"You mean except the foreign aid?"

Which is what? $3B per year? In a country with a GDP of $720B?

"If they're so tough why are they still losing?"

Ukraine is losing???

Please, do tell.

You sound like Trump briefing the press on how the US has achieved "great success" in Iran.

Is that true as well?

"You're not wrong; this war of choice to appease Israel and distract from the millions of still illegally unreleased Epstein Files has made the world much less safe and the US much more disrespected... and deservingly so."

"Appease" Israel?

I don't think so.

In Trump, Netanyahu found a US president who could easily be manipulated through his ego. I don't fault Netanyahu. I think he's an -------, but I also think his hand was the best it was ever going to get. It just turned out that Iran had a better hand.

Between us girls, because of this failure to produce the results Israel was hoping for, I don't know how much use they will have for Trump-or the US-going forward.

At the moment, I don't know that I would group the US with "the west," if the west is comprised primarily of western European countries. I love Albania, but the US is currently like an Albania on steroids, but without the nice beaches.

"Trump doesn't do multi-party deals."

Oh, yeah.

I didn't forget to mention the US as a western country, because the US is basically on a Charlie Sheen-style crack binge. At least at the strategic level.

Iran has handed the US the greatest strategic defeat in the history of this country. I would challenge anyone to disagree with that. If you think Russia is doing poorly in Ukraine-at least Russia was able to capture territory that Ukraine would like to have back. The US did nothing of the sort. The US has no bargaining chip it can use with Iran. From my vantage point, the Iran war ends when the US concedes to their demands. There is no other option. I'd love for someone to tell me I'm wrong.

Western weakness??

I'm not sure what world you guys are living in, but western Europe is anything but weak, and they are getting stronger, more confident, and more capable every day.

NATO is what NATO is, but within the collection of NATO countries, there are smaller groups of multi-lateral coalitions that don't really care about what NATO or the NAC have to say. They're going to fight even if Hungary or Portugal dilly-dally.

At the end of the day, it's the multi-lateral coalitions that Putin should fear. The fact he is focused on NATO is a good thing. It means he does not have his eye on the ball.

"I always said it Was Provoked."

Provoked?

Provoked how?

By existing?

"NATO just poured Gas on the Fire."

NATO did what?

NATO, to my knowledge, has not done anything with regards to Ukraine.

"Where I live now isn't some pie in they sky pink hair Utopia. It's just a better run version of the US."

Might I be so bold as to ask you where you landed?

And I agree with you. There is a reason I will die somewhere in Europe. Maybe it's the decades of war that shaped the continents character, but for the most part, European countries are drama free, and everyone knows that they both rights and responsibilities. That's what I like about it.

Growing up in the US, I was pretty much a die-hard libertarian. Because I believed that a strong government that had the power to do good, also had the power to do bad. But living here, I see government that provides rights but also demands responsibility. And that changed my mind on a lot of things.

"That's not how the "presumption of innocence" works. But your comment effectively underscores the difference between targeting expertise and legal expertise."

Fair enough. I'm no lawyer.

But how about the Supreme Court and Ex Parte Quirin.

Do you think that FDR's Supreme Court had sufficient legal experience?

"Targeting experience is not legal expertise. You lied about the attack in Afghanistan being legal under international law."

It wasn't?

Please, do explain. I'm not aware of any finding stating that counter threat-finance operations are/were illegal?

"Sufficient reason to condemn them."

Oh, I think it's ------- stupid. I did counter-drug ---- down in Honduras for a while. Equally stupid. 90% of the things I've done in the military were, IMO, theater. 10% mattered and made a difference.

But because I think something is stupid doesn't make it illegal or a war crime.

"Firing on shipwrecked survivors is a war crime. Saying you were only trying to completely destroy the ship that the shipwrecked survivors were clinging to is a distinction without a difference."

And you've come to that conclusion based on your extensive experience in targeting?

Anyone else here have targeting experience??? Other than me?

"Anwar Al-Awlaki was not an innocent man."

He went to court and was found to be innocent?

Let's level the bubble here. The strike on Anwar-al-Awliki was completely justified. Ex Parte Quirin held that US citizens acting as enemy combatants forfeit their right to a criminal trial. Google it. al-Awliki was part of an organization that had been declared hostile combatants. The US also killed several ISIS members who were US citizens.

The strikes we did on the Narco labs in AFG and the strikes on oil tankers in Syria? I don't think that was effective. Especially in AFG, given how that mess turned out. The drug boat thing is pure Trump theatrics. But that doesn't change the fact that, if the strikes on the boats fall under counter-threat finance, they're legit targets.

"Do you consider a boat alleged to be full of drugs a valid military target?"

I can't say.

I didn't see the intel reporting on it.

"Regardless, if people weren't the target, we wouldn't be making a second pass to kill the shipwrecked survivors. Which is a war crime, even in war."

Totes.

If the allegations that the commander ordered strikes against distressed seamen, that is a war crime. No question.

If the commander ordered a re-strike because the task was to destroy the ship, and the ship had not been destroyed...not a war crime.

"Bad things never excuse other bad things."

It was a bad thing to disrupt Japanese supply lines during WWII?

"Don't go there. The US committed war crimes against civilians, as one of the main men responsible for them, Curtis LeMay, said."

Yup.

The US sunk around 1100 merchant ships during WWII. Never gave the sailors on board a trial.

"How about any potentially innocent man be given a chance at trial?"

Like Anwar al-Awlaki?

During WWII, did the US commit war crimes by sinking merchant ships flagged in adversary countries?

"Worth a repeat. Pres Trump has shown that he has little regard for due process under the Constitution. Indeed, his owned (not a typo) SCOTUS has ruled against him in that regard."

Are you suggesting that any potentially hostile force should be given a chance at trial?

Should the US not have gone after ISIS the way they did?

Again, the boat is the target. Not the people.

"Good to know that Wall Street is a valid military target. So was the World Trade Center, as a matter of fact. People working at those places fund United States government operations."

So do you.

Do you consider yourself a valid military target?

#11

When I was doing the thing, those submitting something as a target had to justify why it was a target. Then it went through target development. Then it went through vetting.

Maybe they don't do that anymore. But when I was, y'know, "doing the thing," I was doing it alongside people from France, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, and the UK. Not to mention the Aussies, kiwis, and other nations supporting target development that didn't drop bombs.

"Meaningless."

You're free to think whatever you want.

I sent my low income-earner on a plane this morning and sent her back to Arizona with her mom.

She is always whining about me not giving her the money she needs to enjoy the lifestyle she feels entitled to.