It's from this. "That is the, that is what others have warned the United States is the danger of this policy, or the consequence as well as the danger, and I think that's one of the difficulties we're having, or you can see what Iran is doing, both pre- and post- the war, and remember, they don't have a split screen, or a split mind, the Ayatollah of Iran and Pakistan, looking at Iraq over here, North Korea over here. They were seeing our actions simultaneously, even though the administration in the end on North Korea tried to back down by saying "nothing's off the table vis-a-vis military capability," they were clear that they had no intention of using military because of the consequences of what a North, a cornered administration, i.e. in North Korea could do, but given they had weapons, what we could not do, and given what Iraq did, so my own view is that preemption - again, I ask you look at the article that was in the Times, I thought it was interesting going back, it has always existed implicitly. This is the first administration that has called it out and drawn it out from implicit to explicit - it has consequences that I think changed less about the United States one could argue what India would do there vis-a - I gotta - India - you can figure out, figure out the rest of that sentence, how's that?"
It's a big inside joke at rahmbamarama, don't worry if it's confusing. XD
"That is the, that is what others have warned the United States is the danger of this policy, or the consequence as well as the danger, and I think that's one of the difficulties we're having, or you can see what Iran is doing, both pre- and post- the war, and remember, they don't have a split screen, or a split mind, the Ayatollah of Iran and Pakistan, looking at Iraq over here, North Korea over here. They were seeing our actions simultaneously, even though the administration in the end on North Korea tried to back down by saying "nothing's off the table vis-a-vis military capability," they were clear that they had no intention of using military because of the consequences of what a North, a cornered administration, i.e. in North Korea could do, but given they had weapons, what we could not do, and given what Iraq did, so my own view is that preemption - again, I ask you look at the article that was in the Times, I thought it was interesting going back, it has always existed implicitly. This is the first administration that has called it out and drawn it out from implicit to explicit - it has consequences that I think changed less about the United States one could argue what India would do there vis-a - I gotta - India - you can figure out, figure out the rest of that sentence, how's that?"
It's a big inside joke at rahmbamarama, don't worry if it's confusing. XD
Reply
Leave a comment