The Community
General Category => Matters of Life and The Universe => Topic started by: Zzzptm on March 19, 2018, 07:20:54 PM
-
http://trumpgolfcount.com/displayoutings
In the last 60 weeks, President Donald Trump has spent over 890 hours -- just north of 22 work weeks -- on golf courses. This does not include travel time to or from the courses or other vacation time. Just hours at the courses. Put another way, 8.7% of his total time in office so far, 10,200 hours, has been spent on golf courses.
:redcard:
-
FAKE NEWS! DOES IT LOOK LIKE I CAN SWING ANYTHING WITH THESE HANDS?
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2F264630%2Fstory_image%2FTrump-Hands.jpg%3F1466226746&f=1)
-
FAKE NEWS! DOES IT LOOK LIKE I CAN SWING ANYTHING WITH THESE HANDS?
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2F264630%2Fstory_image%2FTrump-Hands.jpg%3F1466226746&f=1)
I see what you did there. :smug:
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
-
http://trumpgolfcount.com/displayoutings
In the last 60 weeks, President Donald Trump has spent over 890 hours -- just north of 22 work weeks -- on golf courses. This does not include travel time to or from the courses or other vacation time. Just hours at the courses. Put another way, 8.7% of his total time in office so far, 10,200 hours, has been spent on golf courses.
:redcard:
And you know what's the problem with that? The problem is that he didn't spend 100% of his time on the golf course. Every minute he is not doing work as president is a relief, because that's a minute where he doesn't cause any harm to the world.
(I am aware of the problem with this way of thinking though: when he is away, others do his work - and those others, though mostly not as crazy as him, don't exactly have a better agenda.)
-
And you know what's the problem with that? The problem is that he didn't spend 100% of his time on the golf course. Every minute he is not doing work as president is a relief, because that's a minute where he doesn't cause any harm to the world.
:yes:
But you're right in the rest of your post, though. Trump is just their easily led (read; so much in debt they owe him and his name) sock puppet.
-
Well atleast he is taking care of himself! Golf is serious sport you know.... :D
-
I used to vote Republican, but the way the truly Libertarian aspects of the party have been eroded or corrupted left me as an outsider to the party.
Then the way it is now designed to get someone barely elected to say "no" to anything but their agenda - and then they can't even come together on that - AND that they can't get elected without the help of Russian agitprop, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and other horrors leaves me where I am convinced that, to quote Oliver Cromwell, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
-
Looks like this thread is full of a bunch of
suckers otherwise thoughtful, intelligent folks falling for leftwing main stream media bullshit. :boohoo:
Obvious edit is obvious for hopefully obvious reasons
-
Looks like this thread is full of a bunch of suckers falling for leftwing main stream media bullshit. :boohoo:
I guess that "leftwing main stream media bullshit" is every source of information outside Trump's twitter account and Fox News? ;) Or what would you recommend us to use?
Zzz mentioned he used to be in the Republican Party - I guess the first-hand information he got there was eftwing main stream media bullshit too?
Would you mind not calling other people "suckers"? I am enjoying this forum precisely because people are friendly and respectful. Why should we give up that so quickly?
-
Oliver Cromwell, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
You know what happened to Olly, right?
-
I am I suppose what you can call moderate conservative. If I'd be voting in the US I'd most certainly be voting Rebublican...a lot of the liberal bullshit really makes me sick...but so does some of the ultra conservative stuff too...mainly about religion...
Trump has (to the surprise of many I would imagine) done a lot of good in office too...created a shitload of jobs and managed to cut away some of the insane spending left by the worst president in history...
The problem with Trump is that a lot of his actual works get buried under all the bullshit and his tweets-before-he-thinks things. Also the mainstream media in the US is so far up the leftwings ass broadcasts are coming from their eyes. Which is ridiculous and fact checking is something that gets forgotten bit too often.
-
Also, I know Trump can stirr up some feelings in people (for and against, right and wrong) but lets try to seperate them from us and most of all LETS PLAY NICE here shall we....
-
Oliver Cromwell, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
You know what happened to Olly, right?
He got painted, warts and all. :P
-
Oliver Cromwell, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
You know what happened to Olly, right?
He got painted, warts and all. :P
And deathmasked! And dug up, posthumously executed, and had his head on a pike for years. Royalists >>> really <<< didn't like him or his cohorts :)
-
Also, I know Trump can stirr up some feelings in people (for and against, right and wrong) but lets try to seperate them from us and most of all LETS PLAY NICE here shall we....
Thanks, Amen to that.
By the way, most of the most worrying news I heard about Trump actually came from his own Twitter account or from videos that showed him talking.
-
Looks like this thread is full of a bunch of suckers falling for leftwing main stream media bullshit. :boohoo:
27 times, this guy tweeted about how bad it was for Obama to play golf.
96 times, this guy headed down to the golf course.
I hate to ask, but does Trump get a pass on the golf thing because he's neither black nor a woman? There's a huge range of venality in politicians, but it seems to me that a lot of Republicans have to strain at gnats while swallowing elephants in order to justify supporting Trump.
For the record, "main stream media" historically was a term used to describe large media outlets, typically with cross-memberships in their boards of directors, that would squelch stories that were discomforting to their corporate masters. These were normally along corporate lines, such as "Kill the story on cow hormones in milk or the dairy guys pull their advertising from our national network." The secondary, and equally valid concern was that members of government that enjoyed a close relationship with the major media outlets and/or intelligence agency staff placed on editorial boards would do the same thing, but for stories that were embarrassing to the government.
The truth of the matter is that no one side was monolithic in its controls. That they existed and could be abused, I think, was well documented. But that the MSM as a whole was discredited was not demonstrated.
The ability of a foreign power to penetrate a mindspace by saying "this is a story the MSM is trying to kill" is a powerful ability, indeed, as it will succeed where those who hear it fail to corroborate the story. The second sort of highly effective attack is to go personal against the reporter or source immediately after a bad story emerges from such. Never mind the truth or falsehood of the story itself, the person reporting it is a problem child with an axe to grind, and so on.
The combination of these attacks has deeply penetrated the conservative mindspace so much that one can pretty much count to 10 every time a story damages Trump... because, when you get to 10, a complete distraction is being tweeted and retweeted in the conservative mindspace via Russian bots set up precisely to keep Americans distracted from the very real faults and problems within the current administration.
This is exactly what Russia did successfully in Georgia and Estonia during a war (Georgia) and an international dispute (Estonia). Russia followed the same playbook, but with less success, in Ukraine, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and other nations.
I'm of the mind that I'm not changing the opinions of Trump's most dedicated supporters, except perhaps by some miracle. The support they have for Trump is very strong and it would be fruitless for me to change that mindset. But I will lay out what I see as rational arguments so that when someone goes sane, there's a trail of breadcrumbs I've left out that will lead back to reality. One of the hardest things I had to face was how sources I once trusted as alternative news had become subverted by Russian intel and that I was being duped by them. Once I tore off that band-aid, the recovery was refreshing and healing. I didn't have to go through the stress of cognitive dissonance as much.
-
By the way, most of the most worrying news I heard about Trump actually came from his own Twitter account or from videos that showed him talking.
That is the big problem with Trump...he just blabbers stuff out without thinking. But in that sense though he is real. Which is quite rare in political world, but then again Trump is not a politician and it shows..in both good and bad. Sadly though mostly in bad and it really does hurt him too since as I said a lot of the good he has done gets buried in all of that nonsense.
-
The scary thing is that in this populistic political world we live in today, people only react to (and believe in) statements and rhetorics made by politicians, but they don't pay any attention to what they're actually doing.
Then we end up with people rooting for politicians who essentially are harmful for themselves, both on an individual and a worldwide level.
Just had this problem in Norway, the minister of Justice withdrew "voluntarily" because of some bad facebook statements about immigration, so not to pull the whole government down with her (as the prime minister had said if she'll get a confidence motion voted against her, the whole government will leave as a result).
The Christian conservative party were the ones in the position to pull the whole thing one way or the other. They want a government lead by the Right party, but not with the "Development" party (FrP, our most far right, to which said minister of Justice, as well as the minister of Finance belong to) in coalition.
When it became clear that the christian conservative party might actually vote against her despite then loosing the Right lead government, suddenly she's withdrawing though both the leader of Right and Prime minister and the leader of FrP and minister of Finance "begged her not to". Yeah, right...
And everyone on the left side is cheering having gotten rid of her, and seemingly already have forgotten that we could easily have gotten rid of the whole damn bunch. So it's pretty much status quo, actually the guy who's replacing her temporarily is even worse.
