The road to 2020

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It was meant to be funny...I'm sure Canadians watched Laugh-In too even if they didn't get all the jokes.

Its a cheap thrill but some get a hoot out of watching Trump too. What isn't there to get?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Its a cheap thrill but some get a hoot out of watching Trump too. What isn't there to get?

 

In 1968, there was no Google or cable television to help Canada figure some things out. 

Canada may enjoy the hoot, but it never thought Trump would win in 2016....however, Trump got the last laugh.

Fast forward to 2020....now Canada is even more focused on the elephant.

[GostHacked]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about true defense?  Kennedy ?

I am for the notion of defense, but when was the last time the USA was in a defensive mentality? When has the USA been directly attacked by a foreign military? I don't recall foreign troops doing tours of duty of war in the USA. We see instead, USA troops doing tours of war, in many other places.

There is a cost to all that military capability. Which people like Gabbard understand. It seems that the government has no problem providing funds for more war, but when it comes to funding something like 'medicare for all' which all Americans would have health coverage, that's always pushed off. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1. When has the USA been directly attacked by a foreign military? 

2. It seems that the government has no problem providing funds for more war, but when it comes to funding something like 'medicare for all' which all Americans would have health coverage, that's always pushed off. 

1. I gave the Kennedy example as a real threat, albeit not a direct attack.  But ok, we agree that direct threats are used for extreme threats.

2. A problem of democracy is that the masses have poor imagination.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

I am for the notion of defense, but when was the last time the USA was in a defensive mentality?

Sept. 11 2001 comes to mind.

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

It seems that the government has no problem providing funds for more war, but when it comes to funding something like 'medicare for all' which all Americans would have health coverage, that's always pushed off. 

Don't forget that 'socialism' is a toxic word in the US. Not 100% toxic but there is a tendency to refrain from creating large-scale government run programs.

National defence is a top priority, especially for the number one superpower.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Sept. 11 2001 comes to mind.

That was a terror attack, not an attack by a foreign nation with their own troops.  Big difference.

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Don't forget that 'socialism' is a toxic word in the US. Not 100% toxic but there is a tendency to refrain from creating large-scale government run programs.

Why do food stamps exist? Nothing like socialism for the defense contractors, big to-big-to-fail banks, and corporate hand outs.

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

National defence is a top priority, especially for the number one superpower.

What are they defending? If the USA attacks Iran, what are they (The USA) defending?

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

What are they defending? If the USA attacks Iran, what are they (The USA) defending?

Iran is not a big problem. Someone else

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

In 1968, there was no Google or cable television to help Canada figure some things out. 

Canada may enjoy the hoot, but it never thought Trump would win in 2016....however, Trump got the last laugh.

Fast forward to 2020....now Canada is even more focused on the elephant.

TBH I'm more worried about our own election in 2019. Our country is going straight into the toilet if Trudeau wins.

[bush_cheney2004]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

TBH I'm more worried about our own election in 2019. Our country is going straight into the toilet if Trudeau wins.

 

And that's where Canada's focus should be IMHO, but there are some who are compelled to worry about Donald Trump....again (2020).

The CBC is already scheduling crews to spend Canadian tax dollars on coverage of a foreign (U.S.) election, from the first primaries all the way to the general...LIVE !

 

[Hal 9000]

I think it's fine if Trump wins again, however, if one of those Democrat numbskulls win, it will be hilarious watching the US crumble and the rest of the world take advantage.

[GostHacked]

15 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Iran is not a big problem. Someone else

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

And that's where Canada's focus should be IMHO, but there are some who are compelled to worry about Donald Trump....again (2020).

The CBC is already scheduling crews to spend Canadian tax dollars on coverage of a foreign (U.S.) election, from the first primaries all the way to the general...LIVE !

 

Canada .. off topic.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

I answered the question. It's geopolitical power at a higher level that matters. There is more at play than an argument over a few boats. Iran has no nukes (yet).

Edited May 30, 2019 by OftenWrong

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

I answered the question. It's geopolitical power at a higher level that matters. There is more at play than an argument over a few boats. Iran has no nukes (yet).

No my question was what would the USA be defending with attacking Iran?

Your reply was :

18 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Iran is not a big problem. Someone else

I agree Iran is not a big problem, but that is not what I asked.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

No my question was what would the USA be defending with attacking Iran?

Your reply was :

I agree Iran is not a big problem, but that is not what I asked.

I thought I did answer. I think it's to maintain their geopolitical interest in the region, versus someone else's. To keep Iran weak or on the defensive. Iran being part of a different "axis" in the ME. All countries are aligned to greater powers... the people with the big nukes. That's what I said.

