What a nice world you live in, in which a consensus of citizens defines what winning actually means, and informs their elected officials of their decision. If Trump keeps hold on power, he will probably need to start a war somewhere. At that time the Republican administration will tell its voting base what winning means, when they inform them of which enemy terrorists threaten the country and how they plan to make war upon them in defense of freedom and America. The "normal" sequence - the one employed in launching the Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq Wars - is to await or arrange a dramatic attack on the US or its military forces, which can justify a major immediate response. But if only a moderate military operation is needed, lesser threats will do - as in Panama, Granada, and by proxy various countries as listed earlier (SA, CA, Africa, SE Asia). Which is one reason I'm leaning toward the Philippines, in laying my bets. That's optimism. When pessimistic, I look around the neighborhood of Israel and Iran - and wonder where Putin and the Chinese would allow Trump to launch war.
My bet: Trump will be convinced by his little butt-buddy Netanyahu and our war-hawks and chicken-hawks to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran's (underground) nuclear facilities.
as/re: Winning Did we win in VietNam? What was the stated goal? Did we achieve that goal? Include clashes with the PLA, and rifts n the commie world. ..................... I conclude that we won the beginning stated strategic goal.
And since from that pov the Vietnamese also won, and the Cambodians, and the Chinese, and the Indonesian government, we have one of the best outcomes possible: a war that everybody won. So there would be no objection to Trump starting another one like that? The nukes would be a trumped up excuse, of course - but even more powerful advocates of war have a much better reason: Iran's role in the erosion of the petrodollar. Tillerson, in particular, has a dog in the very middle of that fight - as does Putin, not only for oil and Euro-trade reasons but in his dealings with China: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/05/509222/China-blocked-18bn-of-Irans-petrodollars
I want to be known from now on as . . . Farciot Eduoart. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (An MST3K reference)
As long as you don't allow the Republican Party, its political membership, and its voting base, to hide what it has become and what it is doing behind the smoke of that kind of language.
Often, yeah - sometimes they say "decent American", lately I've been running into a lot of usage of "the American people" or "a lot of the American people" in reference to Trump voters.
Is it illegal to feed pigeons? So you are homeless, you cant get work is there any alternative other than crime? How does USA deal with those who have nothing? Alex
If you trust our politicians, then we should ignore them and they will go away Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Spoken like the chickenhawk that he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics) "a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a war hawk), yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age. The term indicates that the person in question is hypocritical for personally dodging a draft or otherwise shirking their duty to their country during a time of armed conflict while advocating that others do so. Generally, the implication is that chickenhawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict"
There won't be a rich South as soon as the attack on North Korea begins and China doesn't want North Korea (or its problems).