And the leader of the christian conservatives as well as the one for the labour party (supposedly the leaders of the left side coalition, though still being pretty far to the right) even got death threats for threathning the position of their beloved version of Trump.
And that's the way it goes pretty much all over Europe and the U.S. at the moment.
Truly horrible times we're living in.
One thing we're seeing pretty much all over the line right now are politicians trying to take power away from the judicial state powers to the legislative state powers (themselves). When was the last time that happened in Europe? Germany 1933...
History isn't only repeating itself, it goes around in circles...
-
Indeed. I do find Trump's attacks on the FBI to be very concerning... it's like, dude... you know these are the guys that are *protecting* us from foreign espionage? Why are you tearing into them and giving Russia a pass? This is why I appreciate the comments from the one senator from South Carolina who said, "If you're innocent, *act* like it!"
-
MODERATION NOTE: stuff that was mostly not about Trump, golfing, or the batshit insanity of people who believe Trump is playing golf or whatever has been moved to the thread about the rules that I screwed up in the other part of the forum.
If you want to talk about whether or not the right words were used in the discussion, go there.
If you want to carry on with the current discussion, keep discussing here.
-
By the way, most of the most worrying news I heard about Trump actually came from his own Twitter account or from videos that showed him talking.
That is the big problem with Trump...he just blabbers stuff out without thinking. But in that sense though he is real. Which is quite rare in political world, but then again Trump is not a politician and it shows..in both good and bad. Sadly though mostly in bad and it really does hurt him too since as I said a lot of the good he has done gets buried in all of that nonsense.
Agreed. I do prefer a President who actually says what's on his mind rather than previous guys who almost never did. To me they tended to come off as being phony. And although the tweets are part of the problem, what really angers me is that the media is quick to report anything that makes the president look bad, because they don't like the guy. While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention. That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression. You're not suppose to report the news that way.
-
To me they tended to come off as being phony.
Yeah, it got to the point where it wasn't about maintaining professional decorum, or perception management, it seemed like elitism or like you said - being phony.
Interesting perspective on this: George Washington was very well known for his white horse. After he was elected president, he would travel around to different places in a carriage. But they'd have his horse along too. When he was about a mile from his destination, he'd leave the carriage and ride his horse into town.
President Washington indicated that he pulled that charade because he felt people wanted to see him on his horse (intimating someone who was vital, strong, and in charge) rather than riding in a carriage like he was royalty.
And although the tweets are part of the problem, what really angers me is that the media is quick to report anything that makes the president look bad, because they don't like the guy. While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention. That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression. You're not suppose to report the news that way.
There are so many people on our news channels anymore that aren't journalists, but just pundits. They blab about shit without anything to back up their assertions that eventually people confuse actual news with some jackhole's opinion. Of course they do this because it draws more viewers and clicks. Which translates into more ad revenue. I think politics are actually secondary. Trump is such a polarizing figure, you can go to Fox and read a story, then go to CNN and read the same story, but both are framed with bias so much neither one is true.
The whole media/entertainment industry in the USA is a damn clown show anymore.
-
While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention. That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression.
Could you name some of those things, then? It would be nice to crosscheck if the impression one gets from, say, Norwegian news (random example :P ) are the same as your impression.
-
I'd also add that putting numbers and sources for those numbers to claims would be welcome. "Create lots of jobs" is vague. Let's see the job creation numbers and be sure that those are overall numbers, not announcements from a company that it intended to create jobs that later got retracted.
Then there's the matter regarding how, despite promises to 'drain the swamp', Trump's appointees to Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Education have all been criticized for increasing the level of regulatory capture of those departments.
And *then* there's an issue about how Trump's visits to golf resorts results in increased federal spending at those resorts. Coupled with how people wanting deals from the US government have been staying at Trump properties, providing sweetheart deals to Trump businesses, and cultivating relationships with members of Trump's family, this all seems to me to be a violation of the emoluments clause.
If the good things can be enumerated, accounted for, and then put in perspective with criticisms of the administration, we'd have something less nebulous than "lots of good things" to evaluate.
-
And *then* there's an issue about how Trump's visits to golf resorts results in increased federal spending at those resorts. Coupled with how people wanting deals from the US government have been staying at Trump properties, providing sweetheart deals to Trump businesses, and cultivating relationships with members of Trump's family, this all seems to me to be a violation of the emoluments clause.
I see no difference between this, and previous presidents receiving huge campaign contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals.
-
I'd also add that putting numbers and sources for those numbers to claims would be welcome. "Create lots of jobs" is vague. Let's see the job creation numbers and be sure that those are overall numbers, not announcements from a company that it intended to create jobs that later got retracted.
The Jobs Report comes out every month stating the number of jobs that were added to the country's economy. Been that way for years.
-
And *then* there's an issue about how Trump's visits to golf resorts results in increased federal spending at those resorts. Coupled with how people wanting deals from the US government have been staying at Trump properties, providing sweetheart deals to Trump businesses, and cultivating relationships with members of Trump's family, this all seems to me to be a violation of the emoluments clause.
I see no difference between this, and previous presidents receiving huge campaign contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals.
The difference is that campaign contributions have, at the very least, the veil of not directly benefiting the politician. This stuff is a direct benefit. Is that a matter of semantics? I think so, as I find both disgusting. There's also the move to not bribe a politician, but to make a substantial donation to the charity his wife oversees... that's also quite unethical.
But it's also a matter of legal definitions. Most of those thinly-veiled ruses are thinly-veiled because that veil offers a degree of legality to the proceedings. But if instead the stuff is done out in the open, it's not just bad optics, it's also grounds for legal actions.
At the very least, though, we have a politician who ran hard on an anti-establishment and anti-elite message who is, if anything, further abetting and aiding those establishments and elites. The hotels and resorts thing is just the personal aspect of that. At the same time, there are heads of departments that are making huge giveaways to the industries they are supposed to be regulating. That's not draining the swamp, that's lining up pigs at the trough for more goodies than the last few presidents would give them.
-
I'd also add that putting numbers and sources for those numbers to claims would be welcome. "Create lots of jobs" is vague. Let's see the job creation numbers and be sure that those are overall numbers, not announcements from a company that it intended to create jobs that later got retracted.
The Jobs Report comes out every month stating the number of jobs that were added to the country's economy. Been that way for years.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2.06 million jobs created in 2017 were actually the fewest in a year since 2011.
-
The difference is that campaign contributions have, at the very least, the veil of not directly benefiting the politician. This stuff is a direct benefit. Is that a matter of semantics? I think so, as I find both disgusting. There's also the move to not bribe a politician, but to make a substantial donation to the charity his wife oversees... that's also quite unethical.
But it's also a matter of legal definitions. Most of those thinly-veiled ruses are thinly-veiled because that veil offers a degree of legality to the proceedings. But if instead the stuff is done out in the open, it's not just bad optics, it's also grounds for legal actions.
At the very least, though, we have a politician who ran hard on an anti-establishment and anti-elite message who is, if anything, further abetting and aiding those establishments and elites. The hotels and resorts thing is just the personal aspect of that. At the same time, there are heads of departments that are making huge giveaways to the industries they are supposed to be regulating. That's not draining the swamp, that's lining up pigs at the trough for more goodies than the last few presidents would give them.
Well I firmly believe that lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% was a good thing. Will that help the so-called elite? Yes, but it is beneficial to everybody.
-
While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention. That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression.
Could you name some of those things, then? It would be nice to crosscheck if the impression one gets from, say, Norwegian news (random example :P ) are the same as your impression.
So you couldn't even mention one specific thing, Typh? Interesting...
-
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2.06 million jobs created in 2017 were actually the fewest in a year since 2011.
Also from B of LS, when Trump took office the unemployment rate was 4.8%. It is now 4.1%.
-
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2.06 million jobs created in 2017 were actually the fewest in a year since 2011.
Also from B of LS, when Trump took office the unemployment rate was 4.8%. It is now 4.1%.
True, more jobs usually lowers the unemployment rate. :) But with that rate of job addition possibly slowing down, we may be looking at a transition into a recession. If we avoid a recession in this year because of the recent repeal of Frank-Dodd laws, then it means we'll have a harder crash when the market turns down. Repeal of banking regulations has consistently led to major crashes in US economic history.
