America - The Official Thread

[Scaff]

True but at the same time, not related to my point.
Pretty self explanatory.

If it was that self explanatory I wouldn't have asked you to explain it. So no its not.

IMO NATO was the guise that allowed the Americans to establish dozens of military basis throughout Europe. Also IMO, without American participation, NATO would be much weaker and much less effective.

So the cold war and tensions with the Soviets, the fear of the domino effect, etc. All of that didn't happen?

Oh and without the ability to set-up bases around the world (Europe in particular) over the last 60 years, the US would not be as dominant a world player as it is now, it would also have a lot more dead troops).

It goes both ways, which is kind of the point!

But feel free to carry on suggesting that's not the case, I'm sure you certainly have an audience for the bombastic.

Also IMO, the need for remote bases spread throughout the world is a relic from the past and totally unnecessary today.

Wait.....

A dozen or two strategically placed in various parts of the world is all that is necessary IMO, if that. 800 is dramatic overkill by any measure I can think of. Bring the troops home, save some money or spend it on tech, whatever the case may be.

I thought they were a relic from the past and unnecessary?

They either are or they aren't. Which is it.

Oh and spending it on tech is exactly the problem with an out of control procurement process in the US military.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brooks-beehner-military-procurement-20170524-story.html

I assume from your lack of a quote that you can't provide one for the words you attributed to me.

I didn't attribute them to you, I inferred it from your post, as such I have no need to quote you saying anything.

You can tell that as I asked "Then please explain exactly what you mean by......"

I am Polish and do not confuse anything at all if you include me in your quote about people of the west.
The fact is, Soviet did indeed advance against Germany and did so fairly well, who did free the concentration camps... And later when Both eastern Germany(DDR) and Poland was gifted to Soviet by the Allied forces hell did continue for those living there, even if the war was long over. Call it Soviet Union or Soviet Block it does not matter.

Such a shame that all those fighting for freedom did get the birdy by those they fought with/for.

This one for me should have always been a point of shame for the UK.

We entered WW2 to defend Poland, and yet at the end of WW2 we let it fall.

Please be assured that not every one is quite as naive as to believe that Poland and the like had self-governance at all.

Soviet Union was the country, Soviet Bloc was the series of countries under the influence of the Soviet Union that retained they own governance.

Do you actually believe that?

Very few of them had any form of independent control and were little more than puppet regimes, allowed to maintain a veneer of independence to form a disposable buffer zone for the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_state

Oh and Russia did annex parts of Poland and other countries and incorporated them into Russia post 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_Poland_annexed_by_the_Soviet_Union

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Sean Spicer has tried to explain "covfefe" away as a message that was understood by the people it was intended for; if you didn't understand it, you aren't in the know.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sean Spicer has tried to explain "covfefe" away as a message that was understood by the people it was intended for; if you didn't understand it, you aren't in the know.

It's an atmosphere of utter craziness. Even Trump seemed to joke about covfefe in a later tweet - I was actually quite impressed that he just took a genuine and very public mistake on the chin. Now it seems (if the Spicer quote is correct) that the pseudo-Machiavellian madness has resumed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's an atmosphere of utter craziness. Even Trump seemed to joke about covfefe in a later tweet - I was actually quite impressed that he just took a genuine and very public mistake on the chin. Now it seems (if the Spicer quote is correct) that the pseudo-Machiavellian madness has resumed.

At this point, I think the safest course of action is to assume that "covfefe" was sent out for the benefit of orange-skinned humanoid aliens living aboard the mothership.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Oh comeon! It's just a way for someone who has become irrelevant to try to become relevant again. By talking about her, posting articles about her, watching the skit, etc. all you're doing is encouraging more of this shock-value nonsense from other celebrities who want to restart their career. She figured this was preferable to a sex tape.

Well she had to forgo the sex tapes, because the partial nudity she tried to pull off in her reality show she had a couple years ago didn't breathe enough new life into her career. So, clearly a sex tape would further destroy her, she had to really think outside the box, or in this case head.

@McLaren also reminded me of her removing of clothes antics on live tv for NYE, so since this didn't go over so well, the sex tape with a fake Trump and Clinton might be on the horizon. She could take inspiration from Kanye and his Famous Music Video.

At this point, I think the safest course of action is to assume that "covfefe" was sent out for the benefit of orange-skinned humanoid aliens living aboard the mothership.

They will soon have to combat the Lizard Men so you're most likely right, @Dotini what do you know of this?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump has been giving his private, unsecured phone number out to world leaders:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...le-phone-use-worries-security-experts/8581164

They will soon have to combat the Lizard Men so you're most likely right, @Dotini what do you know of this

I thought that was obvious - the United States will use the djinn that they've found to keep both sides in check.

 

[TheCracker]

Sean Spicer has tried to explain "covfefe" away as a message that was understood by the people it was intended for; if you didn't understand it, you aren't in the know.

Sending a tweet out to the millions to inform just a handful of people seems like an odd choice. Perhaps he should have just sent a text message to those who needed to know? Maybe he thought the 'roaming' charges for his network were a bit steep for text messages?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Sending a tweet out to the millions to inform just a handful of people seems like an odd choice.

Yes. Yes, it does. Which makes it all the more impressive that Sean Spicer managed to say it with a straight face. Either he could win the World Series of Poker with a hand made up of uno cards, or he's telling the truth.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I thought that was obvious - the United States will use the djinn that they've found to keep both sides in check.

Ah yes the Djinn, the same sinister kind the late great Robin Williams himself dabbled with.

Sending a tweet out to the millions to inform just a handful of people seems like an odd choice. Perhaps he should have just sent a text message to those who needed to know? Maybe he thought the 'roaming' charges for his network were a bit steep for text messages?

It's for those late night group text pow wows and war imitation games.

 

[DK]

Oh look, the swamp just got 10 feet deeper!

 

[Dotini]

It seems to me Trump went out of his way to diss and abuse Merkel and Germany, hinting strongly about a divorce with NATO and the EU both. Now it appears Trump may pull the US out of the Paris accord climate agreement, yet another indication of "America First". On the other hand, the Trump administration is beleaguered by investigations and leaks. It appears a hot summer of political entertainment is ahead of us, not to mention irrational acts of madness by extremists on the left and right. Most of all I'm anticipating the penultimate season of Game of Thrones and pursuing my personal ambrosia of classical fencing. On my bedtime readng list are a couple of new books on the Djinn!

 

[Famine]

It seems to me Trump went out of his way to diss and abuse Merkel and Germany, hinting strongly about a divorce with NATO and the EU both.

Park life.

Now it appears Trump may pull the US out of the Paris accord climate agreement, yet another indication of "America First".

Park life.

On the other hand, the Trump administration is beleaguered by investigations and leaks. It appears a hot summer of political entertainment is ahead of us

Park life.

not to mention irrational acts of madness by extremists on the left and right. Most of all I'm anticipating the penultimate season of Game of Thrones and pursuing my personal ambrosia of classical fencing.

 

[Dotini]

Park life.Park life.Park life.

For those, like me, unfamiliar with Parklife, it appears to be a London nostalgia video. I like it, but it will never replace Doo Wop!

 

[TenEightyOne]

For those, like me, unfamiliar with Parklife, it appears to be a London nostalgia video. I like it, but it will never replace Doo Wop!

Par... oh, been done

Blur were always far better than Hanson!

 

[Johnnypenso]

So the cold war and tensions with the Soviets, the fear of the domino effect, etc. All of that didn't happen?

Oh and without the ability to set-up bases around the world (Europe in particular) over the last 60 years, the US would not be as dominant a world player as it is now, it would also have a lot more dead troops).

It goes both ways, which is kind of the point!

But feel free to carry on suggesting that's not the case, I'm sure you certainly have an audience for the bombastic.

Didn't say anything different. Feel free to keep pretending I did. I'm sure you have an audience for it as well.

Wait.....


I thought they were a relic from the past and unnecessary?

They either are or they aren't. Which is it.

Again, already explained. You separated my paragraph into two sentences in what appears to be a deliberate misquote. Take the paragraph as a whole.

Do you actually believe that?

Very few of them had any form of independent control and were little more than puppet regimes, allowed to maintain a veneer of independence to form a disposable buffer zone for the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_state

Oh and Russia did annex parts of Poland and other countries and incorporated them into Russia post 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_Poland_annexed_by_the_Soviet_Union

I do yes.

 

[Scaff]

Didn't say anything different. Feel free to keep pretending I did. I'm sure you have an audience for it as well.

I will continue to have to infer meaning from it until you explain exactly what you meant by it.

Again, already explained. You separated my paragraph into two sentences in what appears to be a deliberate misquote. Take the paragraph as a whole.

I did take the paragraph as a whole, addressing the two contradictory elements via the use of a suspension point (I used four rather than three period points, maybe that caused the confusion).

The concept of overseas bases can't be out of date and unnecessary if you want to retain them. That's an internal contradiction within your own paragraph. As it reads its not the concept of overseas bases you have an issue with (or you would want them all gone), but the number and location of them.

I do yes.

Excellent, you will have no problem at all supporting that then. Please detail exactly how Poland and Hungary (to pick two examples) were independent as part of the Soviet Bloc and how they expressed this independence. If you don't mind the events around 1956 would be an interesting focus.

 

[Dotini]

Most people realize the American Empire has too many military bases around the world pursuing unsustainable global wars and policies of regime change. On the other hand, a more attractive alternative is hard to imagine or put into words, much less practical policy. It is a confusing welter of might-makes-right realism with a heavy ideological twist, and now a turn.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I did take the paragraph as a whole, addressing the two contradictory elements via the use of a suspension point (I used four rather than three period points, maybe that caused the confusion).

The concept of overseas bases can't be out of date and unnecessary if you want to retain them. That's an internal contradiction within your own paragraph. As it reads its not the concept of overseas bases you have an issue with (or you would want them all gone), but the number and location of them.

Not what I saw. I saw you separate it into two parts and attack them independently as if they weren't part of a greater whole. Anyways, pretty self explanatory once again. During the cold war it was probably necessary to have a large number of bases around the world for various reasons. The commies were actively and openly trying to expand in all areas of the globe, Europe was weakened in the post-War era, and America was the king of the jungle. That's no longer the case, Europe is strong and powerful and doesn't need the U.S. support provided by the military presence like it once did. They can afford to create their own show of military might. A few strategically placed bases here and there on the part of the Americans is all that is necessary IMO, if that. Bring the troops home, do whatever seems prudent with the money.

Excellent, you will have no problem at all supporting that then. Please detail exactly how Poland and Hungary (to pick two examples) were independent as part of the Soviet Bloc and how they expressed this independence. If you don't mind the events around 1956 would be an interesting focus.

The weren't annexed. Influenced, yes. Annexed, no.

 

[Scaff]

Not what I saw. I saw you separate it into two parts and attack them independently as if they weren't part of a greater whole. Anyways, pretty self explanatory once again. During the cold war it was probably necessary to have a large number of bases around the world for various reasons. The commies were actively and openly trying to expand in all areas of the globe, Europe was weakened in the post-War era, and America was the king of the jungle. That's no longer the case, Europe is strong and powerful and doesn't need the U.S. support provided by the military presence like it once did. They can afford to create their own show of military might. A few strategically placed bases here and there on the part of the Americans is all that is necessary IMO, if that. Bring the troops home, do whatever seems prudent with the money.

How exactly is "Wait..." attacking a part of a paragraph independently?

That makes no sense at all, and comes across as an attempt at simple distraction from your own contradiction. Are bases necessary (and you are now suggesting they are) or unnecessary (as you previously said)?

If they are truly unnecessary then you don't need any, and your call to bring the troops back home and comments on bases being unnecessary has not in the past carried any form of caveat.

The weren't annexed. Influenced, yes. Annexed, no.

I don't see the word annexxed in here?

"Soviet Union was the country, Soviet Bloc was the series of countries under the influence of the Soviet Union that retained they own governance."

It was the independence of the governance I questioned, not the status of being annexed. However I do note that you ignored the point about the 1946 annexation of parts of Poland into Russia and the request for detail on what you thought happened in 1956 in Poland and Hungary, when Russian forces entered both country, quelled all forms of independent resistance and then stayed until the end of the cold war!

I'm going to be honest here and say that just about every political commentator and historical reference disagrees with you in regard to them "retaining they (sic) own governance".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump confirms he is withdrawing from the Paris Accords:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-withdrawing-from-paris-climate-deal/8580980

From the article:

"At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?" he asked.

It was months ago.

"It just transfers [coal] jobs out of the United States and ships them to other countries," he said.

Except that coal is dying as an energy source.

"This deal is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining an advantage over the United States."

Nope. Business had nothing to do with it.

Elon Musk has quit as an advisor to Trump, as he said that he would.

 

[fatkrakr]

Trump confirms he is withdrawing from the Paris Accords:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-withdrawing-from-paris-climate-deal/8580980

From the article:


It was months ago.


Except that coal is dying as an energy source.


Nope. Business had nothing to do with it.

Elon Musk has quit as an advisor to Trump, as he said that he would.

 

[PzR Slim]

 

[Danoff]

Trump confirms he is withdrawing from the Paris Accords:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-withdrawing-from-paris-climate-deal/8580980

If the rest of the world actually cares about the Paris Accords, they'll stick it out until the US elects another president. Because I could easily see us hopping right back in in a little under 4 years.

 

[CodeRedR51]

If the rest of the world actually cares about the Paris Accords, they'll stick it out until the US elects another president. Because I could easily see us hopping right back in in a little under 4 years.

The good news is that the process for backing out takes 4 years. So it won't be final until a day after the 2020 election.

 

[PzR Slim]

If the rest of the world actually cares about the Paris Accords, they'll stick it out until the US elects another president. Because I could easily see us hopping right back in in a little under 4 years.

From what I'm reading States, City Mayors and big business are taking it upon themselves to live upto the pledge.

 

[Famine]

So I just want to check this.

The Paris Agreement is good for the environment.
The USA not being in it is bad for the environment.
The rest of the world (apart from Syria and Nicaragua) being in it is good for the environment.

Can someone articulate how bad for the environment of the world the USA not being in the Paris Agreement is, compared to how bad for the environment of the USA the USA not being in the Paris Agreement is, only from all the doom-mongering on Twitter it sounds like the entire planet is dead because of this.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the rest of the world actually cares about the Paris Accords, they'll stick it out until the US elects another president

I saw an analyst on the evening news last night arguing that it could be a good thing as Trump could do a lot more damage within the Paris Accords than he could as an outsider. I think that the rest of the world is just disappointed that Trump has backed out of one of the most meaningful agreements by prioritising dying industries over the environment and has chosen to frame the decision as a response to a conspiracy to undermine the United States' economy.

 

[Joey D]

So I just want to check this.

The Paris Agreement is good for the environment.
The USA not being in it is bad for the environment.
The rest of the world (apart from Syria and Nicaragua) being in it is good for the environment.

Can someone articulate how bad for the environment of the world the USA not being in the Paris Agreement is, compared to how bad for the environment of the USA the USA not being in the Paris Agreement is, only from all the doom-mongering on Twitter it sounds like the entire planet is dead because of this.

From what I've been reading today, it's less about it being bad for the environment that we pulled out (phrasing) but more along the lines that it signals the US isn't interested in cooperating with other nations to solve the human contribution to damaging the environment.

I'm kind of on the fence about it, while I don't think it's all doom and gloom that we got out of the Paris Agreement, I don't think it was necessarily the best move. Whether humans are the reason for climate change or not, we are still doing a number to the environment by polluting the air, water, and soil. It'd be nice to see nations working together to figure out how to protect our environment rather than destroy large swaths of it. Plus I wonder about how this will affect scientific progress since many of those programs (at least in the US) are funded through government grants. By getting out of the agreement, I think it says that our focus isn't on protecting the environment and I feel that means the funding will dry up for research.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Can someone articulate how bad for the environment of the world the USA not being in the Paris Agreement is, compared to how bad for the environment of the USA the USA not being in the Paris Agreement is,

Being part of the agreement is meaningless (obviously) without the participants attempting to hit their own self-set targets. The USA could continue to aim for its Paris targets while no longer being part of the agreement... but that seems unlikely.

The world's two largest producers of greenhouse gases are China and the USA, one of those claims to be continuing to work to its Paris targets and the other doesn't. Of course, the output of either of those countries is outweighed by the cumulative output of other nations but nonetheless the participation of the big producers is paramount to driving technology and inspiration in smaller industrial nations. Its essential that as many countries as possible try to meet their targets in order to slow the warming curve.

To your second point: the USA will be little affected by sea rises, they're not one of the 83 countries under dire threat. Failing to curb oil emissions clearly has an effect on cities and health but the American landmass is staggeringly big so those problems blow away relatively quickly.

I think the USA will see little immediate effect by withdrawing from Paris (there's a video about that somewhere) and, seemingly, the administration cares little about any long-term effects.

What's interesting is that panel members seem to think that it will take the length of Trump's presidency (being kind and giving him four years) before the USA can fully leave the Paris agreement. If that's the case one wonders if Trump is playing the campaign ball to the furthest grass possible.

 

[Famine]

From what I understand of the Paris Agreement, without the USA it accounts for nearly 82% of the globe's CO2 emissions (and only CO2 emissions), literally nothing is going to happen until 2018 anyway and experts agree that even at 100% it won't hit the 2 degree maximum target. Meanwhile Nicaragua hasn't signed as it doesn't believe the either the measures or the punishments for not meeting targets will be effective enough.

Is the USA going it alone with its own 17ish% a bad thing? Perhaps if the USA focuses on getting its own emissions under control without the input of other nations, it can come up with technologies to accelerate the reduction in other nations sooner than Paris mandates - it is, after all, a nation of the best and brightest and nearly three times as many Nobel Prizes as anyone else.

I get that almost every other country reckons Paris is a good idea, but I don't get how it's automatically bad for any nation to not be in it - much less an incredibly advanced one.

Perhaps better questions are: Does the USA have to be in the Paris Agreement in order to reduce its CO2 emissions? Will not being in it mean that the USA doesn't reduce its CO2 emissions?