Politics

[Tanks]

NO! We should keep our promises (just not be suckers) and it does matter that we are moral.

Well, Trump already said Article 5 of NATO was conditional and not set in stone (guess, depends on who sucks up to him) and we do not even have a similar treaty with Japan, Taiwan, or Philippines.

I am sure China can come up with a promise of a trade agreement in return of us turning a blind eye to their invasion of Taiwan.

Speaking of being moral, I'd submit Trump is the most immoral President we have ever had. Morality, decency and character are considered weaknesses by him and his sycophants.

 

[Brent in Az]

Well, Trump already said Article 5 of NATO was conditional and not set in stone (guess, depends on who sucks up to him) and we do not even have a similar treaty with Japan, Taiwan, or Philippines.

I am sure China can come up with a promise of a trade agreement in return of us turning a blind eye to their invasion of Taiwan.

Speaking of being moral, I'd submit Trump is the most immoral President we have ever had. Morality, decency and character are considered weaknesses by him and his sycophants.

Look on the bright side. Trump isn't charging you rent.

 

[Brent in Az]

EPA administrator is cancelling a $2 billion dollar grant linked to Stacey Abrams and the climate change goon squad.

 

[WAB]

You know I have great respect for you, but I do not believe it is possible for me to fully articulate what a complete misreading of history those statements represent.

For eighty years the United States has protected its national interests in Europe and beyond through the Atlantic Alliance. Neither the organization nor any dollar we have committed to our defense establishment has represented an iota of altruism or paternalism, but has had everything to do with assuring we will not again have to make the sacrifices we made in the Second World War. The very success of those investments are now being used by a new generation of isolationists to condemn that commitment to European stability. They have been wrong whenever they have exerted political power, and they are just as wrong today.

Moreover, I assure you, far from every voter who cast ballot a for Trump is comfortable with the current direction of his administration's foreign policy decisions.

I will add that I do not think it is a fair characterization of international response. Agree with him or not, our former president committed us to a posture of support. Nations made plans based on this, plans that are not easily changed, and when changed may come at significant human cost. I think they are absolutely correct to question our trustworthiness. Their trust will not be so easily given next time.

 

[Brent in Az]

The usual leftist crybabies calling for Hegseth's resignation. The same suspect's that didn't bat an eye over Biden's catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

[Red Leg]

I will add that I do not think it is a fair characterization of international response. Agree with him or not, our former president committed us to a posture of support. Nations made plans based on this, plans that are not easily changed, and when changed may come at significant human cost. I think they are absolutely correct to question our trustworthiness. Their trust will not be so easily given next time.

What is truly depressing is that the neo-isolationist crowd apparently does not believe our traditional partners' views of our trustworthiness is of the least importance. Since the founding, our national prosperity has been built upon a foundation of accessible markets and international trade. I am not sure if it is the height of national hubris or ignorance to believe that is no longer the case.

 

[Wheels]

You know I have great respect for you, but I do not believe it is possible for me to fully articulate what a complete misreading of history those statements represent.

For eighty years the United States has protected its national interests in Europe and beyond through the Atlantic Alliance. Neither the organization nor any dollar we have committed to our defense establishment has represented an iota of altruism or paternalism, but has had everything to do with assuring we will not again have to make the sacrifices we made in the Second World War. The very success of those investments are now being used by a new generation of isolationists to condemn that commitment to European stability. They have been wrong whenever they have exerted political power, and they are just as wrong today.

Moreover, I assure you, far from every voter who cast ballot a for Trump is comfortable with the current direction of his administration's foreign policy decisions.

I agree with you that America's protection of Europe post WWII was in America's self interest. The Marshall Plan and other economic subsidies in their various forms, at least initially were in America's self interest to help get Western Europe back on their feet.

No healthy relationship should be unbalanced in perpetuity or it is not a healthy relationship. At the moment America is broke and indebt to the detriment of America's children and grandchildren. The American public voted to get their house in order first and foremost. There are definitely voters who voted for Trump that are not happy with his foreign policy, but all voters knew where Trump stood on the issue before voting and shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

What is truly depressing is that the neo-isolationist crowd apparently does not believe our traditional partners' views of our trustworthiness is of the least importance. Since the founding, our national prosperity has been built upon a foundation of accessible markets and international trade. I am not sure if it is the height of national hubris or ignorance to believe that is no longer the case.

"hubris or ignorance"

Well, Trump has both soooo...

 

[Red Leg]

I agree with you that America's protection of Europe post WWII was in America's self interest. The Marshall Plan and other economic subsidies in their various forms, at least initially were in America's self interest to help get Western Europe back on their feet.

No healthy relationship should be unbalanced in perpetuity or it is not a healthy relationship. At the moment America is broke and indebt to the detriment of America's children and grandchildren. The American public voted to get their house in order first and foremost. There are definitely voters who voted for Trump that are not happy with his foreign policy, but all voters knew where Trump stood on the issue before voting and shouldn't be surprised.

This has absolutely nothing to do with relationships balanced or otherwise. This has everything to do with protecting our national interests in Europe. I would argue those interests are at least as important now as they were in 1948. I am all for Trump pushing the Europeans to spend more on their collective defense. But whether they contribute anything at all, our interests are in no way changed because of those commitments. Breaking that collective effort, one we created, serves no one's interests but our adversaries.

I regrettably am forced to admit that I could not bring myself to believe that this President was either this clueless about or this beholding to our principal Euro-Asian adversary. I am quickly being disabused of that hopeful notion.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

This has absolutely nothing to do with relationships balanced or otherwise. This has everything to do with protecting our national interests in Europe. I would argue those interests are at least as important now as they were in 1948. I am all for Trump pushing the Europeans to spend more on their collective defense. But whether they spend more or less, our interests are in no way changed because of those commitments. Breaking that collective effort, one we created, serves no one's interests but our adversaries.

I regrettably am forced to admit that I could not bring myself to believe that this President was either this clueless about or this beholding to our principal Euro-Asian adversary.

So how would you expect Trump to be successful in getting the Europeans to live up to their NATO commitments, asking "Pretty please?" A kick in the ass was required after all of these years.

 

[C.W. Richter]

I hear, even sympathize with the "those pieces argument," but when a middle class family is facing $150,000 in credit card and auto debt, cutting the children's school supplies is not a fiduciarily meaningful or intelligent place to start reducing the family's obligations.

How much are we "spending" on Europe's defense? If you have a number in mind, explain how you reach it. No nation contributes to a NATO budget. There is an agreement among the members of the alliance that each will commit 2% of their GDP to their defense budget. Currently, 23 of 32 member nations meet or exceed that goal. This is the highest number since the commitment goal was established in 2014 (with ten years to reach it). We have Mr. Putin to thank for that increase, not Donald Trump.

However, the simple truth is that should Europe never reach its commitments as a whole or should every nation exceed them, neither will have a meaningful impact on US force structure. Europe, regardless what JD Vance or Tucker Carlson would like to believe, will remain a critical area of US national interest, and we must be prepared to carry out unilateral military operations in that theater. Increased European capability would have the effect of allowing us to redirect resources toward the Pacific and that is a reasonable goal for encouraging greater European defense commitments. But not one penny of that affects Europe's place in our hierarchy of national interests.

"From my perspective, and I'm not alone here, the best thing for world security and US security is to get our fiscal house in order and get this debt reduced greatly or eliminated. That puts us in a position of power, what we have now is a position of weakness"

While laudable, due to all those pesky and irrefutable international economic truths, we do not have the luxury of running away from the world while we balance our checkbook. We have to continue to protect the one while we do the other. With respect to Europe, ceding Russia a victory in Ukraine and dismantling the Atlantic Alliance would be one of the worst possible strategic options available to us.

I'm on-board with this, especially as the IRS is upon its sunset! LOL A war on American soil could be more interesting. I don't want taxes or wars. I want to settle back into a more free, financially flexible USA (that I've missed dearly since 2019 and 2007 prior.) Sink or Swim. We don't owe the big, fat gov't a penny. Time for Jenny Craig. The rest is BS in papers...Pretty soon DJT/Vance will say..."you get 3-square, water, a movie and daycare." That's It. And, We the People are OK with that as wars-for-profit, orchestrated-by-politics wars, et. al. are Total Bullshit. No Offense (not the way R. Dangerfield meant it!) lol Dad, Grandpop, G. Grandpop, GG. Grandfather were military-and Dad explained "it doesn't make it Right!" LOL and, I cleaned up WWI & II at work so far, Korea/VN is almost done/Iraq-Gulf are still lawsuits waiting to happen...($Bs out the door-STILL GOING-NOT just in the USA). Again, Total BS for profit! Big Pharma's ALL over my military friends. ALL OVER $$$$$$. Again, Total BS! If they just want to keep the money going, go blow up Russia/China and a few SA countries. LOL But do it more quickly and efficiently than big, tired old swampy ltd. education gov't. sad truth. Point to ponder...the Brits took China first with Opium and then superior firepower (Cannons.) Sound familiar? It can be done again...xie xie. wan an. lol

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

I'm on-board with this, especially as the IRS is upon its sunset! LOL A war on American soil could be more interesting. I don't want taxes or wars. I want to settle back into a more free, financially flexible USA (that I've missed dearly since 2019 and 2007 prior.) Sink or Swim. We don't owe the big, fat gov't a penny. Time for Jenny Craig. The rest is BS in papers...Pretty soon DJT/Vance will say..."you get 3-square, water, a movie and daycare." That's It. And, We the People are OK with that as wars-for-profit, orchestrated-by-politics wars, et. al. are Total Bullshit. No Offense (not the way R. Dangerfield meant it!) lol Dad, Grandpop, G. Grandpop, GG. Grandfather were military-and Dad explained "it doesn't make it Right!" LOL and, I cleaned up WWI & II at work so far, Korea/VN is almost done...($Bs out the door-STILL GOING-NOT just in the USA). Again, Total BS for profit! Big Pharma's ALL over my military friends. ALL OVER $$$$$$. Again, Total BS! If they just want to keep the money going, go blow up Russia/China and a few SA countries. LOL But do it more quickly and efficiently than big, tired old swampy ltd. education gov't. sad truth. Point to ponder...the Brits took China first with Opium and then superior firepower (Cannons.) Sound familiar? It can be done again...xie xie. wan an. lol

Are you sniffing glue?

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

I'm on-board with this, especially as the IRS is upon its sunset! LOL A war on American soil could be more interesting. I don't want taxes or wars. I want to settle back into a more free, financially flexible USA (that I've missed dearly since 2019 and 2007 prior.) Sink or Swim. We don't owe the big, fat gov't a penny. Time for Jenny Craig. The rest is BS in papers...Pretty soon DJT/Vance will say..."you get 3-square, water, a movie and daycare." That's It. And, We the People are OK with that as wars-for-profit, orchestrated-by-politics wars, et. al. are Total Bullshit. No Offense (not the way R. Dangerfield meant it!) lol Dad, Grandpop, G. Grandpop, GG. Grandfather were military-and Dad explained "it doesn't make it Right!" LOL and, I cleaned up WWI & II at work so far, Korea/VN is almost done/Iraq-Gulf are still lawsuits waiting to happen...($Bs out the door-STILL GOING-NOT just in the USA). Again, Total BS for profit! Big Pharma's ALL over my military friends. ALL OVER $$$$$$. Again, Total BS! If they just want to keep the money going, go blow up Russia/China and a few SA countries. LOL But do it more quickly and efficiently than big, tired old swampy ltd. education gov't. sad truth. Point to ponder...the Brits took China first with Opium and then superior firepower (Cannons.) Sound familiar? It can be done again...xie xie. wan an. lol

The one constant good to come out of war post ww2 was the absence of it on North American soil. 9/11 while a great tragedy was a sucker punch of a terror attack and not a military action.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

A pretty interesting point raised in this video by poilievre.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Another interesting piece of information

Mark Carney Confirms Trudeau’s Gun Confiscations Will Continue

In the French-language Liberal leadership debate held on DATE, Mark Carney confirmed that if he becomes Liberal leader and Canada’s unelected Prime Minister, he will push Trudeau’s Firearms Confiscation Compensation Scheme even harder. “We have to have a buyback program for firearms.”[i] He then...

cssa-cila.org

 

[LivingTheDream]

No healthy relationship should be unbalanced in perpetuity or it is not a healthy relationship.

I think this is the heart of the matter. It might be in our national interest, and we did make commitments but it seems to me honoring of those commitments has been one sided. Most NATO nations didn't honor their commitment to defense spending, they have unfair trade practices and the moment Trump calls them out on it he is considered untrustworthy.

Meanwhile Europe says Trump is Putins puppet, and they laugh when he said to stop buying your energy from Russia. As they send billions to Ukraine, they buy billions of Russian energy. Yet European leaders lecture the US. It seems insane to me.

With all that being said Trump needs to keep Nordstream offline, if Russia wants that gas flowing again they need to withdraw to 2022 boundaries. I have no idea what he is doing from a negotiating standpoint. But it doesn't seem to be working.

I needed to edit: after 9/11 many nations did honor Article 5 and that should be noted and commended, they stepped up when the time came.

 

[rigbymauser]

For the past 80 years America has provided military protection for Europe and Europe has not come close to paying for the cost.

For the past 80 years Europe has excluded American products with tariffs, VAT, etc.

This is not close to benefits flowing both ways in any form of equality.

Removing an 80 year old child from the American tax payers teat is not throwing them under the bus. It is kicking them out of the house to be responsible for themselves 60 years late and living with the insufferable temper tantrum that goes with it.

What has the cost been for for america for having US troopers in europe?.

 

[Scott CWO]

Yes, but we didn't want to buy the expensive, environmentally harmful fracking gas from the USA and build the terminals for it either.

This has got to be the most foolish thing that you have ever posted on AH and that is saying something! You need to educate your self on fracking and the environmental hoops that oil companies have to jump through in the USA compared to Russia. You really have to expand your sources of information. You have been brainwashed.

 

[Scott CWO]

Zelensky according to Fox is saying Putin is sick and not long for this world.

Wouldn't it be great if someone poisoned him for a change?! Or, the bars were removed from the windows of his office so he could fall out while trying to get some fresh air? One can only hope...

 

[fourfive8]

For the past 80 years America has provided military protection for Europe and Europe has not come close to paying for the cost.

For the past 80 years Europe has excluded American products with tariffs, VAT, etc.

This is not close to benefits flowing both ways in any form of equality.

Removing an 80 year old child from the American tax payers teat is not throwing them under the bus. It is kicking them out of the house to be responsible for themselves 60 years late and living with the insufferable temper tantrum that goes with it.

Beat me to it. Took the words out of my mouth!