- 01 Nov 2019 03:56
#15045820
I'm not a British subject. It ends with my DNA. It's the British establishment that has to deal with diversity and multiculturalism, and the political establishment they turned on its head by turning the nations demography on its head. Now they don't know how to govern the country anymore, because they no longer understand it. Same problem with the establishment in the US.
That's not why. It's immigration policy that has led to the multiculturalism, etc.
Europe did not fight in Vietnam alongside the Americans. European troops were next to nil. The biggest help the US got was from South Korea followed by Thailand and Australia. The Philippines and New Zealand also provided nominal support. Even the Korean War had nominal European help. The British contributed 15k troops. Where was France (1100), Belgium (900), Germany, Italy, Spain, etc? All less than 2k troops compared to 326k from the United States. Outside of defending European imperial outposts, European forces have done almost diddly squat compared to America.
Trump is rightly pointing out that the the so-called allies have done next to nothing except for the most part, with exception for the Anglophone countries and South Korea.
The biggest of that would be the Syrian War, and that was Obama/Killary's war.
Europeans never station a single soldier abroad to defend European interests if they can get the Americans to shoulder the responsibility.
You're such a sweetheart, but that is not how the world works and it is never how the world has worked.
For whose illegal war? Obama and Hillary's attempt to overthrow Assad, but trying to make it look like it was a grass-roots internal uprising, when it wasn't? I find the establishment lamenting Trump's lack of support for the Kurds repugnant when they are so pusillanimous that they can't even pass a resolution to use force--either Democrats or Republicans. They're a bunch of gutless punks.
Yeah, you really think that 9/11 was that the Mujahideen wanted a US presence in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out? We abandoned the Mujahideen, and they were so heart sick that they decided to fly airplanes into the WTC? Dude, it's time to grow up and start thinking for yourself. When you do, it's quite likely that you will not agree with me, but you won't be spewing establishment rhetoric like such a dewy-eyed doofus. Do you have any theory on why 9/11 happened followed by the Iraq War? Official narratives are always a lie B0ycey. They are meant to pull the heartstrings of people like @Tainari88.
My theory is thus: Saddam Hussein needed to pay off his war debt, so he invaded Kuwait to seize its oil. There was no immediate military blowback, so they advanced to Khafji, Saudi Arabia. US warhawks shit their pants, and put together the Gulf War coalition and kicked the living shit out of Iraq; however, they left Hussein in charge too keep the Shia down so that Iraq would continue to be a bulwark against Iran. To dissuade Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia, the US left a significant contingent of US military forces in Saudi Arabia, mostly around Dharan and Khobar. Osama bin Laden wanted to lead the fight against Hussein, but was denied both by King Fahd and US Forces, primarily because Iraq had significant tank forces and infantry and bin Laden's ragtag band would have been pointlessly slaughtered while wasting the time of more professional forces. Bin Laden was insulted. Following the war, bin Laden was offended that "infidel" soldiers were in Saudi Arabia, and factions within Saudi Arabia were also averse to the US presence. So they engineered 9/11 to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we had quite a few comments from high ranking Saudis about US troops in the area. US military thinkers judge enemies like Hussein based on their capabilities and past actions, not on what they say they will do. So the consensus among military thinkers was that if US troops needed to pull out of Saudi Arabia, then Hussein had to go. So that's why the ginned up the Iraq War. They had to sell the WMD scenario, because the legal basis--material breach of the ceasefire agreement (UNSC 687) was an insufficient "moral" basis to tug at the heart strings of people like Tainari88. So they had to use fear to sell the war, and WMDs was their answer. I do think there was a significant faction that also believed terrorists with WMDs was an inevitability. They continued this policy under Obama and Killary, because Libya and Syria also exhibited nuclear ambitions.
It's nice that sometimes you say intelligent things.
The US didn't invade Iraq for its oil, but because Hussein was a threat to Kuwait, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, etc. It wasn't go gain control of Iraqi oil, but to prevent the loss of control of the other states in the region allied with the US and UK.
