US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1001

On December 21 2018 17:14 ReditusSum wrote:

I admit that will probably happen to some degree. However, I am in the camp of "NATO has outlived it's usefulness" so I don't particularly care about the talking point that Germany needs to spend a couple billion more on pretending to have a realistic defense strategy that doesn't include pax-Americana. I understand why Trump pushes that point, but I've always thought it was stupid and will continue to think it is stupid.

On December 21 2018 18:04 ReditusSum wrote:...
Not only that but it incentives both sides to use proxies and create and fund terrorist and separatist organizations to combat each other and disrupt each other and their respective allies. So while Europe, America, and most white countries live in relative peace (excluding the places where Russia decided to push the boundaries like Ukraine); the rest of the world, mostly brown, mostly poor, are used as chessboards where various weapons and ideologies are pumped and resources are fought over with no concern whatsoever to what this does to the populace within those countries. Those countries eventually get tired of the game and lash out, which then necessitates massive military response which then increases the tension, and the cycle continues.

On December 21 2018 18:04 ReditusSum wrote: We avoided WW3 only to find ourselves staring down the barrel of Doomsday.

On December 21 2018 17:14 ReditusSum wrote:

I admit that will probably happen to some degree. However, I am in the camp of "NATO has outlived it's usefulness" so I don't particularly care about the talking point that Germany needs to spend a couple billion more on pretending to have a realistic defense strategy that doesn't include pax-Americana. I understand why Trump pushes that point, but I've always thought it was stupid and will continue to think it is stupid.

On December 21 2018 16:36 raga4ka wrote:I doubt Turkey will go on a slaughtering fest of Kurds, USA has probably negotiated some terms for leaving, but life will be hard for Kurds and they can kiss their dream of independent country goodbye... Curious to see what's France and UK goal in this since they are staying, stuck in this proxy war with Israel and Saudi Arabia together, they still want to topple Assad?

On December 21 2018 11:16 Wegandi wrote:

Yes, I did. US came marching in, replaced the Government which lead to the in fighting of various religious groups, which resulted in total chaos that Hussein had clamped down on, which led to formation of ISIS. Did you see any of that or was it my imagination? That wasnt your point you were trying to make though is it? Well might as well get it over with and make Afghanistan the 51st state since the only solution is to be there forever.

Edit: can you answer me this. Were you for or against the McCain surge in Iraq. Just curious.

On December 21 2018 16:36 raga4ka wrote:


Well the final goal of USA coalition in Syria was to topple Assad, like the one supported in Libya. To bad Russia, Iran and Assad already won this war after they took back Aleppo, and unless false flag chemical attacks spread all over Syria and in to Israel that triggers a heavy USA involvement, there is no winning this war. Prolonging it will probably make it worse. Trump has campaigned to move out of Syria even before election, so I don't know why people are shocked or upset by this news, he was going to do it way earlier If it wasn't for staged chemical attacks. If you wan't to blame someone blame Obama he left the chaos in Syria to Trump who didn't want non of it...

I doubt Turkey will go on a slaughtering fest of Kurds, USA has probably negotiated some terms for leaving, but life will be hard for Kurds and they can kiss their dream of independent country goodbye... Curious to see what's France and UK goal in this since they are staying, stuck in this proxy war with Israel and Saudi Arabia together, they still want to topple Assad?

On December 21 2018 21:10 Acrofales wrote:
Question: why does Trump think they need to spend so much money to have the mostest bestest military if all he wants to use it for is to stop penniless immigrants from entering through Mexico?

On December 21 2018 18:04 ReditusSum wrote:
It seems to me that NATO has many, many benefits and a few, very large, drawbacks. I'll let you (and others who I'm sure feel the same way as you do) list the benefits. Here are the drawbacks that I see:

1) It gives America, and indeed the West, a false sense of invincibility. Would America have involved itself in so many conflicts and wars if we had had no forward deployment, no guarantee of 20+ other nations stepping in to help carry the burden, and it has to shoulder the entire cost of creating and maintaining a supply route? I don't think so.

2) It creates a situation where open war is "out of the question". Now this is also a benefit, but it creates its own problems. Russia cannot risk open war. NATO cannot risk open war. So there is a very strange situation here where neither side can risk open war, but both sides want to beat the other. So we have these ever-present proxy-wars, ever-present agitation, constant brinkmanship, and constant build-up so that if open war ever does break out it is even worse than it would have been. Russia gets the nuke so America builds defense systems so Russia builds hypersonic weapons so America starts looking at militarizing space and so on and so on. Not only that but it incentives both sides to use proxies and create and fund terrorist and separatist organizations to combat each other and disrupt each other and their respective allies. So while Europe, America, and most white countries live in relative peace (excluding the places where Russia decided to push the boundaries like Ukraine); the rest of the world, mostly brown, mostly poor, are used as chessboards where various weapons and ideologies are pumped and resources are fought over with no concern whatsoever to what this does to the populace within those countries. Those countries eventually get tired of the game and lash out, which then necessitates massive military response which then increases the tension, and the cycle continues. Which leads to the third drawback:

3) It is always going to be a temporary measure, and eventually, as sure as the sun will rise, it will fail at it's primary mission of preventing another World War. Geo-politics hates an equilibrium. Eventually one side will seek domination. Works out great when your side wins. Soviet Union collapses under internal and external pressure. Eastern Europe is liberated. The world breathes a sigh of relief. And within a generation the glorified leper colony of China becomes a roaring dragon, Russia elects a neo-Tzarist ex-KGB thug, religious and ethnic zealots in the Middle East and Africa begin rattling their sabers, and right-wing nationalism sweeps across Europe and America. The tenuous balance of "let's all remember we have ten thousand nuclear weapons pointed at each other" becomes a millstone hanging around our collective necks as all sides begin pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go before the world goes boom. China starts creating islands to push its territorial claims and Russia invades its neighbors and meddles in foreign elections. Eventually this will come to a head and since all that tension hasn't had any release valve for almost a century, when it blows it will blow like nothing we've ever seen before. We avoided WW3 only to find ourselves staring down the barrel of Doomsday.

Maybe you think the benefits outweigh the costs. Maybe you think there is some way around this eventuality, and peace can last forever if only someone does... something. But as it stands now, it looks like NATO was the greatest error in grand strategy of all time.

1) It gives America, and indeed the West, a false sense of invincibility. Would America have involved itself in so many conflicts and wars if we had had no forward deployment, no guarantee of 20+ other nations stepping in to help carry the burden, and it has to shoulder the entire cost of creating and maintaining a supply route? I don't think so.

There's this thing called wikipedia. It gives a reasonable summary of why we're over there.

On December 21 2018 21:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

....let me get this straight. You think we should have had World War 3 to 'release tension' because now China is building islands and Russia is acting up. You think we need open war because now countries are trying to one-up eachother in ways other than pure killing. So we better return to the massive slaughter of open war? You think the chance of nuclear doomsday is SMALLER with open war?

This must have been the most stupid reasoning I've read here.

On December 21 2018 21:54 m4ini wrote:


Congratulations, you just outed yourself as one of those morons who don't actually understand how the NATO works, but assumes he has it all figured out. Here's a hint. If the USA involves itself in a conflict, the NATO doesn't give a shit. Your understanding is so fundamentally wrong that i won't even bother explaining why the rest of your blurble is nonsense.



I recently have been told that i shouldn't trust wikipedia since it's an echo chamber for "them". By "them" i assume, i don't know. Globalists, i guess.