wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
Yes, they want to impose costs on the rest of the world which includes the costs of bombing them. That's fine. There is still risk of escalation, but if we want to bomb them in perpetuity and they want to impose costs on the rest of the world in perpetuity so be it. If this is the reality then we live in world that's a little less functional. So be it. It won't be in perpetuity I hope!
I would not describe Houthis as indomitable, although they do have a very high tolerance for eating bombs. The alternatives are to refuse to engage -- which does cost less money with no boats in Red Sea -- or formally accept a new status quo. Or, if you take them at their word, make Israel do something? The world could also reward them with some sort of official designation and hope that buys them off, but I agree with the global order here. You don't get rewarded with shooting and looting civilian ships. Not without some pain or, in this case, the lives of their martyrs.
They are the big dog in Yemen. Woof! They dislike Jews, Sauds, UAE, the US, and they like Iran. Great. These are unpleasant people that would happily lob my head off. Bombing theocratic Islamic fundamentalists, or most any other dedicated piratical states is a reasonable thing to do in response to their piracy. That's a sensible world.
wemptronics
22hr ago
This suggests that Hegseth didn't know and did not consent to it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't set-up by someone else. I'd guess Waltz is most likely since he sent the invite. But yeah, there's a large number of less embarrassing ways to leak information to journalists to write a story. I'm not at all convinced on planned or intended. It's a remote possibility. Bad practice and incompetence is leading the race for me.
The bombing is a result. If you engage in piracy you eat bombs. This should be the expected result of engaging in piracy. It's the least you can do. This might be insufficient to dissuade these particular Islamic martyrs from engaging in piracy. They may require some other demonstration or diplomacy, but they should receive no exemption from the first expected result. It may also be a valuable demonstration for other non-martyrs that might consider piracy.
One fact to support this theory is who is doing the leaking. Jeffrey Goldberg is an editor who has been at The Atlantic a long time. He did a bid in the IDF as a young pup and written articles such as "Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe" in response to terror attacks. It is unlikely Goldberg would want to help the Houthis or hammer the admin on Houthi beating. Which he doesn't. He is seasoned and at least partly aligned on the topic of discussion. Both of these make him more likely to understand (or suspect) what his role is here despite the confusion and it appears he is carrying out his duties. This would be big 5D chess if unnecessary and reckless.
Why not just leak stuff the good ol' fashioned way? This form of leak probably maximizes the amount eyeballs, but are those necessary? Perhaps foreign parties have reason to doubt how tapped into the admin the media apparatus is as the admin seems keen on beating on it rather than filling it with juice. Might be that Trump doesn't like his cabinet using the Fake News traditional messaging apparatus, so this is technically a way to work around that. Wading into pure conjecture any which way. I'm not sure if there's a more sensational way to leak stuff if that is what occurred here.
wemptronics
1d ago
I enjoyed all the direct quotes! Very fun.
Is there an interpretation I'm missing here that doesn't show a rift between them? This says the president is inconsistent and is not aware of his own inconsistency
Could be. I don't think it is impossible that Trump, at some level, recognizes he benefits from some brakes, and he may find Vance suitable for this role. I don't think these quotes suggest some massive rift rather than topic disagreement or the reality of their different roles. In the sausage factory is one thing, but the misalignment going public is another matter. The media is already trying to drive a wedge. Now Trump doesn't like being seen as undermined, so Vance may now have to grovel a bit to not be seen as embarrassing the big man.
Vance advocating for taking some more time to build up a narrative-- Trump wants it done if it can be done. If Vance is considering a 2028 run, then ideally he maximizes all the positive Trump association while minimizing the negative Trump association in order to grow his support. This would make some disagreement desirable. If Vance was worried about narrative and optics, as he is quoted, then I think he was wrong. US bombs dropping on Houthis was overdue. Putting Suez back into full business is also overdue, but who knows if that's achievable with bomb droppings.
wemptronics
1d ago
Anyway, I"m not sure I agree with the 'bad ops-sec' here
If you are unsure of this despite the fact this article exists, then what do you consider an example of bad OPSEC?
chat apps would be better than Signal... as once the app is deleted all the message history is gone.
If there is no inhouse Signal equivalent, then it's about 20 years past due. I bet there is and I bet it sucks and that's why they use Signal.
