|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 18 2021 13:46 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 13:24 StasisField wrote:On September 18 2021 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:US has finally admitted one of its "final acts" (the US intends to continue bombing people) in Afghanistan was to kill an aid worker and his family (a bunch of them being children). The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
It was one of the US military's final acts in Afghanistan, before ending its 20-year operation in the country.
Relatives of the victims told the BBC the day after the strike that they had applied to be evacuated to the US, and had been waiting for a phone call telling them to go to the airport.
One of those killed, Ahmad Naser, had been a translator with US forces. Other victims had previously worked for international organisations and held visas allowing them entry to the US. www.bbc.comI'm reminded of Obama's drone campaign where 9 out of 10 people killed weren't the targets. And to think the Trump Administration somehow managed to commit more Drone strikes in its first 2 years than the Obama Administration did in 8. And to top it off, the Trump Administration stopped reporting the number of Drone strikes and the casualties they caused in 2019 so the number is even higher than we know. We're bombing innocent civilians to death in droves and the government doesn't give a shit. Worse still, the populace at large don’t really give a shit either. I mean sure when pressed people will say such things are terrible, but it’s not something that exactly riles folks up.
And the weird thing is that it is so completely pointless while also being incredibly expensive. For the cost of bombing one innocent and his family, you could pay for 1-2 persons costs of attending university in even the most expensive universities.
(One hellfire missile = 150000$, one hour of predator drone flight = ~3500$)
And sending people to university doesn't produce new "terrorists".
|
On September 18 2021 15:47 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 13:46 WombaT wrote:On September 18 2021 13:24 StasisField wrote:On September 18 2021 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:US has finally admitted one of its "final acts" (the US intends to continue bombing people) in Afghanistan was to kill an aid worker and his family (a bunch of them being children). The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
It was one of the US military's final acts in Afghanistan, before ending its 20-year operation in the country.
Relatives of the victims told the BBC the day after the strike that they had applied to be evacuated to the US, and had been waiting for a phone call telling them to go to the airport.
One of those killed, Ahmad Naser, had been a translator with US forces. Other victims had previously worked for international organisations and held visas allowing them entry to the US. www.bbc.comI'm reminded of Obama's drone campaign where 9 out of 10 people killed weren't the targets. And to think the Trump Administration somehow managed to commit more Drone strikes in its first 2 years than the Obama Administration did in 8. And to top it off, the Trump Administration stopped reporting the number of Drone strikes and the casualties they caused in 2019 so the number is even higher than we know. We're bombing innocent civilians to death in droves and the government doesn't give a shit. Worse still, the populace at large don’t really give a shit either. I mean sure when pressed people will say such things are terrible, but it’s not something that exactly riles folks up. And the weird thing is that it is so completely pointless while also being incredibly expensive. For the cost of bombing one innocent and his family, you could pay for 1-2 persons costs of attending university in even the most expensive universities. (One hellfire missile = 150000$, one hour of predator drone flight = ~3500$) And sending people to university doesn't produce new "terrorists".
The economics of war on foreign soil is very interesting to me! There are issues like using weapons which were already paid for, development and showing off technology which can be exported for billions, leverage in international negotiations etc. The US arms industry is a monster which has to be fed, otherwise the national economy will certainly crash.
I have no idea how to get out of this mess...
|
If the military-industrial complex spigot were suddenly turned off with no replacement, then sure, there would be a big economic hit. Luckily for us, there are tons of things we need to spend money on that do not involve killing people throughout the world, so much so that it's really only a matter of swapping things out. The limiting factor is political will rather than economic structure.
|
On September 18 2021 21:04 farvacola wrote:
If the military-industrial complex spigot were suddenly turned off with no replacement, then sure, there would be a big economic hit. Luckily for us, there are tons of things we need to spend money on that do not involve killing people throughout the world, so much so that it's really only a matter of swapping things out. The limiting factor is political will rather than economic structure.
"The limiting factor is political will..." strikes me as quite the euphemism.
|
On September 18 2021 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 21:04 farvacola wrote:
If the military-industrial complex spigot were suddenly turned off with no replacement, then sure, there would be a big economic hit. Luckily for us, there are tons of things we need to spend money on that do not involve killing people throughout the world, so much so that it's really only a matter of swapping things out. The limiting factor is political will rather than economic structure. "The limiting factor is political will..." strikes me as quite the euphemism.
