Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About babsa

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
    Nothing fits
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA


  • Biography
    Shouldn't this part be called auto-biography?
  • Location
    San Diego
  • Occupation
    Electronic Technician/mothafuckin boss
  • Interests
    get money get paid
  • Gender
  1. The most damning evidence of Trump's incompetence is how much he failed at destroying Clinton on the debate stage. His ineptitude was probably the single most frustrating part of this election cycle.
  2. • At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief." • On Meet the Press on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal — one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years." Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to antiwar audiences and " about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security. The Plouffe statement, however, is troubling. Plouffe said the 16-month time frame was a "rock-solid commitment." But it's the only statement we found that supports the idea of withdrawal with no allowances made for circumstances on the ground, and it appears to be contradicted by the candidate himself. After the McCain campaign attacked Obama as a flip-flopper, the candidate responded with another news conference the same day. "I intend to end this war," Obama said. "My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission. And that is to end this war. Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-sticks-to-his-iraq-plan/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21. But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/02/us-iraq-generals-seek-to-reverse-obama-withdrawal-decision/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stop acting like Obama was just along for the ride. There's no excuse for your ignorance, and especially no excuse for your condescending attitude considering how incorrect you are.
  3. As a Hillary Clinton supporter, the primaries were rigged.
  4. I learn something new from you all the time. Today I learned that the withdrawal from Iraq happened under the Bush administration. While signed by Bush, it was not his sole decision to make and it happened under the Obama administration. So, I don't see how Bush signing that into effect removes any onus upon the Obama administration...
  5. The worst part of watching these debates is the fact that Trump is totally squandering what should be a slam dunk session. I watched 30 minutes of it, I'm done.
  6. Russia is in conflict with U.S. interests, hence 'Russiaphobia'.
  7. If you want to remove the default profile pick, you can do that with the Stylish add on and the code below. Let me know if you want help setting that up.


    img[src='https://intjforum.com/uploads/set_resources_2/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_default_photo.png'] {
        display: none;  

  8. I'm not the one that stated that as the reason. I believe you meant to quote Urshulgi.
  9. Suez is owned by Egypt, but I agree that any conflict in the area would complicate one of the most important trade routes in the world. However, i still believe that this has more to do with standing with our strategic allies that we are currently utilizing for our own endeavors. Yes, in a trade deal signed by HRC as SOS, we supplied SA (and many other countries) the fighter jets it is likely using to bomb Yemen. At what point is intervention necessary? I'm not sure, but i think that the bar for what is permissible is set extremely low.
  10. Strategic significance? I don't think we have to have military bases there or anything to be vested in the outcome. I think that it's hard to say exactly what is the motivating factor behind supporting this operation. I do know that we are essentially allied with all nine of the countries that are a part of this coalition, and we have military bases and/or utilize their ports.
  11. I am kind of surprised there aren't any threads covering this. Maybe I am place too much importance or interest in this current event due to my career, but I honestly thought this is extremely significant regardless of what you are affiliated with. Yemeni rebel forces fired two or more coastal defense cruise missiles at the U.S. Destroyer, USS Mason, without provocation, but the ship utilized several defensive measures and was not hit by either. A few days later it was fired on again, but was not hit. Another destroyer in the area launched missiles destroying three radar sites controlled by this rebel group, and the USS Mason was targeted again with at one or more missiles yesterday. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/uss-mason-fired-again-coast-yemen-officials-n666971 My limited understanding of the situation: there's a proxy war going on in Yemen. Rebel forces are being funded by Iran and the Yemen Government has enlisted the aid of other nations in combating these forces. Not only has the U.S. supplied a significant number of these fighter jets being utilized in Operation Decisive Storm, but has provided logistic, intel, and Search-And-Rescue support. I think it was only a matter of time until Yemen rebel forces fired on our ships given the amount of support we have provided for their opponents. This is yet another conflict that the U.S. has found its way into, and will likely be increasingly vested in the outcome of Yemen, much like it has for Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and many other countries. Geo-political, proxy wars is where it's at, no one wants to commit to a full on world war because it's bad for the global economy. It's better we wage battles on the turf of poor countries and let them stay poor and kill their people to further our own interests. So, what do you think of this current conflict in Yemen? More broadly, at what point do you believe U.S. intervention is necessary?
  12. Clearly.

  13. How is it a misrepresentation? The question posed in the title was a broad question that lead into the original post. Yeah, you are being intentionally obtuse here. Are you literally insane? Serious question, because that sounds like a diatribe I'd hear from one of the destitute homeless of my city.
  14. You read a thread title. Do you realize that thread titles are limited in characters?
  15. I like 'they'. I like to refer to it as the 'ominous they'. I think that our language could use a few more obscure words with multiple meanings, and I really enjoy that our words can be interpreted in so many different ways. It's extremely complicated, but I enjoy the nuance.