For me, job numbers aren't really a province of the POTUS. He just takes the blame when they're down and takes the praise when they're up. One of the best examples of this was the Panic of 1837, which started one week after Martin Van Buren took office. The guy had barely started to change the drapes in the White House, and he was blamed for a major financial disruption. He was blamed not because he had been VP under Jackson, but because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had whispered something to Van Buren during his inauguration and everyone speculated that it was some kind of tip-off to Van Buren.
-
While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention. That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression.
Could you name some of those things, then? It would be nice to crosscheck if the impression one gets from, say, Norwegian news (random example :P ) are the same as your impression.
So you couldn't even mention one specific thing, Typh? Interesting...
I just named one in the previous post! :doh:
-
I just named one in the previous post! :doh:
Yeah, that was posted as i wrote that. One thing, though... Congrats :)
-
So you couldn't even mention one specific thing, Typh? Interesting...
I just named one in the previous post! :doh:
That he did! :redcard: False start, Billy Underdog, 5 yards, repeat second down!
-
I just named one in the previous post! :doh:
Yeah, that was posted as i wrote that. One thing, though... Congrats :)
To go along with this "one thing", once the bill was signed there was a list of major companies who announced that they were passing on to their employees $500 and $1000 bonuses this year, because of the tax savings. Barely mentioned.
These items come and go, and I don't keep recordings of everything where I could just whip them out when needed.
-
To go along with this "one thing", once the bill was signed there was a list of major companies who announced that they were passing on to their employees $500 and $1000 bonuses this year, because of the tax savings. Barely mentioned.
These items come and go, and I don't keep recordings of everything where I could just whip them out when needed.
Fair enough.
I guess I'd like to ask if there's anything in particular about Trump's presidency thus far that gives you concern?
For example, I was not a fan of Obama continuing Bush's practice of drone strikes. Really, Obama was expected to change course on Bush's foreign policy and that never truly came to pass.
-
I disagree with the President on climate change, and I believe we should have not left the Paris agreement.
For the record, I am not a member of any political party. I am independent.
-
Duly noted, sir, and thank you for the candid response. :)
-
While things that he has done that are good only get a brief mention. That's how people everywhere can get the wrong impression.
Could you name some of those things, then? It would be nice to crosscheck if the impression one gets from, say, Norwegian news (random example :P ) are the same as your impression.
A few months back, President Trump decided to allow the sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, to help them with their conflict with Russia. This is something that Obama did not allow because he feared tensions with Russia would increase. I doubt you would have heard about this.
-
On the other hand, he seems to have kicked off a trade war with China. Those things have low odds for ending peacefully, and never end well, regardless.
-
On the other hand, he seems to have kicked off a trade war with China. Those things have low odds for ending peacefully, and never end well, regardless.
We'll see. :-\
-
A few months back, President Trump decided to allow the sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, to help them with their conflict with Russia. This is something that Obama did not allow because he feared tensions with Russia would increase. I doubt you would have heard about this.
One small good thing in a bigger, bad picture. Maybe Obamas reasons was right? I support the independence of Ukraine, don't get me wrong, but doing it by means of war is always wrong. You don't win peace and freedom by war.
And seeing how the relationship with North Korea and China is at the moment, getting at odds with yet another nuclear power might not be for the best. It seems like Trump is set on making an enemy again out of all old enemies.
Ask yourself, do you think he've alloved for this because he actually support their "fight for freedom", or to send a message to Russia?
-
You don't win peace and freedom by war.
You are wrong. A war is how my country got its freedom.
Ask yourself, do you think he've alloved for this because he actually support their "fight for freedom", or to send a message to Russia?
Both.
-
This morning, the report was about how the head of the EPA is rolling back vehicular emissions rules while, at the same time, is living in a condo subsidized by the lobbying firm that requested said lowering of standards. This troubles me because:
1. It's not the first time Mr. Pruitt has performed a quid pro quo ruling for this lobbying firm after receiving gifts from that firm.
2. I will set aside arguments about humans causing global warming: this, however, seems to doubt the extremely real science that cars cause air pollution. The purpose of the regulations may have had an eye towards a long-range climate goal, but the impact of the regulations was to directly make my air more breathable, and I'm in favor of that.
3. This is proof that the EPA is in a condition known as "regulatory capture", where the regulated industries control the regulators.
4. Regulatory capture is an aspect of Washington D.C. swampiness. For a Trump appointee to not just support the status quo but to actually make it worse is completely contrary to the electoral promises of Mr. Trump.
-
^^^^^^
I agree the emissions rules should not be rolled back. However, the administration looks at it differently than you do. Trump promised to eliminate the many restrictions on business that Obama had put in place, and this is one of them.
-
You are wrong. A war is how my country got its freedom.
There's many thing i could reply to this, but... Naw, won it by an declaration of independence. Then the war happened.
-
You are wrong. A war is how my country got its freedom.
There's many thing i could reply to this, but... Naw, won it by an declaration of independence. Then the war happened.
And what do you think would have happened if we lost that war? I know you are a "make peace, not war" type of person, but sometimes it takes a conflict to resolve something once and for all.
-
I know you are a "make peace, not war" type of person, but sometimes it takes a conflict to resolve something once and for all.
I'm really not, though, but which war is that, though? Wasn't WW2 supposed to be that? And still conflicts we see today can be trased back to that or older, related conflicts. A conflict "won" with war will always leave the other part so dissatisfied a conflict will keep going.
-
I'm really not, though, but which war is that, though? Wasn't WW2 supposed to be that? And still conflicts we see today can be trased back to that or older, related conflicts. A conflict "won" with war will always leave the other part so dissatisfied a conflict will keep going.
Well that is true, but sometimes war is the only way to go...especially when talking about getting or defending independence...
-
^^^^^^
Correct.
I know you are a "make peace, not war" type of person, but sometimes it takes a conflict to resolve something once and for all.
I'm really not, though, but which war is that, though? Wasn't WW2 supposed to be that? And still conflicts we see today can be trased back to that or older, related conflicts. A conflict "won" with war will always leave the other part so dissatisfied a conflict will keep going.
I was talking about the Revolutionary War. As far as WW2 goes, Germany and Japan are now allies. :pub:
-
Well that is true, but sometimes war is the only way to go...especially when talking about getting or defending independence...
Name once the last 100 years that've actually worked longtime...
I was talking about the Revolutionary War.
So that resolved everything once and for all..? Ok...
-
I was talking about the Revolutionary War.
So that resolved everything once and for all..? Ok...
As far as the USA getting out from under the thumb of King George III, it certainly did.
-
I was talking about the Revolutionary War.
So that resolved everything once and for all..? Ok...
As far as the USA getting out from under the thumb of King George III, it certainly did.
And we have not had a military battle with England since. That's more than 200 years.
-
And everything was just peace and happiness forever after... :)
-
And everything was just peace and happiness forever after... :)
Well between the US and the UK it was...they are some of the strongest allies now. ;)
-
Hold on there... there was a thing called the War of 1812 in which the USA declared war on England, ostensibly over freedom of the seas, but with the ulterior motive of acquiring Upper Canada. Following that, tensions did remain high, almost erupting into war over things like lumberjacks in Maine and pigs on the West Coast. Although treaties were able to settle boundary disputes, the USA almost got England to join with the CSA in the Civil War over intercepting Confederate diplomats en route to England on a British ship.
Since then, there was a healthy amount of anti-British skepticism in the USA until around after the Spanish-American War in which the USA acquired a global empire and became a good bit more like England as a result. Once on the world stage, having good terms with the world's biggest navy made sense.
Geopolitically, there is a lot of overlap in US and UK desires, so it's natural for them to stay allied... for now...
-
Hold on there... there was a thing called the War of 1812 in which the USA declared war on England, ostensibly over freedom of the seas,
This ended in 1815. Since then, no conflicts, over 200 years.
-
Possibly another underreported story of the federal government doing its job:
Federal agents raided an eastern Tennessee meatpacking facility on Thursday following a months-long investigation into allegations the owners were employing illegal immigrants to avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes, according to court records.
Agents with the IRS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) served a search warrant at cattle slaughterhouse Southeastern Provisions, which has allegedly been hiring immigrants without work authorization since 2008 and hiding it from tax collectors.
The illegal hiring practices allowed owners James and Pamela Brantley to avoid paying $2.5 million in payroll taxes, reported the Knoxville News Sentinel, citing an IRS search warrant affidavit.
Agents encountered 97 people working at the plant during the raid, ICE spokeswoman Tammy Spicer said in a statement Friday. Of those, 11 were arrested on criminal charges, while the remaining 86 were held pending immigration status checks. Ultimately, 54 workers were detained for further immigration proceedings, according to Spicer.