Also sometimes what you see is posturing, sabre-rattling. Necessary to keep primitive dogs at bay. That is the only language they do understand. Yer tree-hugging, feminist, apologizing leftist liberal for a president wouldn't stand a chance.

[GostHacked]

37 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I thought I did answer. I think it's to maintain their geopolitical interest in the region, versus someone else's. To keep Iran weak or on the defensive. Iran being part of a different "axis" in the ME. All countries are aligned to greater powers... the people with the big nukes. That's what I said.

Also sometimes what you see is posturing, sabre-rattling. Necessary to keep primitive dogs at bay. That is the only language they do understand. Yer tree-hugging, feminist, apologizing leftist liberal for a president wouldn't stand a chance.

What interests are you talking about? That term is to vague to mean anything. But we are getting off topic.

[WestCanMan]

On 5/30/2019 at 7:00 AM, GostHacked said:

No my question was what would the USA be defending with attacking Iran?

Your reply was :

I agree Iran is not a big problem, but that is not what I asked.

Iran isn’t a big problem because they’re not very powerful. 

They're like a weasel. Weasels kill more than they’ll eat, apparently for fun, but they’re not big enough to be a threat to most animals. 

Iran with nukes would be like a weasel the size of a tiger. If they had the power that the US had this planet would be down by a few billion people in a very sort period of time. 

[GostHacked]

On 5/31/2019 at 1:02 PM, WestCanMan said:

Iran isn’t a big problem because they’re not very powerful. 

They're like a weasel. Weasels kill more than they’ll eat, apparently for fun, but they’re not big enough to be a threat to most animals. 

Iran with nukes would be like a weasel the size of a tiger. If they had the power that the US had this planet would be down by a few billion people in a very sort period of time. 

Alright,  two of you failed to answer the question that I asked. But again, off topic, I  want to discuss the candidates we currently have for 2020.  Why is it so hard to stay on topic here??

[OftenWrong]

24 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Why is it so hard to stay on topic here??

Agreed, back to the topic... I think Kamala Harris has a nice smile. She would probably be a nice person as president.

[Hal 9000]

I heard one pundit on MSNBC, and I quote "the democratic field is an embarrassment of riches"....I laughed and laughed!

[GostHacked]

26 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I heard one pundit on MSNBC, and I quote "the democratic field is an embarrassment of riches"....I laughed and laughed!

That's probably not far from the truth.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Alright,  two of you failed to answer the question that I asked. But again, off topic, I  want to discuss the candidates we currently have for 2020.  Why is it so hard to stay on topic here??

What you're supposed to glean from that last answer is that it might be necessary to attack Iran if they get too close to having nuclear weapons.

[GostHacked]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What you're supposed to glean from that last answer is that it might be necessary to attack Iran if they get too close to having nuclear weapons.

Alright, I get it you, can't explain what those interests are. The thing I do not do, that many here do, is put words into other people's mouths. Either you can explain it, or you can't.

[Dougie93]

19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What you're supposed to glean from that last answer is that it might be necessary to attack Iran if they get too close to having nuclear weapons.

How come?   I mean, Pakistan has nukes, North Korea has nukes, those regimes are just as if not more crazy than the Iranians.

What specifically do you think it is about the Iranians which makes that regime more suicidal than the Norks and Paks?

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

How come?   I mean, Pakistan has nukes, North Korea has nukes, those regimes are just as if not more crazy than the Iranians.

What specifically do you think it is about the Iranians which makes that regime more suicidal than the Norks and Paks?

Iran is actually quite a bit crazier than Pakistan. The Pakistanis are monsters within their own border, and love to be a training/staging ground for terrorists, but they aren't stupid enough to threaten the US constantly and they stay out of the Israel debate because they were created at the same time and have a track record for crimes against humanity that makes Israel look like darlings.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I said North Korea wasn't being taken seriously. It's to late to do a pre-emptive attack on NoKo. They already crossed that finish line before Trump was in power. 

Iran, on the other hand, is still in the wannabe stage and has already crossed a serious line with the US when they captured a US Navy vessel and held the sailors hostage (while Obama was twiddling his thumbs). Then they threatened to attack another US ship in the Persian Gulf when Trump was Prez. An aircraft carrier iirc. That's in addition to a multitude of other threats that they constantly make. The Saudis already hate Iran and have been forming a coalition of countries opposed to Iran. It might be possible to goad Iran into making a mistake that gives the US good reason to go in, while other ME nations either help of cheer for them.