Nobody fights for a long term loss.
The Gulf War was a seminal event. Many still believed that the US and Soviet Union were more or less evenly matched. All the bullshit about the US providing military aid to Hussein aside, the Iraqis had primarily a Soviet-based military footprint, with some added French weapons. US military equipment was negligible. The Gulf War shattered the confidence of the Soviet Union's military thinkers, because it showed that had they attacked the West they would have gotten their asses kicked. While the Warsaw Pact had already fallen by 1989, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, Gorbachev's government collapsed on December 24, 1991--the best Christmas gift ever.
Get ready for multiculturalism Tainari88. Just take a little sip... he he he.
Yeah, because the Sinaloa cartel are so caring and regarding of human life.
Which is exactly why Trump is a better option than Clinton was or Biden is.
Except Trump and maybe Tulsi Gabbard...
So what about gene modification?
Tainari88 wrote:Sorry, that era is over with BJ. You got to cope with diversity, and multiculturalism.
I'm not a British subject. It ends with my DNA. It's the British establishment that has to deal with diversity and multiculturalism, and the political establishment they turned on its head by turning the nations demography on its head. Now they don't know how to govern the country anymore, because they no longer understand it. Same problem with the establishment in the US.
Tainari88 wrote:the ones who are not Anglo have taken over London and Leeds....because the British invaded Africa, Asia and so on....
That's not why. It's immigration policy that has led to the multiculturalism, etc.
Atlantis wrote:After the Vietnam war, the allies that had fought the war along the US even took care of the refugees of that war, the Vietnamese boat people.
Europe did not fight in Vietnam alongside the Americans. European troops were next to nil. The biggest help the US got was from South Korea followed by Thailand and Australia. The Philippines and New Zealand also provided nominal support. Even the Korean War had nominal European help. The British contributed 15k troops. Where was France (1100), Belgium (900), Germany, Italy, Spain, etc? All less than 2k troops compared to 326k from the United States. Outside of defending European imperial outposts, European forces have done almost diddly squat compared to America.
Atlantis wrote:Trump believes that the US is so strong that the US doesn't need allies.
Trump is rightly pointing out that the the so-called allies have done next to nothing except for the most part, with exception for the Anglophone countries and South Korea.
Atlantis wrote:Trump also believes that the US has no responsibility for the consequences or the refugees of the wars the US has fought.
The biggest of that would be the Syrian War, and that was Obama/Killary's war.
Atlantis wrote:That is of course absurd, the US never stations even a single soldier abroad if it is not to defend US interests.
Europeans never station a single soldier abroad to defend European interests if they can get the Americans to shoulder the responsibility.
Tainari88 wrote:For me true allies and true friends are about not self interest at all but true spirit of giving and supporting.
You're such a sweetheart, but that is not how the world works and it is never how the world has worked.
Tainari88 wrote:Climate change is going to change it all Atlantis.
B0ycey wrote:Having said that what surprises me with Blackjack is not that he agrees that the Kurds are nothing to America, but he doesn't care that they have been used for their illegal war and left to rot as they are killed by the Turks.
For whose illegal war? Obama and Hillary's attempt to overthrow Assad, but trying to make it look like it was a grass-roots internal uprising, when it wasn't? I find the establishment lamenting Trump's lack of support for the Kurds repugnant when they are so pusillanimous that they can't even pass a resolution to use force--either Democrats or Republicans. They're a bunch of gutless punks.
B0ycey wrote:I bet he'd care if they start flying planes into American buildings. Ultimately America is a target for terrorism not because terrorists hate the West. But because the Americans interfere in other peoples lands/politics and then fuck off leaving the mess behind.
Yeah, you really think that 9/11 was that the Mujahideen wanted a US presence in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out? We abandoned the Mujahideen, and they were so heart sick that they decided to fly airplanes into the WTC? Dude, it's time to grow up and start thinking for yourself. When you do, it's quite likely that you will not agree with me, but you won't be spewing establishment rhetoric like such a dewy-eyed doofus. Do you have any theory on why 9/11 happened followed by the Iraq War? Official narratives are always a lie B0ycey. They are meant to pull the heartstrings of people like @Tainari88.
