<Saladofstones> Korea was, in gentle terms
<Saladofstones> a complete fuck up logistics wise
<Saladofstones> since we forget Korea had mountains
<Nitya> "fuck what's that thing" "sir it's a mountain" "a wha- FUCK"

<Rig> I know not what Web 3.0 will be like, but Web 4.0 will be made of sticks and stones.

<Saladofstones> Well the tonkin incident was meant to escalate the war
<Saladofstones> what helped was the confusion
<Saladofstones> see intelligence fucked up, and thought there were two incidents at first
<Saladofstones> because in that day, it was hard to determine whether or not two or more people were talking about the same incident from different perspectives
<Saladofstones> NSA and CIA clarified that it was one, but the congress members who wanted war ignored later findings to escalate the war
<Saladofstones> which ended well for both sides
<Saladofstones> we got rid of our surplus of toxic chemicals, napalm, and poor people
<Saladofstones> and Vietnam got rid of its surplus of poor people, trees, and natives
<Saladofstones> Ho Chi Minh and Nixon were seen hi-fiving each other over how well it went and went on to drink beer in Michigan Central's Pub

<blamspam> What does it mean to have a gendered approach to war and peace issues? Choose one example of a failed gendered approach in a peacebuilding or military effort, and one that succeeded. Analyze how gender issues contribute to the success or failure of the peace efforts you have selected.
<Fiora> missiles are clearly phallic objects, so the US navy's focus on missile cruisers is clearly an example of a gendered approach to warfare, in which they assault enemy nations with volleys of long, hard objects representing American masculinity.

<jseblan> I am of the opinion that me <> me
<jseblan> WAIT
<Charlatan|Prodigy> WAR
<Charlatan|Prodigy> HUH
<Charlatan|Prodigy> WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR
<jseblan> if(jseblan != jseblan) {cout << "WHO THE F*** AM I";}
<Nous> ABSOLUTELY NOTHING