Wiping message history without recording keeping is a problem, because all text messages about official acts from federal agencies must be preserved. I guess politicians across the spectrum have decided this is not actually an important accountability feature in democracy nor are historical records important enough to bother. Fair enough.
and doesn’t say anything that isn’t also publicly available.
What do you mean? None of this was publicly available until today. It's only available now, because a journalist reported it. In my opinion, a journalist should have never been in a position to report this story or any details they did not report on. I do not find solace that the journalist either chose not to, or was unable to, report precise mission details to the public. If I was an adversarial journalist writing a story about this administration in these circumstances, then I would also not print mission details.
A contribution to the successful mission was the journalist, who should not have been there, didn't go to Twitter and scream from the rooftops that JDAMs were falling on Target 3 in Aden from 15,000 feet at 12:00PM local time. This was good for the journalist, because the journalist would be in jail most likely. I would not expect detailed flight plans or powerpoint mission briefings were shared by the Secretary of Defense in a big group chat, but it seems very reasonable to me that targets, times, weapons were shared with these individuals, and it seems reasonable to me that these are things you do not want to go public. Since journalists have a job to make things go public officials should be careful what they share with them. It does not seem like they were particularly careful in this instance.
For myself, "we probably could not have been hurt that bad from our colossal fuck up" is about as comforting as "well nothing bad happened so it's fine." Procedures are created to minimize colossal fuck ups and bad happenings. Next in line is "well the enemy is small and weak and can't harm us anyway." I think this is a stupid, dangerous mindset to humor when doing something as serious as warfare, and there are many historical examples of this mindset contributing to defeat.
"I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing."
Were the journalist to report things not described in the article as he learned of them -- times, dates, places, and targets before the action was carried out -- do you think it would have been no big deal? I would consider it a very big deal, a major breach of OPSEC, and probably treasonous. These do not seem like the kinds of things you tell journalists prior to a military strike.
It would be unwise to tell journalists these details even with an explicit understanding not to report on these details until after the plan is carried out. Which doesn't seem to have occurred here. It would be extra reckless to only have a tacit understanding with a journalist as to what or when he can report on the things he learned of. Which, by his account, doesn't appear to have occurred either. This was a journalist accidentally learning things he should not have known and, wisely, not reporting them. These are the kinds of things that, if the enemy learns of them, can get men killed.
wemptronics
1d ago
I know what you meant. I'll take your word for it that that Signal's communications are as encrypted and secure as anywhere else. I don't see why not.
It is not properly proofed against the dumb people that use it. Which, as all the security folks have told me, is a salient failure point of all systems. A single Nigerian phishing scam cannot compromise the White House network because POTUS clicked the wrong e-mail. We hope, at least.
wemptronics
1d ago
Evidently, in the hands of the White House it is not very secure.
It appears the person who set up the group (Michael Waltz) intended it to be for unclassified discussion
So Waltz set it up for interfacing for unclassified stuff like with journalists and forgot about it. So-and-so made a group chat, so-and-so invited so-and-so, and next thing ya know Jeffrey Goldberg is the only journalist in a Signal chat with the nation's leadership as they plan a military action?
This appears like a level of brazen, incompetent comfort that suggests to me they're probably using Signal for all sorts of coordination. Of which the only reasonable thing I can land* on is: other forms of communication are suspected compromised and they have an immediate need. But it's much easier for me to believe a sloppy disregard for procedure is commonplace.
- Or Signal has been okay'd for this use and we don't know?
'Many things are happening, so many things are happening at once that sometimes I have no idea what's going on.'
This is likely an apocryphal quote misattributed to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in March 2025 via the memetic slop factory. It's one of the factory's better creations and it captures my feeling this afternoon.
The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic, publishes the above account regarding his participation in a special kind of Signal group chat 15 days ago. In this chat strikes against the Houthis were planned, out in the open, with Jeffrey privy to it all. According to the account he gives in the article, Jeffrey was invited by national security advisor Michael Waltz. According to Jeffrey, he was confused, skeptical, and suspicious of this chat.
Seriously, you should read the whole thing.
It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me...
I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.
