If you think we’re singing the same tune here, uk, you’re mistaken.
2 Likes
Then again …there’s always…boredom –
1 Like
I don’t think that at all. I don’t know what your tune is outside that post, and doubt you know mine. I believe the very purpose of this forum is for people who don’t play the same tune to converse.
On that note, here’s a useful analysis of Trump’s handshakes put together by the Telegraph. Quite instructive
neh
Rather watch these Samurai Showdown fatality videos.
1 Like
Evidence? I don’t need no estinking evidence, any more than that poseur you’re supporting needs evidence.
The truth of the matter is that there have been plenty of suggestions that Deutsche Bank has been involved in laundering money for Russian oligarchs. If you believe that smoke is a reliable indicator of fire (I do), it seems perfectly plausible that DB would put a cursory search in place, because they really don’t want to know.
5 Likes
that review was internal, not external.
In other words, it showed precisely what they wanted it to show. No more and no less.
3 Likes
Rupert Murdoch, that’s who.
What is Putin’s ultimate aim? Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Bannon were to suddenly die under mysterious circumstances, or else be assassinated outright. Financial and political instability would be set in motion. Imagine Trump’s and winger-extremist psycho-antics in the wake of such an event. Chaos would ensue.
Google ‘Russian government and price of gold.’
pretty much
2 Likes
I seem to remember that one of the reasons for NATO was so that Germany would not want to/need to / or be able to become a military super power…again. Don’t quite recall why that was ever a concern for anyone…
3 Likes
I’ll admit I’m surprised by Rex. I figured he’d at least be competent and assertive of State’s preeminent position in foreign affairs. Seems instead he’s an empty suit, a tired old man or a corporate exec with tunnel vision. If the latter, he thinks the only role for State is to help Exxon and other corporations do whatever it is they want to do.
3 Likes
Russia is in Syria at the request of the internationally recognized government. Unlike the US which has been screwing around there since 1983. Mostly to make Israel happy, so they can continue their apartheid 40 year subjugating of the Palestinians.
We are behind the '‘maidan’ overthrow of the government of Ukraine (remember the $5billion ''invested") For refusng to recognize the coup, the new ‘government’ gave the Donbass, Lugansk, and Crimea citizens a choice - recognize us, leave or die. Crimea voted to secede and asked to rejoin Russia. The Donbass and Lugansk told them to go to hell, we’ll be waiting when you get here, and not going anywhere except up your asses if you try.
We supported the neo-nazi putsch with cash and arms, and still do. 'We are all butthurt because we wanted to further choke off Russia by taking Crimeas bases and ports from the Russians, who by the way, were already there as they have a 99 year lease on their ports and bases there. They did not invade anyone. WE, on the other hand, are up to our usual sleazy business.
And you are correct about uk being a condescending twit.
And as for Merkel standing tall with the sanctions Obama kept and added to against Russia. Well, as time goes by and the facts fight to the surface around our and the UK press as co-conspirators of the non-stop propaganda pushed by out the two countries, Merkel and most of the rest of Europe are sick of paying all the price, and we lost nothing for our ‘moral’ outrage. It is our country that is big-footing around the world, stepping on the necks of anyone who talks back to us, and looting everything not nailed down, being in and bombing any country we like. We are flailing, even before the new administration, trying to prop up our economy on foreign debt and a reserve ‘currency’ with the threat of military force (also on debt).
We can be a great country, or a shitty empire. Not both.
Sorry for running on.
And the sooner he can defang the State Department the better it is for him to do whatever he feels is in his own self-interest, that of corporate interests, or that of tRump’s…He seems to think its up to him to decide if he should communicate what he does at his job. He’s a civil servant now. For some damn reason that hasn’t sunk in. He reports to us, the American people, as our head diplomat around the world. I don’t know who the fuck he thinks he is now. He is one arrogant POS though.
Sometimes I think, people assume because you’re filthy rich that also means you’re smart. I really have seen no evidence of that, especially now that all these rich pricks are on display in our government. It’s proof positive it doesn’t take an Einstein to snooker people out of their money.
3 Likes
Trump makes this critique in the stupidiest way, but it is an accurate point. Europe under spends on defense, essentially relying on a US military umbrella.
Here is an article about Obama making a similar point.
I remember during the Libyan war, NATO allies were begging the US to support them because they couldn’t continue the air war effectively without American equipment. Regardless of how much they are spending, that would indicate either lack of necessary resources or misspent money if they can’t maintain an air assault so close to Europe against a country so lacking in a modern military.
I know that charts which compare US and Europe spending to countries like Russia and China are usually a little misleading, as costs are so much lower in those countries that they get much more bang for their military buck.
Trump made the point badly, but it is a fair point.
In this case, the message was not in anything he said–Trump is not to believed about anything. Parsing lies as if they were truths is giving credence to Trump.
I refuse to do that.
Trump delivered his message the day after a purposeful show of disdain and misogyny at his press conference with Angela Merkel. This was a Daily Double for Trump.He showed his contempt for a woman, while also demonstrating that he can snub an ally. At this point, I’m not sure who that is supposed to impress.
To Merkel, his vulgar tweets must have sounded like Trump was renegotiating the Marshall Plan. I feel that we have violated a tradition in our foreign affairs of civility toward foreign States and representation of the country by serious people, even when they were not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Trump should not confuse Merkel with Theresa May, a minor leaguer. Merkel is an East German academic with a PhD in Physical Chemistry, from a country with anti-Fascism that has been institutionalized since WW II.
The German Chancellor, born in 1954, came to get a firsthand look at the Fascist in the White House. She grew up in a country destroyed by a madman and his circle.
Trump obliged by showing himself to Merkel without a filter. Whatever happens from now on, Merkel knows what she is dealing with.
4 Likes
I’d say he’s been losing since practically the day after he was (s)elected by the electoral college.
4 Likes
I know. When does the winning start?
I think you are being disingenious about this. Germany has been involved in two world wars in the last 100 years and a German Rearmanent would be regarded by many (both Nations and people in Europe, including the UK) with distaste.
Another thing is that much of Europes defense-expenses goes to buying US equipment (latest case: the F-35, which I personally see as a bad choice Denmark, I would have preferred the F-18 Super Hornet, for those type of operations ,Denmark participate in these days (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria) , which the F-16 (another US-plane) is il-equipped for. It was bougth for the defense of the Danish territory, which is pretty small, so a small single-engine fighter fit the bill perfectly).
Indeed. You obviously haven’t comprehended the Guardian’s story.
If you’re of that opinion, and you acknowledge Germany is benefiting from NATO, then it’s not unreasonable that Germany should be subsidising the defence spending of other NATO countries from which it’s directly benefiting.
If Germany wanted to militarise, bitter experience shows they could do so exceptionally quickly, which means your argument lacks force: giving them what amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars of military subsidies now to NOT rearm will not stop them very quickly militarising in the future should they choose to.