The raid comes as President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to more closely scrutinize companies that hire illegal immigrants or foreign nationals without proper work authorization. ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan said in 2017 he would make worksite enforcement investigations a priority, and his agency has since carried out several high-profile operations, including a nationwide audit of 7-Eleven stores that resulted in the arrest of 21 people in January.
The investigation into Southeastern Provisions began when Citizens Bank, where the Brantleys held accounts, notified authorities of suspiciously large cash withdrawals the company said were for “payroll,” according to the IRS affidavit. The Brantleys allegedly lied to the IRS about how much they paid themselves, filed false tax returns and exploited their employees, who were largely Hispanic illegal immigrants.
Immigration activists in Tennessee said the Southeastern Provision raid was the largest worksite enforcement operation under the Trump administration, reported The Associated Press. ICE declined to confirm that claim.
Previous administrations have let this kind of thing slide for a long time.
-
A massive :diothumbsup: for that!
-
I was talking about the Revolutionary War.
So that resolved everything once and for all..? Ok...
As far as the USA getting out from under the thumb of King George III, it certainly did.
And we have not had a military battle with England since. That's more than 200 years.
War of 1812
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Hold on there... there was a thing called the War of 1812 in which the USA declared war on England, ostensibly over freedom of the seas, but with the ulterior motive of acquiring Upper Canada. Following that, tensions did remain high, almost erupting into war over things like lumberjacks in Maine and pigs on the West Coast. Although treaties were able to settle boundary disputes, the USA almost got England to join with the CSA in the Civil War over intercepting Confederate diplomats en route to England on a British ship.
Since then, there was a healthy amount of anti-British skepticism in the USA until around after the Spanish-American War in which the USA acquired a global empire and became a good bit more like England as a result. Once on the world stage, having good terms with the world's biggest navy made sense.
Geopolitically, there is a lot of overlap in US and UK desires, so it's natural for them to stay allied... for now...
Sooo... It's like the war ended, but the conflicts kept on going? Weird...
It must really be nice to be able to see the world as isolated events instead of one continuous story...
-
War of 1812
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Which ended in 1815 = more than 200 years.
Sooo... It's like the war ended, but the conflicts kept on going? Weird...
It must really be nice to be able to see the world as isolated events instead of one continuous story...
Well don't you have disagreements with friends, but are still friends?
-
Sooo... It's like the war ended, but the conflicts kept on going? Weird...
It must really be nice to be able to see the world as isolated events instead of one continuous story...
Well don't you have disagreements with friends, but are still friends?
Sure, but it never gets physical, as we know that doesn't solve anything. Neither is it at the expence of innocent civilians or at the risk of by-standers.
-
Sooo... It's like the war ended, but the conflicts kept on going? Weird...
It must really be nice to be able to see the world as isolated events instead of one continuous story...
Well don't you have disagreements with friends, but are still friends?
Sure, but it never gets physical, as we know that doesn't solve anything.
Of course it does. Look at the history between the U.S. and Japan:
Japan backstabs us at Pearl Harbor --> the 2 nations are mortal enemies.
Major conflict takes place --> Japan surrenders and a peace treaty is signed.
Final result --> the 2 nations are now allies, doing business between them,
a kind of mutual respect now exists.
Again, I'm not saying a conflict is always the answer. But, sometimes, it is the best answer in order to settle things once and for all.
-
The US-England relationship nearly went to war on at least three separate occasions between 1815 and 1865... I'm not considering those 50 years as part of the "no wars" period, given that both nations had to keep plans handy just in case the events precipitated a war.
The idea of a war settling things once and for all is absolutely ludicrous once one puts nuclear weapons into the mix. Yes, things are settled, but in an extremely final way.
EDIT: As for Japan and Germany being friends, what choice do they have? Germany is an occupied country still and Japan has a massive US military presence surrounding it. Both nations are constitutionally restricted in their deployment of forces overseas. They really don't have much choice but to be a friend with the USA.
-
^^^ You're a smart, levelheaded person, Dozy. You seem to don't just take bullshit at face value, but actually stop to think about stuff thoroughly. A much needed trait in this chaotic world of ours.
-
Japan has a massive US military presence surrounding it. Both nations are constitutionally restricted in their deployment of forces overseas. They really don't have much choice but to be a friend with the USA.
Yes, they had a choice. They could have chosen to be another North Korea.
-
Japan has a massive US military presence surrounding it. Both nations are constitutionally restricted in their deployment of forces overseas. They really don't have much choice but to be a friend with the USA.
Yes, they had a choice. They could have chosen to be another North Korea.
Not sure where you got that... but North Korea is an edge case, alongside the Khmer Rouges in Cambodia.
The course of the war the Allies fought against Japan was fraught with missed opportunities on both sides. After the failure of the U-Go and Ha-Go offensives of 1944, Japan offered to have a negotiated peace. The USA refused to accept terms and insisted upon unconditional surrender. In early 1945, the USA initiated a firebombing campaign, killing roughly 2-2.5 million Japanese civilians in firestorms. By the way, this is a rate on par with the German extermination camps in 1944-1945, at the peak of their operating efficiency. General Le May admitted that had the Allies not won the war, he and his staff would be in the dock for crimes against humanity.
At any rate, after having most of their urban centers reduced to ashes, the Japanese offered to surrender, holding out the single condition that the person of the Emperor not be subjected to war crimes trials and be left in place. The USA refused and proceeded to use two nuclear weapons. Following those attacks, the Japanese again offered to surrender, and again held out a condition for the Emperor. The USA prepared for Operation Olympic, and expected upwards of a million US casualties and countless Japanese casualties.
At that point, a member of the Secretariat of the Navy suggested to Truman that the Japanese would never surrender. As long as the Emperor and one other Japanese soldier existed, the soldier would not surrender if it meant placing the Emperor in jeopardy. On that secretariat's advice, Truman basically lied to the American people and said that Japan was surrendering unconditionally. The war ended. At that point, Japan had no choice but to accept a US-dictated constitution, the presence of US bases, and to be firmly locked into the US' commercial and diplomatic sphere.
For its part, the USA did not want to partition Japan as had happened with Germany. The USSR was content to loot the industrial base of Manchuria as its reward for showing up to fight in the East.
-
But back to the Golfer-in-Chief... the guy made a comment that he would never spend a day on the links while President. Republicans had ripped into Obama for his golfing during various moments of his presidency, so the golfing thing seemed to be a litmus test for the GOP. You go golfing, you suck as a president. No golfing, you might just be one of the greats.
Well, Trump has now golfed more than just about any other president I can think of, which points to his credibility. The man said one thing, did the complete opposite. And maybe it *is* a litmus test for how much stuff he's gotten himself and his staffers embroiled in. The work of the US Government goes on, of course. There are many large bureaucracies that carry out their work with guidance on points of emphasis from the top of the executive branch. But at the same time, the sheer chaos of the Trump presidency is matched only by its venality and kleptocracy.
The fact that his election campaign was rife with connections to Russian intelligence is only compounded by the hush money handed out in what seems to be violations of federal election laws. Trump is a deeply flawed person who is making a pig's breakfast of his presidency. Things that Republicans threw tantrums over when Obama did them, they look the other way at Trump and point at minor stories as if those cover up the real howlers coming out of his administration. The GOP itself has a massive internal issue in that they can't get decent people on their tickets in a number of elections. Districts they should be winning easily are going to the Democrats not only because Trump is such a terrible president, but the candidates themselves are basically running on a "don't look at his past, we can count on him to vote our way" ticket. The GOP couldn't stop an actual Nazi from getting their nomination in an Illinois congressional race, for heaven's sake.
In my own state, there is a massive wave of sentiment to vote in Beto O'Rourke for Senate and to thereby put Ted Cruz out of a job. Ted Cruz got elected only 6 years ago, so not a lot of demographics have changed in Texas voters. Texas had been a reliably Republican state since the Reagan Revolution, but now Trump has made it much easier for Texans to want to cut ties not only with Lyin' Ted Cruz, but with the party itself. If Trump's policies get Texas to flip to Blue, that's it for the GOP in national politics.
I don't think anyone will be convinced one way or another reading a political thread on a music message board... but if we step back and, whatever our politics may be, take a look at what's happening in the USA, we're witnessing a massive rejection of the GOP because of its close connections to things like the NRA, Big Oil, and white supremacist groups. Not all Republicans fit those descriptions, not at all: but there is a need for them to explain why it is that they're cheering for the same guy that the KKK is cheering for at times... and that explanation isn't washing with voters.