My theory is thus: Saddam Hussein needed to pay off his war debt, so he invaded Kuwait to seize its oil. There was no immediate military blowback, so they advanced to Khafji, Saudi Arabia. US warhawks shit their pants, and put together the Gulf War coalition and kicked the living shit out of Iraq; however, they left Hussein in charge too keep the Shia down so that Iraq would continue to be a bulwark against Iran. To dissuade Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia, the US left a significant contingent of US military forces in Saudi Arabia, mostly around Dharan and Khobar. Osama bin Laden wanted to lead the fight against Hussein, but was denied both by King Fahd and US Forces, primarily because Iraq had significant tank forces and infantry and bin Laden's ragtag band would have been pointlessly slaughtered while wasting the time of more professional forces. Bin Laden was insulted. Following the war, bin Laden was offended that "infidel" soldiers were in Saudi Arabia, and factions within Saudi Arabia were also averse to the US presence. So they engineered 9/11 to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we had quite a few comments from high ranking Saudis about US troops in the area. US military thinkers judge enemies like Hussein based on their capabilities and past actions, not on what they say they will do. So the consensus among military thinkers was that if US troops needed to pull out of Saudi Arabia, then Hussein had to go. So that's why the ginned up the Iraq War. They had to sell the WMD scenario, because the legal basis--material breach of the ceasefire agreement (UNSC 687) was an insufficient "moral" basis to tug at the heart strings of people like Tainari88. So they had to use fear to sell the war, and WMDs was their answer. I do think there was a significant faction that also believed terrorists with WMDs was an inevitability. They continued this policy under Obama and Killary, because Libya and Syria also exhibited nuclear ambitions.
Atlantis wrote:To deny the fact of national interest may sound romantic but is, in fact, a dangerous game, as it leads to delusional politics.
It's nice that sometimes you say intelligent things.
Tainari88 wrote:But my personal experience tells me that politics in the USA is tainted with some heavily horrible things. Racism, classism and warmongering and drug addiction and dependence, bad values and wanting to dominate.
The US didn't invade Iraq for its oil, but because Hussein was a threat to Kuwait, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, etc. It wasn't go gain control of Iraqi oil, but to prevent the loss of control of the other states in the region allied with the US and UK.
late wrote:Realpolitik tries to get short term gain, at the cost of a larger, long term loss.
Nobody fights for a long term loss.
Tainari88 wrote:What did they accomplish in Iraq?
The Gulf War was a seminal event. Many still believed that the US and Soviet Union were more or less evenly matched. All the bullshit about the US providing military aid to Hussein aside, the Iraqis had primarily a Soviet-based military footprint, with some added French weapons. US military equipment was negligible. The Gulf War shattered the confidence of the Soviet Union's military thinkers, because it showed that had they attacked the West they would have gotten their asses kicked. While the Warsaw Pact had already fallen by 1989, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, Gorbachev's government collapsed on December 24, 1991--the best Christmas gift ever.
Tainari88 wrote:And I have to see the destruction and then some American fools thinking they are going to move in and set up Crytocurrencies and gated communities and not pay taxes and destroy that society completely
Get ready for multiculturalism Tainari88. Just take a little sip... he he he.
Tainari88 wrote:All the lack of caring and callous disregard for human lives
Yeah, because the Sinaloa cartel are so caring and regarding of human life.
Tainari88 wrote:Would have gotten way better results by investing in Iraqi infrastructure products and rebuilding and actually being predictable and good stewards of things and being able to hand over power to local people with a lot of dedication to what matters to most human governments.
Which is exactly why Trump is a better option than Clinton was or Biden is.
Tainari88 wrote:Yet they continue with delusions of grandeur.
Except Trump and maybe Tulsi Gabbard...
Tainari88 wrote:Human beings genes have not changed that much.
So what about gene modification?
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden