America - The Official Thread

[Scaff]

I remember @Scaff also linked an article about the involment in the US elections. Why did Putin do it?
For revenge.

If you are going to quote someone then at least do so accurately. It was revenge and self preservation.

Why does Assad use chemical weapons on civilians when things are going so well for him?
Because he's a psycho.

Because they are effective and via a direct and involved partner they have a UN Security council veto.

When you lack any rational explanation for something (about what would they gain by doing this), you have to go with irrational one.

None of these are irrational, and even if they were that doesn't preclude any government from acting in an irrational manner.

 

[Dotini]

This chart suggests why the US likes to attack, invade, and occupy so many countries around the world. It is simple jealousy and emulation of our special cousins.

According to the book "All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To", there are only 22 countries Britain never invaded throughout the course of history. There aren't many gaps on the map, but some of the more notable include Sweden, Belarus and Vatican City.

DESCRIPTION
This chart shows all the countries invaded by Britain throughout history.

...from wiki:

Stuart Laycock is a British historian and author best known for the popular-history book All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To. He has also written extensively on Roman and post-Roman Britain.

All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To (2012) attempts to catalogue every country Britain has ever invaded or made an incursion into, whether they were part of the British Empire or suffered a briefer attack, were threatened, or forced to negotiate. Incursions by privateers, private explorers, etc, are also listed.[2] The earliest mentioned invasion was in 197 AD, when Clodius Albinus took many British soldiers across the English Channel to attack Gaul, being defeated at Lyon.[3] 90% of the world's countries have suffered British attack at some point in their history, with only 22 spared.[4] France is the nearest rival to Britain's record.[3]

The book was attacked by Richard Seymour in the Guardian for trivialising the suffering caused by imperialism.[4] Although the book claims not to be pro or anti empire, Seymour accused it of "moral ambivalence" and "empire nostalgia".[4] Seymour also criticised it for its unhistorical elements, including invasions long before the existence of Britain as a nation, but praised it for showing how British power went far beyond the overt machinery of empire to include economic and other forces.

 

[Liquid]

Pedantry: Many of those places only become sovereign states after the British had been there.

Furthermore Laycock's book uses a very broad definition of "invasion", including but not limited to:

- Any military presence including non-hostile or consensual support
- Naval conflict in territorial waters
- Assumption of consent in attacks by mercenaries, pirates and non-military organisations

After all, it's unfair to say that Britain "invaded" Czechia during Operation Anthropoid when:

a) There was no Czechia in 1942; the country was Czechoslovakia
b) Britain was fighting for the Czechs; Operation Anthropoid was an action against the German-territory Reichsprotektorat of Bohemia
c) Britain wasn't even there; it gave support to the Czechoslovak government-in-exile which was based in London

That's not to say that England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom hasn't done its fair share of invasions over the centuries but as presented, it is extremely misleading.

More: How accurate is the assertion that Britain has invaded all but 22 countries?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pedantry: Many of those places only become sovereign states after the British had been there.

Seconded. The whole book was clickbait based on a number of tenuous premises. Some of the "non-invaded" countries have seen a British military presence in circumstances that the writer considers "invasion" in other cases... what a load of tut.

 

[PeterJB]

My guess is most of the European countries on there were "invaded" either to stop the Nazis getting there first or push them out.

 

[Imari]

My guess is most of the European countries on there were "invaded" either to stop the Nazis getting there first or push them out.

Europe had been fighting amongst itself for centuries before WW2. My guess is that most European countries had been invaded by at least a handful of other European countries before WW1 even started.

 

[Dotini]

Trump has announced new tariffs to go into effect next week, 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum.

 

[Joey D]

Trump has announced new tariffs to go into effect next week, 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum.

Well that's fantastic for the economy...wait no it isn't. If you want to push manufacturing out of the US and have it done elsewhere, you put a premium on the raw materials they use. If these companies choose not to relocate, then the increased cost of production with either be passed along the the consumer or have reduced wages for workers. Either way, it's not exactly good.

I'm also curious if Trump used American steel with his construction projects, or did he do what every company does and look for the lowest price possible (which I'm guessing is China)?

 

[Dotini]

Well that's fantastic for the economy...wait no it isn't. If you want to push manufacturing out of the US and have it done elsewhere, you put a premium on the raw materials they use. If these companies choose not to relocate, then the increased cost of production with either be passed along the the consumer or have reduced wages for workers. Either way, it's not exactly good.

I'm also curious if Trump used American steel with his construction projects, or did he do what every company does and look for the lowest price possible (which I'm guessing is China)?

I'm not entirely sure it's entirely good for the US economy. It could lead to a trade war, for one thing. But we may have more jobs in mill working.
Whatever, it is a fulfillment of a campaign promise, and possibly a signal that we are strategically reviving our domestic steel industry preparatory to going into a more adversarial relationship (shooting war to come?) with our current supplier of steel, China.

 

[Liquid]

or did he do what every company does and look for the lowest price possible (which I'm guessing is China)?

Always a chuckle:



"China! I have to have my China!"

 

[TexRex]

 

[ryzno]

Trump has announced new tariffs to go into effect next week, 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum.

On a positive note, it will help people who collect scrap metal.
Steel has gone from $.034 to $.052 per lb so far.
Back when I did scrapping it was $.12-15 per lb.
Something positive to look at.

 

[Pupik]

Always a chuckle:

Shina light the world on fiya....uh! [Cue the pipe organ]

New Yorker drawl, I have it sometimes. At least it's not Lawn Guylandese (eesh!)

 

[Biggles]

It has nothing to do with Trump, however the use of small arms alone against a truly tyrannical government is an illusion of defense, as....


....without the intervention of competently trained people with access to much more powerful weaponry then armed civilians are outmatched.

The 2nd Amendment argument that suggests that the possession of small arms would act as a deterrent against a "tyrannical government" seems absurd to me ... & not just for the reasons you bring up. Clearly, there are different factions in US political life, there is no likelihood at all that a "bad" government would simply attack US citizens en masse, rather the various factions, pro-government, anti- government & others would attack each other, with the armed forces participating in ways that would be difficult to predict. This is what has happened in most other civil wars, including the US civil war.

The protection against tyrannical government is the ongoing participation of the citizenry in the democratic process, the rule of law, civil discourse & social & economic justice. By the time it gets to the point where people think using weapons is the answer it's already too late.

 

[ryzno]

The protection against tyrannical government is the ongoing participation of the citizenry in the democratic process, the rule of law, civil discourse & social & economic justice. By the time it gets to the point where people think using weapons is the answer it's already too late.

Some of us already think it's to late.
Every time a shooting happens the same groups cry for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
If they ever do repeal it guess what the government CAN do after that...

Figured I'd post this here... So much shade...
Missing CDC employee was denied promotion, told neighbor to delete phone number, reports say

 

[TenEightyOne]

Figured I'd post this here... So much shade...
Missing CDC employee was denied promotion, told neighbor to delete phone number, reports say

Shade in what sense? Disappointed ambitious guy leaves home, probably kills self. Leaves a window open for the dog knowing it'll be taken care of. It's a sad story but I don't see why it's a bigger deal than so many other broadly-similar stories.

 

[ryzno]

Shade in what sense? Disappointed ambitious guy leaves home, probably kills self. Leaves a window open for the dog knowing it'll be taken care of. It's a sad story but I don't see why it's a bigger deal than so many other broadly-similar stories.

I find it shady they have a $10K reward for information on someone who's disappearance isn't "foul play".

 

[Johnnypenso]

The 2nd Amendment argument that suggests that the possession of small arms would act as a deterrent against a "tyrannical government" seems absurd to me ... & not just for the reasons you bring up. Clearly, there are different factions in US political life, there is no likelihood at all that a "bad" government would simply attack US citizens en masse, rather the various factions, pro-government, anti- government & others would attack each other, with the armed forces participating in ways that would be difficult to predict. This is what has happened in most other civil wars, including the US civil war.

The protection against tyrannical government is the ongoing participation of the citizenry in the democratic process, the rule of law, civil discourse & social & economic justice. By the time it gets to the point where people think using weapons is the answer it's already too late.

You mean like this democratic process the Catolonians are trying to engage in but were being blocked from the polling station by the jackboots?

Or the fireman that were beaten by police as they tried to form a human shield to protect protestors exercising their democratic rights?:

Or these citizens being "immobilized" while trying to exercise their democratic rights outside a polling station?:

 

[Scaff]

You mean like this democratic process the Catolonians are trying to engage in but were being blocked from the polling station by the jackboots?
Or the fireman that were beaten by police as they tried to form a human shield to protect protestors exercising their democratic rights?:
Or these citizens being "immobilized" while trying to exercise their democratic rights outside a polling station?:

False equivalency is false.

Two sides both with very different views of if that was a part of the democratic process, Spain is not the US and the US is not Spain.

 

[Dotini]

Democracy deschmockracy. Everybody knows the best form of government is the wise, benevolent despot.

During a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday, Trump suggested that law enforcement should have taken away the weapons used by the suspected gunman in last month’s deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., long before the massacre. The teenager, who has been charged with the 17 killings, had reportedly shown signs of mental illness and was reported to police dozens of times in the weeks and months before the killings.

“I like taking the guns early,” Trump said
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nras-loe...izing-guns-without-due-process-161656071.html

 

[Johnnypenso]

False equivalency is false.

Two sides both with very different views of if that was a part of the democratic process, Spain is not the US and the US is not Spain.

The protection against tyrannical government is the ongoing participation of the citizenry in the democratic process, the rule of law, civil discourse & social & economic justice. By the time it gets to the point where people think using weapons is the answer it's already too late.

 

[Tornado]

False equivalency is false.

Two sides both with very different views of if that was a part of the democratic process, Spain is not the US and the US is not Spain.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/guns.33891/page-140#post-12218900

 

[Scaff]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/guns.33891/page-140#post-12218900

And?

 

[Tornado]

Just wondering if it would be argued against that comparison in that thread as well.

 

[Scaff]

Which part of the Spanish democratic process was this in regard to?

Just wondering if it would be argued against that comparison in that thread as well.

I have no idea, I'm not posting in that thread, but this one.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which part of the Spanish democratic process was this in regard to?

I have no idea, I'm not posting in that thread, but this one.

I don't think I need the specifics of the Spanish Consitution to know that the Catalonians weren't doing enough to warrant hundreds of them getting beaten and bloodied on their way to vote, by a bunch of jackbooted government thugs carrying illegal weapons. If the vote and the result was illegal the government could have done as was suggested above, as in following the democratic process, the rule of law, civil discourse yada yada yada. Instead they simply beat the citizens up with riot police coming in off of boats. Good luck trying that in the U.S. of A. if Texas decides it wants to hold a referendum on separation.

 

[Liquid]

Good luck trying that in the U.S. of A. if Texas decides it wants to hold a referendum on separation.

How likely is that to occur?

It is one of those things you sometimes hear, "As part of its annexation, Texas can leave the union if it wants to."

 

[Scaff]

I don't think I need the specifics of the Spanish Consitution to know that the Catalonians weren't doing enough to warrant hundreds of them getting beaten and bloodied on their way to vote, by a bunch of jackbooted government thugs carrying illegal weapons. If the vote and the result was illegal the government could have done as was suggested above, as in following the democratic process, the rule of law, civil discourse yada yada yada. Instead they simply beat the citizens up with riot police coming in off of boats. Good luck trying that in the U.S. of A. if Texas decides it wants to hold a referendum on separation.

And I don't condone that action at all, however to suggest that if they were armed (voters) it would have resulted in a better outcome is a leap (it is after all not as if these situations have never occurred in the US).

You can suppress voter rights in many other ways, such as making claims about illegal voting that doesn't exist to add additional requirements to voting that suppress groups from taking part in the process.

How likely is that to occur?

It is one of those things you sometimes hear, "As part of its annexation, Texas can leave the union if it wants to."

Valid point, Texas isn't making any serious noise about that at all, Spain has just come out of terrorists killing people in regions due to Independence claims.

 

[Dotini]

The northeast is experiencing high winds and heavy snows. Federal employees are taking the day off in places. The FAA tower at Dulles is abandoned due to high winds, Downed power lines, roof collapses and possibly flooding is expected. Something weird is going on in the North Atlantic, and maybe with the jet stream and polar vortex. Worst weather this time of year since '62, they say.

 

[Joey D]

It always amazes what a big deal they make about weather in the Northeast. We routinely got massive snowfalls, cold temps, and high winds in West Michigan and it never made the news. Even here in Salt Lake we get hit with massive storms and everyone just goes on with their day.

I mean this weekend some areas around SLC are getting upwards of 30+ inches of snow and where I live should get around 15". Plus winds this morning were around 50 mph. We just dealt with it.

But a storm hits New York or Boston and it gets round the clock coverage.