US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 82
Posts: 1,167
Pay more attention to what the Trumpster does rather than what he says...
At the request of U.S. Central Command, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authorized the deployment of additional U.S. forces and the following equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:
Taken together with other deployments this constitutes an additional 3,000 forces that have been extended or authorized within the last month.
Since May, the Department of Defense has increased the number of forces by approximately 14,000 to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility as an investment into regional security.
As we have stated, the United States does not seek conflict with the Iranian regime, but we will retain a robust military capability in the region that is ready to respond to any crisis and will defend U.S. forces and interest in the region.
DOD Statement on Deployment of Additional U.S. Forces and Equipment to
Oct. 11, 2019 Attributed to Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman:At the request of U.S. Central Command, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authorized the deployment of additional U.S. forces and the following equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:
- Two Fighter Squadrons
- One Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW)
- Two Patriot Batteries
- One Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD)
Taken together with other deployments this constitutes an additional 3,000 forces that have been extended or authorized within the last month.
Since May, the Department of Defense has increased the number of forces by approximately 14,000 to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility as an investment into regional security.
As we have stated, the United States does not seek conflict with the Iranian regime, but we will retain a robust military capability in the region that is ready to respond to any crisis and will defend U.S. forces and interest in the region.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,367
But isn't that simply down to that the fact US in the past agreed to defend Saudi in return for Saudi using the Dollar as the currency it sells oil for, so all the US has to do to buy it is to print paper. if it was to suddenly change currencies the US would be stuffed, something Saddam was threatening, hence that little excursion for the US military.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by galdian
Q from the outside: how many sitting presidents have chosen not to run for a second term?
Any chance the incumbent looks as the balance sheet in a few months time and decides not to run "for personal reasons?"
Any chance the incumbent looks as the balance sheet in a few months time and decides not to run "for personal reasons?"
Cal Coolidge - also a VP who served a part-term and won one of his own - simply didn't want the job for another 4 years (10 total).
Harry Truman - talked out of a second full term run by advisors based on age, failing health and low polls due to administration scandals (some Cabinet people got fur coats from donors, leading to Richard Nixon's famous line "My wife wears a good Republican cloth coat."
)Teddy Roosevelt - another VP who had a partial term (McKinley assassination) and was then re-elected. Chose to stick with a pledge to only serve one full term, later regretted it and formed progressive "Bull Moose Party" in attempt to unseat fellow Republican Taft (thus splitting the GOP and giving Dem. Woodrow Wilson the win in 1912).
Polk - stuck to "one-term" pedge, as did Hayes. Pierce withdrew name during contested convention, in favor of Buchanan (1858).
I guarantee Trump's ego won't allow him to join that list.
Plastic PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,896
Any chance the incumbent looks as the balance sheet in a few months time and decides not to run "for personal reasons?"
If he has any sense of self-preservation that could be the wisest thing he's ever done.
America could get lucky and find a Republican with better manners and more wits.
Mac
If he has any sense of self-preservation that could be the wisest thing he's ever done.
America could get lucky and find a Republican with better manners and more wits.
Mac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
Any chance the incumbent looks as the balance sheet in a few months time and decides not to run "for personal reasons?"
If he has any sense of self-preservation that could be the wisest thing he's ever done.
America could get lucky and find a Republican with better manners and more wits.
Mac
If he has any sense of self-preservation that could be the wisest thing he's ever done.
America could get lucky and find a Republican with better manners and more wits.
Mac
As opposed to the alternatives: leftist radicals or more same-old same-old politicians.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,863
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
Any chance the incumbent looks as the balance sheet in a few months time and decides not to run "for personal reasons?"
If he has any sense of self-preservation that could be the wisest thing he's ever done.
America could get lucky and find a Republican with better manners and more wits.
Mac
If he has any sense of self-preservation that could be the wisest thing he's ever done.
America could get lucky and find a Republican with better manners and more wits.
Mac
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,367
So what are the chances of Trump being charge with crimes, amongst them being war crimes when he finally leaves power, innocents are being slaughtered in Syria on his say as far as I can tell.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,367
I do not disagree, however, his treatment of the Kurds is deplorable, and I am not just thinking of that but also the impeachment against him, will he be prosecuted once out of power? And I thought our lot were bad enough.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,810
What he (the orange toddler) has done is most certainly not a war crime. As much as it suits political views (usually mine) to say so, the atrocities are being conducted by Turkish forces under Erdogan. What he has done is probably worse, in finally demonstrating to any of our allies that his word, and subsequently that of the United States, is meaningless. The Kurds provided the legwork, heavy lifting and sacrificed thousands of their fighters to try and neutralize ISIS. We sponsored those actions through words, deeds and military support. Their recognition for a job well done is to be subject to a pogrom by a lunatic dictator (no, not that one) while we tacitly support the eradication of one of our last reliable allies in that region. You might get away with a few war crimes, but none of our potential allies and coalition partners will forget this particular betrayal, nor should they.
In unrelated news, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a close political ally (for ally read compromised puppet) of Vladimir Putin.
In unrelated news, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a close political ally (for ally read compromised puppet) of Vladimir Putin.
Plastic PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,896
West Coast with his usual feeble, irrelevant, predictable and xenophobic attempt at a riposte.
And OBG - "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meine Browning!"
Some things never change on JB.
Cheers!
Mac
And OBG - "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meine Browning!"
Some things never change on JB.
Cheers!
Mac
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,863
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
West Coast with his usual feeble, irrelevant, predictable and xenophobic attempt at a riposte.
And OBG - "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meine Browning!"
Some things never change on JB.
Cheers!
Mac
And OBG - "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meine Browning!"
Some things never change on JB.
Cheers!
Mac
You didn’t answer the question.
Plastic PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,896
WC, I've already answered the question many times in the past when you have come up with the same objection.
You do not believe non-Americans have any right to comment on or have an opinion on American affairs.
You've said so many many times. On an international discussion forum such as this that is obvious nonsense.
Like Trump, you just can't stand disagreement with your opinions or point of view.
Well surprize, there are quite a lot of people in the USA who don't agree with you either!
I don't discuss South African affairs because this is a thread about US politics.
If you'd care to start a thread on South African/Sub-Saharan problems then I'd be happy for you join in.
Mac
PS: OBG, I withdraw my remark, it was uncalled for.
You do not believe non-Americans have any right to comment on or have an opinion on American affairs.
You've said so many many times. On an international discussion forum such as this that is obvious nonsense.
Like Trump, you just can't stand disagreement with your opinions or point of view.
Well surprize, there are quite a lot of people in the USA who don't agree with you either!
I don't discuss South African affairs because this is a thread about US politics.
If you'd care to start a thread on South African/Sub-Saharan problems then I'd be happy for you join in.
Mac
PS: OBG, I withdraw my remark, it was uncalled for.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 820
Originally Posted by obgraham
The war criminal in Syria is Assad.
That you would suggest different is disgusting.
That you would suggest different is disgusting.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 820
Toadstool: Re the Kurds; you make an excellent point. I believe there were some serving with the RAF too at that time. Sadly, this has been ignored by the media here. The only comments I have heard on the radio came from an Irish comedian on the most recent edition of the News Quiz on Radio 4.
Correction: I must apologise to the BBC. They mentioned this in a piece written the same day I heard it on the News Quiz:
" By Thursday, he was once again distancing himself from the Kurds, telling reporters that while he "liked" them, they were only fighting for "their land" and did not, for instance, help the US invade Germany in the Second World War. (It should be noted that Kurds did fight against Iraqi forces sympathetic to the Nazis.) "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50017839
Correction: I must apologise to the BBC. They mentioned this in a piece written the same day I heard it on the News Quiz:
" By Thursday, he was once again distancing himself from the Kurds, telling reporters that while he "liked" them, they were only fighting for "their land" and did not, for instance, help the US invade Germany in the Second World War. (It should be noted that Kurds did fight against Iraqi forces sympathetic to the Nazis.) "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50017839
Last edited by KelvinD; 13th Oct 2019 at 15:35. Reason: Correction
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,863
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
WC, I've already answered the question many times in the past when you have come up with the same objection.
You do not believe non-Americans have any right to comment on or have an opinion on American affairs.
You've said so many many times. On an international discussion forum such as this that is obvious nonsense.
Like Trump, you just can't stand disagreement with your opinions or point of view.
Well surprize, there are quite a lot of people in the USA who don't agree with you either!
I don't discuss South African affairs because this is a thread about US politics.
If you'd care to start a thread on South African/Sub-Saharan problems then I'd be happy for you join in.