Identifying what’s actually at stake in questions of political economy is not euphemistic, especially not when so many people still mistake economy for the natural world.
|
I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 66 billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU, also spying on allies - France and Germany... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact that would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html
"In an editorial, Le Monde, the leading French daily, said: “For any who still doubted it, the Biden Administration is no different from the Trump administration on this point: The United States comes first, whether it’s in the strategic, economic, financial or health fields. ‘America First’ is the guiding line of the foreign policy of the White House.”
|
On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 40+ billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact the would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html
You think the EU is going to increase economic ties with China when it’s on the precipice of perhaps the most significant insolvency crisis in its history, one that will undermine practically its entire credit regime? Hokay.
|
On September 18 2021 22:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 40+ billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact the would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html You think the EU is going to increase economic ties with China when it’s on the precipice of perhaps the most significant insolvency crisis in its history, one that will undermine practically it’s entire credit regime? Hokay.
They've already made a comprehensive trade deal with China, but because of tit for tat sanctions on human rights they've delayed the signing. If mutual relations improve and they go ahead with the signing of the deal the trade will surely improve.
|
On September 18 2021 22:08 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 22:05 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 40+ billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact the would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html You think the EU is going to increase economic ties with China when it’s on the precipice of perhaps the most significant insolvency crisis in its history, one that will undermine practically it’s entire credit regime? Hokay. They've already made a comprehensive trade deal with China, but because of tit for tat sanctions on human rights they've delayed the signing. If mutual relations improve and they go ahead with the signing of the deal the trade will surely improve.
Indeed, which is why it’s important to recognize that EU holders of Chinese debt quaking in their boots at the sight of the Evergrande crisis present a big, possibly insurmountable obstacle in the way of relations improving.
|
On September 18 2021 22:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 22:08 raga4ka wrote:On September 18 2021 22:05 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 40+ billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact the would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html You think the EU is going to increase economic ties with China when it’s on the precipice of perhaps the most significant insolvency crisis in its history, one that will undermine practically it’s entire credit regime? Hokay. They've already made a comprehensive trade deal with China, but because of tit for tat sanctions on human rights they've delayed the signing. If mutual relations improve and they go ahead with the signing of the deal the trade will surely improve. Indeed, which is why it’s important to recognize that EU holders of Chinese debt quaking in their boots at the sight of the Evergrande crisis present a big, possibly insurmountable obstacle in the way of relations improving.
What does Evergrande have to do with the China-EU deal? The deal was stopped because of counter sanctions by China on EU politicians that sanctioned China on Xinjiang's human rights violation. And what does this have to do with US - EU relations that my post was about?
|
United States24680 Posts
On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 66 billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact that would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html"In an editorial, Le Monde, the leading French daily, said: “For any who still doubted it, the Biden Administration is no different from the Trump administration on this point: The United States comes first, whether it’s in the strategic, economic, financial or health fields. ‘America First’ is the guiding line of the foreign policy of the White House.”
I can understand France being frustrated with Australia for backing out of a big defense contract. I've yet to see what the United States' culpability is in all this. That is, unless it can be shown that the U.S. intentionally tried to hurt France somehow, although I don't believe that is the case.
|
On September 18 2021 22:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 66 billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact that would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html"In an editorial, Le Monde, the leading French daily, said: “For any who still doubted it, the Biden Administration is no different from the Trump administration on this point: The United States comes first, whether it’s in the strategic, economic, financial or health fields. ‘America First’ is the guiding line of the foreign policy of the White House.” I can understand France being frustrated with Australia for backing out of a big defense contract. I've yet to see what the United States' culpability is in all this. That is, unless it can be shown that the U.S. intentionally tried to hurt France somehow, although I don't believe that is the case.
From the article:
"In a statement, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign minister, said the decision was made by Mr. Macron, who is understood to be furious about the way the United States, Britain and Australia negotiated the deal without informing France."
The way I see it, France sees this as breach of trust, because they have not been informed about the pact and the effect it would have on the 66 billion submarine deal they had with Australia. Intentionally or not the US did damage France's interests in the deal, and there is no way that the US didn't know that this pact that would be used to contain China, would damage France's interests in the subs deal. So all in all the US knowingly went ahead with a deal that would replace France. France also partnered with Lockheed Martin in this deal.
|
United States24680 Posts
On September 18 2021 22:54 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 22:47 micronesia wrote:On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 66 billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact that would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html"In an editorial, Le Monde, the leading French daily, said: “For any who still doubted it, the Biden Administration is no different from the Trump administration on this point: The United States comes first, whether it’s in the strategic, economic, financial or health fields. ‘America First’ is the guiding line of the foreign policy of the White House.” I can understand France being frustrated with Australia for backing out of a big defense contract. I've yet to see what the United States' culpability is in all this. That is, unless it can be shown that the U.S. intentionally tried to hurt France somehow, although I don't believe that is the case. From the article: "In a statement, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign minister, said the decision was made by Mr. Macron, who is understood to be furious about the way the United States, Britain and Australia negotiated the deal without informing France." The way I see it, France sees this as breach of trust, because they have not been informed about the pact and the effect it would have on the 66 billion submarine deal they had with Australia.
