NAFTA negotiations.

[Queenmandy85]

If NATO confronted Russia over the Crimea, there would have been a nuclear war. 

[turningrite]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If NATO confronted Russia over the Crimea, there would have been a nuclear war. 

As Ukraine wasn't (and isn't) a NATO member, the risk of a military confrontation over Crimea was minimal.

[Queenmandy85]

13 minutes ago, turningrite said:

As Ukraine wasn't (and isn't) a NATO member, the risk of a military confrontation over Crimea was minimal.

I was responding to Paxrom and Jimwd.

I am always surprised how cavalier people are about war. 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Jimwd said:

Killing a girl in Charlottes ville is no small thing. In fact...... its a very dangerous time when White supremacists and Neo nazis are called fine people by the president. Check their web sites. Trump's dog whistles are working.

 

More people are killed in Chicago every week in Obama's Chicago.    Must be Nazis, right ?

[Jimwd]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

More people are killed in Chicago every week in Obama's Chicago.    Must be Nazis, right ?

Last I checked right wing and nra firearm policies are the law of the land.

illinois rates far less gun deaths than many right wing states.

In fact 17 states now have more gun deaths than auto deaths and Illinois isn’t one of them.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

It's very possible that NATO has run its course. Many now wonder if Trump is doing Putin's bidding in undermining NATO. Whatever the case, I think the Europeans should simply set up their own security system and tell the Americans to leave. It's probably long overdue. You have to remember that the initial purpose of NATO was to serve as an American-backed arrangement intended to thwart Soviet aggression.  In other words, it was an instrument of American policy. Since 1989 its role has been unclear and with U.S. power and influence steadily declining in the world in relative terms it's probable Europe can get by on its own. Two EU member states are, after all, nuclear powers in their own right.

 

Partially true....NATO was also formed to prevent conflict between European states and assure their economic future with military stability....it wasn't just about the Soviet Union / Bloc.   NATO morphed into the military tool of neo-liberalism after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

Quote

...The real trade issue, to which Trump only occasionally alludes, is the WTO system and particularly the developing economy status and advantages China retains. But China has a lot of bargaining chips, so Trump takes out his trade frustrations on other partners. It's good domestic politics, but ultimately undermines American interests abroad.

 

Partners and allies does not mean the absence of competition and challenges to trade imbalances, IP theft, dumping, temporary workers, etc.   Speaking of American interests abroad only invokes the same old framework of the American super-power as the backstop for "post WW2" order.   The U.S. has far more DIVERSIFIED trade with the world than Canada, which exports 75% to the USA.    It is plain to see where Canada thinks its interests lie.

Edited July 3, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

As Ukraine wasn't (and isn't) a NATO member, the risk of a military confrontation over Crimea was minimal.

 

It's more complicated than that...The Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons for many practical reasons and assurances from the Budapest Memorandum.   Russia, U.S. and UK fell short on this agreement, long before Trump was elected and began to criticize NATO deadbeats.

Canada's foreign minister has a thing for Ukraine, and she also has a thing for the Americans continuing to pay more in blood and treasure to protect the "post WW2" order.

[bush_cheney2004]

26 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

Last I checked right wing and nra firearm policies are the law of the land.

 

Nope....must be Nazis.   Chicago Nazis using violence every day.    Damn Nazis....why can't they be more like Toronto, with just a few shootings per week.

Firearms manufacture and sale are perfectly legal under NAFTA.

[Jimwd]

43 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope....must be Nazis.   Chicago Nazis using violence every day.    Damn Nazis....why can't they be more like Toronto, with just a few shootings per week.

Firearms manufacture and sale are perfectly legal under NAFTA.

USA 3.36 firearm murders per 100k people.

Canada 0.38 Firearm  murders per 100k.

(thats more than 9 times the murder rate)

Edited July 3, 2018 by Jimwd

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

(thats more than 9 times the murder rate)

 

That's what I posted...why can't the Nazis in Chicago be more like the Nazis in Toronto.

Maybe they are just looking for more NAFTA love.

[Jimwd]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's what I posted...why can't the Nazis in Chicago be more like the Nazis in Toronto.

Maybe they are just looking for more NAFTA love.

False premise questions aren't an indicator of intelligence.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Jimwd said:

False premise questions aren't an indicator of intelligence.

 

Agreed...NAFTA is a false premise...not intelligent.

[Jimwd]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...NAFTA is a false premise...not intelligent.

Noise ..nothing more than useless noise....

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Jimwd said:

Noise ..nothing more than useless noise....

 

Agreed....Omni...rotary...On Guard For Thee...noise.

NAFTA is making lots of useless noise too.

[Jimwd]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed....Omni...rotary...On Guard For Thee...noise.

NAFTA is making lots of useless noise too.

Meanwhile senate confirms Russians helping Trump win.... In Canada we elect our politicians. The russians don't.You should try it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Jimwd said:

Meanwhile senate confirms Russians helping Trump win.... In Canada we elect our politicians. The russians don't.You should try it.

 

Off topic....think NAFTA. 

[Jimwd]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Off topic....think NAFTA. 

NAFTA  destruction as well as NATO is Putins wish list.

Congratulations on your Russian agenda.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Jimwd said:

NAFTA  destruction as well as NATO is Putins wish list.

Congratulations on your Russian agenda.

 

NAFTA destruction is my wish too.

Russian...Canadian...Mexican....makes no difference to me.

[Jimwd]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

NAFTA destruction is my wish too.

Russian...Canadian...Mexican....makes no difference to me.

Of course...... I understand./........chuckle 

[Zeitgeist]

It’s perfectly clear that the wreckers of the noble and hard one post-WW2 alliances have no concept of what will replace them.  Here’s a few clues: a diminished U.S. role on the world stage economically, militarily, and politically; more security threats to the U.S. from within and outside the U.S.; and an unbridled expansionist Russia and China.  You’re right, new alliances will form that empower these new players and disempower the U.S.   Where will the U.S.’s allies align themselves after Trump and his ilk have alienated them?  

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

It’s perfectly clear that the wreckers of the noble and hard one post-WW2 alliances have no concept of what will replace them.  Here’s a few clues: a diminished U.S. role on the world stage economically, militarily, and politically; more security threats to the U.S. from within and outside the U.S.; and an unbridled expansionist Russia and China.  You’re right, new alliances will form that empower these new players and disempower the U.S.   Where will the U.S.’s allies align themselves after Trump and his ilk have alienated them?  

 

Why is U.S. power and dominance so important in such matters ?   Why is it a U.S. burden more than any other "ally".

The U.S. is tapped out...if it is so important, other nations can pay for it in blood and treasure. 

 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why is U.S. power and dominance so important in such matters ?   Why is it a U.S. burden more than any other "ally".

The U.S. is tapped out...if it is so important, other nations can pay for it in blood and treasure. 

 

Nobody appreciates the blood and treasure the United States has paid in defence of the west as much as me. In that light, I am sure the US appreciates the blood and treasure Canadians, Brits and the French have also paid. While the US sat out most of the Great War and almost half of the Second World War, the entry of the US greatly accelerated the victory. Twenty to thirty thousand Canadans fought shoulder to shoulder with Americans in Viet Nam. 

As I said earlier, in the European theatre, the conflict will be nuclear. Any serious attack against a NATO member will call for a full nuclear response. Since only France, the United States and the United Kingdom are permitted to have nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, what does President Trump expect the rest of NATO to spend the extra money on? Would you rather we break our word by developing our own nuclear weapons. It would not only deter attack from Russia and China, it would also deter American aggression, as unlikely as that is. President Trump would shower us with love, just like his new friend Kim. However, breaking the treaty would be dishonourable. Perhaps, the US is spending more treasure than is neccessary.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[bush_cheney2004]

23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Nobody appreciates the blood and treasure the United States has paid in defence of the west as much as me. In that light, I am sure the US appreciates the blood and treasure Canadians, Brits and the French have also paid. While the US sat out most of the Great War and almost half of the Second World War, the entry of the US greatly accelerated the victory. Twenty to thirty thousand Canadans fought shoulder to shoulder with Americans in Viet Nam. 

 

 

The U.S. did not start Europe's "world wars"..."post WW2 order" includes the prevention of such repeated stupidity in Europe.   The former empires of Britain (including Canada), France, Spain, Portugal, even the Dutch have not continued to pay for imperialist policies that are at the root of many regional conflicts today....somehow it became an American responsibility because Europe was destroyed and broke. (Like the U.S., Canada was not destroyed by WW2, but Canada did not bear the burden continuously, preferring to save money by downsizing.)

Appreciation is nice....defense spending and more skin in the game is much better.

 

Quote

As I said earlier, in the European theatre, the conflict will be nuclear. Any serious attack against a NATO member will call for a full nuclear response. Since only France, the United States and the United Kingdom are permitted to have nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, what does President Trump expect the rest of NATO to spend the extra money on? Would you rather we break our word by developing our own nuclear weapons. It would not only deter attack from Russia and China, it would also deter American aggression, as unlikely as that is. President Trump would shower us with love, just like his new friend Kim. However, breaking the treaty would be dishonourable. Perhaps, the US is spending more treasure than is neccessary.

 

No, this is not true.  Only a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack of sufficient scale would invoke a NATO nuclear response, and those would be tactical, not strategic.

Don't mix strategic nuclear weapons / policies with conventional wars.     NATO now has less than 200 U.S. nuclear warheads deployed in Europe, far fewer than at the height of the Cold War.    The days of Reagan's Pershing II missiles and ALCMs are long gone...not needed...and the Europeans protested mightily about them anyway.

This love-hate relationship with American economic and military power by Canada, EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. has to end as it is not sustainable.

NATO is a relic from the Cold War....NAFTA is a relic from the 1990's.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Queenmandy85]

Russian military doctrine has many of the features of Soviet doctrine. In advance of an attack,  they will open with a barage of conventional and tactical nuclear weapons to destroy resistance.  You are niave to believe NATO would not respond with a massive retaliation. In reality, Russia would open hostilities with a classic first strike.

Hence, the power of the nuclear deterrent and the waste of money invested in NATO's conventional forces. Perhaps, Canada and the other non-nuclear NATO partners should divert much of our defence budgets to up-grading the nuclear forces of the three nuclar members.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

Why is NAFTA a relic? Why does President Trump have an issue with multi-lateral agreements. In union there is strenght.