Cacti

The bigger question is, are Mathematical Structures Invented or Discovered? This topic was discussed about a year ago by some of the same posters that are participating in the current discussion.

But what if you think your objective is paramount and soft power doesn’t work? Nearly every administration since WWII has tried to persuade our NATO partners to contribute more to their defense. We’ve done this privately and we’ve even publicly chastised them, with no apparent results: In 1959, Eisenhower made the comment our European allies “were making a sucker of Uncle Sam”. Clinton’s Sec. of Defense, William Cohen, said that if our allies did not start spending more on capability the alliance “could become a relic of history”. And Robert Gates said “It is hardly two months into the new year, but we already face shortfalls of hundreds of millions of euros – a natural consequence of having underinvested in collective defense for over a decade”. There are many more examples but you get the idea. What is different this time is that Trump—not so tactfully—implied that our commitment may not be as strong as it once was. He needs to follow up that veiled threat with something like a small but symbolic troop/asset withdrawal. Over a 50 year period soft power has been ineffective at persuading our NATO friends; let’s see if they respond to something more aggressive. If not, then Cohen may have been right when he said the alliance could become a relic of history.

Interesting article from George Will Trump says Mueller's appointment was unconstitutional. Is he right?

Sure, it’s understandable. But the situation today is basically what it was 20 years ago. That is, most of NATO warplanes are non-stealthy, they don’t have advanced jamming capabilities, and they would be relatively easy targets for the latest Russian SAMs. And that is a direct result of not devoting sufficient funds for military research and development. The good news is that Germany and France are currently teaming up to develop a stealth fighter; the bad news is that it has a twenty-year development window. Until then NATO will have to depend on the U.S. for the heavy—and expensive—lifting. And that expense is considerably more than 22%.

While Trump is painfully wrong about the percent of U.S. contributions, the 22 percent figure is also misleading—it’s accurate only if one excludes actual military missions. Those missions are funded by each participating country and are not taken from NATO’s budget. So it’s only when missions are actually executed can one see a more accurate cost. In Kosovo, for example, most of NATO’s actions were via air strikes, where the U.S. flew 62% of the sorties, 79 % of intelligence flights, and 65% of support missions. I don’t have the dollar amount readily available but it is obvious the U.S.’s contribution was considerably more than 22%—more likely 60% or more. To a lesser degree, the same was true when NATO imposed a naval and air blockade of Libya. The U.S. contributed considerably more than 22%. On a side note Germany flew approximately 500 sorties in Kosovo, or less than 2% of the total. It appears that Germany's air force has been incompetent or incapable for at least twenty years.

What does NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg have to say about the relevance of Germany’s current budget? NATO chief: Germany must increase defense spending But enough of the back-and-forth; let’s have some fun with your numbers and see if we can come up with some semi-serious conclusions with which you can’t disagree. If you’re right in saying “…if you outspend your opponent by a 2:1 margin, that should be sufficient”, then NATO spending would be sufficient even without the U.S. or Germany contributing a single dollar. After all, the remaining members would still outspend Russia 259b to 61b, or a margin of 4:1. And that’s well above your “sufficient” margin of 2:1. Well crap...It appears I've made your argument for you: NATO would be fine without any German or U.S. contribution.

That’s a subjective assessment and it ignores the fact that Merkel is failing to meet spending goals she agreed to. But even if 40b “is plenty”, Germany’s military readiness is such that it is not currently capable of fulfilling its NATO obligations. As far as NATO members being apprehensive about what Trump will or will not do…well, they should be apprehensive. But he’s not the only NATO leader who is stressing the alliance: Merkel and Putin are in agreement (diplomacy in action) about building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline directly from Russia to Germany, a project vehemently opposed by fellow NATO members Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania and Croatia, as well as the United States. Trump’s unpredictable, WWE style of diplomacy will not at all be helpful in calming the fears of NATO in the upcoming summit, but by her actions and inactions Merkel is doing her fair share in stressing the coalition.

Evidently she means someone other than Germany will defend the Eastern flank. Germany's Air Force Is Dying a Slow Death If Germany won't meet their financial obligations and if they won't--or can't--maintain their military readiness, then NATO should be as worried about Merkel as they are about Trump.

To those who think that science and religion are in conflict, I suggest reading Science and Religion in Wittgenstein’s Fly-Bottle, written by Tim Labron. It’s a fairly quick read and is intended for the layperson.

It's not. I think the majority of posters on this thread would agree.

It appears the Romans were a mixed bag of whites and Mediterranean people. But if they were anything like Southern Italians, then they would have been considered non-white by American definition, at least in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In fact, they were considered black in the South and were treated as such. Greeks were also classified as non-white and, defying all logic, so were Irish immigrants.