This group chat led to another group chat-- "Houthi PC small group". If true, I am sure Jeffrey's concerns about entrapment and imprisonment grew as he was, allegedly, joined by the Secretary of Defense, Vice President Vance, Tulsi Gabbard. In total, "18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials" as they discussed, coordinated, and monitored strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen-- and presumably some other things.
We [Atlantic staffers] discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds.
I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
Nonetheless, as Jeffrey fretted over his strange-getting-stranger position in a Signal chat group among, allegedly, the highest officials in US public office, these individuals were discussing what to do about the Houthi problem. Jeffrey identifies JD Vance's chat avatar as a cautious, moderating voice on the 14th of March:
The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
Jeffrey Goldberg, in addition to relaying the above and other interactions that went on in the chat he was in, also posted screenshots as receipts-- just in case you thought he was crazy.
In Jeffrey Goldberg's words: "I was still concerned that this could be a disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight were impressive."
According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed.
After the chat, bombs get dropped, Jeffrey confirms the timeline matches what he saw planned, and the chat goes wild.
Some things to talk about as mentioned in the article:
-
Journalisms. Jeffrey surely had a responsibility to leave this group chat when he figured this was a real thing really happening and he wasn't supposed to be there. As in, legally he shouldn't be privy to classified stuff. On the other hand, if true, this is what journalists are for. If Jeffrey had simply left the chat and reported it as such there's no story. I'm not sure how much I buy the "I'm just a lowly journalist who couldn't believe his eyes if this is real or not" shtick, but also can't really fault the guy for staying in the chat. After all, he was invited.
-
Security and legal concerns. If the Trump admin is conducting official business on an open-source platform that is supposed to scrub its history this seems probably illegal. It is possible these messages are documented some other way, but it's possible they are not. Just as it is possible Signal is a totally secure, encrypted messaging program, but it's possible it is not.
-
Goldberg highlights the dialogue that focuses on concerns of US-Euro relations. Wish I could read the full discussions. It seems fine to give Europe a carrot of engaging Houthis -- helping to secure their trade in the Suez -- in addition to the stick as they move to rearm. I don't think the American public has much love for Houthi rebels, though escalating involvement is a concern. I think this supports the idea that this administration is closely wedded to the news cycle rather than strategy or vision. Consideration of what this does for Europe should be second to deterring disruption to global trade-- which should have been priority from the beginning. We are missing lots of context.
-
What if Elon Musk was gas lighting and trolling journalists with the power and resources of the United States Government behind him?
The level of ineptitude in OPSEC failure for this article to be real is staggering. It blows my mind. Which, as Jeffrey also suspected, makes one wonder if it wasn't intentional. Maybe Jeffrey was invited to one chat to be leveraged for something else, then accidentally invited to the Houthi PC chat. He might have been supposed to be in all those chats to leak it all. Comparisons to Crooked Hillary and her e-mail server abound.
To end, VP Vance reportedly typing “a prayer for victory” after a course of action was decided upon. Followed by two of our nation's best adding "prayer emoji" reactions. All of it is a bit on the nose for Clown World Simulation theory. Exciting times!
Jesse James was a living folk hero in his time. Fallen, impoverished rebels with the resentment of defeat wanted to believe in his legend. Folks out on the frontier had their own reasons to entertain themselves with his story. Banks and railroads, like cops and insurance companies, generate societal grievances that make them easy to hate. Even at the end of his life and career, when more people were tired of his story and reputation, people still wanted to believe. Jesse was famously betrayed and murdered by a compatriot who then received a pardon for shooting him in the back. Ford himself was murdered for the act some years later.
There's a good movie about Jesse's later days that film nerds will rave about in film nerd ways. It's a pretty good slice of history in addition to the cinema perverts interest. Stiles argues in this book that Jesse provided an avatar to help make sense of their reality. He was not really Robin Hood, but he was a good story. In the aftershocks of the real war Jesse became a #resistance icon in the culture war. The real war ended, but the culture war kept on.
The rapidly changing, modernizing nation kept on rapidly changing and modernizing. Mangione is no Jesse James. He is not cool enough or famous enough or a talented enough criminal. Mangione is not interested in reconciliation, no. Disgruntled bushwhacker outlaws weren't interested nor the yellow journalists crafting the narrative.
