Ulysses Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Now Trump has launched a war on................. ...........breastfeeding. His administration locked a UN resolution to promote breastfeeding, and threatened other countries who supported it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/08/trump-administration-opposes-breastfeeding-resolution-report http://www.newsweek.com/us-breastfeeding-resolution-opposition-russia-objects-un-world-health-1013327 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Ulysses said: Now Trump has launched a war on................. ...........breastfeeding. His administration locked a UN resolution to promote breastfeeding, and threatened other countries who supported it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/08/trump-administration-opposes-breastfeeding-resolution-report http://www.newsweek.com/us-breastfeeding-resolution-opposition-russia-objects-un-world-health-1013327 The Russian influence not so bad after all then eh ? Lobbying of the US democratic levers by free enterprise business (which some think should over ride the brexit vote)is defeated by the nasty Russians who fixed the elections with trolls(13) from facebook(in spite of foreign money and influence amounting to millions on the hundreds against). Shall I go on. Now let's talk about why this mindnumbing shitey two party tit for tat means fek all till you call out those who kid on they are against it all. By the way breast is best but recently the nhs has been told not to go to heavy on new mums to do it. Variety of reasons hopefully not commercial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpruceBringsteen Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 The guy can't spell. I'm sure all the pretend "lefties" (pro-tip: they're not) will pretend it doesn't matter, but name one world leader with a Twitter account THAT CAN'T EVEN SPELL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 1 hour ago, SpruceBringsteen said: The guy can't spell. I'm sure all the pretend "lefties" (pro-tip: they're not) will pretend it doesn't matter, but name one world leader with a Twitter account THAT CAN'T EVEN SPELL. ? https://youtu.be/jCDG0IkY2Gg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Shock News : Brexiteer brings Obama into Trump thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 13 hours ago, Ulysses said: Now Trump has launched a war on................. ...........breastfeeding. His administration locked a UN resolution to promote breastfeeding, and threatened other countries who supported it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/08/trump-administration-opposes-breastfeeding-resolution-report http://www.newsweek.com/us-breastfeeding-resolution-opposition-russia-objects-un-world-health-1013327 It was Ecuador who was intending to introduce the motion, but they dropped out after the Trump administration threatened them with trade sanctions and a reduction in aid. Then the Russians introduced the motion and the Americans said "Oh, OK." That golden shower tape that Putin has on Trump must be a dandy!! Now the Americans are threatening to reduce their financial support of the WHO. Dear oh dear. The Executive Branch of the American government is in the hands of children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Abortion about to outlawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 17 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Abortion about to outlawed. Nope, read it back a few times and I'm just not getting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Just now, alwaysthereinspirit said: Nope, read it back a few times and I'm just not getting it. Sorry, about to be outlawed. Illegal at any stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 27 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Sorry, about to be outlawed. Illegal at any stage. I know that's what many Republicans want, and if they get the SCOTUS appointment they hope for, they'll be a step closer to getting Roe v Wade overturned. But I think they're a long way from "about to be outlawed" stage. Ask again in two months, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: I know that's what many Republicans want, and if they get the SCOTUS appointment they hope for, they'll be a step closer to getting Roe v Wade overturned. But I think they're a long way from "about to be outlawed" stage. Ask again in two months, though. Do they not have 6 Pro life judges now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, ri Alban said: Sorry, about to be outlawed. Illegal at any stage. 1 hour ago, ri Alban said: Sorry, about to be outlawed. Illegal at any stage. It’s a long way from being outlawed. And hopefully not ever. Edited July 9, 2018 by alwaysthereinspirit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 27 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Do they not have 6 Pro life judges now. It's 4 and 4 right now, with one vacancy. The guy who retired was conservative in many ways, but he always supported Roe v Wade. The new appointee will almost certainly want Roe v Wade repealed, which will make it 5-4 for the conservatives. Any conservative cases that go in front of the Supreme Court will end up 5-4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: It's 4 and 4 right now, with one vacancy. The guy who retired was conservative in many ways, but he always supported Roe v Wade. The new appointee will almost certainly want Roe v Wade repealed, which will make it 5-4 for the conservatives. Any conservative cases that go in front of the Supreme Court will end up 5-4. OK, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 The Supreme Court is a prime example of why age restrictions should be put in place in certain roles These are political appointments which have an impact far beyond the life of a presidents stay in office Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Trump's