-
At any rate, after having most of their urban centers reduced to ashes, the Japanese offered to surrender, holding out the single condition that the person of the Emperor not be subjected to war crimes trials and be left in place. The USA refused and proceeded to use two nuclear weapons. Following those attacks, the Japanese again offered to surrender, and again held out a condition for the Emperor.
The Japanese never offered to surrender. The problem with your analysis is that the Japanese have their own definition of the word "surrender" and it was not with just 1 single condition. You see, when 2 countries are at war with one another, and the side losing badly offers to surrender, but has a list of conditions that the winning side is suppose to abide by, then it is not actually a surrender, but an attempt to con the winning side into stopping the onslaught. Truman did not fall for this and rejected this so-called offer.
-
At any rate, after having most of their urban centers reduced to ashes, the Japanese offered to surrender, holding out the single condition that the person of the Emperor not be subjected to war crimes trials and be left in place. The USA refused and proceeded to use two nuclear weapons. Following those attacks, the Japanese again offered to surrender, and again held out a condition for the Emperor.
The Japanese never offered to surrender. The problem with your analysis is that the Japanese have their own definition of the word "surrender" and it was not with just 1 single condition. You see, when 2 countries are at war with one another, and the side losing badly offers to surrender, but has a list of conditions that the winning side is suppose to abide by, then it is not actually a surrender, but an attempt to con the winning side into stopping the onslaught. Truman did not fall for this and rejected this so-called offer.
Conditions were included in the December 1944/January 1945 and early July 1945 set of offers. The late July 1945 offer was the single condition offer and was identical to the August 1945 offer after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Thing is, the unconditional surrender concept was itself something put forward by Stalin to Roosevelt as it played to the Russian advantage in the war. Churchill was ready to work with Abwehr dissidents who would assassinate Hitler and then have a peace with status quo ante bellum borders, with Germany keeping Austria and the Sudetenland. Such a peace would have left Russia with nothing to gain in Europe, so Stalin pushed for Roosevelt to go with unconditional surrender. The war dragged on and, consequently, Russia was able to grind back the German armies and cut off a big slice of Eastern and Central Europe for its sphere. Same thing with Japan - had there been a negotiated finish to the war in January 1945, Russia would have been kept out of both Manchuria and North Korea. Korea would have been a single governmental entity and the Nationalists would have had the Manchurian industrial base to support their fight against the Communists.
Even with the idea of unconditional surrender, the Allies pretty much fought without imagination. Their superior numbers, either with mass attacks from Russian and Chinese armies or with piles of American equipment in the British, Canadian, and US armies, meant basically that the Germans were going to run out of bullets and shells before the Allies ran out of bodies, bombers, and tanks. The entire Italian campaign was a merciless slog up the mountains and the Eastern Front was one pile of bodies after another. Actual Russian casualties are expected to have been a good deal greater than the 20 million officially reported.
In the fight against Japan, MacArthur had a simple strategy: From Australia, go back up the island chains until getting back to the Philippines. From there, cut off the Japanese petrochemical supplies from the Dutch East Indies and the Japanese would be unable to fight. The US Navy revolted at the idea, refusing to be a taxi service for the Army, especially after the debacle of Pearl Harbor. The Navy had to have its own Central Pacific strategy, which split American efforts and dragged the war out. The Navy even failed to put oil tankers on its list of priority targets and did not use wolfpack tactics against Japanese shipping. For practically the whole war, the Japanese oil supplies were uninterrupted. Once MacArthur took the Philippines back and the Ha-Go offensive was spent, the Japanese had no oil reserves for major army operations and knew that the USAAF could disrupt the shipping that the USN had ignored.
But, no matter to Uncle Joe. If another ten million Russians died, or the Americans bumbled their way across the Pacific, or the War in Europe went on an additional 3 years because Churchill's Abwehr connections were denied, he didn't care. His own power was more secure with the longer the war took to complete. Unconditional surrender did just that.
Unconditional surrender is itself a demand that's had particular appeal to American commanders, going back to the Mexican-American War and the Civil War for particular commanders that made a name for themselves by demanding the unconditional surrender of a fortress. Ulysses S. Grant was perhaps the most famous for his demand of the unconditional surrender of Vicksburg. U.S. Grant was then "Unconditional Surrender" Grant for about a year, until the carnage of The Wilderness Battles made him "Butcher" Grant.
And as far as wars settling things, the Civil War is an example of a war not settling much of anything. The conventional military conquest of the South was undone by a coordinated guerrilla campaign conducted by murderous extremists.
-
^^^^^^
Thanks for the world history synapsis. I would have to take a 2 semester history course to fact check it all, which I am not going to waste my time doing. Don't quite understand why you brought up the Civil War. But that war certainly prevented the South from succeeding from the Union.
-
^^^^^^
Thanks for the world history synapsis. I would have to take a 2 semester history course to fact check it all, which I am not going to waste my time doing. Don't quite understand why you brought up the Civil War. But that war certainly prevented the South from succeeding from the Union.
Ah, so you've noticed I have a tendency to ramble... :)
If you're looking for some reading suggestions, I'd recommend "Brute Force" by Ellis for a critique on WW2 grand strategy and "The New Dealer's War" (forgot author's name) for a critique on WW2 political machinations.
And, yes, the Civil War closed the book on the question of secession: becoming a state is a one-way street. But I brought it up because the secondary goal of the Civil War was to refashion the South. It was not a goal shared by all supporters of the North, but was definitely a goal of the Republican Party, which controlled the politics of the nation in the Reconstruction period. And though the South was in abject ruin after the Civil War and there was no question whatsoever that it had lost the conflict completely and utterly, Southerners persisted in resisting Reconstruction efforts to alter the structure of Southern society.
In that sense, the decisive military victory did not translate into winning the peace, as it were. The Southern resistance embarked upon a campaign of terrorism, including elements of religious fanaticism, and demonstrated the efficacy of such tactics when the Union soldiers eventually returned to their barracks in 1877 and the white Southerners were able to create the legislative framework of their terror and fanaticism in the laws that established segregation of the races.
That lesson is important when considering new wars: I'm pretty sure the USA can win any war it enters. The question, however, is whether or not we can win the peace?
We were on the edge of conflict with North Korea - what is the endgame of such a conflict, and would it justify the war fought for it?
We are threatening attacks on Syria that could essentially paint us as the aggressor in a conflict between nations - is this what we want? And, again, what is the endgame of such a conflict and will it justify the war fought for it?
-
That lesson is important when considering new wars: I'm pretty sure the USA can win any war it enters. The question, however, is whether or not we can win the peace?
Soo, which war has the US won after WWI? WWII doesn't count, as everyone who's not USAian knows it was really "won" by the Brits and Sovjet (which is an exaggeration as most conflicts we see now can be traced back there). US only came and gave a helping hand at the very end. And every war the US've been involved in after that have been pathetic, to put it mildly.
-
Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941. All other actions since then have been UN-sanctioned policing/peacekeeping actions (such as Korea) or involvement in internal politics (such as Vietnam). There's also the matter of clandestine operations that we know about and whether or not those constitute wars, as well as how the US and USSR would back different sides in proxy wars, such as the USA and South Africa backing the UNITA faction in Angola against the Soviet-Cuban backed MPLA.
Even more bizarre is when we get into the matter of how large corporations pursue foreign policy independently of the USA. In WW2, for example, there were a number of firms (IBM being a big example) that provided goods and services to Hitler's Germany, even though the USA was at war with Germany. In the Angola example, Chevron backed the MPLA so as to get at the oil in the independent nation of Cabinda for much less cost than the Cabindese were asking for. Once the Chevron-backed MPLA took over, Chevron got to exploit the Cabinda fields for cheap. The MPLA got its hard currency to buy those Russian weapons and Cuban advisors and carried the fight to the US-backed UNITA.
-
Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2.
.... :doh: Well, it explains why some people think war is a good thing if they don't even understand what a war is. Technically...
-
Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941.
This is correct.
On Syria: you can't sit by if anyone uses chemical weapons. The U.S. does not want to act alone. That's why Trump spoke with the heads of England and France, in an attempt to have any counter strikes be a UN backed effort.
On North Korea: as crazy as it sounds, Trump is the first president that actually has a shot to improve the relationship between the 2 countries, with the possible upcoming talks. It is still a long shot, but at least there is a chance. Now can you imagine if he were able to pull that off? I bet then nobody would care if he had any past affairs or how many hours he spends at a golf course.