We can find a hundred exceptions that support why we are exceptional people in exceptional circumstances. We can also find plenty to demonstrate how we are not so different. Radicals and anarchists celebrating political murder is not new. Journalists making folk heroes out of criminals is not so new. Wielding the Constitution as a weapon is not new, though the acceptance of disregarding it totally is new-ish. Like the gossips and rebels of the late 19th century -- partaking in true crime entertainment, folk hero memes, and #resistance efforts -- we live in a rapidly changing, modernizing world.
The things you list, such as support of political murders are useful for forecasting, but I don't share the weight you give them. Maybe I'm blind or I am not equipped to make such connections. I will note that Ozy wrote that post in 2018. Here we are 7 years later. You say stuff is clearly more bitter and immoderate. Maybe. This post and that post may have fit in somewhere as early as 2012. The stronger case for doomerism lies in the fundamentals you mentioned. The degradation of a national identity and loss of a shared cultural values. Which, near as I can tell, is rolled into your perspective, but the weight put on something like Mangione becoming a fun Eat the Rich rallying cry is not nearly as important an indicator for me.
The fact no one in a position to address these concerns is interested or capable of addressing these concerns is itself concerning. America can probably trudge along with half the country hating the other half for a good while longer. Perhaps with enough additional ties it can do so in perpetuity. "American" may not be enough, but it staves off the worst. If we are headed to the reality where kids from Nebraska don't want to be "American" anymore we are doomed, but we are not there yet.
Generational changes are a thing. Our children may find our problems silly, esoteric, or boring. If we manage to not throw it all away. If you consider the project failed rather than failing, fair enough. We can't go back to the 90's, or the 1890's for that matter, and I don't expect anything like a national healing anytime soon. But, we will face possibilities of going somewhere other than national divorce. I don't know how or what possibilities we may face, but a national divorce sounds fundamentally difficult enough -- and costly enough -- that avoiding it should garner widespread support.
wemptronics
6d ago
Would someone from DOGE or the administration be able to articulate why any of these things are bad beyond "they're woke"?
Yes, probably. I hope so at least.
Can they explain why advancing "religious freedoms in countries facing violence and fragility" is against the interests of the U.S. government by citing to specific examples of work that USIP was engaged in on this front or arguing that that USIP was not actually engaged in this work?
Presumably they think that they are either doing a bad job of it or not actually doing this job-- or, they consider this redundant because of other government organs.
but did they analyze the actual work of USIP to see if any of it it aligns with any of the goals of the Trump administration?
I doubt they looked at their work very carefully, no. We can't know. It might be a case where there is not much tangible evidence of their work.
Did anyone from DOGE bother to talk to anyone from USIP about any of the work they actually do to assess whether some projects are worthwhile?
No idea.
I'm not sure how USIP can reasonably be described as a "private" organization given:
The Board shall consist of fifteen voting members as follows: (1) The Secretary of State (or if the Secretary so designates, another officer of the Department of State who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate). (2) The Secretary of Defense (or if the Secretary so designates, another officer of the Department of Defense who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate). (3) The president of the National Defense University (or if the president so designates, the vice president of the National Defense University).
Further, in its own 2023 Congressional Budget Justification they request:
The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is requesting $54,000,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, equivalent to the enacted FY 2022 level, to promote peace in accordance with its congressional mandate to help prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflict abroad. Throughout its nearly forty years as a public institute, USIP has played a significant role in national security, working in partnership with U.S. departments and agencies to help prevent and resolve conflicts in countries where U.S. strategic interests are at stake.
USIP presents itself as something a little more than think tank, but less than full blown diplomatic corps. Funded by Congress, so non-profit yes. Private? I don't think so. It's an NGO, minus the non- requirement. In the Justification PDF I can find a few reasons why it'd be targeted.
"Recognizing that religious freedom and coexistence are fundamental to stability and peace in all countries, USIP is providing specialized guidance to the State Department and USAID to help strengthen engagement with religious communities and advance religious freedoms in countries facing violence and fragility"
"Committed to building and mentoring a new generation of peace activists, USIP is funding and guiding community level peacebuilding projects led by youth in more than a dozen countries, including in Colombia, Venezuela, Tunisia, Libya, the Israel-Palestinian Territories, Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan."
