Donald Trump 2018

[Woodrow Call 494]

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 July 11, 2018 by Woodrow Call

[Anastasis 23720]

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. 

[Brian Fantana 6866]

What's your alternative m8

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

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 July 11, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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 July 11, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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

[Anastasis 23720]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Putting the most vulnerable at greater risk to own both sides

Well that's mighty white of ya. 

[Anastasis 23720]

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).  

[Chad Fuck 18135]

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.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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

[jimmyjazz 47203]

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.

[Brian Fantana 6866]

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Carrying the water to own both sides

What? Did you even read his post lol

[Anastasis 23720]

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!

[Tuco 5093]

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. 

[wildcat09 29579]

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. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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. 

[Chad Fuck 18135]

 

Quote

Russian mining firm places seal with Trump's face on asbestos products

BY JUSTIN WISE - 07/11/18 07:21 AM EDT

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396427-russian-mining-firm-places-seal-of-trumps-face-on-asbestos-products

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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:

Edited July 11, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Newdoc 3511]

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.

[Dropout 355]

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?

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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.

[Anastasis 23720]

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. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Anastasis

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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 July 11, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Chad Fuck 18135]

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.

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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 July 11, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, Dropout said:

 

Is that you Bernie?

[Dropout 355]

That’s the best part Hugo... if it wasn’t so sad! that it’s still happening 

[Js1 87183]

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.

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

 

[jimmyjazz 47203]

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.

[Chad Fuck 18135]

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.

[Js1 87183]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

"Is Putin's plane coming from this way?"

[Dr. Teeth 5868]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

He don't look where all them damn elites look. He cares about kicking their asses. MAGA

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[triplehorn 2664]

The Benczkowski nomination is a criminal assault.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

The Benczkowski nomination is a criminal assault.

Odds of it actually going through?

[TornACL 7792]

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?

 

[Royalfan5 2384]

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

[Anastasis 23720]

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. 

[Chad Fuck 18135]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

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

They'd likely be buying from us.  So, of course he wants them to spend more.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Johnny Sack 8397]

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

[David Dennison 19542]

4 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.

Which part?

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

Defense industry:

1.  Get Trump elected.

2.  Increase US military spending.

3.  Have Trump get Europe to increase spending

4.  Profit

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

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.

[Mo Horn 8938]

Nothing ironic about this at all. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

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? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

As if Germany wants to get its energy from Russia.

[Brian Fantana 6866]

Well, obviously they should freeze to show the Russians what fer.

[wildcat09 29579]

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.