So there seem to be two problems. One is France doesn't like being excluded from the negotiations about technology that France, another ally, also has a strong interest in. I think that's a valid complaint but par for the course with international agreements like this. Personally I think it would be hard to add more than one country at a time to such an agreement (with the U.S. and U.K. already have a mature relationship in this respect). Australia is of more strategic significance than France with regards to countering China right now. Still, I won't fault France for being publicly unhappy about the current outcome.
The other concern, that France wasn't allowed to weigh in on this decision since they would lose out on a large contract, seems pretty naive to me. Unless France was going to change course and offer nuclear propulsion to Australia as a counteroffer, there was no percentage in France being included in these discussions. Still, they have every right to be frustrated specifically at Australia for backing out of the previous agreement.
|
On September 18 2021 23:02 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 22:54 raga4ka wrote:On September 18 2021 22:47 micronesia wrote:On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 66 billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact that would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html"In an editorial, Le Monde, the leading French daily, said: “For any who still doubted it, the Biden Administration is no different from the Trump administration on this point: The United States comes first, whether it’s in the strategic, economic, financial or health fields. ‘America First’ is the guiding line of the foreign policy of the White House.” I can understand France being frustrated with Australia for backing out of a big defense contract. I've yet to see what the United States' culpability is in all this. That is, unless it can be shown that the U.S. intentionally tried to hurt France somehow, although I don't believe that is the case. From the article: "In a statement, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign minister, said the decision was made by Mr. Macron, who is understood to be furious about the way the United States, Britain and Australia negotiated the deal without informing France." The way I see it, France sees this as breach of trust, because they have not been informed about the pact and the effect it would have on the 66 billion submarine deal they had with Australia. So there seem to be two problems. One is France doesn't like being excluded from the negotiations about technology that France, another ally, also has a strong interest in. I think that's a valid complaint but par for the course with international agreements like this. Personally I think it would be hard to add more than one country at a time to such an agreement (with the U.S. and U.K. already have a mature relationship in this respect). Australia is more more strategic significance than France with regards to countering China right now. Still, I won't fault France for being publicly unhappy about the current outcome. The other concern, that France wasn't allowed to weigh in on this decision since they would lose out on a large contract, seems pretty naive to me. Unless France was going to change course and offer nuclear propulsion to Australia as a counteroffer, there was no percentage in France being included in these discussions. Still, they have every right to be frustrated specifically at Australia for backing out of the previous agreement.
From what I've read, France won the competition between Japan and other countries to make the subs. Back then Australia was contemplating If they wanted the submarines to be nuclear powered or diesel and they chose diesel for whatever the reason and that was what the contract was about, but I don't know the details. I also don't know the processes behind any of this deals, but I assume that France has more of a reason to be furious other then being left behind, after all they've been investing a great deal of time and money on planning and starting to make the subs, also they've signed other contracts on defense and security with Australia, which they wouldn't have, if they knew that the sub deal would be scraped.
There was also a previous failed deal with Russia, about Mistral ships, because of US sanctions on Russia.
|
I remember watching an AU politician or maybe it was a researcher... Can't remember, anyways he was talking about the sub deal and did not sound very happy about it came just short of calling it a total waste of money ect but i'm not sure if that was true or not, this was a year or so ago I think.
It's interesting they went with diesel sub's over nuclear, Somewhat similar to the UK going with diesel power for the queen elizabeth class aircraft carrier(s). Obviously these are huge logistical decisions I find them very fascinating.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
France cancelled one big military deal due to US pressure, then later had a customer cancel another big military deal on them also due to US pressure. What goes around comes around, I guess.
|
United States24680 Posts
On September 18 2021 23:59 LegalLord wrote:
France cancelled one big military deal due to US pressure, then later had a customer cancel another big military deal on them also due to US pressure. What goes around comes around, I guess.
I now recognize you need to keep in mind what else as happened recently when evaluating how France is reacting to the recent news. Regarding the bolded part of your statement though, are you sure that's true? Did the U.S. somehow strong-arm Australia here?
|
|
|
United States24680 Posts
Imagine of all countries (except for China, Russia, North Korea, and a couple of others) diverted 100% of their defense spending to infrastructure, social programs, and non-military scientific development. The potential there is amazing. I can't see anything going wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