"Awards: USIP has established the annual Women Building Peace Award to celebrate the role that women play in all aspects of peacebuilding and is renewing the Spark M. Matsunaga Medal of Peace, which has been bestowed on Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter."
Standard fare. I don't see anything particularly woke in their "classroom materials" though this is unlikely to be a primary function which is supported by the (dated) learning modules.
They do have their 2025 Justification out which is about the same as the 2023 one. 2023 was just the first result. In 2025 they say:
Dialogue: USIP experts currently facilitate more than 100 conflict-related dialogues and informal channels across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Specialized dialogues, the composition of which varies depending on conflict dynamics, are underway in 20 strategically important countries and regions including Cameroon, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Armenia, Mindanao, Papua New Guinea, and Ukraine. “Structured dialogues,” which USIP pioneered a decade ago and are used to reduce violence and build confidence between citizens and security officials, are underway in 14 countries
USIP appears to be general blobbery. Maybe it is CIA spooky, but who can say? Small amount of funding at 55 million/yr to create reports and contribute something to US diplomacy and propaganda efforts. The claim that they maintain active dialogues and "informal" channels in 100 different conflicts sounds substantial. It is a justification after all. Might provide comfortable sinecures for blob affiliates to do think tanky legwork or diplomacy for Congressmen. They might do so in a way that is more convenient, more discrete, or more something than dealing with the State Department. Another set of eyes and ears to the ground with another set of mouths to spread the good word.
Any or all of the above would be on brand for targeting by this administration. Consolidate all the various diplomatic blobbery under the State Department, steamroll resistance, and probably destroy quite a bit on the way.
wemptronics
12d ago
It's definitely still a thing, but district dependent. My high school had a fully equipped shop that was converted into a storage room years before my family went through. Not sure whether that was a district call, funding thing, liability or what. I would guess at some point a decision had to be made whether to fund the shop class, art, or other extracurriculars and my high school decided to dump the former.
I was talking about this with my father. He grew up in a rural area. He had both a woodworking shop class and a metalworking shop class at his high school and took both. That must have been in the 60's. A shame, really.
wemptronics
22d ago
What's the deal with the social media features of this site? WIP or defunct feature?
I noticed profile pics/avatars a long time ago, but only recently noticed the following/follower features on the user profile page. I "followed" some people to see what would happen. I expected a deluge of orange bell icons which would have me revert, but nothing happened. Am I blind and this is an old, half baked feature I missed (very possible) or is this an ongoing development for the forum to finally unseat Myspace as king of social media (very possible)?
wemptronics
22d ago
Grey Man Chic.
wemptronics
23d ago
Thanks, register as Seen. Felt like they should be some push-back in this direction somewhere.
I can't take a major gander today but will come back. Curious how they control for all the gunk and if they look internationally at all. Estonia was a yuge fentanyl place for a time, but they went at the issue hard as I recall -- law enforcement wise -- and its OD rates got better. Canada, like the US, is bad and I assume has similar maximal harm reduction approaches.
In the West, black tar heroin is more commonly used. In the Midwest, powder heroin. Black tar heroin doesn't mix easily with fentanyl which removes one avenue by which drug users could engage in riskier behavior in response to Narcan access.
This is interesting and makes sense.
Their main policy recommendation is to expand drug treatment programs and find ways to ensure people get help post-overdose. Your paddy-wagon idea might have legs.
This is what people always say though, hehe. I commiserate with the people tired of hearing it as things progressively get worse. Sounds rather uncontroversial to say that involuntary commitment will save some number of souls. This doesn't have to be attached to naloxone prohibition.
I've mentioned before that Mexico allegedly limits naloxone supply. By "limits" I mean it doesn't allow US advocacy groups to mule across a bunch of drugs to clinics at will. AMLO also said a few things that was skeptical of harm reduction and Narcan's role in the opioid crisis. Not exactly prohibition, but legacy scheduling laws that haven't changed looks like something less than harm reduction.
Humanity, decency, even empathy requires that we stop giving addicts Narcan.
