• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

CH1 said:
Just for a little fun, Jeff Ross during the Trump roast a few years back. Lands several quality punches.

[video=youtube;FbxpoFhz6sY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxpoFhz6sY[/video]
Click to expand...

the best part of that roast is that the roastees get to tell the comics certain no-go joke zones (usually certain family members or incidents, etc.)

the only thing donnie said they weren't allowed to joke was that he wasn't really, really rich.
 
Altair said:
I would be paid more for being overseas and paid extra to cover stuff back home while I'm gone. While not terribly expensive, for someone pinching pennies it's a easy target.
Click to expand...

Except it's not....and you've pretty clearly drank Donnie's koolaid on this shit.

Washington (CNN)Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has accused South Korea, Japan and Germany of short-changing the United States for the cost of being safeguarded by American troops and argued that he would negotiate better deals if commander in chief.
But defense officials and military experts say the United States is saving money in many cases by stationing troops overseas and having host countries pick up a lot of the tab.
While many foreign policy experts have long maintained that the United States receives more than its fair share of benefits in terms of security and influence by having foreign bases for troops, the Pentagon is now arguing the deployments make financial sense as well.
The top U.S. commander in South Korea said on Tuesday that it was "absolutely" cheaper to have American troops in the Asian country rather than back home, when questioned on the subject at a Senate hearing.
Army Gen. Vincent Brooks told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the Republic of Korea is carrying a significant load" of the U.S. commitment and pays "about 50% of our personnel costs of being there," in response to questioning from Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Click to expand...

I can see many vested interests saying that those bases are Uber important. Bigly. That said, I've seen those same people on canada who will fight tooth an nail to keep places like shilo open, goose Bay, aldershot, saying they are of great strategic importance to Canada. Goose Bay hasn't really been used in years and shilo is redundant with CFB wainwright in the west able to do everything shilo does but better. Costs the CAF a pretty penny to keep these bases open. So colour me sceptical.
Click to expand...

There are very few parallels between US geopolitics and Canadian. Trying to anchor your opinion of US geopolitical imperatives through the lens of Canadian bases is probably very shaky ground.

The Chinese seen to be putting more time effort and money into aircraft carriers and stealth fighters than a global system of foreign bases. Just saying.
location location location.
Click to expand...

Because China is currently a regional, and not an international power. Their competition is in their backyard. Not so for the US. China is building a series of military outposts at significant expense right now, it's just focused on controlling shipping lanes, aerial superiority and access to resources in their backyard.

4000 NATO soldiers actually armed to to the teeth in the baltics>50000 soldiers in Germany. If you had to pick one to dissuade Russian from starting shit in eastern Europe, which would you rather?
Click to expand...

If the US is maybe not honouring article 5? the 50,000 US troops all day, every day.

Bullshit. The UK actually spends 2 percent of GDP in defense spending, and they joined the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. Germany, with their 50k American troops on their soil did Jack all. France, who spends close to 2 percent of GDP on defense did a little bit in Afghanistan. Germany, again, did even less. Soft power? Means sweet **** all. I hope you actually aren't that naive.
Click to expand...

You entirely missed my point, and I'm kind of getting tired of that.

Ya, sure. Let's pull the Americans soldiers out of Germany S Korea and Japan and see who fills the vacuum.

I bet on...Japan...S Korean and ....Germany.
Click to expand...

Or Russia & North Korea.

America has profitted tremendously due to world stability. There's a reason they designed the world system like this post WW2, and it wasn't altruism.
 
MindzEye said:
Except it's not....and you've pretty clearly drank Donnie's koolaid on this shit.
Click to expand...
According to the 2013 RAND corporation report, it cost the US 10 000 to 40 000 more PER soldier a year to base them overseas.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR201/RAND_RR201.pdf

RAND called the financial and in-kind support from host nations “substantial,” but not enough to offset the higher cost of basing forces overseas. It said the “fixed costs per base do not appear to be systematically higher overseas, with the exception of the Air Force bases, compared with facilities in the United States,” but the “variable costs per person” were higher overseas. That’s due to “higher allowances related to the cost of living, higher permanent-change-of-station move costs, and the need to provide schools more comprehensively.”
Click to expand...
There are very few parallels between US geopolitics and Canadian. Trying to anchor your opinion of US geopolitical imperatives through the lens of Canadian bases is probably very shaky ground.
Click to expand...
Vested interests mate.
Because China is currently a regional, and not an international power. Their competition is in their backyard. Not so for the US. China is building a series of military outposts at significant expense right now, it's just focused on controlling shipping lanes, aerial superiority and access to resources in their backyard.



If the US is maybe not honouring article 5? the 50,000 US troops all day, every day.
Click to expand...
Wrong answer. The second Russia kills a American in the baltics it goes past article 5. Nobody is going to let that slide.
You entirely missed my point, and I'm kind of getting tired of that.
Click to expand...
I think your talk of soft power is akin to the talk of leaderbeans in the NHL. Maybe if you provide me of a example of tangible benefits the USA has gotten from its soft power that it gets from having 50k soldiers in Germany I wouldn't be such a sceptic.
Or Russia & North Korea.
Click to expand...
What, 50 thousand Russians are going to replace the Americans in Germany? North Koreans going to take over the bases in S. Korea?
America has profitted tremendously due to world stability. There's a reason they designed the world system like this post WW2, and it wasn't altruism.
Click to expand...
Ya, it sure has.

I I'm of the opinion the global system is not going to fall apart if the US withdraws from Germany or Japan or S. Korea
 
hockeylover said:
The last couple weeks have been more than just drip, drip, drip.
Click to expand...

Oh and look at the timing of everything.

1) Trump leaves for the Europe trip. WaPost and NYT both drop bombshells... 30 minutes after wheels up.

2) A bunch of drip, drip, drip, while he's gone.

3) Priming us with a Someone in the Admin in under FBI investigation half way through the trip.

4) Drip drip drip other little stories

5) Kushner is the dude under investigation... day before he flies home.

6) Wheels up on the flight home... Huge Kushner bombshell.

7) Now Reuters. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18N018
Basically saying the reason Kushner and Trump want to lift the sanctions is so their businesses can take money from russian banks.




This is all co-ordinated.


The lesson here. DON'T PISS OFF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
 
it's also possible that these people are just all really ****ing stupid (imo this is unquestionably part of it).

remember - it was hilary's defensiveness and deflections that ultimately led to the world learning who monica lewinsky is.

that said, the business interest element is unprecedented for a modern day president and he's a snakeoil salesman in every sense of the word. you can't put it past him to be greasy enough to try to use the presidency to make a buck.

that's been his MO his entire life. his self worth and entire being is consumed with how much money he makes.
 
mbow30 said:
it's also possible that these people are just all really ****ing stupid (imo this is unquestionably part of it).

remember - it was hilary's defensiveness and deflections that ultimately led to the world learning who monica lewinsky is.

that said, the business interest element is unprecedented for a modern day president and he's a snakeoil salesman in every sense of the word. you can't put it past him to be greasy enough to try to use the presidency to make a buck.

that's been his MO his entire life. his self worth and entire being is consumed with how much money he makes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's probably the basic reason why he admires Putin: he's a kleptocrat that's made himself one of the world's wealthiest men.
 
i mean, kushner looks like a complete moron here. in the middle of that election - setting up a secret comms link with the russians? come on. even if the story re syria is true, what a stupid, nonsensical strategic move. what was that going to help?

wonder if DT is pulling the strings there.

meanwhile, if the syria thing is true and he's cozying up to the russians strategically to defeat isis, the admin's position on iran makes no sense whatsoever.
 
mbow30 said:
i mean, kushner looks like a complete moron here. in the middle of that election - setting up a secret comms link with the russians? come on. even if the story re syria is true, what a stupid, nonsensical strategic move. what was that going to help?

wonder if DT is pulling the strings there.

meanwhile, if the syria thing is true and he's cozying up to the russians strategically to defeat isis, the admin's position on iran makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It wasn't during the election, it was during the transition.... which makes it even worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top