Supreme Court nominee being announced imminently. To get Trump's approval (so it is being reported), the candidate had to be in favour of repealing Roe v Wade, repealing the provisions in Obamacare that protect people with pre-existing conditions, and be willing to defend Trump against a Mueller subpoena. If true, the situation in the USA has become outrageous. The Supreme Court is now there, not to protect the US Constitution, but to protect Donald Trump and advance his political agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 He's just announced his pick. A guy who has previously written that sitting presidents should be protected from criminal investigations and civil lawsuits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 42 minutes ago, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said: He's just announced his pick. A guy who has previously written that sitting presidents should be protected from criminal investigations and civil lawsuits. That figures. Trump, who says he has nothing to hide, is terrified of Mueller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 16 hours ago, Maple Leaf said: It's 4 and 4 right now, with one vacancy. The guy who retired was conservative in many ways, but he always supported Roe v Wade. The new appointee will almost certainly want Roe v Wade repealed, which will make it 5-4 for the conservatives. Any conservative cases that go in front of the Supreme Court will end up 5-4. Answering ri alban's specific question though, Sonia Sotomayor is, as I understand it, pro-life, meaning there are already five esentially pro-life justices. That doesn't mean she'd choose to overturn Roe v Wade, but I think she's hardly unfriendly to the general premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, Barack said: They need 51 votes to confirm him. Currently, it's 51-49 Republican. John McCain is out the game with Cancer, and won't be able to vote. So that's 50-49. Not as simple as it seems. That's before you could even have a Republican voting against him, for whatever reason. Unlikely, but has happened before. Elections looming in November. They'll want it done fast. But if they've only got 50 votes & not the requisite 51... Can work the other way too, of course. As there's one or two nervous Democrat Senators out there. Justin Amash is the only potential Republican that would vote against him, and like Rand Paul, he'll probably just make a lot of noise first, then go ahead and vote the party line anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Green Days song is apparently topping the UK charts ahead of Trumps visit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 40 minutes ago, maroonlegions said: Green Days song is apparently topping the UK charts ahead of Trumps visit. You sure about that? They were saying on the TV that that 3 lions crap was set to become no 1 this week, again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 American idiot us only 4k sales away from the top ten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: You sure about that? They were saying on the TV that that 3 lions crap was set to become no 1 this week, again. Well expectations can differ but there is definitely something stirring in regards to Greens Days sales of their song. The 3 lions will top the charts though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 It will be interesting to see how Trump screws up the NATO meeting. He's a one trick pony on NATO ... the other countries are taking advantage of the USA by not spending enough, blah, blah, blah. The other countries need to shut him up on that by simply lowering everyone's spending target from 2% of GDP to 1%. Then he's off to get debriefed by Putin. That will be a closed door session while Putin gives him his new instructions for the rest of 2018. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 On 05/07/2018 at 19:33, Justin Z said: It's absolutely frightening, what's going on under the surface. Pro-Trump & Russian-Linked Twitter Accounts Are Posing As Ex-Democrats In New Astroturfed Movement "The primary functional goal of an astroturfed campaign like this one is to manipulate public opinion by gaming online algorithms to amplify certain content and push it onto people’s social media feeds and to the top of search engine results. . . . "In the case of the “WalkAway Movement,” every tweet was a deviation. The vast majority of (early) tweets using the hashtag #WalkAway were sent by accounts with less than 100 followers (many with less than 25), which in itself is an aberration and indicates that many of these accounts were likely created or repurposed recently, possibly for the explicit goal of amplifying this hashtag. Most of the tweets sent by these accounts had far more than 100 likes and retweets—and that’s not even looking at other types of reactions. . . . "The average engagement rate for tweets using the hashtag #WalkAway was over 500 percent, with many exceeding 1000 percent and some even reaching rates of 3000 to 4000 percent and above. I’ve tracked a lot of hashtags—including organic and non-organic movements—and I’ve never seen anything even close to this. This is not what a viral hashtag campaign looks like; this is what a manufactured and artificially amplified digital operation looks like." . . . "Consider, for example, that at the same time Russian-linked Twitter accounts were amplifying #WalkAway and joining Trump supporters in reprimanding Democrats for a supposed lack of civility, they were also boosting the hashtags #AbolishICE and #MaxineWaters. In other words, they were working both sides of divisive issues and amplifying the most polarizing positions (and in some cases, intentionally misrepresenting those positions) in an apparent effort to erase the middle ground, discourage reasoned discourse, and make it seem like compromise is either not possible or not desirable." **** sake. And that’s probably just one example of thousands of orchestrated campaigns too. Noticed James O’Brien and a few other political commentators picking out iffy accounts lately, but it’s a drop in the ocean. I remember seeing iffy pro-Trump accounts back in the days of the Trump v Salmond thing. Tweets appearing exclusively during US east coast working hours, using Americanised English language, sharing cruddy links to cruddy sources, RTing other fakey accounts, around 20 or so followers (also fake accounts) location showing as “Aberdeen”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 hours ago, Maple Leaf said: It will be interesting to see how Trump screws up the NATO meeting. He's a one trick pony on NATO ... the other countries are taking advantage of the USA by not spending enough, blah, blah, blah. The other countries need to shut him up on that by simply lowering everyone's spending target from 2% of GDP to 1%. Then he's off to get debriefed by Putin. That will be a closed door session while Putin gives him his new instructions for the rest of 2018. As far as disproportionate defence spending in NATO is concerned doesn't he have a point? Nearly 3 decades after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, with Russia's economy now about the size of Italy's, why should the US pay for the defence of Europe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, redm said: And that’s probably just one example of thousands of orchestrated campaigns too. Noticed James O’Brien and a few other political commentators picking out iffy accounts lately, but it’s a drop in the ocean. I remember seeing iffy pro-Trump accounts back in the days of the Trump v Salmond thing. Tweets appearing exclusively during US east coast working hours, using Americanised English language, sharing cruddy links to cruddy sources, RTing other fakey accounts, around 20 or so followers (also fake accounts) location showing as “Aberdeen”. Like the Russian assassins the "astroturfers" (whatever that is) don't seem very clever. I have a simple solution. Don't go on twitter and you will neither be influenced nor read crap. Social media is open to abuse and will be abused .. and it would be naïve to assume only by one side. The Obama campaign was widely praised for pioneering innovative use of social media. Not faking perhaps but orchestrating? The next steps were bound to follow. Edited July 11, 2018 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: Like the Russian assassins the "astroturfers" (what whatever that is) don't seem very clever. I have a simple solution. Don't go on twitter and you will neither be influenced nor read crap. Social media is open to abuse and will be abused .. and it would be naïve to assume only by one side. The Obama campaign was widely praised for pioneering innovative use of social media. Not faking perhaps but orchestrating? The next steps were bound to follow. Ah, I think we’re well past the “just don’t use it” stage. Over 2 billion active users on Facebook, a few hundred million on Twitter. That’s a lot of people with eyes and ears and their own sphere of social influence....and votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 No doubt social media is being exploited by those wishing to form public opinion. As is the news media. Looking at the expenditure and source of the democrats campaign does not exactly look good either. Russia has obviously used facebook and Twitter. But is that any worse than the vast amounts of money from Saudi which backed the democrat campaign? 3 hours ago, redm said: And that’s probably just one example of thousands of orchestrated campaigns too. Noticed James O’Brien and a few other political commentators picking out iffy accounts lately, but it’s a drop in the ocean. I remember seeing iffy pro-Trump accounts back in the days of the Trump v Salmond thing. Tweets appearing exclusively during US east coast working hours, using Americanised English language, sharing cruddy links to cruddy sources, RTing other fakey accounts, around 20 or so followers (also fake accounts) location showing as “Aberdeen”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) I hope Scotland gives him the welcome he deserves. No doubt we'll have the usual suspects claiming how embarrassing we are. Feck off Trump. Edited July 11, 2018 by ri Alban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Great start at NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 6 hours ago, Francis Albert said: As far as disproportionate defence spending in NATO is concerned doesn't he have a point? Nearly 3 decades after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, with Russia's economy now about the size of Italy's, why should the US pay for the defence of Europe? Military spending is huge business in the USA, generating millions of jobs, and any President who tries to cut military spending would be vigorously challenged. How much the US is spending strictly on behalf of their NATO commitments is not clear. For example, the USA has 20 commissioned aircraft carriers. Russia has 1, and China has 1. That's a choice the Americans have made, and it has little or nothing to do with NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said: Military spending is huge business in the USA, generating millions of jobs, and any President who tries to cut military spending would be vigorously challenged. How much the US is spending strictly on behalf of their NATO commitments is not clear. For example, the USA has 20 commissioned aircraft carriers. Russia has 1, and China has 1. That's a choice the Americans have made, and it has little or nothing to do with NATO. I understand that and of course the US commitment to European defence (as with so other places in the world) is self-interested, or has been. I find it refreshing that Trump seems at least at times to disengage from the old (and disastrous) Kennedy commitment to fight any