Jingoism.

Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive and proactive foreign policy, such as a country's advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests.[1] Colloquially, jingoism is excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism (cf. chauvinism and ultranationalism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

Can anyone think of an actual example?

Coupled with the standing word of the day Jimboism- where one feels they are elite and deserve more votes that the people the "elite" judges are "less than" themselves- while pretending to be an "everyman" often seen with hypocrisy

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Jingoism.

Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive and proactive foreign policy, such as a country's advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests.[1] Colloquially, jingoism is excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism (cf. chauvinism and ultranationalism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

Can anyone think of an actual example?

Jeff your addictive leg humping is embarrassing for you.

Jingoism is bad? All here seem to agree our international namby pamby babysitting isn't working. Steve and some others want us to stop the hand outs to Israel. Ann and some others want to stop the hand outs to Ukraine. The babysitting in Afghanistan was disastrous for us as was our missionary work in Iraq. Somalia! that "save the children" effort was a bummer. Sudan?

I'd like to get a little jingoistic on Mexico, Venezuela and Haiti before lunch tomorrow.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Why isn't my United States making the rest of the world aware they shouldn't fuck with us?

We're long overdue to pursue peace with overwhelming strength and destruction.

We went running over to Gaza and built a pier to deliver aid to Hamas that didn't work. Is America better now because?

The United States shouldn't have built Hamas a pier and tried to deliver groceries, we should have delivered Bunker Buster bombs, about 6 or 800 of them.

Why isn't my United States making the rest of the world aware they shouldn't fuck with us?



Because it has become abundantly clear anyone can beat the shit out of America!

Vietnam?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Mind your own bloody business.

Stop sticking your nose where it does not belong!

Lates one THE MAGA FUCKWIT is giving order to other countries regarding DEI!

While he is busy appointing ass kissers!

Saeed has a point, Scott. Every time we try to show the world not to fuck with us, things don't go well for us.

Afghanistan is a prime recent example. We really tried to show the world not to fuck with us, didn't we?

But if only we'd stuck it out for another generation...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Why isn't my United States making the rest of the world aware they shouldn't fuck with us?



Because it has become abundantly clear anyone can beat the shit out of America!

Vietnam?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Mind your own bloody business.

Stop sticking your nose where it does not belong!

Lates one THE MAGA FUCKWIT is giving order to other countries regarding DEI!

While he is busy appointing ass kissers!

What is abundantly clear is that America gets involved in civil wars that simply are not winnable in the absence of the United States' willingness to use maximum force to win. In each of the instances you cite, we half-assed it militarily because of political constraints. The reality is that we could have won the war in Vietnam if we would have put the US on a war footing and invaded and occupied the country with 2 or 3 million troops. Or, if we had flattened it with nuclear weapons. Same is true in the other countries you mention.

But, you are correct that the better course would have been to stay out of it in the first place. Not our business.

You fight wars created by your masters to not be won.

So they become non stop wars to make them money.

Killing Americans and others is immaterial!

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Saeed has a point, Scott. Every time we try to show the world not to fuck with us, things don't go well for us.

Afghanistan is a prime recent example. We really tried to show the world not to fuck with us, didn't we?

But if only we'd stuck it out for another generation...

No we didn't.
We've been showing the world why they should fuck with us with all the namby pamby babysitting. I think we should pursue a different action plan by yes, minding our own business and not sticking our nose in around the globe and yes, when others do fuck with us we make it abundantly clear what a horrible mistake they made.

If it were me I'd be punishing the Mexican Cartels. By that I mean dead cartel kids, moms, cats, dogs, plants, lawns, ......scorched earth. Blown up tunnels, factory's, cars, houses, scorched earth.

Send up some more fentanyl, see what happens.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2...shmir?smid=url-share

Updated
May 10, 2025, 1:10 p.m. ET
3 minutes ago
Live Updates: India and Pakistan Announce Cease-Fire
The truce came after several days of the countries’ most expansive fighting in decades. But there were reports of some continuing violence.

Excerpt:

Here’s the latest.
Four days of drone volleys and missile strikes between India and Pakistan, the most intense fighting between the nuclear-armed rivals in decades, appeared to come to a halt on Saturday after both countries agreed to a cease-fire, according to Indian, Pakistani and U.S. officials. There were some reports of continuing violence.

President Trump announced the cease-fire on his social media site and said it had been mediated by the United States. Indian and Pakistani officials confirmed the cease-fire, though only Pakistan acknowledged an American role.

A senior Pakistani intelligence official praised Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his role in negotiating the cease-fire with India, but credited President Trump’s direct intervention with closing the agreement. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence, said Pakistan hoped that Trump’s involvement would allow the agreement to hold.

There is a lot more info in the article.

The cease fire has done been violated.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Vietnam?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Grenada
Panama
Iraq 1


the MILITARY won all of these "battles", without a doubt - there is no military that can stand against the US in a stand-up fight - "Shock and Awe" is a very real thing

the political class then loses the wars - The military has a very narrow function - Break Stuff and Kill People - They aren't cops

No, America shouldn't be the world cops - We should stay within our borders and only exert our forces when a LEGIT American or American interest is harmed - BOOM, stop it, and LEAVE

btw, that includes the BS about Canada and Greenland -- I'd have preferred Us to have kept Panama, but what's done is done

Jingo.

https://www.trump-statue.com/affiliate-program

Why am I not surprised?

Hahaha . . . his hands, much less his other appendages, ain’t never been bigger.

Time to Admit It: Trump Is a Great President. He’s Still Trying To Be a Good One.
The most consequential presidents divided the nation — before “reuniting it on a new level of understanding.”

https://www.politico.com/news/...t-president-00199564

Published one day after inauguration

By John F. Harris

01/21/2025 05:00 AM EST

Donald J. Trump (aka O.J.) in his second inaugural address was everything his supporters hoped he would be: Breathtakingly expansive about his intention to reshape the vast federal government around his vision; raucously jingoistic in proclaiming that the country will do whatever it wants to advance its interests around the world; openly triumphal in asserting his belief that his survival from an assassin’s bullet and his victory show he is God’s chosen instrument to lead an American revival.

Trump was also everything his adversaries feared: Messianic in tone; lovingly protective of his grievances; wholly uncharitable to the people, sitting just feet from him under the Capitol Rotunda, who he defeated so convincingly.

In one light, it was all quite familiar.

But the second occasion of Trump taking the oath of office also put him in an entirely new light. For the first time, he is holding power under circumstances in which reasonable people cannot deny a basic fact: He is the greatest American figure of his era.

Let’s quickly exhale: Great in this context is not about a subjective debate over whether he is a singularly righteous leader or a singularly menacing one. It is now simply an objective description about the dimensions of his record. He began a decade ago by dominating the Republican Party. He soon advanced to dominating every discussion of American politics broadly. Now, his astonishing comeback after his defeat by Joseph Biden in 2020 and the notoriety of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot makes clear there are certain things he is not and one big thing he is.

He is not a fluke, who got elected initially in 2016 almost entirely because of the infirmities of his opponent. He is not someone the American public somehow misunderstands — as though Democrats and the news media have not spent 10 years forcefully highlighting the risks of his record and character.

He is someone with an ability to perceive opportunities that most politicians do not and forge powerful, sustained connections with large swaths of people in ways that no contemporary can match. In other words: He is a force of history.

This is something his most ardent supporters — still shy of a national majority — have never doubted but something others, myself included, have been slow to reckon with. The inaugural address and a raft of hundreds of executive orders Trump has promised for his opening days in office make it impossible to avoid.

For Democrats — and most excruciatingly Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris — the inaugural ceremony and all it symbolizes were a meal made of ingredients scraped off the kennel floor. Once they gargle and spit, however, the opposition party may find something liberating about the moment.

That is because they can no longer place confidence in a strategy that once looked plausible but now has been exposed as illusion. They cannot push Trump to the margins, by treating him as a momentary anomaly or simply denouncing him as lawless and illegitimate.

Some voters bought that but not enough to win an election. Opponents have no choice but to acknowledge he and his movement represent a large historical argument — and then rally similarly large arguments to defeat it. Trump in 2020 showed himself ready to undermine democracy for his own purposes. Trump in 2024 showed that he is also a potent expression of democracy.

The most flamboyant rhetoric of Trump’s inaugural address — “Drill, baby, drill!”; retaking the Panama Canal; renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America; sending federal troops to the border — are all expressions of his genuine worldview. That leaves plenty of room for argument. Trump has transcended his vulnerability to criminal penalties for January 6. It is not possible for him to transcend a genuine contest over competing visions of the better America.

That contest may be more effective if opponents embrace the reality that Trump has already demonstrated some familiar signatures of the most consequential presidents. Like influential predecessors, his arguments have shifted the terms of debate in ways that echo within both parties — in this case, on issues such as trade, China, and the role of big corporations.

Like other large presidents, Trump has been a communications innovator and exploited technological shifts more effectively than rivals. In that sense, Trump’s use of social media recalls Franklin D. Roosevelt’s mastery of radio, and John F. Kennedy’s and Ronald Reagan’s mastery of television — even as his banter and insults don’t aspire to anything like traditional presidential eloquence.

One more signature shown by the most consequential presidents: Uncommon psychological toughness. Have you ever known someone who was facing legal hurdles? In many cases, even if people ultimately win the case, they end up being consumed and shrunken by the searing nature of the experience. Imagine running for president amid huge civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and even felony convictions — then emerging from this morass as a larger figure than before. No one needs to admire the achievement to recognize that Trump is possessed by some rare traits of denial, combativeness and resilience.

About that combativeness: Could someone so zealously divisive ever join the roster of presidents who even schoolchildren can typically recite as the nation’s greatest?

My mind goes back to a conversation, just before Bill Clinton began his second term, with the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. He had inherited a tradition from his father, also a renowned scholar, of conducting surveys of historians asking them to rank American presidents from best to worst. Clinton was promising in his second term to be a great national unifier. Schlesinger, who wished greatness for Clinton but mistrusted his ideological centrism, was skeptical.

“Great presidents are unifiers mostly in retrospect,” he told me. Most great presidents, he later wrote, “divided the nation before reuniting it on a new level of national understanding.”

This is the same sentiment uttered by FDR: “All our great presidents were leaders of thought at a time when certain ideas in the life of our nation had to be clarified.”

FDR also said: “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”

The implications for Trump are ambiguous. He’s ready to use his second term, and second chance, to divide the nation over immigration, over foreign policy, over school curriculums that allegedly teach “our children to be ashamed of themselves, in many cases to hate our country,” and a long roster of other subjects.

What he didn’t show in his first term, or on his improbable pathway to a second, was an ability to bring these conflicts to resolution, to unite the country on a new level of understanding. This would require Trump revealing a new understanding about himself and how to use the next four years.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Jingoism.

Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive and proactive foreign policy, such as a country's advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests.[1] Colloquially, jingoism is excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism (cf. chauvinism and ultranationalism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

Can anyone think of an actual example?

Jeff your addictive leg humping is embarrassing for you.

Jingoism is bad? All here seem to agree our international namby pamby babysitting isn't working. Steve and some others want us to stop the hand outs to Israel. Ann and some others want to stop the hand outs to Ukraine. The babysitting in Afghanistan was disastrous for us as was our missionary work in Iraq. Somalia! that "save the children" effort was a bummer. Sudan?

I'd like to get a little jingoistic on Mexico, Venezuela and Haiti before lunch tomorrow.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Why isn't my United States making the rest of the world aware they shouldn't fuck with us?

We're long overdue to pursue peace with overwhelming strength and destruction.

We went running over to Gaza and built a pier to deliver aid to Hamas that didn't work. Is America better now because?

The United States shouldn't have built Hamas a pier and tried to deliver groceries, we should have delivered Bunker Buster bombs, about 6 or 800 of them.

Well written!!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Saeed has a point, Scott. Every time we try to show the world not to fuck with us, things don't go well for us.

Afghanistan is a prime recent example. We really tried to show the world not to fuck with us, didn't we?

But if only we'd stuck it out for another generation...

No we didn't.
We've been showing the world why they should fuck with us with all the namby pamby babysitting. I think we should pursue a different action plan by yes, minding our own business and not sticking our nose in around the globe and yes, when others do fuck with us we make it abundantly clear what a horrible mistake they made.

If it were me I'd be punishing the Mexican Cartels. By that I mean dead cartel kids, moms, cats, dogs, plants, lawns, ......scorched earth. Blown up tunnels, factory's, cars, houses, scorched earth.

Send up some more fentanyl, see what happens.

Yes Sir!

If Mexico won't handle it we should. Ruthlessly!

Hamas, Taliban, Sadaam Hussein, Al Queda, PLO, ISIS, the Camel Jockeys in Iran, the Camel Jockey's in Libya, etc. base their terrorism and target innocent civilians, yet the West/ the Infidels are held responsible, yes take responsibility for non combatant deaths occuring during attacks on those same terrorist refuges.

The Caliphate is welcome to kill our children and we aren't allowed to retaliate because the terrorists are hiding behind their children.

It's unfortunate that Drug Cartels choose to employ themselves in killing Americans with their illegal drug trade. It's unfortunate that the Drug Cartels choose to make their peers, friends, families and neighbors culpable? At risk? Hazarded? Liable? With their profession.
But they do and I refuse to take responsibility for Drug Cartel choices and actions.

How many kids are worth getting one cartel member?

Half a dozen sounds about right….

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
How many kids are worth getting one cartel member?

Or, how many kids does one Cartel member kill on either or both sides of the border?

As you can see here,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_drug_war

There has been as many as 400k murdered South of the border without US intervention. The numbers of murdered North of the border we know.

Id suggest we've been going about it wrong and I'd also suggest we do something different.

I'll take no responsibility for Islamic Terrorists, Mexican Terrorists or Martian Terrorists endangering the lives of their families and friends.

In Gaza and the M.E.,
In the Western hemisphere we need to make the cost of terrorism to great for the perpetrators to prosecute.

Let me make sure I understand you, Scott. You want to launch weapons at the cartel, missiles, smart bombs, whatever... and you don't give a damn how many innocent Mexican citizens are killed along with them?

That's not my country.

How can you be sure everyone you kill is a family member or friend of cartel members? Or don't you care?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Let me make sure I understand you, Scott. You want to launch weapons at the cartel, missiles, smart bombs, whatever... and you don't give a damn how many innocent Mexican citizens are killed along with them?

That's not my country.

How can you be sure everyone you kill is a family member or friend of cartel members? Or don't you care?

Where were you when Obama was doing the same thing in the ME?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Let me make sure I understand you, Scott. You want to launch weapons at the cartel, missiles, smart bombs, whatever... and you don't give a damn how many innocent Mexican citizens are killed along with them?

That's not my country.

How can you be sure everyone you kill is a family member or friend of cartel members? Or don't you care?

No, I don't favor indiscriminate bombing and I've pointed out to you at least twice now that 10's of thousands of innocent civilians are killed annually by the Cartels without our involvement. I believe we are doing it wrong and need to get involved and that will decrease the number.

The hard part would be getting the OK from Mexico to strike.
I'm not a fan of bombing when there are other ways.
Send in several chalks. Fast rope down at the perimeter and engage. It's trained for, it's surgical, and has been effectively used globally.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
The hard part would be getting the OK from Mexico to strike.
I'm not a fan of bombing when there are other ways.
Send in several chalks. Fast rope down at the perimeter and engage. It's trained for, it's surgical, and has been effectively used globally.

I would favor persuasion, firm, aggressive, persuasion. This has all gone on far to long.

