U.S. Politics

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

They've certainly got better tanks, artillery and some fearsome electronic warfare capabilities.

Maybe Russia could only feed its army for 2 months, but without direct and massive US support (or nuclear intervention) they'd be on the Rhine long before that. 

 

I think you're underestimating the neighbouring states to Russia here. Finland, Norway, Estonia etc have built their defenses just to trap Russian offensives should this happen. Fair enough Russia has good thermonuclear weapons, but at the end of the day you win a war by conquering territory. Norway's just bought 144 24A Abrams tanks and 52 F-35's(arguably the best fighterplane in the world) for their Russian front alone, all designed in secret to deploy counter EMP tactics. Finland have some of the best natural defenses and conscripts in the world. Conscription makes all these states a hell hole for Russia to invade. Russia has no financial, agricultural or political will to lose a great war, they used to have an abundance of people being born. They don't anymore.

[choffer]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Norway's just bought 144 24A Abrams tanks and 52 F-35's(arguably the best fighterplane in the world) for their Russian front alone, all designed in secret to deploy counter EMP tactics.

48 on order, not 52 (semantics). That's their entire combat aircraft arsenal (as they are coming in to replace their F-16 stock), not just for the Russian front.  

[magnkarl]

9 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Do you now want to go back to that long list of terrible stuff about Bill Clinton on the previous page and filter out the ones that are rumours, unproven or just plain old "actually about a different person". Of course you don't. Because it won't give you any opportunities to wet your knickers about gender studies.

The difference here is that probably 70% of that list is proven. The jibes people have against Trump that are proven are three things, Flynn, Grab her by the.. and making fun of a reporter. The rest are being investigated. At the same time I didn't write that list or post it, so no idea what you are aiming at. 

[magnkarl]

Just now, choffer said:

48 on order, not 52 (semantics). That's their entire combat aircraft arsenal (as they are coming in to replace their F-16 stock), not just for the Russian front.  

Ah, last I read the number was 52. My bad. Norway has no other front than Russia though, allies everywhere except for the little strip of land in the North. 

[Xann]

5 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

But the MAD scenario surely ensures that it is not about whose got the best nukes and more about geopolitical reach.

The West want to break up the Russian federation and get access to resources and markets and Putin doesn't want that.

When Chomsky claims that all countries are judged according to their openness to American capitalism, I think he has a point.

For sure, but the argument that a US missile umbrella is proof against a ballistic missile attack from Russia (or China), and that Russian battlefield and naval tech is old hat is nonsense.

The latest Russian shoulder launched AA missile getting into the 'wrong' hands would put the cat right amongst the pigeons.

[villakram]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Sharing Intel with Russia - This isn't a legal thing. It's a 'moral and unbelievably stupid' thing. And McMaster's spin the other day was awful.  Yes, he legally has the right as POTUS to declassify Intel, but it wasnt the US' Intel to declassify. It was Israel's and he did not have their permission to share it. I've never seen another

So you would be ok with a Russian civilian airliner being downed in a terrorist attack? One that we could have warned them about but made a conscious decision not to -- "moral"? That conversation would be fun. A leader of a country sharing information with the representative of another country, information with little hard value but potentially huge soft value given the current state of US/Russian relations. If Obama did this, it would have been spun as some sort of higher plane humanitarian act, looking out for the people of our enemies or some such. Or Saint Theresa "the wise" a little closer to home.

What about the Chinese as they're bad too right? Iran, obviously... now given Brexit, does that mean that EU citizens don't matter? Or is it only the ones that the US likes? I really don't get this line of attack, it's so bizarre. I'm not attacking you here as the way this has been driven in the media is quite something to see.

I'm obviously being provocative here, but please try and see the point underneath. Is it not the role of the elected government to engage in policy discussion with other governments. Why does the Trump admin not get to do this?

I've no idea what Israel's feelings have to do with this. They are big boys and have no problem playing rough. Alliances are give and take, especially that one given what the US pays in actual dollars for it.

[TheAuthority]

3 hours ago, Straggler said:

Hang on a minute, I'll just do a quick trawl of this thread to find the posts from the anti Trump posters who are looking forwards to Pence getting into the hot seat.

 

 

Oh that's right there have been the square route of bugger all people looking forward with any relish to the idea or Pence being in charge who also want Trump out. 

However if the argument is lets keep Trump because Pence could be worse then shall we take a look at the implications of that?  It is up there with having two bullets fired at you and not bothering to dodge the first because the second might hit you.

For clarity, there is a platform in the states that I am behind, it is on the following link:

https://justicedemocrats.com/Platform

I am not in support of the Republicans nor am I in support of the Democrats, both are mired in corruption and money.  However Trump is so utterly incompetent that I will celebrate everything that prevents him from carrying out his unique brand of FUBAR (I was going to say policies here, but I don't think he really has any). When he is done it is on to Pence and at the same time the attempted reform of the Democrat party and indeed the political system.  Trump is an unacceptable risk as President, even the Republican party is beginning to recognise this by appointing a special prosecutor and one Republican Congressman actually calling for an impeachment on the House floor.  Trump has managed to talk himself into this predicament in just 4 months!  Most Presidents are still in the honeymoon period at this stage and Trump has his own historically loyal party openly calling for his removal.  It is unprecedented.  Only William Henry Harrison had a shorter honeymoon period as President, but he has the legitimate excuse of being dead 31 days into his term.

It boggles my mind some of the stuff I read on here.

Thank you for a balanced, reasonable post that doesn't insinuate "I know better than all of you, look at my schlong"

Edited May 18, 2017 by TheAuthority

[villakram]

1 hour ago, choffer said:

48 on order, not 52 (semantics). That's their entire combat aircraft arsenal (as they are coming in to replace their F-16 stock), not just for the Russian front.  

and it's a boondoggle for the MIC.  Remote/AI aero based systems are the future, which will come long before the end of the F35 design lifetime. The F35 program is a textbook example of the corruption of the American political system.

[TheAuthority]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

We're all waiting, make sure to find an article which is really emotionally charged and written by some guy who studies Gender at Caltech. 

"Ignorance is Strength"

[NurembergVillan]

Jason Chaffetz will leave Congress early, potentially the end of June.

The plot thickens?

[MakemineVanilla]

18 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Jason Chaffetz will leave Congress early, potentially the end of June.

The plot thickens?

Isn't he replacing Bill O'Reilly on Fox News?

[NurembergVillan]

5 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Isn't he replacing Bill O'Reilly on Fox News?

I think that's the plan. He said he's been exploring opportunities outside of government and most speculation has been that he'll be an official Murdoch employee, as opposed to an unofficial one as he is at the moment.

[Straggler]

16 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Jason Chaffetz will leave Congress early, potentially the end of June.

The plot thickens?

I knew he wasn't going to stand for re-election next year, but this is interesting news.  I'm sure it is as he said, "to spend more time with his family" and certainly not about self preservation in the face of the incoming political storm. 

In, I'm sure, unrelated news he has also just purchased the domain name jasonchaffetz2028.com

I don't know why he is getting a domain that would seem to relate to a run for office in 2028.  Anyone tarred by the Trump brush will surely struggle for credibility and after all his family is so important to him, I can't imagine the stress that a run for governor would put on them.

Oh wait, hang on a minute.  There may be some writing in between the lines I'm missing here.  I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'm sure someone here will help me out.

[magnkarl]

As someone who hasn't read much on Pence I'd be interested in finding out what you people think he'd be like as a president if Trump is forced to resign. Is he likely to withdraw fully or will he try to outlast the storm?

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

As someone who hasn't read much on Pence I'd be interested in finding out what you people think he'd be like as a president if Trump is forced to resign. Is he likely to withdraw fully or will he try to outlast the storm?

Hard right bible thumping corporate shill. God, gays and guns. 

[snowychap]

38 minutes ago, Awol said:

God, gays and guns.

Is that an album title?

[jon_c]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Oh and I forgot to say, SJW confirmed.

What is this, 4chan?

[a m ole]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Oh and I forgot to say, SJW confirmed.

Do you have a problem with social justice?

[Straggler]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

So you would be ok with a Russian civilian airliner being downed in a terrorist attack? One that we could have warned them about but made a conscious decision not to -- "moral"? That conversation would be fun. A leader of a country sharing information with the representative of another country, information with little hard value but potentially huge soft value given the current state of US/Russian relations. If Obama did this, it would have been spun as some sort of higher plane humanitarian act, looking out for the people of our enemies or some such. Or Saint Theresa "the wise" a little closer to home.

What about the Chinese as they're bad too right? Iran, obviously... now given Brexit, does that mean that EU citizens don't matter? Or is it only the ones that the US likes? I really don't get this line of attack, it's so bizarre. I'm not attacking you here as the way this has been driven in the media is quite something to see.

I'm obviously being provocative here, but please try and see the point underneath. Is it not the role of the elected government to engage in policy discussion with other governments. Why does the Trump admin not get to do this?

I've no idea what Israel's feelings have to do with this. They are big boys and have no problem playing rough. Alliances are give and take, especially that one given what the US pays in actual dollars for it.

I don't think anyone is ok with a Russian airliner being taken down by a terrorist attack.  This however is not a binary option and the sharing of this information is in no way as simple as you have cast it here.  Sharing security information with other nations in mutual benefit is a decent and sensible thing to do.  However if by sharing the information with the wrong person you compromise the people who gave you the intel in the first place you suffer greater long term problems.  If you are given intel in confidence and promptly share it with someone that the giver has specifically said they do not want to have said intel they will be reluctant to give you any further information.  Also once your Allies know that you cannot be trusted to keep secrets they too are reluctant to share their intel to prevent their own sources being compromised.  The overall effect is that you yourself become worse informed and more vulnerable to terrorist attack yourself.  

So to turn your question around a little bit.  Are you happy that by sharing classified information inappropriately that Trump has made the USA more vulnerable to terrorist attack and the possibility of a civilian airliner being attacked? 

[NurembergVillan]

One man's sharing intel is another man's boasting.