Coombs thought the same but apparently it's real.

These people need their heads examined.

    Pepe LeFrits no surprises that there are so many lies thrown out. Yet it doesn't seem to filter to anyone who idolises this idiot. Meanwhile Musk showing what a coward he is after talking so much rubbish online now he isn't actually firing anybody and it's all recommendation. This whole thing is a total shit show. Does anyone still believe this is being done properly.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/elon-musk-republicans-federal-workers-firings

      Should be flagged for removal because it dropped an atomic bomb, but that's not the debate I guess.

      Fash all riled up about DEE: diversity, equity and explosion.

      JazzG can't decide what's worse between this and Gavin newsom yucking it up with Charlie Kirk on a podcast. but at the end of the day, people vote governments out rather than vote governments in. if the GOP screw up enough, and there's still functional elections, the milquetoast dems will find their way back.

        Gurgen that its the Atlantic is the first red flag. Go ahead, Gurgs. Defeat the Russians.

        If they aren't going to be defeated, whether they can be is academic.

          I'd challenge anyone, anyone at all to read Elliot Cohen's curriculum vitae and then rely on his optimistic judgements about the prospects of war.

          I wouldn't risk my wallet, let alone my life, in a war based on Cohen's recommendations.

            Burnwinter was about to say I don't know the other guy but Eliot Cohen cosigning your position should give you pause. Would go a step further and say I'd bet my wallet and life on the opposite of anything this guy's ever said.

            But maybe @Gurgen thinks the Iraq War was "just and moral" or that the US should invade Iran next as this guy proposed.

                jones did they say Iraq war was just and moral? Is he referring to the false motivation for the war or the estimated half a million dead?

                    Gurgen Some reading for you folks who believe the almighty Russian empire cannot be defeated and hence must be given land every time it invades another country.

                    Interesting.

                      Cohen co-founded PNAC (those who know wish they didn't). He's a belligerent loony who's been in harness pulling on the wagon of post-9/11 "manifest destiny" since it started rolling. And a close fellow traveller of the aforementioned Victoria Nuland, for what it's worth.

                      Just another cadre in this gang of extreme neoconservative imperialist hawks, all of whom hate Trump intensely for threatening their racket without that making them in any way human. And all these nutcases have advocated for every misbegotten military adventure of the United States since Gulf I.

                      Claudius he was one of the biggest proponents before and after the war so both, if it was up to him American soldiers would be in virtually every Arab country there is.

                      Founder of PNAC, one of the biggest warmongerers on earth and overall the biggest piece of shit imaginable.

                        The enemy of my enemy is just some guy's enemy.

                        jones Deveselu has 3 RIM-161 systems, you cannot use it to attack man, you could modify in theory but it would take time, it would be a hack basically and, there are only 3 of them, and even if modified it is not effective at all used in attack. Nobody was attacking russia with them lol, it's also used for ships and maybe if modified for planes. So for defending.

                        people are just being paranoid when they're concerned about ballistic missile defences at every border to a nuclear superpower?

                        this is an amazing sentence when talking about Russia being the one scared, my fucking god man.
                        Yea, people will get ballistic missile defences if you are neighboring russia lol. as if you do not, you die, see Cecenia twice, Ucraina twice, Georgia three times, Transnistria, Dagestan, Finland, Poland in 53, Baltic states in 56, HUngary in 56, Albania in 61, Czechoslovakia in 68, the Sino-Soviet conflict in 69, Abkhazia in 93, Tajikistan in 97.
                        Nice list, and I am ignoring Mali where they are fighting for 4 years now, and Burkina Faso where Russia is fighting for one year. And Siria where they stayed for 14 years? And Afganistan for over 10 years.

                        God damn fucking NATO forcing countries next to russia to get arms, for no reason what so ever.

                        Now a days, countries are independent and sovereign, and they can do what they want. Nobody is forcing anyone to join NATO or UE or BRICS and whatever else there is.

                            No man what are you saying? Sovereign countries? It’s Russia who decides which organisations neighbouring countries get to join. We have to let them invade if that advice is not followed, they’re too powerful and mighty and have never lost a war. And after that invasion we have to give them lots of land! Rewarding war is the only way to peace after all. It’s a tried and tested recipe that’s worked really well throughout history.

                            What course of action and outcome are you arguing for?

                            To me the most hopeful and least destructive outcome would be a diplomatically managed de-escalation (with all the ongoing dangers and risks that entails, and an effective frozen conflict) and a negotiated peace with territorial concessions to Putin, which would probably include Crimea and the Donbas. I don't think I've said anything different for a long time.

                            Here is how that Payson and Cohen piece ends:

                            Ukraine is not on the verge of collapse, and it is Russia, not Ukraine, that is losing the attritional war, which makes the Trump administration’s decisions particularly shortsighted and tragic. Ukraine has plenty of cards, even if Trump and Vance cannot see them. If America’s leaders could only bring themselves to put pressure on Russia comparable to what they put on Ukraine, they could help Ukraine achieve something much more like a win.

                            I get that my views mean I'm a Russian mouthpiece or a Chamberlain-esque surrender monkey or whatever. But in the camp that wants this war to keep going I don't get what the criteria are for supporting a negotiated peace.

                            What does "something much more like a win" actually mean?

                              HomeSteak "it's used for defending" wasn't a viable excuse during the cold war when even the US agreed to sign the ABM treaty prohibiting the development of more ABMs like the RIM-161. "You cannot use it to attack man" those missile shields were in all likelihood the weapon that brought humanity the closest to extinction ffs.

                              "Syria for 14 years, Burkina Faso or Mali" you're just throwing out anything at this point. If you really believe countries are independent and sovereign and can do what they want I don't think there's much common ground to find, we'll have to agree to disagree mate.