It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: LSU2018
For example, if you were to say "Who's better in football, Alabama or LSU?" Alabama fans will say Alabama, LSU fans will say LSU. But if you put ONLY the stats up there, you'll see the real answer.
Well, someone won the National Championship and someone else got smashed in the game leading up to it by the team that eventually won so it's not really a good analogy. But I think you did that with full knowledge aforethought.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: LSU2018
The tables have turned and it will be a beta male making those sammiches and getting punched in the dick for equality and goodwill.
They only way it could be better is if it was Idi Amin doing the punching. You need a strong black man to blast that guilty cuckflake.
A newly formed and, by all appearances, well-funded national security advocacy group, devoted to more hawkish U.S. policies toward Russia and other adversaries, provides the most vivid evidence yet of this alliance. Calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, the group describes itself as “a bipartisan, transatlantic initiative” that “will develop comprehensive strategies to defend against, deter, and raise the costs on Russian and other state actors’ efforts to undermine democracy and democratic institutions,” and also “will work to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin’s ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.”
It is, in fact, the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials and the world’s most militant, and militaristic, neocons. The group is led by two longtime Washington foreign policy hands, one from the establishment Democratic wing and the other a key figure among leading GOP neocons.
The Democrats’ new partner Jamie Fly spent 2010 working in tandem with Bill Kristol urging military action — i.e., aggressive war — against Iran. In a 2010 Weekly Standard article co-written with Kristol, Fly argued that “the key to changing [Iran’s thinking about its nuclear program] is a serious debate about the military option,” adding: “It’s time for Congress to seriously explore an Authorization of Military Force to halt Iran’s nuclear program.”
originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: neoholographic
Sorry I see your label of TDS and raise you my label of TDS (trump defense syndrome), I wont be voting D or R, so you can insinuate all you like about my TDS, but I am qute happy whomever sits as POTUS, but are you ignoring the fact Trumps administration dropped the MOAB and continued the democrat campaign of bombing the middle east?
Technology has been constantly changing the world, and digital vaccine IDs could be the next major technology that changes things forever. Bill Gates has talked about digital vaccine IDs and been criticized for it, but we must consider the possibility that governments will get behind the idea.
As the name suggests, a digital vaccine ID would be a simple way to capture someone's vaccine record and make it available easily with a simple scan. Because of how the coronavirus has shaken up the world, governments, businesses and educational institutions might consider requiring people to receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it's available.
Instead of carrying vaccine paperwork everywhere we go, a digital vaccine ID could provide a simple way to prove that you've either been vaccinated for COVID-19 or that you've already had it. Paperwork can be forged, lost or stolen, but a digital ID would be much more secure and avoid the hassle of trying to keep track of paperwork and show it everywhere we go.
There are various methods of creating digital vaccine IDs being made. A Bill Gates-backed group is working on digital tattoos that would store vaccine information. The reports resulted in rumors that the Microsoft founder wanted to microchip the world, triggering widespread outrage.
Couple break from politically neutral stance to criticise Trump administration’s anti-science views
The software mogul’s sway over the World Health Organization spurs criticism about misplaced priorities and undue influence.
U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled a de-escalation in his conflict with Tehran that has the world on edge about an impending war by hinting he would not use military force to retaliate against Iran for its nonfatal missile attack against bases hosting American troops in Iraq.
Trump mixed words of disgust for Iran's policies of sponsoring terrorism with those of peace and cooperation during a highly anticipated address to the nation from the White House on January 8 as the world wondered if a new Middle East war was about to begin.
While Trump made it clear to Tehran that the United States has the ability to destroy targets in Iran with its "big, powerful, accurate, lethal, and fast" missiles to achieve its aims, he said a military solution was not the priority.
"The fact that we have this great military and equipment does not mean we have to use it. We do not want to use it," Trump said.
The president said he wanted to make a new deal with Iran on its nuclear program -- one of the issues at the heart of the conflict between Washington and Iran -- that would allow the Middle East country to thrive and prosper," adding that "Iran can be a great country."
Trump's speech "left the door open" to a diplomatic solution with Iran, Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told RFE/RL.
The president said the strike would not have been 'proportionate' to Iran's attack on an unmanned drone.
“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights [sic] when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it,” Trump wrote in a series of tweets, adding that not only would such an attack have been disproportionate, “I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign fired back after North Korean state media called him a "rabid dog" who "must be beaten to death with a stick."
"It's becoming more and more obvious that repugnant dictators, as well as those who admire and ‘love’ them, find Joe Biden threatening," said Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesman, in a statement to the Associated Press. "That’s because he’d restore American leadership in the world on day one by putting our security, interests and values at the heart of our foreign policy."
But Biden also seemed to go past Obama administration statements in suggesting the U.S. would be willing to use military means if necessary.
“We do know that it would be better if we can reach a political solution, but we are prepared — we are prepared if that’s not possible to make — to have a military solution to this operation in taking out Daesh,” the vice president said, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State in the Levant, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
The decision to withdraw troops from Syria, Biden said, created a humanitarian crisis, forced the United States military into retreat and gave ISIS "a new lease on life."
"Those brave Kurdish and Arab forces paid a steep price. Defeating ISIS and the caliphate, they lost over 10,000 soldiers," Biden said. "Hear me? Ten thousand. Ten thousand dead. They made the ultimate sacrifice. And then Trump sold them out."
Trump has recently stood by his decision.
"It's not our problem," the president told reporters Wednesday as Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo prepared to travel to Turkey to try to negotiate a ceasefire and avoid a humanitarian crisis on the Syrian border.
The president has repeatedly framed his decision in Syria as part of his broader pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from foreign entanglements.
In these roles, Biden built a substantial foreign policy record, and very little of it should offer hope to leftists. Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War was rightly seen as a mark against her presidential candidacies in 2008 and 2016, but Biden not only voted to authorize that war, he was instrumental in helping to sell the conflict to his Democratic colleagues as well as to the American public. His proposal to impose a “soft partition” on Iraq is another mark against his judgment. As vice president, he was a key part of the Obama administration’s foreign policy team, which expanded the drone war, intensified the futile war in Afghanistan, and involved the United States in disastrous conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons.
Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bull#ted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected.