The Slow Painful Death of the Trump Administration

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Fine...then let the socialists worry about Putin.    They can be afraid...very afraid...while saving money !

You said that Ivan is contained, stable mutual vulnerability, so who's afraid of Mr. Ivan again and why?

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

You said that Ivan is contained, stable mutual vulnerability, so who's afraid of Mr. Ivan again and why?

 

As we've discussed...we're not sure. Their FS capability sucks and their super tanks stall while on parade in Red Square. 

But an enemy is needed that is not Islamic or Chinese....hmmmmmm....not a lot of choices left. Swedes...we could try the Swedes. They're pretty shifty...

 

[Dougie93]

And this again is all inclusive to failed state, because the American strategic deterrent is de facto over Canada, alleviating the very pressure which incites Westphalian nation states in the firt place, resulting in Canada aborting after lift off and never actually reaching the threshold of  Westphalia at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You said that Ivan is contained, stable mutual vulnerability, so who's afraid of Mr. Ivan again and why?

 

Ivan is contained for nuclear conflagration....eastern Europe is NATOs problem and overreach.   Better pay up....

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

As we've discussed...we're not sure. Their FS capability sucks and their super tanks stall while on parade in Red Square. 

But an enemy is needed that is not Islamic or Chinese....hmmmmmm....not a lot of choices left. Swedes...we could try the Swedes. They're pretty shifty...

 

We catch up with that in the other thread, but in that thread BC said he's not worried about the Russians, because MAD is in effect.  Whether I agree or not is neither here nor there, I didn't say it he did.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

We catch up with that in the other thread, but in that thread BC said he's not worried about the Russians, because MAD is in effect.  Whether I agree or not is neither here nor there, I didn't say it he did.

 

Just like the song: The Russians love their children, too. ISIS...we're not as confident.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Ivan is contained for nuclear conflagration....eastern Europe is NATOs problem and overreach.   Better pay up....

Doesn't have the horses to get past the Vistula, which is pretty far away from my tethered tax jurisdiction here. /shrugs

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

To be fair, that one is on the Hegemon, because said Hegemon, in order to maintain full sovereign control, particularly the Joint Strategic Deterrent, wrote the Washington Treaty so that it didn't actually bind any members to contribute anything specific, most importantly America deciding whether it wanted to blow the world up and no one else, and so all it says is "all for one and one for all",  but in the event of an Article V declaration, leaves it wide open as to what the actual response is, from global thermonuclear war at the high end, to a strongly worded letter of protest at the other.

An act of war on one NATO member is an act of war on all NATO members.  You don’t get to adjust the level of support depending on whether the attacked member is more or less favoured by one NATO member. Poland gets the same respect and support as the US, Canada, etc.  

[Dougie93]

Show us in the text of the Washington Treaty where it stipulates any specific military operational contribution.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

An act of war on one NATO member is an act of war on all NATO members.  You don’t get to adjust the level of support depending on whether the attacked member is more or less favoured by one NATO member. Poland gets the same respect and support as the US, Canada, etc.  

 

Then why is one particular member expected to contribute far more resources than many of the others ?

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Doesn't have the horses to get past the Vistula, which is pretty far away from my tethered tax jurisdiction here. /shrugs

 

Same for Trump....and me.   Let Chrystia Freeland fight Ukraine's battles on Canada's dime, not mine.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Then why is one particular member expected to contribute far more resources than many of the others ?

 

I would laugh hard and long if Trump ditches NATO and forces Canada to put-up or get-out re: NORAD. Popcorn time.

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Same for Trump....and me.   Let Chrystia Freeland fight Ukraine's battles on Canada's dime, not mine.

 

 

She's NOT to be trusted in this regard. She hates Russia. Actual dripping oozing hate.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Then why is one particular member expected to contribute far more resources than many of the others ?

If the US reduced its arms budget to the average percentage of GDP that other NATO members are paying, it would still be a superpower capable of destroying the world and playing the role necessary for NATO to provide ample defence of members.  US defence spending excess is a choice.  It’s about maintaining the entrenched military industrial supply complex Eisenhower warned you about. 

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Same for Trump....and me.   Let Chrystia Freeland fight Ukraine's battles on Canada's dime, not mine.

 

Yup the current POTUS doesn’t care about Ukraine. 

[Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Show us in the text of the Washington Treaty where it stipulates any specific military operational contribution.

Are you suggesting that certain NATO members are to get special treatment?  Show me the evidence.  Pure speculation. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

If the US reduced its arms budget to the average percentage of GDP that other NATO members are paying, it would still be a superpower capable of destroying the world and playing the role necessary for NATO to provide ample defence of members.  US defence spending excess is a choice.  It’s about maintaining the entrenched military industrial supply complex Eisenhower warned you about. 

 

No....the U.S. should drop spending levels for NATO down to Canada's deadbeat approach.    Not all American resources chop to NATO.

Trump should keep hammering this drum....the U.S. doesn't owe the deadbeats anything as a "superpower".

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yup the current POTUS doesn’t care about Ukraine. 

 

Nor should he....would seriously damage his base and create a political "quagmire" back home.  

...let Freeland protect her precious Ukraine.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No....the U.S. should drop spending levels for NATO down to Canada's deadbeat approach.    Not all American resources chop to NATO.

Trump should keep hammering this drum....the U.S. doesn't owe the deadbeats anything as a "superpower".

Then get out of NATO and act alone.  Putin’s goal all along.  He’d love to get his hands on the Baltics and other Eastern European countries, but sure, America can handle it alone. 

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Then get out of NATO and act alone.  Putin’s goal all along.  He’d love to get his hands on the Baltics and other Eastern European countries, but sure, America can handle it alone. 

 

Other than the UK's modest efforts, USA has been doin' that already.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Then get out of NATO and act alone.  Putin’s goal all along.  He’d love to get his hands on the Baltics and other Eastern European countries, but sure, America can handle it alone. 

 

Why would America have to "handle" that when clearly Europe lacks the means and will to do so ?     Putin must be preferred over funding an adequate defense.

Trump is right to challenge the ridiculous status quo, including deadbeat Canada for NATO and NORAD.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nor should he....would seriously damage his base and create a political "quagmire" back home.  

...let Freeland protect her precious Ukraine.

Canada will always support vulnerable people.  The US used to do more of that.  

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada will always support vulnerable people.  

 

With our tax dollars.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Canada will always support vulnerable people.  The US used to do more of that.  

 

Sure....like invading Haiti, right ?

Canada can support anything it wants, but don't expect the USA to pay for it.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

With our tax dollars.

Walk away from responsibility and see what happens.  You won’t like it.