Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018


TheFlyingBoat

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


The longest period without major armed conflict in Western Europe in 1100 years.

Where'd you get that stat, btw?  James Sheehan? Must be...."From the end of the Franco- Prussian War in 1871 until the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, the European states were at peace with one another. This was the longest period without war in European history until it was surpassed toward the end of the twentieth century."

Edited by Woodrow Call
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


The longest period without major armed conflict in Western Europe in 1100 years.

While simultaneously we are actively engaged in the longest war in US history. I am not sure that a world order built on outsourcing military conflicts to asia and the middle east is the best long-term model. Feels like it could generate some blow back. But hey, fuck it, keep the party rolling as long as we can. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

While simultaneously we are actively engaged in the longest war in US history. I am not sure that a world order built on outsourcing military conflicts to asia and the middle east is the best long-term model. Feels like it could generate some blow back. But hey, fuck it, keep the party rolling as long as we can. 

The problem isn’t that we project power, it’s how we project power that’s the biggest issue.

We’ve largely abandoned the utilization of the State Department/diplomats to drive our global influence of democracy promotion and economic liberty. 

Instead, we’ve let the military/CIA largely control our foreign policy which might seem more expedient in the short term but the cost and consequences are much higher and often counterproductive in the long term.

The only way to fix this is a total paradigm shift of how our leaders approach issues and sadly I don’t see that transformation happening anytime soon.

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Woodrow Call said:

Where'd you get that stat, btw? 

If you look at a list of major European Conflicts you can choose your own dates to work with, but the historical period I'm specifically referring to are the period between the crowning of King Otto I of Germany as "Holy Roman Emperor" in 962 and the Battle of Hastings in 1066, which sets up 400 years of warfare involving competing claims to the French Throne, the inception of English national identity and a state distinct of French feudal holdings, and so on until 1947.

You could make an accurate argument that period represents a reconsolidation of "civilization" following a major trauma, which in turn created both competing new factions of competing elites and something worth competing over, which is also true following the World Wars. If so, it's worth considering that the elites don't pay the highest price in the struggle. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

While simultaneously we are actively engaged in the longest war in US history. I am not sure that a world order built on outsourcing military conflicts to asia and the middle east is the best long-term model. Feels like it could generate some blow back. But hey, fuck it, keep the party rolling as long as we can. 

Putting the most vulnerable at greater risk to own both sides

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What's your alternative m8

WRT NATO, strengthen the organization by bringing the other member countries up to par with fulfilling their financial obligations. Reduce and cap US military spending at 2.5% of GDP (just under a 20% reduction, which would leave us above world average, and at 2x China dollar to dollar).  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lemonlime said:

What in the actual fuck?  This should be bigger news than it is.

 

 

This is unconscionable.  There are many administrative judges (most notably in the field of immigration) and if they are selected based on politics, then we may as well kiss any semblance of rule of law goodbye.  Pure banana republic bullshit here.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRT NATO, strengthen the organization by bringing the other member countries up to par with fulfilling their financial obligations. Reduce and cap US military spending at 2.5% of GDP (just under a 20% reduction, which would leave us above world average, and at 2x China dollar to dollar).  

Carrying the water to own both sides
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


Carrying the water to own both sides

Carrying water for the military industrial intelligence complex because your racially and ethnically biased assessment of the effectiveness of the world order fails to take into account the negative impacts...morally, politically, and militarily...on virtually every continent on earth. Sad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

WRT NATO, strengthen the organization by bringing the other member countries up to par with fulfilling their financial obligations. Reduce and cap US military spending at 2.5% of GDP (just under a 20% reduction, which would leave us above world average, and at 2x China dollar to dollar).  

I have no problem with that. 

But the spending targets are irrelevant compared to the alliance itself.  You seemed to have issue with the alliance, which I think is 1) a stabilizing force in the world, 2) should lead to less military spending, even if it doesn't play out that way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have zero problem with other NATO members kicking in more, but let's not act like we get nothing for our efforts and expenses, either.

Hell, let's not act like our out of control military spending has anything to do with our NATO commitment at all. We spend this much because we want to, not because NATO requires that we do so. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have zero problem with other NATO members kicking in more, but let's not act like we get nothing for our efforts and expenses, either.

Let's also not act like an arbitrary benchmark for defense spending means we're overpaying. The EU, collectively, spends roughly 3.5X on defense than Russia, and roughly what Russia and China spends combined. And they spend it IN Europe, as opposed to our spending, which is projected all over the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Carrying water for the military industrial intelligence complex because your racially and ethnically biased assessment of the effectiveness of the world order fails to take into account the negative impacts...morally, politically, and militarily...on virtually every continent on earth. Sad!

We should do this kind of thing again, because the alternative has downsides:

A+pile+of+bodies+awaits+cremation+after+

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Let's also not act like an arbitrary benchmark for defense spending means we're overpaying. The EU, collectively, spends roughly 3.5X on defense than Russia, and roughly what Russia and China spends combined. And they spend it IN Europe, as opposed to our spending, which is projected all over the world. 