-
I agree, if Trump can get DPRK to agree to de-nuclearization of the peninsula and the deal sticks, then he'll have a real head-spinner of an accomplishment on his hands. That would be a complicating factor I would love to be able to be forced to consider.
Sort of like Nixon and China and the Clean Air Act... life would be easier if he were a comic-book villain, but facing his legacy honestly requires some exercise of judgment about the good he did against the bad.
Same thing, from an opposite side of the scene with Jimmy Carter and his support of both Pol Pot and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Carter staked his reputation on having a more moral/ethical US foreign policy, but his support for these two were real disappointments in that regard. Realpolitik and the struggle against China and Russia dictated his moves there, making his lack of support for pro-US despots in Nicaragua and Iran ring hollow.
-
Not a big story in the news, but certainly newsworthy:
Flanked by victims and family members who have lost loved ones, President Donald Trump signed a bill to help combat sex trafficking. The action drew tears and a subtle, albeit demonstrative dance of vindication from those around him.
Yvonne Ambrose was brought to tears as she thanked President Trump. “It means so much to our family,” Ambrose said. “Hopefully there won’t be any more people who have to endure that pain.”
The Chicago woman lost her 16-year-old daughter, who was murdered by a man who used Backpage.com to buy her for underaged sex, according to Cleveland.com. The founding executives of Backpage.com, a private advertisement website federal authorities have shut down, were charged with 93 counts of facilitating prostitution and fraud on Monday. President Trump graciously gave Ambrose the pen he used to sign the bill.
Behind Ambrose was a woman identified only as “M.A.,” who broke into dance as the president signed the bill. “It’s about damn time,” she said, when another woman drew Trump’s attention to her. “M.A.,” who was kidnapped and sold on the internet through Backpage.com in 2010, according to The Daily Caller, was the first to sue the owners of the website, Village Voice Media. The lawsuit was unsuccessful and the dance reflected her feeling of vindication.
The president credited daughter Ivanka Trump, who was on hand, for helping with the bill: “She’s been a great representative, I will say.” The legislation will penalize website operators that facilitate online sex trafficking and weaken legal protection for the technology industry, Reuters reported. “The law is intended to make it easier for state prosecutors and sex-trafficking victims to sue social media networks, advertisers and others that kept exploitative material on their platforms,” the news agency reported.
Here's the brief video of the signing.
-
Good to see another one for the plus column for mr. Trump.
-
This is expected of a president, to sign laws such as these. Not a lot of controversy in getting that bill to the president to sign. Going here... https://www.govtrack.us/events/enacted-bills ... one can see that he also signed into law a bill that renamed a post office in Kansas, a ceiling fan bill, the EGO act - which prohibits government officers from using taxpayer money to get their portraits done, and a bill that renamed a post office in New Jersey.
At the same time, Michael Cohen's official story about the payment to Stormy Daniels comes across as election fraud and/or bank fraud, not a good combination. The search warrant had to come from more than just Mueller's investigation. To search a lawyer's office, the warrant has to be approved by a US attorney of the district, the criminal division of the Justice Department, and a US Magistrate. This is not a rogue investigator or a witch hunt. It's the wheels of bureaucracy turning.
Adding to the severity of the search of Cohen's office is that the investigators are supposed to use the least intrusive measures possible. For a warrant to have been issued instead of a subpoena means that there is ample concern that Cohen was not going to be cooperative with the investigation, possibly to the point of destroying documents.
Which leads to the next concern, that the lawyer may have been in collusion with a client to commit crimes. The materials seized from Cohen's office will go through a legal team that is not part of the investigation. This team will redact anything that is properly attorney-client privilege and allow non-privileged information such as informal discussions and plans involving illegal activities on through to the investigators. This was done after Paul Manafort's lawyer's office was raided.
The fact that this was referred to the federal attorney for New York is significant in that the Stormy Daniels business may have been determined by Mueller's team to be outside the scope of his investigation. Even so, if evidence obtained in the raid is determined to be pertinent to Mueller's investigation, it can be handed back over to his team.
We usually expect our presidents to sign the typical laws that go across their desks without their personal lawyers being under criminal investigation.
-
^^^^^^
We'll see if any actual evidence of illegal activity comes out of that, this time.
My reason for posting the previous story was to indicate how little attention the press gives to something when it shows the president doing something positive.
-
^^^^^^
We'll see if any actual evidence of illegal activity comes out of that, this time.
My reason for posting the previous story was to indicate how little attention the press gives to something when it shows the president doing something positive.
Although I did see the story on it on CBS This Morning, it's also quite a routine sort of bill. Landmark, administration-defining legislation will grab bigger attention.
-
Sooo, the US is NOT at war again... Might be a good excuse right now, but go back in history to see why it've become this way.
-
Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941.
By that logic Germany wasn't at war with Sovjet in WWII, as there was no declaration when they invaded...
-
Technically, the USA hasn't been in a war since WW2. Congress' last formal declaration of war was back in 1941.
By that logic Germany wasn't at war with Sovjet in WWII, as there was no declaration when they invaded...
Different countries have different rules, buddy. I don't know about Germany, but in the U.S. congress must approve a declaration of war. This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons, a very different approach than simply assisting another country with a conflict.
-
This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons
Which is war, no matter what your congress choose to call it... :wall:
Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.
-
This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons
Which is war, no matter what your congress choose to call it... :wall:
Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.
:redcard: I never said that nor believe that.
What I am trying to get you to understand is that assisting another country with their war, is not the same as being at war with the same enemy.
-
Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.
The problem is The US has aided so many countries (some succesfully some not so much) over the past decades that it is EXPECTED of them to get involved and if they don't they are accused of not caring as much about a certain country as opposed to some. And then when they DO get involved they get accused of getting involved...it really is a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation...granted much of it is because of US' own making but still. When there is injustice going on in the world the US is expected to act...so the WORLD has pretty much made the US the world police...
Also yes there is a difference between being IN war with a country and aiding a country fight it's own war...that being said it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.
-
Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.
The problem is The US has aided so many countries (some succesfully some not so much) over the past decades that it is EXPECTED of them to get involved and if they don't they are accused of not caring as much about a certain country as opposed to some. And then when they DO get involved they get accused of getting involved...it really is a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation...granted much of it is because of US' own making but still. When there is injustice going on in the world the US is expected to act...so the WORLD has pretty much made the US the world police...
Yes, thank you! Finally someone who understands our dilemma. :rockon: In fact there is always some debate here amongst citizens about how much we should be involved in each of these situations.
-
This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons
Which is war, no matter what your congress choose to call it... :wall:
Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.
:redcard: I never said that nor believe that.
What I am trying to get you to understand is that assisting another country with their war, is not the same as being at war with the same enemy.
Did i say you've said or believe that? I used you in plural.
But can you honestly say that that's not what your country as a whole is trying to be?
And what if those wars is the result of not only the US, but the whole "western" world interfering in the first place?
Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.
The problem is The US has aided so many countries (some succesfully
One example, please...
it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.
:yes:
-
Yes, thank you! Finally someone who understands our dilemma. :rockon: In fact there is always some debate here amongst citizens about how much we should be involved in each of these situations.
One advise; stop it. Noone elected you to be the rulers of the world. Problem solved...
We've got this thing called the UN. You've made a habit of not following their guidelines.
-
it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.
:yes:
The difference between the Iraq situation and declaring war on a country is this:
When war is declared, then every single person of that country is deemed to be the enemy. This was not the case in Iraq. The enemy was strictly Hussein and his army, not the oppressed civilians.
-
it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.
:yes:
The difference between the Iraq situation and declaring war on a country is this:
When war is declared, then every single person of that country is deemed to be the enemy. This was not the case in Iraq. The enemy was strictly Hussein and his army, not the oppressed civilians.
A pretty fucked up point of view to deem every single citizen an enemy...
But; who did ultimately suffer? The civilians... Yes, they did suffer before too, but you coming along didn't help in any way, and they're still suffering. Once again, these are not isolated incidents, but part of a continuous story stretching hundreds of years back... You had no reason to be there, and your presence did diddly squat.
-
Sooo, the US is NOT at war again... Might be a good excuse right now, but go back in history to see why it've become this way.
Not the same "not at war" situation in that the missile strikes were limited in scope and the context is that they won't be repeated if chemical attacks are not repeated. I'm not happy to see the strikes, but I believe that making them with French and British cooperation provides sufficient unity in NATO to show to Russia that this is likely not an area they would want to escalate in.
Therefore, I would expect some sort of asymmetric response, such as a cyber-attack. Or leaking of certain details... As in, Putin knows how to manipulate the US media and retains a free hand there.
-
Regarding the business of the USA being "policeman of the world" and civilian participation in wars...
Last one first: technically, civilians are not legitimate targets for military activity. War with a nation is *not* legally war with the entire population of the nation. However, in practice, that is now what happens. The winners put the losers on trial for crimes against humanity and justify their own desperate actions.
The USA being policeman of the world was an idea that first came forward in the early 1900s and then accelerated in acceptance after WW2. Prior to that, it was applied mostly to the Americas. Even during times of American isolationism, the Americas were always viewed by the USA as a special sphere of influence. That typically translated into Marines showing up every time the country elected the wrong government. The wrong government tended to be one that demanded things like better working conditions for their people, less pollution from companies, and more balanced trade relationships - all of which were against the interests of the large US firms in that nation that were enjoying huge profits from poor working conditions, no pollution restrictions, and asymmetric trade relationships.
Since then, the USA has kept its role as making the world safe for US businesses, with many fingers wagging at the Iraq conflict as a means of the USA placing controls on the supply of oil in Iraq, not as a means of making things better for Iraqis themselves.
To be fair, the Russians are quite adept at rolling tanks when neighboring nations make political choices that go counter to what the men in the Kremlin want to see happen. Let's not look to Russia as an example of proper restraint of power. Which leads us to Syria...
Back in 2010, Qatar was trying to get a pipeline built from their gas fields to Europe. The idea was simple: sell Qatari gas so cheap that the Russians would be cut out of the European energy markets and the Russian economy would then tank. To build that pipeline, Qatar could not transit Israeli territory. The pipeline would have to terminate in Turkey. That meant the path for the pipeline would have to cross Syria.
Assad in Syria would have nothing to do with that pipeline. Meanwhile, events in Tunisia developed to overthrow the ruling family there. Unrest in Egypt unseated Mubarak. While the Saudis machine-gunned any demonstrators in their eastern provinces, the USA made a big noise about spreading democracy through the region through Twitter and Facebook. Iran had a big outpouring of pro-democratic statements from its people... until that nation pulled the plug on the Internet connections coming into Iran and then went after everyone that had a pro-democratic status or tweet...
Over in Syria, the USA fomented a rebellion there. Fighters from Libya made their way to Syria to fight Assad - quite a few of which became ISIS, which was propped up for the longest time by Erdogan in Turkey because his family was able to skim off the profits from ISIS-produced oil. Russia backed Assad to the hilt for two reasons: one, Russia had to prove its credibility as a military ally; two, like hell they were going to let Qatar build that pipeline. Russia backed Assad out of a survival instinct.
Shortly thereafter, the USA toppled the pro-Russian Ukrainian government, which precipitated Russia's grab of Crimea and support of a "breakaway" Donbass region. Like hell the Russians were going to lose the most important parts of Ukraine.
While Ukraine has settled to a stalemate, Assad keeps flinging gas at his own people, which triggers US/NATO responses. This really messes with Trump supporters, many of whom were very much against hawkish internationalism. This also messes with Trump opponents, many of whom were very much for hawkish internationalism. But why the USA continues to support Syrian rebels? It's not to demonstrate the credibility of US support, the world already has a sick joke that the surest sign your faction is headed for destruction is when the USA backs it.
-
Sooo, the US is NOT at war again... Might be a good excuse right now, but go back in history to see why it've become this way.
Not the same "not at war" situation in that the missile strikes were limited in scope and the context is that they won't be repeated if chemical attacks are not repeated. I'm not happy to see the strikes, but I believe that making them with French and British cooperation provides sufficient unity in NATO to show to Russia that this is likely not an area they would want to escalate in.
Therefore, I would expect some sort of asymmetric response, such as a cyber-attack. Or leaking of certain details... As in, Putin knows how to manipulate the US media and retains a free hand there.
And we've got a snowball rolling. That bank controlled cartoon character of yours is playing with fire, and the whole world is at risk.
If you guys could keep your wars and conflicts for yourself, between you and whatever country is in question, i wouldn't mind that much.
But as long as you insist on being the world police, it affect the rest of us. In that regard USAians should loose their right to vote, and let the rest of us deside instead. That, or start focusing on yourself a bit more, being a so-called "third world country" in the western world one would think you've got enough to deal with without needing to be part of every international conflict.
-
Yes, thank you! Finally someone who understands our dilemma. :rockon: In fact there is always some debate here amongst citizens about how much we should be involved in each of these situations.
Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2. And if all of a sudden the US would stop getting involved the outcry would be immense. In fact it has already been with the situation with Boko Haram in Nigeria where the US decided not to get involved and leave it to the UN...which hasn't really been able to do anything.
One example, please...
Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan (although that ofcourse started as something different, but it lead to a democratic goverment)...there are quite a few more too in smaller scale. It's not all bad. And there would be quite a few evil dictators out there without the US even now.
-
Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2.
Ehhh... Who was asking/demanding? The reality is that the US was just looking for an excuse to control the agenda...
One example, please...
Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan
Sorry, i forgot how peaceful those countries are... :wall: Successful indeed.
-
Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2.
Ehhh... Who was asking/demanding? The reality is that the US was just looking for an excuse to control the agenda...
:redcard: You are loosing your mind. The U.S. did not have a thing to do with WW2 until Japan attacked us. :doh:
One example, please...
Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan
Sorry, i forgot how peaceful those countries are... :wall: Successful indeed.
Is there some fighting in South Korea I haven't heard about? Is Kuwait at war with anybody?
-
Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2.
Ehhh... Who was asking/demanding? The reality is that the US was just looking for an excuse to control the agenda...
:redcard: You are loosing your mind. The U.S. did not have a thing to do with WW2 until Japan attacked us. :doh:
I was talking from when the war ended. :doh:
But if you wanna go down that route, it's well known that FDR was VERY eager to join the war, but couldn't because the US public refused. Pearl Harbor was the excuse he needed.
I'm not going to go down the conspiracy route, but Japan really had no reason to attack PH, as they weren't in any animosity with the US at the moment, and their war interests was centered in the Asian Pacific. Weird how that worked out for US's benefit...
And none of this is any reason for the US to become the world police after WWII...
So i repeat the question: who demanded they became so? (A question originally directed to Charg, btw, though everyone is free to answer)
One example, please...
Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan
Sorry, i forgot how peaceful those countries are... :wall: Successful indeed.
Is there some fighting in South Korea I haven't heard about? Is Kuwait at war with anybody?
Ehhh... South Korea've got a neighbour in the north, and Charg's example wasn't divided in south/north. US's involvement in the Korean war did nothing to solve that problem, as we're still dealing with it. The fact that the country is divided in a north and south is proof enough...
Kuwait is smack in the middle of the least peaceful area in the whole world. Apparently, as been said earlier in this thread, a war declaration isn't needed to actually be in a war...
War is the lack of peace, not a declaration.
:aggression:
:facepalm1:
:explosion1:
-
Kuwait: not a democracy, goal was restoration of an absolute monarchy.
South Korea: democracy, even though it endured a period of militaristic rule and a coup attempt by the Korean CIA.
Somalia: ooooooh wowwww that still hasn't ended well.
Afghanistan: There's an Afghan proverb, "Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans." The US intervention there led to conditions that permitted Afghan opium production to hit record highs. Politics in Afghanistan are heavily influenced by opium and heroin producers. That proverb still stands...
-
US's involvement in the Korean war did nothing to solve that problem, as we're still dealing with it.
You have no right to make this statement. How do you know what the situation in Korea would be today, if the U.S. had never gone there? It could be 10 times worse.
Kuwait is smack in the middle of the least peaceful area in the whole world. Apparently, as been said earlier in this thread, a war declaration isn't needed to actually be in a war...
Is Kuwait fighting with anyone? No. So your complaint is based on Kuwait's location. Ridiculous.
War is the lack of peace, not a declaration.
I never said war was a declaration. I tried to explain this in reply #86.
-
Back to WW2... The USA certainly picked a side in 1940 when FDR started lend-lease to England and had an unofficial war with Germany in the Atlantic. Germany held back on its submarine warfare so as not to draw the USA into war.