I have no idea what Trump is going to do; I doubt he does. But what decisions will NATO make that leave us on the sidelines? Without us and our financial and military largesse, NATO is largely symbolic. Most of our allies made the decision years ago to let us carry the burden for their collective security, thus freeing funds for generous social programs and building their industrial base. Consequently, most of NATO members—especially Germany, the de facto leader of Europe—are in no position to defend themselves, much less contribute to the overall defense of the alliance. This LA Times article, Broken fighter jets, grounded helicopters and idled tanks: Germany's military is ailing, paints a bleak picture of Germany’s military readiness and capabilities, and I think the same could be said for the majority of NATO countries, with England being the exception. Merkel recently said: “the times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out, and so we Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.” We know Trump is full of it; I suspect Merkel is too. Let's see if she makes tangible proposals to back up her go-it-alone rhetoric.

Just curious…but how do you “make it known”? Do you announce it, even before introductions and handshakes, or do you wait and declare your feelings later in the business-related conversation? As to what I’m going to do to stop Trumpism—I suppose I’ll wait until I finish Maxine Waters’s online course of civility.

Evidently, we did. U.S. Upgrading Korea Missile Defense Even as `War Games' Halted

No, they still won’t like us but since they are in no position to defend themselves from Russia, they will pretend to like us. Much like the basement-dwelling, college grad who doesn’t like his parents but can’t, or won’t, get out from under their protective umbrella. In any event, I think you’re overestimating our pre-Trump era respect. The Reputation Institutes Country Reptrak 2015 Survey, which ranks countries by how respected they are, placed the U.S. outside the top twenty. And in The Reputation Institute’s 2016 “World’s Most Reputable Countries” survey, the U.S. finished 28th, in between Poland and Argentina. Granted, our standing is now lower but don’t pretend we were an admired nation during the previous administration.

We may have written the rules for protection of intellectual property but China has flagrantly violated those rules, with little or repercussions. They don't respect us, and never have. As far as “Trump…making the United States less respected in the world” (with respect to the E.U.), just wait until Putin inevitably growls at his bordering, western neighbors. I suspect the E.U. will, at that time, once again feign respect for us. And bigly.

Shaming should be limited to people directly working for/collaborating with Trump. That’s the only people that should be publicly humiliated. Well, them, and of course their families. Perhaps their dog, as well.

I agree with both posters; we should shame and ostracize people who willingly work for a “horrible person.” Next in line should be Mattis…who’s with me?

It appears that China—as well as our allies and neutral countries—take a different view; that is, they seem to think that a “win-lose scenario” works just fine, as long as they have a trade surplus with us. Look, Trump’s approach is confrontational, unsophisticated and brutish, and while those tactics may be successful or tolerable in the business world it is doubtful they will succeed on the international, political stage. But why is it not acceptable to at least try to have more favorable terms for us? We’ve currently running deficits with the E.U., with N.A.F.T.A., with China (of course), as well as with Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, and so forth. And we’ve tolerated this trade one-sidedness for over forty years; isn’t it past time to at least try and restore some sense of balance?

Not even when he called Trump a "rodeo clown"?

Well, well…by fantasizing that a just God will, and should, take vengeance on our nation, you’ve joined the ranks of Jerry Falwell, who said 9-11 was an act of a vengeful God, and John Hagee and Pat Robertson, both of whom said basically the same thing after Hurricane Katrina.

This probably should go under the Charles Krauthammer thread but since several posters are convinced that our republic is either dying or dead, I thought this thread was a perfect place for his last opinion column, The guardrails hold . It’s dated but the message is current. Maybe it’ll keep certain posters from jumping off the ledge.

Not to detract from your main point, but according to this 2015 Pew article, if current trends continue, by 2050 …

Surly Aphelion = Shag Axiom of Choice = Hornfans Coelacanth? Maybe. No one really knows. Probably, though. In any case, Coelacanth (among others) contributed to lively, in depth and informative religious discussions on HF. I guess those discussions, some of which date back to 2010, are forever lost. Too bad.

Specifically, how is the BOE “crippling the teaching of science"? You seem to be saying that science, in general, is under attack as it relates to Texas education. Maybe you’re right, but some examples would be helpful. Whatever nefarious intent is attributed to the Board, it doesn’t seem to be hindering Texas students. Nationally, Texas ranks in the 2nd quartile in 4th and 8th grade science performance and proficiency. In fact, they rank slightly above the national average in all four categories and rank substantially higher than California, who is I assume is not crippling their students. State Indicators 2018