Spending is all relative. What we get in defense product versus lining the coffers of industry giants connected to Washington is likely less per unit than other countries due to cronyism, huge profits and hidden costs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

While simultaneously we are actively engaged in the longest war in US history. I am not sure that a world order built on outsourcing military conflicts to asia and the middle east is the best long-term model. Feels like it could generate some blow back. But hey, fuck it, keep the party rolling as long as we can. 

 

Is that you Bernie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Newdoc said:

Spending is all relative. What we get in defense product versus lining the coffers of industry giants connected to Washington is likely less per unit than other countries due to cronyism, huge profits and hidden costs.

That's an argument against arbitrary benchmarks, not for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

We should do this again, because the alternative has downsides:

 

Yes, please tell me all about the alternatives.  I know, not white western Europe, so doesn't count. 

My_Lai_massacre.jpg

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My_Lai_massacre.jpg

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Yes, please tell me all about the alternatives.  I know, not white western Europe, so doesn't count. 

You can keep trying if you want but I'm not taking the bait. If your point is that we need to create economic disincentives to warfare in the pacific, I agree. Good thing your torch carrier killed TPP. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that war is bad.  So why are we actively trying to undermine a security collective that has kept the peace (mostly) in a big chunk of the world for so many decades?  

That's the real question here.  Who does it benefit?  Not our European allies and not us.  The only beneficiary I see is Russia.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I think we can all agree that war is bad.  So why are we actively trying to undermine a security collective that has kept the peace (mostly) in a big chunk of the world for so many decades?  

That's the real question here.  Who does it benefit?  Not our European allies and not us.  The only beneficiary I see is Russia.

Why? To own both sides, because the alternatives are imperfect and inequitable. To burn the world down rather than work to address the imperfections and strive for equity.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Woodrow Call said:

Correct.  We rebuilt Germany for our own strength. To have a strong economic partner in Europe and launch pad against the Russians. Now this fucker wants to flip everything as if world peace and economic stability were fucking pancakes. 

Hell, we rebuilt most of Western Europe after WW2 for our own benefit.

We rebuilt the Japanese economy for our own benefit.

Maybe a Middle East Marshall Plan instead of going in, blowing shit up, and leaving for Russia to fill the void would be a little more helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Maybe a Middle East Marshall Plan instead of going in, blowing shit up, and leaving for Russia to fill the void would be a little more helpful.

Yeah, and guys like Rex Tillerson and now Mike Pompeo are cut from that cloth.  I bet neither knows what the Marshall Plan was, and I'd bet a month's salary Trump doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Why? To own both sides, because the alternatives are imperfect and inequitable. To burn the world down rather than work to address the imperfections and strive for equity.

 I know 'tis sarcasm.  But loads of truth in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Let's also not act like an arbitrary benchmark for defense spending means we're overpaying. The EU, collectively, spends roughly 3.5X on defense than Russia, and roughly what Russia and China spends combined. And they spend it IN Europe, as opposed to our spending, which is projected all over the world. 

Trump's entire foreign policy and US military strategy is just grab-bag, word-salad nonsense to address the agenda of the day, with no thought to history (of which he's ignorant) or long-term view (of which he has none).

On one hand he wants to increase spending for the military because DA TROOPS and on the other hand he lambastes NATO and questions the costliness of the Korean exercises because of the expense. A 13% increase in defense spending, slight increase in numbers of troops, and substantial capital investments in warships and aircraft. But at the same time he's questioning our deployment to key strategic locations on both sides of the world. Which is it?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Royalfan5 said:

The Bulgarian President is saying Trump was talking about wanting NATO countries to spend 4% of GDP on defense spending now. 

LOL, we barely spend 3%.  I suppose that means he wants us to spend more on military too, because of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TornACL said:

Trump's entire foreign policy and US military strategy is just grab-bag, word-salad nonsense to address the agenda of the day, with no thought to history (of which he's ignorant) or long-term view (of which he has none).

On one hand he wants to increase spending for the military because DA TROOPS and on the other hand he lambastes NATO and questions the costliness of the Korean exercises because of the expense. A 13% increase in defense spending, slight increase in numbers of troops, and substantial capital investments in warships and aircraft. But at the same time he's questioning our deployment to key strategic locations on both sides of the world. Which is it?

 

Spot on. There is no strategy here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Germany wants the US to defend it from Russia, all while Germany increases its reliance on Russian natural gas. I disagree with this situation.

OFFS. Russia is the second largest producer of Natural Gas in the world. Where else is the EU supposed to get gas? Is Germany not supposed to trade with Russia? For what possible reason? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

OFFS. Russia is the second largest producer of Natural Gas in the world. Where else is the EU supposed to get gas? Is Germany not supposed to trade with Russia? For what possible reason? 

Johnny was parroting Trump within like 3 minutes of Trump's tweet on it. Impressive turnaround.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...