In Asia, Japan's aggression in China certainly was not popular in the USA, so putting embargoes on that nation were popular measures, but they were also calculated to force Japan to either withdraw from China or expand its conflict. The USA also sailed an unflagged battleship into Japanese territorial waters - The Inland Sea, no less - and almost got the war started there, had not a Japanese commander recognized the battleship's silhouette. The US' deployment of its battle fleet forward in Pearl Harbor was absolutely a provocative measure.
Just before Pearl Harbor, the US Naval Squadron in Manila was ordered to make steam for the Japanese base at Cam Ranh Bay and to start shelling it. That order was canceled a few hours later after Pearl was hit.
The Japanese strategic justification for hitting Pearl was that it needed to cripple the US fleet in order to take the Philippines in order to secure the oil in the Dutch East Indies. Japan was absolutely on an aggressive track in the Pacific and the USA was taking advantage of that in order to draw the foul and to get Japanese aggression to draw us into war.
To that end, Germany's declaration of war on 8 December is a bit of a head-scratcher. They didn't have to do it... but Hitler's staff thought better to have the war now than to have the war later, that if they could finish off Russia in 1942, they'd be able to limit US involvement to be shoring up British holdings and not much more.
Hitler's biggest mistake, as British Air Marshal "Bomber" Harris said, "... was that he bombed others without expecting them to bomb him back."
-
US's involvement in the Korean war did nothing to solve that problem, as we're still dealing with it.
You have no right to make this statement. How do you know what the situation in Korea would be today, if the U.S. had never gone there? It could be 10 times worse.
I didn't say US's involvement made things worse, nor did i ponder about "what if's". I simply said it didn't solve anything.
And i've got every right to make any statement i want to, it's called freedom of speech... :) Even more, because it's a fact; the problem isn't solved.
P&L, brother, we're exchanging thoughts and ideas as friends here, let's not get carried away with animosity just because we disagree. :pub: :-*
-
^^^^^^
Okay, that does it! >:( I'm going to check with my contacts in congress to see what can be done about the Norwegian problem. Perhaps an invasion! :excited:
-
You could check out Michael Moores "Where To Invade Next". Whether you like him or not (and i'm guessing not?) you could learn something from that particular one. About Norway and Finland, amongst others...
-
You could check out Michael Moores "Where To Invade Next". Whether you like him or not (and i'm guessing not?) you could learn something from that particular one. About Norway and Finland, amongst others...
No one should ever check out anything from Michael Moore...that guy is without a doubt the biggest asshat that has ever made fake documentaries....it's sad that there are actually people out there who believe the stuff he is spewing out of his fat ass....I seriously hope you aren't one of them Billy...seriously.
-
You could check out Michael Moores "Where To Invade Next". Whether you like him or not (and i'm guessing not?) you could learn something from that particular one. About Norway and Finland, amongst others...
No one should ever check out anything from Michael Moore...that guy is without a doubt the biggest asshat that has ever made fake documentaries....it's sad that there are actually people out there who believe the stuff he is spewing out of his fat ass....I seriously hope you aren't one of them Billy...seriously.
Not usually, but that one is one of the better ones. I know he was right about the Norwegian prison system. Isn't it true that Finland has got one of the best educational system in the world?
He was also right in that drug addiction in Portugal have gone down since using was decriminalized 12 years ago, and i'm inclined to believe that France've got one of the best school lunch arrangements...
Take it with a grain of salt, yes, but it can't be 100% fake. Those who shout out the loudest about "fake news" are the ones making them, and not all so-called "leftists" are liars. :)
-
Not usually, but that one is one of the better ones. I know he was right about the Norwegian prison system. Isn't it true that Finland has got one of the best educational system in the world?
He was also right in that drug addiction in Portugal have gone down since using was decriminalized 12 years ago, and i'm inclined to believe that France've got one of the best school lunch arrangements...
Take it with a grain of salt, yes, but it can't be 100% fake. Those who shout out the loudest about "fake news" are the ones making them, and not all so-called "leftists" are liars. :)
Well ofcourse he uses facts that suit his agenda. But he quite often manages to twist them too to further his agenda.
A very despicable man all in all...
-
Not usually, but that one is one of the better ones. I know he was right about the Norwegian prison system. Isn't it true that Finland has got one of the best educational system in the world?
He was also right in that drug addiction in Portugal have gone down since using was decriminalized 12 years ago, and i'm inclined to believe that France've got one of the best school lunch arrangements...
Take it with a grain of salt, yes, but it can't be 100% fake. Those who shout out the loudest about "fake news" are the ones making them, and not all so-called "leftists" are liars. :)
Well ofcourse he uses facts that suit his agenda. But he quite often manages to twist them too to further his agenda.
A very despicable man all in all...
Moore does use stats to support his agenda, while at the same time ignoring stats that go against it. He's no dummy, so he is very good at it. I don't think I would go as far as calling him despicable, though, as I think sometimes his intentions are good. I prefer to save that term for real lowlifes.
-
I don't think I would go as far as calling him despicable, though,
Well, of course not. He didn't vote for Trump. ZING!
:rofl: :problem:
:myfun:
-
But seriously, folks, Moore did call Trump's election on account that Clinton truly did not present a compelling enough argument to vote *for* her. It's pretty obvious that she rigged things in the Democratic primaries to block out Sanders. Although Sanders formed ranks with Clinton at the convention, his supporters were not necessarily sold - and Comey's comments just before the election totally derailed the Clinton campaign.
-
Not usually, but that one is one of the better ones. I know he was right about the Norwegian prison system. Isn't it true that Finland has got one of the best educational system in the world?
He was also right in that drug addiction in Portugal have gone down since using was decriminalized 12 years ago, and i'm inclined to believe that France've got one of the best school lunch arrangements...
Take it with a grain of salt, yes, but it can't be 100% fake. Those who shout out the loudest about "fake news" are the ones making them, and not all so-called "leftists" are liars. :)
Well ofcourse he uses facts that suit his agenda. But he quite often manages to twist them too to further his agenda.
A very despicable man all in all...
If you'd seen the film you'd understand his intention better. It's basically "how to improve USAian conditions by taking notice how other countries do things", not an agenda he's trying to push through like in his other films. No facts or stats to trick with.
-
But seriously, folks, Moore did call Trump's election on account that Clinton truly did not present a compelling enough argument to vote *for* her. It's pretty obvious that she rigged things in the Democratic primaries to block out Sanders. Although Sanders formed ranks with Clinton at the convention, his supporters were not necessarily sold - and Comey's comments just before the election totally derailed the Clinton campaign.
No wonder things are going to hell when those supposedly on the same side can't even cooperate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pIyTFynO-8
-
But seriously, folks, Moore did call Trump's election on account that Clinton truly did not present a compelling enough argument to vote *for* her. It's pretty obvious that she rigged things in the Democratic primaries to block out Sanders. Although Sanders formed ranks with Clinton at the convention, his supporters were not necessarily sold - and Comey's comments just before the election totally derailed the Clinton campaign.
At that time I was torn between Sanders and Trump. But then when I saw what the DNC did to Sanders, it was an easy decision for me. And I do remember Sanders complaining about a "rigged" system during the primary, but the press never criticized him for saying that. Then when Trump mentioned "rigged" in the general election, the press jumped all over him. That was 1 of the reasons I was so glad he won, to stick it right up the ass of those hypocrite scum in the press.
-
But seriously, folks, Moore did call Trump's election on account that Clinton truly did not present a compelling enough argument to vote *for* her. It's pretty obvious that she rigged things in the Democratic primaries to block out Sanders. Although Sanders formed ranks with Clinton at the convention, his supporters were not necessarily sold - and Comey's comments just before the election totally derailed the Clinton campaign.
At that time I was torn between Sanders and Trump. But then when I saw what the DNC did to Sanders, it was an easy decision for me. And I do remember Sanders complaining about a "rigged" system during the primary, but the press never criticized him for saying that. Then when Trump mentioned "rigged" in the general election, the press jumped all over him. That was 1 of the reasons I was so glad he won, to stick it right up the ass of those hypocrite scum in the press.
Exactly. Going in, Clinton thought it was her election to lose, but failed to do due diligence in terms of getting the Democrat base activated and motivated. There were also concerns about potential voter intimidation in certain states that went unaddressed... and then Clinton went on to lose those states by razor margins. Had Clinton campaigned in those states and gotten her ground forces active for getting her voters to vote, she could have had a different result, even with the Comey bombshell. The GOP strategy was like it was in 2000 and 2004, to have a knife-fight in just enough states to win the Electoral College, don't waste time with the rest. Clinton didn't show up for the knife fight and the GOP picked up just enough states...