Persuasion of Mexico? I doubt you can persuade the cartels.
Hard to know how deep the cartels reach is. Does the president of Mexico fear them? And if so, how much?

"Firm, aggressive persuasion" means what specifically?

Mexico will never consent to an attack on its territory and citizens. Without consent, it's an act of war.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Persuasion of Mexico? I doubt you can persuade the cartels.
Hard to know how deep the cartels reach is. Does the president of Mexico fear them? And if so, how much?

I would favor persuading Mexico.

I'd not be interested in speaking with or hearing from Cartels.

Well Scott, I call your position:

quote:

raucously jingoistic

For one thing, you don't mention the other half of the equation, which is supply and demand.

The cartels aren't forcing the market. They just supply it.

If you want to do something different then advocate something to reduce the market demand. That something might be to vote democrat.

Ahh, Kabob. We just came off 4 years of dems, and the drug use did not go down under them.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Well Scott, I call your position:

quote:

raucously jingoistic

For one thing, you don't mention the other half of the equation, which is supply and demand.

The cartels aren't forcing the market. They just supply it.

If you want to do something different then advocate something to reduce the market demand. That something might be to vote democrat.

Who said I haven't or wouldn't vote Democrat? Since you advocate it as a solution, do tell me about this elected Democrat, yes even just one that has been successful combating drug addiction.

I'm of the impression that easy, large supply helps create demand. If Toyota dropped the price of a 2025 Tacoma to say 10 or $15k with zero interest loans i think you'd see a whole lotta Tacoma's running around whether the operators liked driving Toyota or not.

The Cartels are operating with impunity. You can't demonstrate otherwise and that needs to change. Drugs like cocaine and heroin need to be hard to come by and the suppliers need to feel some real, genuine fear of consequences.

If my eight year old or even an 28 year old is lured by bad people into drugs, it isn't the kids fault, it's my fault as an adult and a father. It is certainly also the bad person's fault and they need to be held harshly accountable.

I hope Mexico and the USA can come to an agreement for operations in Mexico and I hope it's really really brutal.

Well, just for grins I did a search on:
how would democrats solve the drug problem from Mexico

Results: https://www.google.com/search?...fgEw&sclient=gws-wiz

From just a quick read it looks like the Dems support and encourage measures to deal with the cartels, but in addition they support programs to cut addictions, etc.

You said the Democrats "support and encourage measures and programs,".

What a new, novel, unheard of before approach!!!!!!

I still say we've been doing it wrong and need to try something different.

Drugs like coke and heroin need to be hard to come by, hard to make a living at distributing. Everyone here has read about how criminals consider going to prison as a rite of passage, an apprenticeship, an opportunity to advance the profession of crime. It's way past time to remove these opportunities.

Every single Cartel associate that has a Hacienda needs to have it targeted with a Bunker Buster Bomb.

Yeah, like California? Free needles, crack pipes and narcan. Maybe better to let the users die, and kill off demand?
Then we have the China aspect. They are shipping fentanyl to the cartels. One dose can kill, and a kid may not even know it's in there.
Mexico seems to be doing more on their side. We can encourage more, and even pay for stepped up enforcement.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
You said the Democrats "support and encourage measures and programs,".

What a new, novel, unheard of before approach!!!!!!

I still say we've been doing it wrong and need to try something different.

Drugs like coke and heroin need to be hard to come by, hard to make a living at distributing. Everyone here has read about how criminals consider going to prison as a rite of passage, an apprenticeship, an opportunity to advance the profession of crime. It's way past time to remove these opportunities.

Every single Cartel associate that has a Hacienda needs to have it targeted with a Bunker Buster Bomb.

Little things in the way of that Scott, International law, war crimes and the very real probability of unintended targets being hit. We do not bomb civilians in other countries over drugs.

I have lost people I care about to drugs, nearly lost another just last week, but we still need realistic plans.

No, TB40, I don't think letting addicts die is the correct answer.

A little sarcasms, to counter bombing non-combatants.