foe anywhere in defence of liberty (translation - anyone anywhere inimical to American business interests in particular any communists or socialists). I thought his statement that Korea is more a Chinese and Japanese problem than an American one for example was a step back from traditional American belief in the centrality of America. I am not saying he meant it but it was good to hear. Europe need no longer depend on the USA for defence against Russia (or indeed any threat in in the Nato area) - Europe is richer and far more populous than Russia or any other potential enemy in the NATO area. Trump is quite within his rights that if Europe wants the US to protect it via NATO, Europe should pay a fair proportion of the costs. Alternatively (or additionally) for Europe some distancing from America would probably enhance European security. Edited July 11, 2018 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Sky News reporting that Trump has told NATO that other members should increase their defence spending to 4% of GDP. 4%, not a cat in hells chance, considering most can't/won't spend 2% now, yet Trump expects everyone to just be able to double or treble their defence spending, never gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 15 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Sky News reporting that Trump has told NATO that other members should increase their defence spending to 4% of GDP. 4%, not a cat in hells chance, considering most can't/won't spend 2% now, yet Trump expects everyone to just be able to double or treble their defence spending, never gonna happen. One has to wonder what Trump is playing at. He's on record as having said that NATO is obsolete, yet he wants the other NATO countries to increase defence spending. Why? Russia is the obvious threat, but he doesn't regard Russia as a 'foe', confirmed by his answer to a journalist two days ago. Maybe it's as simple as he hopes that increased spending on military equipment will mean contracts for American companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 59 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: I understand that and of course the US commitment to European defence (as with so other places in the world) is self-interested, or has been. I find it refreshing that Trump seems at least at times to disengage from the old (and disastrous) Kennedy commitment to fight any foe anywhere in defence of liberty (translation - anyone anywhere inimical to American business interests in particular any communists or socialists). I thought his statement that Korea is more a Chinese and Japanese problem than an American one for example was a step back from traditional American belief in the centrality of America. I am not saying he meant it but it was good to hear. Europe need no longer depend on the USA for defence against Russia (or indeed any threat in in the Nato area) - Europe is richer and far more populous than Russia or any other potential enemy in the NATO area. Trump is quite within his rights that if Europe wants the US to protect it via NATO, Europe should pay a fair proportion of the costs. Alternatively (or additionally) for Europe some distancing from America would probably enhance European security. It should not be forgotten that NATO was America's idea, formed after the war to ensure America's dominance over the USSR in Europe. And Trump needs to remember that the only country who has benefited from the 'attack one and you attack us all' clause is the USA after 9/11. In view of those, maybe America should be paying more. And maybe Trump is ready to remove the clause in the NATO treaty that says member countries cannot leave the treaty without US permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 16 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: It should not be forgotten that NATO was America's idea, formed after the war to ensure America's dominance over the USSR in Europe. And Trump needs to remember that the only country who has benefited from the 'attack one and you attack us all' clause is the USA after 9/11. In view of those, maybe America should be paying more. And maybe Trump is ready to remove the clause in the NATO treaty that says member countries cannot leave the treaty without US permission. ??? As far I am aware, all a country needs to do is give NATO a year's notice to leave. Unless this was a joke that whooshed above my head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 25 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: It should not be forgotten that NATO was America's idea, formed after the war to ensure America's dominance over the USSR in Europe. And Trump needs to remember that the only country who has benefited from the 'attack one and you attack us all' clause is the USA after 9/11. In view of those, maybe America should be paying more. And maybe Trump is ready to remove the clause in the NATO treaty that says member countries cannot leave the treaty without US permission. I'm sorry but peace in Europe since WWII is directly the result of NATO and the massive US presence in Europe. SO I think we have all benefitted from NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, redjambo said: ??? As far I am aware, all a country needs to do is give NATO a year's notice to leave. Unless this was a joke that whooshed above my head You might be correct. I know that there's an Article 13 that says countries have to inform the USA of their intention to withdraw. I characterised that as needing permission, so I probably overstated it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said: I'm sorry but peace in Europe since WWII is directly the result of NATO and the massive US presence in Europe. SO I think we have all benefitted from NATO. OK, but the Americans didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it because it was in America's interest to keep the Russians out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Just now, Maple Leaf said: OK, but the Americans didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it because it was in America's interest to keep the Russians out. You can't blame Trump for that even though I'm sure you'd like to. It was also good to see him poke Merkel with a stick over her Nord 2 gas pipeline deal that just as an aside flies in the face of EU rules. But hey it's Der Fatherland!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: It should not be forgotten that NATO was America's idea, formed after the war to ensure America's dominance over the USSR in Europe. And Trump needs to remember that the only country who has benefited from the 'attack one and you attack us all' clause is the USA after 9/11. In view of those, maybe America should be paying more. And maybe Trump is ready to remove the clause in the NATO treaty that says member countries cannot leave the treaty without US permission. As I said there is no doubt the US created and funded NATO out of self interest. But as has been said the whole point was to deter Soviet aggression, which it did and therefore benefited all the nations of Western Europe. I am not sure what in practice was the benefit to the US of the "attack one and you attack us all" clause to the US or indeed to the other members of NATO post 9/11. 9/11 and other terrorist attacks since have rather demonstrated the irrelevance of NATO to the real threats facing NATO members today (European and North American alike) . Edited July 11, 2018 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: As I said there is no doubt the US created and funded NATO out of self interest. But as has been said the whole point was to deter Soviet aggression, which it did and therefore benefited all the nations of Western Europe. I am not sure what in practice was the benefit to the US of the "attack one and you attack us all" clause to the US or indeed to the other members of NATO post 9/11. 9/11 and other terrorist attacks since have rather demonstrated the irrelevance of NATO to the real threats facing NATO members today. The benefit to the Americans was that when they attacked Afghanistan in response to 9/11, the other NATO countries sent their troops to fight alongside the USA. And would do so again if, say, North Korea or Iran was to launch a military strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 11 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: The benefit to the Americans was that when they attacked Afghanistan in response to 9/11, the other NATO countries sent their troops to fight alongside the USA. And would do so again if, say, North Korea or Iran was to launch a military strike. In the grand scheme of things the non-American contribution was not much more than token. I suppose in American and Western eyes it helped "legitimise" the operation but that wasn't how it was seen by public opinion in the Middle East or elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Francis Albert said: In the grand scheme of things the non-American contribution was not much more than token. I suppose in American and Western eyes it helped "legitimise" the operation but that wasn't how it was seen by public opinion in the Middle East or elsewhere. 1 hour ago, Francis Albert said: In the grand scheme of things the non-American contribution was not much more than token. I suppose in American and Western eyes it helped "legitimise" the operation but that wasn't how it was seen by public opinion in the Middle East or elsewhere. I take it when you say token, you meant in the first early days, otherwise I am not sure where all these Canadian vetrans minus arms and legs and other horrendous injuries incurred those wounds, I also keep up with the Scots Guards veterans, and the comment regularly of the Battalions deployments along with other Guards Regiments to Afghanistan. Before I am politically corrected I am well aware other countries and Regiments serve honorably in Afghanistan I mention only the two that I have a direct connection to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Francis Albert said: In the grand scheme of things the non-American contribution was not much more than token. I suppose in American and Western eyes it helped "legitimise" the operation but that wasn't how it was seen by public opinion in the Middle East or elsewhere. There were over 1,100 non-American combat deaths in Afghanistan, which amounted to about 50% of American deaths. That was the cost of the NATO alliance to America's European, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand allies. That was more than a token, imo. But it's clear to everyone by now that Trump cares little about his allies. That doesn't change the facts, however. 1,100 deaths is not 'fake nooz." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: There were over 1,100 non-American combat deaths in Afghanistan, which amounted to about 50% of American deaths. That was the cost of the NATO alliance to America's European, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand allies. That was more than a token, imo. But it's clear to everyone by now that Trump cares little about his allies. That doesn't change the facts, however. 1,100 deaths is not 'fake nooz." Yes sorry i was totally out of line there. I won't even attempt to explain what i was trying to say. No excuse. Edited July 11, 2018 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Trump accuses Germany of being controlled by Russia. Proof that he is Russia's pawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Merkel was spot on in slapping that moronic tube down. She lived through the dark days of East Germany and knows exactly what it feels like to be controlled by Russia. For Trump to be that ignorant is staggering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4,388
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.