Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

6,647 posts in this topic

20 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

All guns and no butter does not make the world a safer place. We need more development aid to solve the refugee crisis, unless you subscribe to Trump's suggested policy of shooting people at the border. Aw, who am I kidding. Of course you do.

 

The refugee crisis was caused by the fall of Libya which was caused directly by war crimes of the United States. This is what Gaddafi said months before his death:

 

Quote

“Now, listen you, people of NATO. You’re bombing a wall which stood in the way of African migration to Europe, and in the way of Al-Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You‘re breaking it. You’re idiots, and you will burn in Hell for thousands of migrants from Africa and for supporting Al-Qaeda. It will be so. I never lie. And I do not lie now,”

 

https://www.herald.co.zw/europe-burning-as-gaddafi-promised/

 

It would be great if Americans behaved as if they were citizens OF the world, not rulers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

 

The refugee crisis was caused by the fall of Libya which was caused directly by war crimes of the United States. This is what Gaddafi said months before his death:

 

 

https://www.herald.co.zw/europe-burning-as-gaddafi-promised/

 

It would be great if Americans behaved as if they were citizens OF the world, not rulers.

 

 

On 9/16/2019, 9:13:43, jeremytwo said:

 

The EU claims it has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. That is an outright lie. It was the strong NATO alliance between Britain and the USA which kept the Soviets from invading, including the stay behind armies they set up to deter any invasion.

 

So, which is it? Has the U.S. kept the peace since WWII or have they committed war crimes that threaten to destroy it?

 

You should really get all those voices in your head to talk to each other once in a while. Their cacophony is really confusing your messaging.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

The Combined Force 151 (CTF-151).   At least when talking about the results of Resolution 1816 to fight mostly the Somalians, which was like 99% of the whole piracy problem at the time it was created.    Then you have as well Operation Ocean Shield, Interpol Maritime, IMB, and maybe a few other associations involved but they probably mean the same countries.

 

Who finances the operations to enforce these?   Would an industrial power like Germany send naval resources?    Considering the lack of preparedness on Germany's part, it would be interesting to know which countries actually deployed resources.   

Nice to have an agreement, but some country is putting their young people in harm's way to enforce these agreements and some countries are not.  

 

When you have state actors like the Iranian Navy harassing tankers in the Persian Gulf, there are probably only a few countries capable of enforcing security.   

Quote

Again, I am not saying USA is not helping, the problem was that you make it sound like USA was the only one working in solving the problem.

 

hooperski's original video seems to ignore the fact that the reason the US has a huge military budget and acts like the world's police is that (surprise, surprise!)   it is basically functioning as the world's police.  

 

Take any security situation which is seen as a partnership or a multilateral agreement or cooperation, consider that the EU has a population larger than the US, then ask yourself, out of all the entities in this agreement, which one is indispensable?    

 

Sure other countries help, but if the US, for example, decides that it will no longer worry about the Straits of Hormuz since it is energy independent, which countries are in a position to defend their national interests?   

 

Whether the US is right, wrong, or otherwise, i don't care.  Germany is getting a sweet deal right now, and i believe it is against the German national interest to have the US disengage.  

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

So, which is it? Has the U.S. kept the peace since WWII or have they committed war crimes that threaten to destroy it?

 

You should really get all those voices in your head to talk to each other once in a while. Their cacophony is really confusing your messaging.

 

Actually both. It has been rogue elements in that infrastructure which have caused the problem. The bases in Germany are a hangback to the time when Britain, the US and France held large chunks of Germany together after the war to prevent Soviet invasion. That direct need ended in 1989 when the Cold War ended. However the Yugoslavian war in the 90s showed Europe to be weak. NATO action there arguably made things worse but that's another thread. It is corrupt "Swamp" elements which caused the Benghazi debacle. Their time for justice is coming.

 

2 minutes ago, balticus said:

Nice to have an agreement, but some country is putting their young people in harm's way to enforce these agreements.  

 

Sure other countries help, but if the US, for example, decides that it will no longer worry about the Straits of Hormuz since it is energy independent, which countries are in a position to defend their national interests?   

 

It is invariably British and American blood which is shed. 

 

Saudi used to have a Trans Arabian Pipeline built by Bechtel until they became dependent on Ras Tanura (Hormuz) for transport. I think the Syria disaster was part of a way to get control of the Med for shipping. Failed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how you seem to know U.S. politics down to the state house level, yet are unable to discover that Germany is indeed an active contributor to all three Combined Maritime Forces missions. In fact, they  It's not like they have a website or anything. In fact, Germany was in command of the first mission, CTF-150, which combined anti-terror with anti-piracy, before the anti-piracy remit was spun off into CTF-151 under U.S. command.

 

For the uninitiated: alt-bicus is engaging in JAQing off - one of his many tells that remains constant across all his alt accounts.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

It's amazing how you seem to know U.S. politics down to the state house level, yet are unable to discover that Germany is indeed an active contributor to all three Combined Maritime Forces missions. In fact, they  It's not like they have a website or anything. In fact, Germany was in command of the first mission, CTF-150, which combined anti-terror with anti-piracy, before the anti-piracy remit was spun off into CTF-151 under U.S. command.

 

For the uninitiated: alt-bicus is engaging in JAQing off - one of his many tells that remains constant across all his alt accounts.

 

Thank you Jeffo for that sensible argument instead of your usual. Long pants on today then. Let's have a look at that link of yours:

 

Quote

33 member nations: Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, The Netherlands,  New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, The Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, United States and Yemen.

 

Yup. I bolded Sausageland. Yep they are turning up.  Now let's look further:

 

Quote

Commanded by a U.S. Navy Vice Admiral, who also serves as Commander US Navy Central Command (NAVCENT) and US Navy Fifth Fleet. All three commands are co-located at US Naval Support Activity Bahrain.