You do not believe non-Americans have any right to comment on or have an opinion on American affairs.
You've said so many many times. On an international discussion forum such as this that is obvious nonsense.
Like Trump, you just can't stand disagreement with your opinions or point of view.
Well surprize, there are quite a lot of people in the USA who don't agree with you either!
I don't discuss South African affairs because this is a thread about US politics.
If you'd care to start a thread on South African/Sub-Saharan problems then I'd be happy for you join in.
If you cared enough, you’d start the thread about SA politics. Is SA that devoid of political and social concerns that a thread isn’t warranted? We both know the answer to that.
Are you even allowed to vote in SA?
Fittingly, this thread was started by an Yank
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 820
Why don’t you spend your energies trying to fix your adopted nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Mac, no offense taken, mainly because I couldn't figure it out! After all, part of the joy of JB is the giving and getting of a witty put-down. A skill which many here are better at than I. As previously stated, any resemblance of JB to real life is a mere coincidence!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 5,972
Originally Posted by oicur12.again
“My discussion, Oicur, was about the present, but you prefer to re-hash the past….”
Those that dont study history……..
“Your opinion is massively at odds with American political rhetoric”
Yes, it usually is.
History has shown American political rhetoric is generally made up of lies so being at odds with this is probably a good starting point. .
Those that dont study history……..
“Your opinion is massively at odds with American political rhetoric”
Yes, it usually is.
History has shown American political rhetoric is generally made up of lies so being at odds with this is probably a good starting point. .
The last two week's events consign that to what looks like wishful thinking.
I will offer an hypothesis: your inability to respond beyond your little broken record is due to (1) you not actually knowing very much about what I was trying to share with you, and (2) you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting lalalalala yet again because all you have is your little mantra.
I'll summarize it for you: US political rhetoric actually fit the war aims. Whether those objectives were achievable or not, practical or not, necessary or not, or were ever resourced to the extent necessary is all shown in hindsight to be ... not really.
And a couple of dozen other nations got on board that train.
The year is currently 2019, and it doesn't matter how much you agree or disagree with that political decisions of 2003.
The world now lives with the consequences, which are far reaching. And every morning, there is a new thing to deal with.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 54
Posts: 473
“My discussion, Oicur, was about the present, but you prefer to re-hash the past….”
Those that dont study history……..
“Your opinion is massively at odds with American political rhetoric”
Yes, it usually is.
History has shown American political rhetoric is generally made up of lies so being at odds with this is probably a good starting point.
And the invasion of Iraq is a perfect example of these lies.
You will recall that the US invaded Iraq based upon the false accusation that they were harboring WMD, and the inconsistent accusation that Iraq was committing human rights abuses.
It was not until the WMD argument began to unravel that the rational started to include the goal of democracy in public discourse.
“I read the campaign plan for OIF” and “There was an avalanche of public wishful thinking about Iraq becoming a democracy”
I have absolutely no doubt that democracy was an internal discussion point. Such a discussion would be almost mandatory during the manufacturing of consent in order to get political operatives from inside and allies from outside to support the war efforts.
Such discussion would amount to nothing more than marketing however and the Bush administration never had any intention of letting the Iraqi people chose their own fate.
Democracy as promoted by America is always contingent on choosing a Washington compliant candidate, which is not democracy at all.
Those that dont study history……..
“Your opinion is massively at odds with American political rhetoric”
Yes, it usually is.
History has shown American political rhetoric is generally made up of lies so being at odds with this is probably a good starting point.
And the invasion of Iraq is a perfect example of these lies.
You will recall that the US invaded Iraq based upon the false accusation that they were harboring WMD, and the inconsistent accusation that Iraq was committing human rights abuses.
It was not until the WMD argument began to unravel that the rational started to include the goal of democracy in public discourse.
“I read the campaign plan for OIF” and “There was an avalanche of public wishful thinking about Iraq becoming a democracy”
I have absolutely no doubt that democracy was an internal discussion point. Such a discussion would be almost mandatory during the manufacturing of consent in order to get political operatives from inside and allies from outside to support the war efforts.
Such discussion would amount to nothing more than marketing however and the Bush administration never had any intention of letting the Iraqi people chose their own fate.
Democracy as promoted by America is always contingent on choosing a Washington compliant candidate, which is not democracy at all.
