America - The Official Thread

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I expect that his idea of a middle ground would be a centrist candidate. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Arnold Schwarzenegger was fairly well-regarded as a governor because he didn't dogmatically follow party doctrine; he was willing to work with both sides to get things done rather. Even if that wasn't true of Schwarzenegger, I imagine that its the sort of thing that McCain yearns for.

No it wouldn't if Trump scares him as someone who represents the right, and Obama was an extreme to him on the left...the only middle would be McCain, but seeing what he had to offer in two election runs and as senator...

He's a neocon warhawk that in general is just as bad as say Pence for various reasons. McCains only true yearning that has always been on point was international policy especially during war times. As for everything else there is plenty of flip flopping to go around. As someone that has him as representative I would know because I actually follow my State government for various reasons. So no let's not paint him as a voice of reason, especially when he has plenty to hate Trump for that I myself agree with him on, like calling him "not a war hero". Which Trump is disgusting for saying.

 

[Scaff]

Sure thing, Ange. Why don't we just pack up our military from her country and bring all that money home.

Now aside from her comment being in regard to the Paris climate accords and not NATO, feel free.

The only country it will benefit is Russia and the removal of US bases in Europe will weaken the US as a country (give force projection a go without it) and harm US troops. Landstuhl is the single biggest US military hospital outside the US and has been vital in saving the lives of countless US troops.

What a child.

Indeed, good job Macron put an end to the continued childishness.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Oh, and Trump's alpha dog jerk-clench-and-shake is the height of maturity? Macron obviously wanted to send a message to Trump - that he expects and intends to be taken seriously; he's not going to roll over because it suits Trump. If Trump is acting in American interests first, then Macron is acting in France's interests first. You'd be raising hell if Trump bowed to Macron's interests, so why do you expect Macron to let Trump walk over him.

Don't forget that the French invented the modern idea of democracy.

Stooping down to Trumps level of immaturity really isn't the answer. If you feel the need to try and out-handshake someone to "send a message", you really shouldn't be running a country (same obviously applies to Trump).

 

[Johnnypenso]

Macron reveals that his handshakes with Trump "were not innocent":

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...anual-macron-handshake-wasnt-innocent/8567894


And how does complaining about how much others spend do that?

The fact that he put some effort into his handshake, maybe for the first time, I respect. Talking about it afterwards is a rookie mistake. Let your actions speak for you. Telling the world how you one upped Trump in a handshake? Yeah, leave that to the pop stars and their twitters.

 

[Johnnypenso]

At what point have I ignored his wider racist rants?

Odd because I seem to recall I posted a link to his entire history of them, you would think if I wanted to avoid such a thing I wouldn't have done that.

I said, and your source supports this, that his focus was on the religion (or presumed religion) of the two girls. The defence of whom the two victims came to.

That he may have broadened his tirade doesn't change what seems to have been the trigger point of the religion of the two (or presumed religion).

You seem to be going a rather long way out of you way to try and suggest that the religion (or presumed religion) of the two wasn't at the very least the trigger and or causal factor in this.

Which to be blunt is bloody odd.

On a side note, how would you categorise thing attack and the attacker?

And you seem to be going out of your way to quash any attempt on my part to sway the case away from the original headline. Not bloody odd though.

You seem to be misrepresenting (or ignoring) the timeline given by the PD. The perp ranted in general (as you say) for some time until the two girls came to his attention. He then directed his tirade at them very specifically and we know the tragic (if heroic) outcome.

I can't tell what you're thinking but it seems to me that you're trying to dilute the perp's verbal actions by confusing the period before he'd seen the girls boarded with the period after he'd seen the girls. Nothing you're saying is strictly untrue but it seems deliberately omissive. However, it seems irrelevant whether he was shouting about cricket scores, laughing about the previous SNL or doing a crossword - he did what he did when he did it.

How am I ignoring the timeline if nothing I say is strictly untrue? A couple of those questions were:

Was it a targeted attack on Muslims? Was it a white racist ranted and raved about many different ethnicities and religions who targeted the next visible minorities to enter the train who happened to be an African American and a Muslim girl?

In the gym yesterday afternoon, the only place I watch CNN, they were still running the headline that two Muslim girls were attacked when that is not true. Now it turns out he was in another couple of incidents the day before:
“He was complaining about the city, complaining about Muslims, Christians, and it just got very violent very quick. The woman added that the passengers were scared and Christian was talking about “wanting to stab somebody.”

To me this makes it a whole lot more complicated and different story than "Man Attacks 2 Muslims then Stabs Their Defenders". My apologies for wanting to know the whole truth behind the clickbait headlines in this era of fake news.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Stooping down to Trumps level of immaturity really isn't the answer.

What is then? Letting Trump literally jerk you around and thinking that he can disregard you at a whim?

Trump was the one who started the trend of aggressive alpha-male handshakes; should it really come as a surprise that other world leaders are responding in kind?

 

[Scaff]

And you seem to be going out of your way to quash any attempt on my part to sway the case away from the original headline. Not bloody odd though.

How am I ignoring the timeline if nothing I say is strictly untrue? A couple of those questions were:

In the gym yesterday afternoon, the only place I watch CNN, they were still running the headline that two Muslim girls were attacked when that is not true. Now it turns out he was in another couple of incidents the day before:
“He was complaining about the city, complaining about Muslims, Christians, and it just got very violent very quick. The woman added that the passengers were scared and Christian was talking about “wanting to stab somebody.”

To me this makes it a whole lot more complicated and different story than "Man Attacks 2 Muslims then Stabs Their Defenders". My apologies for wanting to know the whole truth behind the clickbait headlines in this era of fake news.

And that's all I have to say about that.

And yet from your own source a part of his verbal assault was in defence of Christians (because Muslims kill them).

No one at all has disputed that his aggression and tirade was wide reaching, however that still does change that the main focus still appears to have been two girls who he identified as Muslim ( if the one who wasn't wearing a headscarf wasn't Muslim is an irrelevance unless you're suggesting he stopped to check her faith first, I've also not seen it confirmed she wasn't Muslim either).

As such I don't see this being an egregious example if clickbait headlines in the age of fake news at all.

The core of the story is that two people died as a result of coming to the defence of two girls the attacker identified as Muslim.

How exactly would you have written it?

Oh and I ask again how would you categorise the attack and the attacker?

 

[Tornado]

The only country it will benefit is Russia and the removal of US bases in Europe will weaken the US as a country (give force projection a go without it)

 

[Scaff]

Countries are a little harder to sink and a damn sight cheaper to set up a base in.

Having a fleet didn't help out in regard to isolationism at the start of WW2.

Carriers are all well and good, but not a good replacement for a fixed base.

Oh and give landing troop transports on them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And yet from your own source a part of his verbal assault was in defence of Christians (because Muslims kill them).

No one at all has disputed that his aggression and tirade was wide reaching, however that still does change that the main focus still appears to have been two girls who he identified as Muslim ( if the one who wasn't wearing a headscarf wasn't Muslim is an irrelevance unless you're suggesting he stopped to check her faith first, I've also not seen it confirmed she wasn't Muslim either).

As such I don't see this being an egregious example if clickbait headlines in the age of fake news at all.

The core of the story is that two people died as a result of coming to the defence of two girls the attacker identified as Muslim.

How exactly would you have written it?

Oh and I ask again how would you categorise the attack and the attacker?

I wouldn't change it at all. It's exactly the way you say it is. There is nothing more to add and nothing else at play except man attacks 2 muslims.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Scaff]

I wouldn't change it at all. It's exactly the way you say it is. There is nothing more to add and nothing else at play except man attacks 2 muslims.

Has said nobody but you.

You have created a situation that no one else has claimed to be true for reasons utterly unknown and then refused to discuss it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Has said nobody but you.

You have created a situation that no one else has claimed to be true for reasons utterly unknown and then refused to discuss it.

Yup, I refused to discuss it. You win. 👍👍

 

[Tornado]

Countries are a little harder to sink and a damn sight cheaper to set up a base in.

Which would be fine, except the US is going to have those carriers even if it does have those bases, so it being cheaper to have them in lieu of having carriers is irrelevant. Though the idea that a stationary US base is impervious to attack by a country that is willing to directly attack the USA anyway is an interesting one. What country is at risk to do that?

Having a fleet didn't help out in regard to isolationism at the start of WW2.

And having bases in Turkey didn't stop 9/11. Not that the United States was actually practicing isolationism in either case.



How well did the guys who dragged the US into WWII more directly end up, by the way?

Oh and give landing troop transports on them.

Why does the United States need to do that? Boots on the ground hasn't exactly been the best thing for everything the US has involved itself in in the past 15 years.




You see, I'm a bit confused by this sentiment. Certainly, there needs to be a bit more of a reason to tell Europe to go screw themselves regarding American military installations abroad than Trump whining on Twitter about what leaders think of his handshake. Yet for well over half of the previous decade, the United States' role in international affairs was roundly criticized by pretty much every country except maybe Israel. World Police. Overspending on defense and letting its own citizens suffer, even its veterans. Conducting war crimes and harboring war criminals. The horrors of an unchecked military industrial complex, and the power it held over the government. Making their own rules and making up reasons to conduct war, telling the rest of the world it doesn't care what they think about them, and then ignoring those rules and reasons anyway. They gave the last president a Nobel Peace Prize since he wasn't the guy before him that the international community hated so much . And now, we even have an administration that people on this forum have directly compared to that of North Korea to help justify the idea of "hey, Kim Jong Un might not be that bad." One so bad that France's leader took it upon himself to say he had an evil handshake or whatever. And rolling off a decade in domestic discontent with the United States' active, and let's say "guiding" role in international affairs in certain regions. Nevermind built up sentiment from, say, Vietnam or the like.






But hey. Now world police is good. Now the US needs to be able to project power, meaning to be able to project its will, upon the rest of the world. And we need offsite military installations to do it. Carrier battle groups? Cruise missiles? Nuclear deterrence? None an option, unfortunately. Of course, I'm sure the US committing to this will not face international scorn.

Because of Russia? That seems quite a tired boogeyman to trot out in 2017, but okay. Germany and France and the UK can't do anything about Russia? The United States having military bases in Germany is the only thing keeping Russia from doing... whatever scary stuff Russia hasn't been doing anyway? Does the Ukraine think Rammstein helped them out much?




Or is it simply because Trump might be the one who does it, or that he might do something that last decade was widely desired anyway, but for stupid reasons?

 

[Scaff]

Which would be fine, except the US is going to have those carriers anyway, so it being cheaper to have them in lieu of having carriers is irrelevant. Though the idea that a stationary US base is impervious to attack by a country that is willing to directly attack the USA regardless is an interesting one.


And having bases in Turkey didn't stop 9/11. Not that the United States was actually practicing isolationism in either case.



How well did the guys who dragged the US into WWII end up, by the way?


Why does the United States need to do that? Boots on the ground hasn't exactly been the best thing for everything the US has involved itself in in the past 15 years.




You see, I'm a bit confused by this sentiment. Certainly, there needs to be a bit more of a reason to tell Europe to go screw themselves regarding American military installations abroad than Trump whining on Twitter about what leaders think of his handshake. Yet for well over half of the previous decade, the United States' role in international affairs was roundly criticized. World Police. Overspending on defense and letting its own citizens suffer, even its veterans. Conducting war crimes and harboring war criminals. The horrors of an unchecked military industrial complex, and the power it held over the government in those years. Making their own rules and making up reasons to conduct war, telling the rest of the world it doesn't care what they think about them, and then ignoring those rules anyway. They gave the last president a Nobel Peace Prize since he wasn't the guy before him that the international community hated so much . And now, we even have an administration that people on this forum have directly compared to that of North Korea to justify the idea of "hey, Kim Jong Un might not be that bad." One so bad that France's leader took to Twitter to say he had an evil handshake or whatever. And rolling off a decade in domestic discontent with the United States' active, and let's say "guiding" role in international affairs. Nevermind built up sentiment from, say, Vietnam or the like.






But hey. Now world police is good. Now the US needs to be able to project power, meaning to be able to project its will upon the rest of the world. And we need offsite military installations to do it. Carrier battle groups? Cruise missiles? Nuclear deterrence? Not an option, unfortunately. Of course, I'm sure the US committing to this will not face international scorn.

Because of Russia? That seems quite a tired boogeyman to trot out in 2017, but okay. Germany and France and the UK can't do anything about Russia? The United States having military bases in Germany is the only thing keeping Russia from doing... whatever scary stuff Russia hasn't been doing anyway?


Or is it simply because Trump might be the one who does it?

It has nothing to do with world police and everything to do with NATO.

You know the main body that has helped result in the longest period of peace in Europe and the US for a long time.

Oh and I don't believe I said land based were impervious to attack, not sure how you managed to get that. As such if your going to attribute statements to me, please make them accurate.

 

[Tornado]

It has nothing to do with world police and everything to do with NATO.

You know the main body that has helped result in the longest period of peace in Europe and the US for a long time.

The peace of US and most of the big European countries being in a fairly open war with several Middle Eastern countries for the past 15 years; all while basically just ignoring every aggressive move performed by the new (?) boogeyman known as Russia that the US apparently needs worldwide military bases to stop. But, you know, ignoring that, the US can be a part of NATO, and even project force, without having any permanent military installations in the Eastern Hemisphere. In fact, I'd even say that the US being part of NATO lessens the need for the US to have their own military bases in countries that are also part of NATO; but maybe it doesn't. Maybe they do have a necessity in the modern climate that carriers and cruise missiles and nuclear weapons cannot fill. I'm not a general by any means, but I can even think of some logic for it. Certainly I can see far more benefits to staying in NATO over leaving.



Regardless of all of that though, we get back to the original point: Aircraft carriers are quite good at projecting force. The US has used them in that capacity quite a few times, in fact. The Navy even has a repeat habit to pretty much park the things in whatever ocean that things happen to be flaring up in and it tends to quiet things down a bit if not entirely. So when you say "give force projection a go without [permanent military bases]", well, there you go.

Oh and I don't believe I said land based were impervious to attack, not sure how you managed to get that.

Because I'm having a hard time understanding what difference it makes otherwise whether you can sink a carrier when it comes to its ability to project force. Some countries can most likely sink a carrier that is part of a battle group, or at least cripple one. Some countries can most likely blow the absolute hell out of German or Japanese or Turkish military bases run by the US military. Either way it seems the ability to project force wasn't enough by itself if it progressed to that point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think the main body that resulted in the longest peace period in Europe and the U.S. was the armed forces of the United States. NATO was simply the convenient overcoat they've worn since WWII and it's a joke without the Americans. Take the Americans out of the equation and Europe would have been overrun in 1946. While there may have been a need for large numbers of static bases throughout the world during the cold war, I don't think it's necessary at this point. Troops can be mobilized in large numbers, anywhere in the world within hours or a couple of days but aren't really needed within that that time frame anyway.. Modern wars all begin with assaults from the air not the ground.

 

[Scaff]

The peace of US and most of the big European countries being in a fairly open war with several Middle Eastern countries for the past 15 years; all while basically just ignoring every aggressive move performed by the new (?) boogeyman known as Russia that the US apparently needs worldwide military bases to stop. But, you know, ignoring that, the US can be a part of NATO, and even project force, without having any permanent military installations in the Eastern Hemisphere. In fact, I'd even say that the US being part of NATO lessens the need for the US to have their own military bases in countries that are also part of NATO; but maybe it doesn't. Maybe they do have a necessity in the modern climate that carriers and cruise missiles and nuclear weapons cannot fill. I'm not a general by any means, but I can even think of some logic for it. Certainly I can see far more benefits to staying in NATO over leaving.



Regardless of all of that though, we get back to the original point: Aircraft carriers are quite good at projecting force. The US has used them in that capacity quite a few times, in fact. The Navy even has a repeat habit to pretty much park the things in whatever ocean that things happen to be flaring up in and it tends to quiet things down a bit if not entirely. So when you say "give force projection a go without [permanent military bases]", well, there you go.



Because I'm having a hard time understanding what difference it makes otherwise whether you can sink a carrier when it comes to its ability to project force. Some countries can most likely sink a carrier that is part of a battle group, or at least cripple one. Some countries can most likely blow the absolute hell out of German or Japanese or Turkish military bases run by the US military. Either way it seems the ability to project force wasn't enough by itself if it progressed to that point.

I'm not disagreeing that carriers are good at projecting force, but they are a part not a whole solution.

They are also far more vulnerable, take the recent strike the US carried out in a Syrian airbase, 50+ cruise missiles and it was back up and running in days. How would a similar number of cruise hits on a carrier take it out of action for?

In regard to the argument that air power is more important than boots on the ground. Arguably the balance has shifted that way, but again most of the US actions in this regard have not been carried out from carriers, but from forward land bases. While it may be possible to use air power alone to put troops in country, then supporting them logistically without forward bases becomes almost impossible. European airfields have been vital in ensuring that US troops in the Middle East are supplied and supported.

 

[Northstar]

Seems like laptops may be the next thing banned from international flights.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...carry--laptops-all-foreign-flights/102263688/

I wonder how long before they just do a blanket ban on all carry-on luggage?

 

[Imari]

Seems like laptops may be the next thing banned from international flights.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...carry--laptops-all-foreign-flights/102263688/

I wonder how long before they just do a blanket ban on all carry-on luggage?

And clothes. Everyone must fly naked with no luggage.

 

[polysmut]

And clothes. Everyone must fly naked with no luggage.

Will there be probing?

 

[Imari]

Will there be probing?

It's not really probing any more. Airports are now hiring plumbers proficient with a drain snake to staff their customs inspection points.

 

[Scaff]

So it seems that the US leg of Roger Waters tour is not going down well with Trump supporters.

Some of whom have said he should keep his politics out of his music! Which is a bit odd given that Waters has a track record of talking politics in his music for his entire career and made a point of a public preview of the show to ensure people knew what to expect.

 

[DK]

Those poor snowflakes. Yet another case of "free speech for me, not for thee," although at least this time they didn't stab Waters to death.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Modern wars all begin with assaults from the air not the ground.

And yet many modern wars haven't.

 

[Northstar]

Some of whom have said he should keep his politics out of his music!

Seems a bit like asking a porn star to cut back on the nudity.

Anyways, they should all be happy he's stopped milking the crap out of The Wall for 5 minutes.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And yet many modern wars haven't.

When was the last engagement involving the Americans that didn't start from the air?

 

[TenEightyOne]

When was the last engagement involving the Americans that didn't start from the air?

I don't know and it's irrelevant seeing as you'd actually made a very different point:

Modern wars all begin with assaults from the air not the ground.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't know and it's irrelevant seeing as you'd actually made a very different point:

In my response I was clearly talking about the Americans but I guess I have to spell it out for the pedantic.

I think the main body that resulted in the longest peace period in Europe and the U.S. was the armed forces of the United States. NATO was simply the convenient overcoat they've worn since WWII and it's a joke without the Americans. Take the Americans out of the equation and Europe would have been overrun in 1946. While there may have been a need for large numbers of static [American] bases throughout the world during the cold war, I don't think it's necessary at this point. [American] Troops can be mobilized in large numbers, anywhere in the world within hours or a couple of days but aren't really needed within that that time frame anyway.. Modern wars all begin with assaults from the air not the ground.

So forget that question as it's irrelevant anyway. This is 2017 not 1992. So a better question is, given the current state and direction of the American war arsenal, other than for an incredibly tiny and limited engagement, why would the Americans in particular ever think it prudent not to engage from the air first to soften up the enemy and prepare for a land invasion, if one is even necessary?

 

[Scaff]

Well that's one way to get fired.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/29/med...eet/index.html0230AMStoryLink&linkId=38134918

He should have looked at the US military and the single most decorated unit in it, well more specifically the ethnicity and origin of those that fought in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

I think the main body that resulted in the longest peace period in Europe and the U.S. was the armed forces of the United States. NATO was simply the convenient overcoat they've worn since WWII and it's a joke without the Americans. Take the Americans out of the equation and Europe would have been overrun in 1946. While there may have been a need for large numbers of static bases throughout the world during the cold war, I don't think it's necessary at this point. Troops can be mobilized in large numbers, anywhere in the world within hours or a couple of days but aren't really needed within that that time frame anyway.. Modern wars all begin with assaults from the air not the ground.

A dramatically oversimplification of the situation, take Russia out of the equation and a very strong argument exists that America would not have made a significant difference, nor would they have made a difference if they were alone.

If the defeat of the German army was the central strategic task, the main one was the conflict on the eastern front. The German army was first weakened and then driven back, before the main weight of Allied ground and air forces was brought to bear in 1944. Over four hundred German and Soviet divisions fought along more than 1,000 miles. Axis divisions between 1941 and 1945. The scale and geographical extent of the eastern front dwarfed all earlier warfare. Losses on both sides far exceeded anywhere else in the military contest. The war in the east was fought with a ferocity almost unknown on the western fronts. The battles at Stalingrad and Kursk, which broke the back of the German army, drew from the soldiers of both sides the last ounces of physical and moral energy.

Source - Richard Overy. Why the allies won.


Keep in mind that of the 156,000 troops that landed on D-Day over half were not American. The British, French, Canadian, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, Commonwealth, etc. troops made up the rest. Troops that were not fresh to the fight, but for many had been fighting already for years

Nor do I think that the NATO (and for that non-NATO) troops who have died coming to the aid of the US in the only time Article 5 has been invoked deserve to be part of what you consider to be a joke.

Your jingoism is neither accurate or particularity tasteful.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well that's one way to get fired.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/29/med...eet/index.html0230AMStoryLink&linkId=38134918

He should have looked at the US military and the single most decorated unit in it, well more specifically the ethnicity and origin of those that fought in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

Not sure why that's news really. Someone makes a blantantly racist comment and gets fired. That's what's supposed to happen AFAIK. And the "origin" (which I assume to be birthplace since you separated it from ethnicity) of most of the 442nd is American.

A dramatically oversimplification of the situation, take Russia out of the equation and a very strong argument exists that America would not have made a significant difference, nor would they have made a difference if they were alone. Keep in mind that of the 156,000 troops that landed on D-Day over half were not American. The British, French, Canadian, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, Commonwealth, etc. troops made up the rest. Troops that were not fresh to the fight, but for many had been fighting already for years

Nor do I think that the NATO (and for that non-NATO) troops who have died coming to the aid of the US in the only time Article 5 has been invoked deserve to be part of what you consider to be a joke.

Your jingoism is neither accurate or particularity tasteful.

Doesn't change my point at all. Take the Americans out of the equation and there is no D-Day, the Russians win the war on the Eastern front and probably march all the way to the western borders of Germany and Poland and maybe beyond, and annex all of Eastern Europe in the process.

Please quote where I said anything about NATO troops coming to the aid of the US in the only time Article 5 was invoked.