 

As I said, American blood being risked at Command level. Now look at the paragraph below that:

 

Quote

Deputy Commander is a UK Royal Navy Commodore. Other senior staff roles at CMF headquarters are filled by personnel from member nations.

 

...and as I said again, British blood being risked. 5th Fleet is located in Bahrain which as you well know (I don't believe you do) is the HQ of the US Navy in the Arabian Gulf. (The US ships used to be a source of illicit pigs for barbecues on the US bases in the Gulf!).

 

And, you didn't read the website. Germany took over FROM the US Centcom, according to your second link:

 

Quote

Before 11 September 2001, Task Force 150 was a U.S. Navy formation serving as part of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command. After 11 September, it became a patrol force in the Horn of Africa region. On 5 May 2002, command of the force was handed over from the United States to Germany.[3]

 

It was not Germany who initiated the command, it was the US who had been long established in the region in Bahrain (fantastic pubs in those hotels, the best being the Sherlock Holmes)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The German military is in a parlous state, according to reports:

 

https://www.dw.com/en/german-troops-wait-8-years-for-new-combat-boots/a-50191037

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-military/german-military-requires-urgent-action-parliamentary-report-idUSKCN1PN28I

 

And by the way, the US' own military thanks to years of neglect, is also poorly equipped:

 

https://www.combatreform.org/

 

I happened to be listening to a podcast yesterday by one of the vets from this org.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

The German military is in a parlous state, according to reports:

 

https://www.dw.com/en/german-troops-wait-8-years-for-new-combat-boots/a-50191037

 

It is not that the troops do not have boots, it is that they were rolling out a program to move from "one pair good for everything" to two pairs, one light one heavy.  However this program has been delayed twice already.   The problem is the provider of the new boots.   I think it is from Croatia, I guess to reduce costs because those boots take lot of time to make.   Maybe they should make them in Germany, boost the local economy, and spend three times the money but this will move towards the 2% Nato target.  You know, making Europe safe again.

 

 

17 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

 

From your own link:

 

Germany is the second largest provider of troops in NATO, but the United States and other NATO members have been pressing it to increase its military spending for the alliance.

 

 

Funny, after you've been here repeating that the USA and UK are the ones risking the blood.

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Janx Spirit said:

What the fuck has this all to do with Trump's presidency?

 

Practically everything, if in a few hours the Saudis give "evidence" that Iran bombed their oil facilities. He will face a tough call, whether to go in and blow up Iran. If he does, he is likely to take out black sites. 

 

The attack vector on Khurais and Abqaiq (great desert camping grounds btw) was WNW. That could actually be within the Kingdom itself. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

 The Cold War is over.

Is it? Seems like wars are still being fought by proxy, Syria? Iraq?

 

Don't forget the threat that China now poses in the S. China Sea with it's island grabbing and building of new military bases to protect it's interests - mineral and shipping interests.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Krieg said:

You know, making Europe safe again.

 

Germany has water, arable land, and brown coal.   If it wants to have an industrial economy, it might need to compete for resources in places where things are not always so polite.   

 

It wouldn't hurt to invest in cyber-defense either. 

48 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

From your own link:

 

Germany is the second largest provider of troops in NATO, but the United States and other NATO members have been pressing it to increase its military spending for the alliance.

 

 

Funny, after you've been here repeating that the USA and UK are the ones risking the blood.

 

Number of troops versus number of troops which are prepared/trained for deployment. 

 

If you read the first paragraph, it is the same situation with jets.   Less than 10% of the jets and no submarines are ready for action.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, Krieg said:

...

From your own link:

 

Germany is the second largest provider of troops in NATO, but the United States and other NATO members have been pressing it to increase its military spending for the alliance.

...

 

 

 

I was just wondering what these other countries might have said if Germany had increased the military budget some years back just so they are perfectly strong with super modern equipment. You know - that Germany where some time ago everyone had agreed that no German soldier ever should be wearing a weapon ever.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 member nations: Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, The Netherlands,  New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, The Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, United States and Yemen.

 

Would be interesting to see a breakdown by country.   

 

Reminds me of this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_–_Iraq#List_of_countries_in_the_coalition

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, French bean said:

Is it? Seems like wars are still being fought by proxy, Syria? Iraq?

 

Don't forget the threat that China now poses in the S. China Sea with it's island grabbing and building of new military bases to protect it's interests - mineral and shipping interests.

 

Isn't that the Spratly Islands? The one huge strategic mistake the Dems made was to characterize Russia as the enemy when it is the Chinese. They hack into German computers and steal patents, to build in their own sweatshops.

 

52 minutes ago, balticus said:

 

Yes, as I have been saying. Trump is the only one to double down on this.

 

39 minutes ago, balticus said:

33 member nations: Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, The Netherlands,  New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, The Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, United States and Yemen.

 

Would be interesting to see a breakdown by country.   

 

Reminds me of this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_–_Iraq#List_of_countries_in_the_coalition

 

 

 

Plus battle and combat effectiveness. I was earlier watching a Youtube of them in Afghan theatre. They were actually quite good. I have a poor opinion of their GSG9 however. Not very competent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dear J old boy, there's never one enemy, did you not know that, the difference between now and 30 years ago is that Russia and China have changed places. Both are equally as dangerous.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, French bean said:

dear J old boy, there's never one enemy, did you not know that, the difference between now and 30 years ago is that Russia and China have changed places. Both are equally as dangerous.

 

True. But who was that Prime Minister who once said that we don't have allies, we have interests. That sums it up. 

 

I believe an Iran deal will happen soon though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now