Narcan is the cheaper, easier solution to overdose treatment. A 20 year old EMT can administer it. Your little sister can administer it. Take Narcan out of the equation and EMS will still respond to overdose calls. They'll pick up junkies, apply whatever alternative medical attention they are able, then go and stick them in the ER.
Napkin math. Around 80,000 opiate overdose deaths in the US as of late. Pick one of the guesstimates, say the NSDUH surveys, on number of opiate users and decide to 2 million opiate addicts is fair enough. At 82,000 deaths a year we get an annual mortality rate of ~4%. To me, this suggests addicts are actually pretty good at not dying from drugs given the drugs are as potent, addictive, and dangerous as ever. If we want to be extra generous with the numbers (decidedly not generous to addicts) then what do you think happens when Narcan is removed as a treatment? My guess would be the annual mortality rate of addicts rises by 2 percentage points for a time. Possibly less. What do we solve with such policy?
You suggest we stop treating overdoses with the best, relatively cheap treatments we have available. Enabling drug use is bad so we should remove tools that enable drug use. Medicine is one such tool, because it enables an addict to live longer to do more drugs. You do not suggest we don't provide medical treatment at all. If we wave the magic wand and blink Narcan out of existence we still the same stressors in the system. EMS arrives, does all the not-Narcan treatments, keeps someone alive if they can, and drives them to the ER. Some greater number of addicts are dead on arrival, but the rest receive the same or possibly greater treatment.
As I've gotten older I find myself more sympathetic to moral hazards. If the cost to widely available, easy to use treatments such as Narcan nasal spray is a 60% increase in opiate deaths (50k in 2015, now 82k) then, yeah you may have a point. The obvious incentives fire up my neurons, too. That said, in writing this post I did not find a study or review that gives Narcan substantial responsibility for the rise opiate use (now plateauing) and deaths. Even if we remain skeptical of harm reduction as an industry, lobbying group, and advocacy movement-- of the motivations of researchers in the field -- Narcan is so widely used there ought to be some. It's an old drug that was subject to innovation in response to increasing opiate use.
Wand waving Narcan does not look like compassion or tough love to me. Withholding the best medicine available doesn't sound decent to me. Tough love is giving someone Narcan, then immediately throwing them in the back of a paddy wagon to some farm in California to get clean and clear wildfire brush as punishment. Zero tolerance prison might work as well, but the cost of addicts taking up space in prison is fairly high. Withholding emergency medical treatment is a half-measure against a population that is filled with friends and family. Psycho Joe on the corner who demands medical attention twice a month is but a slice of the drug addict pie.
wemptronics
1mo ago
Hey I'm only making sure I'm not missing a hidden gem of history buried by the International Jewry.
If people want to consider the July 1940 Reichstag address a peace overture -- I assume July 40 address is the source of the idea since France is a chip -- then it's an atypical one. To me it reads as another handwave that the UK wasn't a priority, the UK could (and should) accept German conquest, accept the new status quo, and bow out. It's a speech of victory, of conquest, of military and diplomatic success.
German-Russian relations have been established for good. The reason for this was that England and France, with the support of certain smaller states, incessantly attributed to Germany ambitions to conquer terrain which lay completely outside the sphere of German interests. At one time, Germany was eyeing the occupation of the Ukraine; then again it sought to invade Finland; at another time it was claimed that Romania was threatened; then finally even Turkey was endangered. Given these circumstances, I held it to be proper to undertake, above all, with Russia, a sober delineation of interests, to once and for all clarify what Germany believes it must regard as its sphere of interest in securing its future, and what in turn Russia holds to be vital to its existence.
Based on this clear delineation of mutual spheres of interest, the Russo- German relationship was revised. It is childish to hope that in the course of this revision tensions might arise anew between Germany and Russia...
These are not the words of a statesman that wants to set aside conflict and recruit the might of the British Empire. It's assurances to Stalin that Soviets have nothing to worry about. Then more prodding Churchill to surrender.
I am fully aware that with our response, which one day will come, will also come the nameless suffering and misfortune of many men. Naturally, this does not apply to Mr. Churchill himself since by then he will surely be secure in Canada, where the money and the children of the most distinguished of war profiteers have already been brought. But there will be great tragedy for millions of other men.
And Mr. Churchill should make an exception and place trust in me when as a prophet I now proclaim: A great world empire will be destroyed. A world empire which I never had the ambition to destroy or as much as harm. Alas, I am fully aware that the continuation of this war will end only in the complete shattering of one of the two warring parties. Mr. Churchill may believe this to be Germany. I know it to be England. In this hour I feel compelled, standing before my conscience, to direct yet another appeal to reason in England. I believe I can do this as I am not asking for something as the vanquished, but rather, as the victor, I am speaking in the name of reason. I see no compelling reason which could force the continuation of this war.
The UK being at war with Germany was bad for Germany. Everyone knew this. Hitler knew it when he wrote Mein Kampf in the 1920's. Generals knew it was bad in 1939, they still knew it was bad after victories in 1940, and it only became worse each year the fact remained true. The haunting face of the fact drove a legendary cosmic epiphany right into Rudolf Hess's head. Seems like the time for counterfactual fantasy diplomacy would be much earlier than Summer of 1940.
wemptronics
1mo ago
offering to pull out of France for peace with Britain
What are you referencing?
wemptronics
1mo ago
Pretty sure he is referencing this article. The Angle:
- Donors believe money was not well spent in 2024
- Donors are reevaluating the party and its priorities ("donate to people, not party")
- Advocacy orgs are cited as making cuts and layoffs. The Times believes these would be spearheading resistance to Trump otherwise.
- Major donors fear retribution from the Trump administration.
The last point is highlighted throughout.
I can't imagine most Indians, Africans or Chinese people would know what the hell a furry is, and there's no seething undercurrent of furry-desire that gets liberated when they move to the West. Even within the West, Americans probably the highest furry-per-capita.
If you squint really hard, then you can connect some dots. Connecting to the spirit of animals is common across oceans and time. Among all sorts of different traditions, shamanism, and animists. Many pantheons contain anthropomorphic gods. The Japanese have kitsune. Greco-Roman, Norse, and Indian cultures all contain some amount of shapeshifting either in myths or the gods themselves. If the Chinese don't have anything I'd be surprised.
Man has sought meaning through his connection with animals or, at least, used his understanding of his relation to animals to express feeling, tell stories, and develop culture. Plus a million other things unrelated to a universal experience of desire-- in this case a desire to embody the soul of a super sexy fox.
I am also partial to the idea that this is autism furry apologia. I love its flavor, though.
You said no prospect, not me. It is true the US could have considered imposing costs on Israel in response to her and Europe's arms being twisted by America's (mutual) adversaries. I think this would likely encourage further arm twisting and also doesn't seem quite as simple as you say. You sound very certain that America could have easily ended Israel's incursion into Gaza and lifted Israel's decades long naval blockade from Gaza (was also a demand I'm not sure if they dropped that one) and avoided [this] cost. Perhaps American limitations do not end in the Red Sea with the Houthis. The US might be unprepared or unwilling to bomb Israel hard enough to appease requests of a ceasefire. Maybe sanctions of arm sales aren't heavy enough to stop a response in October, November, or December of 2023.
The Houthi's grand humanitarian mission started on the 19th of October, 2023. It has involved hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones being fired at Israel. They have attacked some 100 different merchant vessels. I don't know how many times they've fired at American warships, but probably a few.
Coordination requires understanding. "Don't do a piracy to twist my arm" is a pretty good understanding. "Don't invade other countries" is also an understanding, but at least when Israel invades other countries these days it is mostly its neighbors and doesn't tax Italian and Egyptian shipping. It's unfortunate Houthis are only in a position to play one card, are beholden to the interests of larger nations, etc. We all face limitations.
I'm not really interested in litigating Israeli's war justifications, US obligations to Israel or vice versa, or to which great honor we can bestow on Houthis or Israel. Or America for that matter. It's been done a million times. You can consider any or each as evil and duplicitous as you wish. You'll read smarter people than I. I am but a simple, sensible ""global order"" (double scare quotes, double scary--- if I go triple you're donezo) enjoyer.
I don't think you should trust any nation or, at least, take any nation's stated justifications at face value. Least of all Iran, Israel, or Islamic fundamentalists. It'd be nice if we could trust each other not to shoot at merchant shipping and agree to punish people that defect from this agreement. That's all, really.
More options
Context Copy link