doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about is why there is so much LMAOing going on.

You keep saying things that make no sense. Terror Tuesdays were not for Obama to commit terror. It was that every Tuesday he got together with his council and determined which terrorist they were going to try to either capture or neutralize. Obama repeatedly refused to take out terrorists if it was too risky in terms of civilian casualties. Trump doesn't care about civilian causalities at all, and would take out the target anyhow regardless of how many other people he killed in the process. HUGE difference.

Obama refusing to take out targets if there were too many civilians that could be harmed is STILL BETTER than Trump not caring how many civilians he killed and would take out the target anyhow. You not seeing that as being worse is on you, not me.

OH and BTW, "Obama" wasn't "my guy" I openly supported McCain and quite vocally opposed Obama on the Escapist at the time . Obama proved me wrong and changed my mind through his actions.

When I talk about how expanding my understanding and having had my mind changed, this is one of the primary issues that I had my mind changed on. The only party I have been a registered member of is the Libertarian party until I grew up and realized that only makes the world a shitter place to live.

Yes, planning for Benghazi Barry was for Tuesdays, and the attack on Wednesdays. Nothing could beat him on that, right?

Obama's secret kill list – the disposition matrix

The disposition matrix is a complex grid of suspected terrorists to be traced then targeted in drone strikes or captured and interrogated. And the British government appears to be colluding in it

www.theguardian.com

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will (Published 2012)

President Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, reserving the final say on approving lethal action, say current and former aides.

www.nytimes.com

From torture to drone strikes: the disturbing legal legacy Obama is leaving for Trump

Trump will have massive executive power when he takes office. Thanks, Obama.

www.vox.com

The Counterinsurgency Paradigm: How U.S. Politics Have Become Paramilitarized

We spoke to Bernard Harcourt about his latest book, “The Counterrevolution,” and what makes the Trump presidency unique.

theintercept.com

Dems cheered Obama drones – now they jeer

liberalfirst.com

Seven years after Obama's 'worst mistake,' Libya killing is rampant

Barack Obama described failing to plan for a post-Gadhafi Libya as his worst mistake. The country remains a battleground and air strikes have killed hundreds of civilians, write Peter Bergen and Alyssa Sims.

edition.cnn.com

And you just want to focus on drone attacks because doing otherwise would destroy your narrative concerning Obama, Clinton, and co. Right?

Obama’s Biggest Mistake Isn’t Libya. It’s Syria.

The president regrets not having a better plan for after invading Libya. He is not copping to the larger fiasco.

www.bloomberg.com

President Obama, who hoped to sow peace, instead led the nation in war

President Obama came to office vowing to end America's foreign wars and take the country off its permanent war footing. He leaves a very different legacy as he prepares to hand his commander-in-chief responsibilities to Donald Trump.

www.latimes.com

As for McCain:

Jimmy Carter: McCain a ‘warmonger’

McCain earlier this year said Obama’s handling of Syria made him worse than Carter.

thehill.com

Opinion | John McCain was a chronic warmonger, not a war hero

Yonden Lhatoo sets the record straight about the US war veteran and elder statesman, who is being deified by even his lifelong political foes as a ‘true American hero’ following his death from brain cancer.

www.scmp.com

Despite What the Press Says, "Maverick" McCain Has a Long and Distinguished Record of Horribleness

John McCain is far more consistently bad than you've been led to believe. Here are his greatest hits.

theintercept.com

But you'd want to ignore that, too, just like your earlier implication that's it's all merely Q Anon fare.

Given that, if you want to find out why the world has been a "[shittier] place to live," go back to one of my earlier posts about both political parties and Wall Street.