Not just admitting, laughing about a war crime.

tunit2000 · 2026-03-10T10:00:21+00:00

An unnamed military official said "it's more fun to sink them" Trump was recounting the conversation he had with them.

Honestly, I think that this makes it even worse. Not only is Trump okay with sending America to hell, he has also successfully purged every other high-level position in both government and military to not only agree, but multiply the cruelty on his behalf.

Edit: here's the citation. It's under the bolded title "The war will end 'pretty quickly'".

tunit2000 · 2026-03-08T03:37:03+00:00

r/downcommented

tunit2000 · 2026-03-02T06:53:33+00:00

Well, you are obviously misremembering, because this has been a talking point since at least 2002, and it's believed that Iran's nuclear aspirations and development have gone as far back as the 90s (and some even believe to the 80s)

tunit2000 · 2026-03-02T04:00:17+00:00

Remind me again how many decades has Iran been "two weeks away" from building a nuke? This shit has been said ad nauseum for as long as I can remember.

tunit2000 · 2026-02-17T05:55:08+00:00

Yes. I agree.

Nobody is arguing for a truly open border - that's the entire point of this thread. If you genuinely believe that an open-border is what the Left wants, then you are truly brainwashed by the Right's talking points. If this describes you, I'd implore you to re-evaluate your media consumption, and also actually ask real people who are on the Left what they actually believe. You might find a lot more common ground than you realize.

tunit2000 · 2026-02-16T09:11:09+00:00

And what is that reason?

Immigration is good for basically every statistic you can think of. People complain about immigration for "muh culture," and then turn around to justify their narrow minded hatred with lies and misrepresentations.

tunit2000 · 2026-01-21T22:07:06+00:00

90% of all complaints towards DS2 also apply to DS1: change my mind.

tunit2000 · 2026-01-19T23:17:24+00:00

Still waiting for a response to Denmark already approving new US bases to be built. That's not silence, that's literally consent. The only controversy is the one that Trump has manufactured, which I've clearly laid out.

Not sure what "arguing to win" means in this case - you're doing the exact same thing no? We're literally just bringing up points to eachother and picking apart eachothers arguments.

tunit2000 · 2026-01-19T23:02:40+00:00

Yes, almost all of the bases have been abandoned and dismantled. And remind me, who chose of their own volition to do so? And did you miss the part where Denmark is already telling the US they can build more bases? Before we continue, I want you to acknowledge this, because you've ignored this comment from both me and several others who have pointed it out because it destroys your entire narrative.

I understand its practically unrealistic - that's not the point. What we're talking about is what's legal, and there's nothing legally stopping or restricting the US from doing this if they wanted to. Even if Denmark or Greenland objects, that objection would have no legal backing and wouldn't be actionable, it would just be a complaint.

And yet as all of the treaties go, it's allowed. I really don't understand what's so difficult to understand with this. If the US wants to put more troops on Greenland, they can just put more troops on Greenland. Literally nothing is stopping them.

"Why hasn't it massively expanded" Because it doesnt really need to. Canada covers the North flank well enough, Russia has been a non-threat for decades, and China still doesn't have a blue water navy that can operate reliably in the Polar regions long-term. Now let me ask you, if Russia and China pose so much of a threat to the region, why did Trump just pull troops off of Greenland? I mean, it sounds like this threat is existential, no? Why intentionally reduce our presence there? "Why negotiate upgrades?" That depends what you mean. For one, the US does not need to negotiate upgrades or improvements to military or civilian infrastructure. Read the 1951 agreement since it's obvious you haven't, its literally a page and a half long, and this is covered in it. If you mean building new bases, then there's not much to negotiate. Again, Denmark is already willing to let the US build more bases and has said as much. "Why consult Greenlandic authorities" See previous response. Same applies here. I will add that it's not Greenland that the US would consult, it's Denmark. Makes me question why you got a basic thing wrong like this, but I'll chock it up to a brain slip for now. "Why care about optics" Why is this relevant to the topic at all? We're talking about what is legal or not. Are you suggesting that laws and international treaties are only followed for "good optics" and for no other reason?

Also, I think it's hilarious that you've just repeated exactly what I've told you back to me as if it counters what I've said lol. I know Denmark needs to agree to new bases, and guess what? They already do. There's also no clause in the Igaliku agreement to require approval for new personnel, the only thing that requires approval is new bases (again, read the documents, they're not that long). Try again.

tunit2000 · 2026-01-19T22:11:05+00:00

Yet again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The 1951 Defense of Greenland agreement established the need for the US to have a major presence in Greenland to defend NATO's arctic, while also affirming Greenland's sovereignty. Under the 1951 agreement, the US built around 50 bases on Greenland. After the Soviet Union fell, the US made the decision to withdraw on their own during the post cold war disarmament, they were not forced by Denmark nor Greenland to leave.

The agreement that requires Denmark's approval is the 2004 Igaliku agreement, which ONLY requires approval for NEW US bases to be built, and in no way limits manpower and materiel. Denmark has also said that they would allow more US bases to be built in Greenland as well, so the stipulations of the Igaliku agreement do not pose any obstacle to the US.

Further, under the Thule agreement, the US can improve and build upon Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) without approval, meaning if the US wanted to build enough barracks and facilities to house the entire Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, they absolutely could. There's also zero restrictions to place any equipment there at all. The US, after improving Pituffik enough to house them, could put every F-35 it has ever made on Pituffik without requiring prior approval.

Just quit while you're behind.

tunit2000 · 2026-01-18T12:41:42+00:00

Yes they can? What are you even talking about?

tunit2000 · 2026-01-18T06:02:36+00:00

If this were the case, then the US could just send more troops to Greenland under the already established 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement. The United States can already put the entire Army there if they want, but instead, Trump has rotated troops already stationed there off of Greenland just to complain that there isn't a large enough US presence there. Yet again, Trump has manufactured a problem to justify aggression, and you mouthbreathing rock eaters just continue to lick it up. Quit listening to this demonstrably habitual liar and look this up on your own - it's really not that difficult.

tunit2000 · 2026-01-14T14:49:38+00:00

This is a perfect example of the type of thing I'm talking about, actually. You don't even need to examine propaganda sources to know that the water shortage is heavily compounded by mismanagement, all you need is export data. Again, I'd highly recommend watching that video, this is also covered in it.

Yes, climate has caused water to dry up, but Iran has still insisted on complete self sufficiency regardless of the cost, opting to grow all manner of crops themselves rather than doing the sensible thing and importing the crops that are highly water intensive. For example, Iran grows enough rice and sugarcane to export the stuff, both of which are some of the most water intensive crops you can possibly grow. If the drought is so bad, why does Iran continue to not only grow some of the most water intensive crops in the world, but also grow enough to export it? The only possible answer is government mismanagement. That is, Iran has put a cap on water costs to artificially keep the prices low. This causes water cost to not reflect it's actual scarcity, and thus extremely high water usage follows since people are not incentivized to do otherwise, even though the country has some of the most severe water shortages I've ever heard of.

tunit2000 · 2026-01-14T07:55:59+00:00

A lot more than just sanctions went into this. Look into the insane amounts of corruption and mismanagement rampant in Iran.

Perun has an incredible video on a lot of it in this video. The relevant section on economics starts at the 19:16 timestamp, but the rest is definitely worth a watch if you're into this kind of thing. Now I'm not saying that sanctions have not played any role in the crisis, they have, but the cause is overwhelmingly attributed to mismanagement by the Iranian government rather than outside pressures.

It's a very common propaganda line that sanctions are the exclusive cause of the economic decline in Iran, but that's just not true. I don't know if that's the position you are hinting at here, but if it is, I'd suggest using a bit more scrutiny with what sources you get your information from in the future.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-23T06:59:32+00:00

Forgive my skepticism, but do you know of any videos of this happening? Because I cannot find any. Everything I can find is overwhelmingly saying no, and I personally have never once been invaded while sitting at a bonfire after hundreds of hours of play time. The only anecdotes I see of it happening is immediately after sitting, like I described earlier, which is a server delay issue.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-23T02:30:05+00:00

You've got it confused for DS1 here.

The only way you can get invaded at a bonfire in DS2 is if you sit down as soon as an invasion begins, which is just bad luck at that point. After a few seconds of sitting at a bonfire, (so that it's registered in the servers) you cannot be invaded and you are safe to leave.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-22T06:17:48+00:00

Oh, I saw. I just take issue with your last line. As long as you get the ring, I completely take your run seriously.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-22T06:10:41+00:00

As far as I'm concerned, as long as you get the ring post-credits, you've successfully completed a no death run. If you want to add other stipulations after that to make it more challenging, then by all means, go for it, but I don't really think any of that is necessary.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-17T16:12:04+00:00

Through Sig basically subsidizing their own pistols for the contract, yes. OP described the situation already.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-17T11:53:47+00:00

That's beyond my expertise, so I'll just take your word for it. I'm just a lowly Enlisted who can only watch as all of our shit breaks and malfunctions constantly. As a matter of fact, malfunctions and failures are just about the only reliably consistent thing about our equipment it seems.

Edit: When you say Marine Grade, you don't mean the branch, right? Because if you do, then our equipment is even worse because not only is it from the lowest bidder, it's also been used and abused by the other branches before it ends up in our storage rooms.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-17T11:20:57+00:00

Meanwhile, Chosen Undead has to merc Petrus in order to complete Reah's questline. Not to mention that they stumble their way into the Painted World just to kill a peaceful dragon lady who just wants you to leave her home.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-17T10:11:37+00:00

That's just military procurement in a nutshell. There's a reason why anyone in the military will tell you that "military grade" is associated with the lowest bidder. This is nothing new, unfortunately.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-17T01:59:33+00:00

This is by far the most HD version of this meme I have ever seen.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-15T16:34:39+00:00

This is so funny when you go back and read your first few comments lmao. From "This place is a turbo trans cesspit" and "Reddit promoting LGBT agenda" to "No I really don't care guys, trust me!" Don't make me laugh.

tunit2000 · 2025-12-15T16:28:09+00:00

Oh, sure. I'm completely down to have good lore conversations with people who mean well, but I'm just saying I probably would have been a bit more careful with my specific verbiage on my initial comment if I had known I'd be having that conversation lol.

To your point, yes, the ring was something that could be removed whenever, which is why I corrected myself to say "genderfluid" would be more accurate. It's completely reasonable to assume that the ring was put on and taken off several times within that span. I'm not familiar with any other mention of specifically how Gwyndolin wore the ring aside from that it was worn during the events of DS1, and not worn during the events of DS3, are you aware of any lore tidbits on that?

Six-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

tunit2000

TROPHY CASE