Equally ineffective advice.
How about "Don't eat your turtles before they hatch"? Is that good advice?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Equally ineffective advice.
Even if it's a female CEO wanting you to stay late?
How about "Don't eat your turtles before they hatch"? Is that good advice?
I've long thought of the 2 parties this way....Americans have funny ideas about what constitutes significant political difference. I guess that's what happens when you live in a state with 2 parties and one popular ideology.
I did say "tend" for a reason... and note well, the "war time leader" bump only lasts while the actual war is on. Once the war is over, the voting public has no problem dropping the war time leader like a hot rock. Churchill is an excellent example.Sometimes this is true. On the other hand, some could argue that Wilson would not have won in 1916 if the country was at war, as he waited until after the election to declare war. But his influence clearly waned towards the end of the war, as did popular support for his idea of the US joining the League of Nations.
On the other hand, Truman refused to run for another term in 1952, and LBJ quit the race in 1968 - even though both were wartime leaders at the time.
It's offensive to turtles.How about "Don't eat your turtles before they hatch"? Is that good advice?
A thousand troops isn't sufficient for invasion. When you see numbers like this, then start bleating about it:US to send 1,000 additional troops to the Middle East as tensions escalate with Iran US to send 1,000 additional troops to the Middle East as tensions escalate with Iran
No way that's a first step, huh?
If that were the case, I'd be giving myself bad advice every time I eat hard-boiled eggs.
I did say "tend" for a reason... and note well, the "war time leader" bump only lasts while the actual war is on. Once the war is over, the voting public has no problem dropping the war time leader like a hot rock. Churchill is an excellent example.
I also doubt (hope?) that Trump wouldn't necessarily receive such a bump, hopefully the American voting public is war weary enough not to fall for it, but even if the American public flatly declare that they won't support Trump in a new war, I doubt very much that Trump will listen if he's gotten it into his head that it's a good idea.
I couldn't disagree more!A thousand troops isn't sufficient for invasion. When you see numbers like this, then start bleating about it:
It's offensive to turtles.
Anti-turtlism!
Go look up "escalation" before you presume to lecture me. Note I said "First step" in great big letters at the bottom of the OP? No one was suggesting a thousand troops, by themselves, is a war fighting group. By the time there's a couple hundred thou in theatre, it will have too much momentum to stop. Start demanding de-escalation now, before things get to invasion level troop numbers.A thousand troops isn't sufficient for invasion. When you see numbers like this, then start bleating about it:
2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia
The U.S.-led coalition sent 177,194 troops into Iraq during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 1 May 2003. About 130,000 arrived from the U.S. alone, with about 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers, and 194 Polish soldiers. 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops assembled in Kuwait by 18 February.
A million times this.I couldn't disagree more!
By the time you see numbers like that it's too late.
Now is the time to get educated and ask hard questions.
Tom
Adding to your post....Go look up "escalation" before you presume to lecture me. Note I said "First step" in great big letters at the bottom of the OP? No one was suggesting a thousand troops, by themselves, is a war fighting group. By the time there's a couple hundred thou in theatre, it will have too much momentum to stop. Start demanding de-escalation now, before things get to invasion level troop numbers.
Yes. Its not all the same pile of manure many would have us believe.Any of the above. Which US news outlet provides its viewers with a consistent, honest look at the Iranian point of view? What US-based film studio does this?
Does the mainstream media ever give the unfiltered, uncensored "other side of the story"? If so, when and where?
Around 20 years ago I realized how little I knew about Muslims and the Muslim world.Any of the above. Which US news outlet provides its viewers with a consistent, honest look at the Iranian point of view? What US-based film studio does this?
Does the mainstream media ever give the unfiltered, uncensored "other side of the story"? If so, when and where?
I personally think it could be the Saudis. The Saudis plant it on Iran, and then get the US to take out Saudi Arabia's decades-long rival for supremacy in the region.There's still a lot of unanswered questions about this. Why would they attack those specific tankers? If it's a false flag, then whose false flag might it be? Could it be Trump's? Putin's? Perhaps even China or North Korea? Or none of the above.
Yes. Its not all the same pile of manure many would have us believe.
Any stories in particular you'd like to or would be at liberty to share?Around 20 years ago I realized how little I knew about Muslims and the Muslim world.
To make a long story short, I started visiting a mosque in Bloomington Indiana. Once the people there came to realize that I was neither a potential convert nor an enemy, I just wanted to learn, I was included in some pretty frank discussions about the situation in the Middle East. I learned things about both them and my own country that were gut wrenching.
Things I have never, to this day, heard competently discussed in western media.
Like the Iranian view of the Iran/USA history and relationships. They have a whole different, and better informed, version of events.
Tom
Anything is possible of course.I personally think it could be the Saudis. The Saudis plant it on Iran, and then get the US to take out Saudi Arabia's decades-long rival for supremacy in the region.