America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,978 comments
  • 1,694,563 views
Is it just me, or do you get the feeling that Trump just says whatever the people he is talking to want to hear? At least the Pope had the courtesy not to burst out laughing when Trump said he wishes to 'pursue peace', four days after signing a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Trump will do whatever a man dancing on rotten ice needs to do to stay afloat. IMO, the only way he can salvage his presidency is to deliver his core promise of peace and prosperity to Americans. He will throw everyone else and anything else under the bus for this overriding purpose.
 
So, war with Iran and North Korea?
Very good questions.

IMO, in the case of Iran, Trump is trying make common cause (peace and prosperity) with the majority Sunni nations, throwing the Shia under the bus, and risking the consequences. Obviously, all-out war with Iran would be a disaster for many, so it hopefully will not go that far. But he will try to oppress, suppress, repress and depress them, yes.

IMO, in the case of North Korea, he must bomb the hell out of the atomic facilities if we really believe Kim is on a trajectory to build nukes deliverable to the US mainland or Hawaii. That part is easy. But simultaneously, he must successfully bomb the hell out of the tall mountains and deep tunnels containing the thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, if he is to prevent horrific mass carnage on the South Koreans. That's a tough, tough problem.
 
Is it just me, or do you get the feeling that Trump just says whatever the people he is talking to want to hear? At least the Pope had the courtesy not to burst out laughing when Trump said he wishes to 'pursue peace', four days after signing a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

He is a snake oil salesman or maybe used car salesman is more appropriate. Either way, he is going to say whatever he needs to for a sale, regardless of whether or not whatever is said is possible.
 
Trump is beating the NATO leaders (actually mostly foot-draggers and malingerers) about the head and shoulders for their dereliction in paying their dues, their fecklessness in fighting ISIS, as well as scolding them for their silly ideas about a European Army. He regards them as about as useful as nipples on armored breastplates. He's suggested in the past that NATO was bordering on obsolete. He should think about letting them sink or swim on their own. Seriously, what good is NATO?
 
Last edited:
Brilliant, incisive analysis there.

It's an understandable first reaction - not entirely unadjacent to my own.

Can you imagine, I mean can you imagine the furore if the president of Montenegro had shoved Trump aside with such apparent disdain? Without needing to talk about any of Trump's history (perceived, alleged or otherwise) that single clip, mano-a-mano, president-a-president speaks volumes about Trump's style of personal interaction with his equals.
 
Can you imagine, I mean can you imagine the furore if the president of Montenegro had shoved Trump aside with such apparent disdain?
I hope Sean Spicer is getting a pay raise soon, because he's earning it. His explanation is that the photo order was set before the meeting, so Trump may have been trying to get to his place on time. It's a lousy explanation, but at least Spicer is trying to play the very poor hand that he's been dealt.
 
FISA court news:

poster_a0cd56baad714176abbab6c9b1d68c70.jpg

May 25, 2017


WATCH: Circa's Sara Carter explains the extensive nature in which raw intelligence was shared by the FBI.

1 of 30
The FBI has illegally shared raw intelligence about Americans with unauthorized third parties and violated other constitutional privacy protections, according to newly declassified government documents that undercut the bureau’s public assurances about how carefully it handles warrantless spy data to avoid abuses or leaks.

2 of 30
In his final congressional testimony before he was fired by President Trump this month, then-FBI Director James Comey unequivocally told lawmakers his agency used sensitive espionage data gathered about Americans without a warrant only when it was “lawfully collected, carefully overseen and checked.”

Once-top secret U.S. intelligence community memos reviewed by Circa tell a different story, citing instances of “disregard” for rules, inadequate training and “deficient” oversight and even one case of deliberately sharing spy data with a forbidden party.

3 of 30
For instance, a ruling declassified this month by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) chronicles nearly 10 pages listing hundreds of violations of the FBI’s privacy-protecting minimization rules that occurred on Comey’s watch.

The behavior the FBI admitted to a FISA judge just last month ranged from illegally sharing raw intelligence with unauthorized third parties to accessing intercepted attorney-client privileged communications without proper oversight the bureau promised was in place years ago.

4 of 30
The court also opined aloud that it fears the violations are more extensive than already disclosed.

“The Court is nonetheless concerned about the FBI’s apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI is engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported,” the April 2017 ruling declared.
 
BBC are now leading with "Jared Kushner under FBI scrutiny as part of Russia investigation".
Full version here:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...r-under-fbi-investigation-russia-ties/8560894

I wonder how many times a day Spicer thinks of retiring?
I'm reminded of the episode of "Blackadder II", where one of Blackadder's drunken drinking buddies proclaims "great booze-up, Edmund!" in front if his puritanical relatives, and Blackadder has to explain it away, ultimately settling on a story about an African tribal chief called Great Boo who suffered from sleeping sickness; the drinking buddy did not say "great booze-up, Edmund!", but rather "Great Boo's up, Edmund!" ...
 
I think it's more along the lines of posting a Twit and a one word post doesn't really give any analysis or context to what you think about it. Anyone here can look at his Twitter, but we come here to have discussions about it.
I'm not at all keen on judging someone via cross-topic assumptions ("You think that about that, so you must think this about this."), but I do tend to take heed of the amount of substance a person has offered overall. A few generously proportioned, and insightful posts buys someone a couple of off-topics, or less substantial posts, in my book.

On balance, I can certainly see where @BobK was coming from.
 
Trump is beating the NATO leaders (actually mostly foot-draggers and malingerers) about the head and shoulders for their dereliction in paying their dues, their fecklessness in fighting ISIS, as well as scolding them for their silly ideas about a European Army. He regards them as about as useful as nipples on armored breastplates. He's suggested in the past that NATO was bordering on obsolete. He should think about letting them sink or swim on their own. Seriously, what good is NATO?
Do you actually understand how the NATO contribution model works? There are no "dues". US isn't propping anyone up - the threat to let them sink or swim...go for it, I'd love to see the reaction to booting out US forces from military bases in Germany, UK etc.

NATO recommends a spend of member's of 2% of GDP on their own military. There is no collective "fee", its not the US taking on the debt's of others. As for NATO being useless...seemed to serve the US just fine in the wake of 9/11.

And as for their "feckless" response to ISIS, I am still waiting for Trumpy to use the "200 Generals" he mentioned on the campaign trail to solve it is his first 100 days, as he promised he would.
 
Do you actually understand how the NATO contribution model works? There are no "dues". US isn't propping anyone up - the threat to let them sink or swim...go for it, I'd love to see the reaction to booting out US forces from military bases in Germany, UK etc.

NATO recommends a spend of member's of 2% of GDP on their own military. There is no collective "fee", its not the US taking on the debt's of others. As for NATO being useless...seemed to serve the US just fine in the wake of 9/11.

And as for their "feckless" response to ISIS, I am still waiting for Trumpy to use the "200 Generals" he mentioned on the campaign trail to solve it is his first 100 days, as he promised he would.

All of this.

There seems to be an assumption amongst the current US administration that the US runs NATO or is somehow in charge of it. They also seem to forget that much of the spec equipment for NATO forces (especially high value items) is produced by American companies with American jobs.
 
It is not fair that the US spends a higher percentage of it's GDP to fund NATO.

170320054624-nato-chart-spending-percentage-gdp-032017-780x439.jpg


It is not fair that the US pays for so much to protect Europe. The EU is talking about having it's own armed forces. If the EU wants to be so strong, let them. They can pull out of NATO, and the US, Canada, and GB (post Brexit) can form a new alliance. Why should the US taxpayers foot most of the bill.

160415172159-nato-gdp-1-780x439.jpg


CNN sources
 
It is not fair that the US pays for so much to protect Europe.
So spend less. The only requirement is for member states to spend 2% of its GDP funding NATO. You're currently spending 3.61% of your GDP.

Why should the US taxpayers foot most of the bill.
Because that's how your politicians choose to spend the money. There's no requirement for the United States to make up a funding shortfall.

Also, raw GDP statistics are misleading. A more accurate figure would be to calculate the percentage of military expenditure produced for export to NATO states and subtract that from the amount spent on NATO.
 
It is not fair that the US spends a higher percentage of it's GDP to fund NATO.

170320054624-nato-chart-spending-percentage-gdp-032017-780x439.jpg


It is not fair that the US pays for so much to protect Europe. The EU is talking about having it's own armed forces. If the EU wants to be so strong, let them. They can pull out of NATO, and the US, Canada, and GB (post Brexit) can form a new alliance. Why should the US taxpayers foot most of the bill.

160415172159-nato-gdp-1-780x439.jpg


CNN sources
That would go down well with the Pentagon.

Telling them they can no longer have the European bases (and linked ones around the globe) they have come to depend on as a means of force projection.

Remind me how many NATO nations have bases in the US?

What gets forgotten is that it's in the US' interest for the balance to remain pretty much as it is, as it allows the US to both remain the top dog and keep its overseas bases.

Do you think that if Germany, or indeed Europe as a whole increased spending they would need to have those US bases?
 
It is not fair that the US pays for so much to protect Europe.

The US doesn't protect Europe. The US spends money on it's own military, which it then places wherever it deems most relevant to protect US interests.

I don't think you've quite grasped the point of NATO. The only country to have invoked the collective defense clause is... actually, I'll let you guess.
 
I'd love to see the reaction to booting out US forces from military bases in Germany, UK etc.
Me too. Good riddance to militarism and global hegemony of the US military imperium.

It is not fair that the US pays for so much to protect Europe. The EU is talking about having it's own armed forces. If the EU wants to be so strong, let them. They can pull out of NATO, and the US, Canada, and GB (post Brexit) can form a new alliance. do something else. Why should the US taxpayers foot most of the bill.

Exactly.

So spend less. The only requirement is for member states to spend 2% of its GDP funding NATO. You're currently spending 3.61% of your GDP.

Because that's how your politicians choose to spend the money. There's no requirement for the United States to make up a funding shortfall.

Agreed. We should not support the welfare states of freeloaders like France, Italy, Germany, Italy and Canada.

Telling them they can no longer have the European bases (and linked ones around the globe) they have come to depend on as a means of force projection.

A damned good idea. Make it so, Scaff. Last time I checked, the US military operated over 700 bases in other people's countries. Imagine getting out of all of them and letting the chips fall where they may.[/QUOTE]


What gets forgotten is that it's in the US' interest for the balance to remain pretty much as it is, as it allows the US to both remain the top dog and keep its overseas bases.
I note here you are talking about "interests". Novel, since "values" often hold your higher ground.

I'm tired of being top dog and running a global empire. We're in the red, real bad. The rest of the world is even deeper in debt. The current system is unsustainable. End it now.

Do you think that if Germany, or indeed Europe as a whole increased spending they would need to have those US bases?

Yes, and they should do that ASAP.
 
Agreed. We should not support the welfare states of freeloaders like France, Italy, Germany, Italy and Canada.
What? That's not the point I was making. It's not even close.

The point I was trying to make is that the United States is spending more than 2% of its GDP on NATO by choice. It's in no state to complain about a decision it made for itself as if it's somebody else's fault. Least of all when it sells so much military hardware to other NATO states, so it's a fair contribution to its GDP.
 
And it's a bad choice, made in error, and we are going to change it.

No, Trump is going to increase military spending. Every cent that the US spends on its own defence is "spent on NATO". That's what the guideline of 2%-of-GDP actually refers to... money that countries spend on their own defence. The US doesn't "spend money on NATO" (outside the contribution that each member makes and has always made to maintaining the command centre) and any country that doesn't spend the roughly advised 2% only owes the money to themselves.

Germany currently spends about 1.3% of GDP "on NATO" (i.e. on its own defence) and has tremendously capable armed forces. Reaching/exceeding the 2% of GDP in a particular period can depend on making some pretty large-scale acquisitions. If those aren't needed in any given year then a country can comfortably spend less than the guidance suggests while losing zero firepower and potentially increasing manpower.

You seem to be taking the Trump line where NATO is somehow a US-held bank account. That's just plain wrong.
 
Me too. Good riddance to militarism and global hegemony of the US military imperium.
Shame that's at odds with the rest of Trumps rhetoric.

Agreed. We should not support the welfare states of freeloaders like France, Italy, Germany, Italy and Canada.
You're not

A damned good idea. Make it so, Scaff. Last time I checked, the US military operated over 700 bases in other people's countries. Imagine getting out of all of them and letting the chips fall where they may.
As I said, shame that woudl be at odd's with the rest of Trump's rhetoric.

I note here you are talking about "interests". Novel, since "values" often hold your higher ground.
Seriously, stop doing this. I don't need your crap on what you do or don't think hold what to me.

I'm tired of being top dog and running a global empire. We're in the red, real bad. The rest of the world is even deeper in debt. The current system is unsustainable. End it now.
Your Commander in Chief clearly isn't.

He seems to want to fight a global war on 'bad guys' and thinks pissing allies off will make it easier.


And it's a bad choice, made in error, and we are going to change it.
Only if you don;t understand how NATO works, which you clearly don't. The US is spending that money on itself.
 
Last edited:
Back