R
Imagine getting a cast like James Caan, Michael Caine, Sean Connery, Gene Hackman, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Redford, and Maximillian Schell all in one film.
Hard to think of an equivalent.
True.
One of my favourite scenes in the movie:
Link to videoLike Jon, am glad she’s resigning her Directorship. She has much harder row to hoe ahead of her in the immediate future. Family should always come first, she made the right choice.
The concept is fine. I think it's fair to say that the implementation has been rather eccentric.
Indeed. Despite all media appearances promoting Teddy Roosevelt in the starring role, it would seem that in reality George B. McClellan is both Producer and Director of the show.
Probably better than depleting the strategic petroleum reserve.
We plenty more where that came from.
The SR is straw man joke.
If true, I wonder who he will blame? The Kurds? Nato? Zelenskyi? Obama?
Am I missing someone?
Maybe they have others whispering about possible concessions just enough to string him along.
Via the good offices of the Kremlin and the FSB, the Iranians are passing negotiation points and concessions to Steve “Dim Philby” Witkoff during his nightly sleeps. Then the next day, Dim then passes them to Trump during breakfast or work hours or if it’s a weekend, at the golf course.
We will only escape this evil via our military leaders via military coup on the white house.. They are the only ones with the ability, and if they want to do it right, they also need to march into the Supreme Court and arrest 5 justices on the spot. Roberts, thomas, alito, gorsuch and kavanaugh.
Apparently, now living so close to Corsica is having an effect on you. I thought I was the only one anticipating the USA’s 18 Brumaire. Am sure some will welcome it…at least, at first. Doubt though if you will.
The article does sound kind of shrill, but I do agree with the one paragraph on Iran.
Iran is unlikely to give in. It can withstand the economic pressure of a blockade better than Trump can withstand the political pressure that comes with rising gas prices (now nearly $4.50 a gallon, on average), soon followed by rising food prices.
President Trump lost any chance of an Iranian internal overthrow with his comments about annihilating a civilization. Nothing will draw country more to itself, regardless of how bad the current leadership is, than an outside force threatening even worse behaviour.
Precisely.
This CBC radio call in from Friday last week gives you an idea of the current state of secessionist sentiment here in Alberta:
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-1-alberta-at-noon/clip/16212280-exploring-alberta-political-polling https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-1-alberta-at-noon/clip/16212280-exploring-alberta-political-polling
In the US, the general population also does not support regime change as the ultimate goal, regardless of who sits in the White House or which party controls Congress.
I suspect that is true also for most EU and NATO countries.
Don’t get me wrong, the ultimate goal is to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons and wage war abroad through proxies. Regime change is fundamental to achieving both those objectives. If the general population of Western democracies can’t wrap their head around that, their respective governments aren’t doing their job effectively.
Agree. Unless there is regime change in Iran, I do not see any of the stated objectives being realized in the long term. As I have already stated back in March, the Israelis understand that regime change is fundamental to achieving any of the short term military and long term political objectives. Likewise, I would think, in the US but that realisation is subordinated to other factors related to personalities and limited competencies at the very top of its civilian chain of command.
In principle, I support the stated objective to put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and reduce its overall military threat to the region. What I don’t support is how it is being presented and executed.
Interesting analysis. Another compelling argument pointing out the futility of attempting to negotiate with religious fanatics.
To me, this is a situation that the writers of the US constitution could never ever ever imagined. So for those who say that the constitution needs to be interpreted as the writers wanted makes no sense..
Good point and there are many, I’m sure who feel the same about 2nd Amendment “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. There is no way that the framers could have envisioned readily available breechloading firearms with semi-automatic and automatic actions firing centre fire smokeless powder rounds at high velocities.