And besides if we have a war against Russia and they start losing (we can't forget they don't give 2 flying flies to human life's) and finally we are able to move in their territory after countries like Poland are basically destroyed, they will fight with honor until we walk in Moscow? WW2 didn't teach any lesson to a lot of people I see.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
Nonsense. Neither NATO nor Russia would be willing to go to war with each other over Syria. And what exactly do you mean by a limited conventional war? Russian army is one of the best on the planet and I doubt European politicians would relish the prospect of explaining their electorate why it is a good idea to fight against Russians.
Last edited:
I do think that there's an element of 'first power to the crisis owns it', and the adversary will at most try to subversive counters. So I don't believe there's a threat strong enough to make the Russians leave Syria. But I don't think that 'owning' the crisis is necessarily a good thing, see Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Well, now that America is approaching oil self-sufficiency, it's hard to see what strategic interest it has in Syria or the rest of the Middle East at this point. It's in Europe's backyard and they still need the oil so, properly speaking, they should be dealing with it.
Probably too close to the Suez for comfort. Control that canal and you own the world's shipping. Even without oil, there's value there. Britain's last proper act as a world power was to presume upon US backing and try to take it back from the recent nationalist government (with the French and Israelis).
Also, it's natural for the US to want to rebuff any Russian opportunism in the region. If Assad were to win, backed heavily by Russia, then Russia becomes more powerful in the region. Not something the US would want.
The Moron has upset NBC, the channel The Apprentice is shown on.Another flip flop and another attack on American Businesses, wiping $3.5bn off their stock with one tweet. Is he shorting stocks?
and we are stupidly trading with them. they need us to buy their junk.
who else is going to buy them?
So what he took a phone call from Taiwan.
We have not provoked them militarily yet.
Thank you for proving my argument. That's why a no-fly zone will be accepted. And "Russian army is one of the best on the planet" : maybe, but no match for NATO . Neither technologically, nor economically. And the Russian are fully aware of this.
Like he saved face when Turkey shot one of his jets down?
You already did that over the summer sending a carrier group into the South China Sea.
That has been an on going back and forth. We have been talking to them to head off any further issues. And they did put it down to Trump's inexperience.
So are you saying we should provoke Russia with a no fly zone just so we can have a few more irons in the fire?
We are not talking to Russia. That is the problem.
It varies from state to state. Some just get a fine but I heard one of the Electora Colleges delegates from Michigan say, that all these people who are trying to convince him to not vote for Trump, should read the rules. If he was to vote for anyone other than Trump, they would just replace him with an alternative delegate who would vote for Trump. So you would have to check each of the 50 states to see what their rules are to answer your question.
I am the only one that does not have a problem with Trump talking tough to China? Somebody has to keep them in check or even tally Japan and South Korea will be under threat.
I'm saying Russia will back down if the US take a strong stance like Hillary proposed.
Keeping them in check and deliberately provoking them are very different things, installing THAAD in Japan/Korea is keeping them in check; questioning the so called one-China policy is going against decades of accepted behavior.
It is not a case of talking tough to them.
I don't think they should be dictating anything to us. In the long term the "One China" policy will happen. It suits both China and Taiwan for the time being to leave things as they are.
We are not going to war over Taiwan. Taking a phone call frrom Taiwan was unexpected is all. Think this has not been done by recent presidents. That was the issue.
Hillary is a neo-con idiot.
What reason do we have to provoke Russia? Syria?
send troops there?
I don't see anything wrong with the phone call, other than it revealed what a numpty Trump is.
It's not the call that's the problem, it's what he said afterwards.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/china-trump-one-china-reaction/
Removing al-Assad
You are mixing the parties here.
Assad being gone is not the issue. It is how we have been going about it that has been questioned. Because we are not willing to send troops, it has been suggested we are arming associates of ISIS and Al-Queda to do the fighting, the very same people we are fighting in Iraq. This has been mentionedd in various news reports. A no-fly zone brings us into direct conflict with Russia, with whom we have not been willing to talk. The 3 stooges, Hillary, Graham and Mccain may want this, but most others do not want another way to get into another useless war. Certainly not the American people.
China needs to pipe down. We are still happy to buy their junk and they are happy to sell it. That really is the core of our reelationship. And in the end they need us more than we need them. Nothing will come of this other than bluster.
Last edited:
Both political parties are agents for Corporations.
If you are talking about Hillary and Trump, yes Trump is a vacuum. But Hillary is no savy politician either. (her stupidity of the email server) She is a power hungry charlatan.
No, I mean neo-cons are Republicans.
And this is based on?
The contradiction from paragraph 1 to 2 is astounding. Isolationist in one, expansionist in the other.
There a logical reason for this? Or just a misunderstanding somewhere?
Holy shit. Can they be even more obvious than that?
I don't think that's right. I'm checking out the trades and there were very small sized trades (about $73k total) at 8:17 and 8:20, looks like buying because the price went up a bit, and all around the $259 level the stock had closed at on Friday.
If anyone did anything, they would've done it Friday. When there's no news around a stock (either quarterly results release or other) there is usually very very shallow volume before market opening at 9:30. You can'really build any positions then.
I wish this man were right, but I really don't think so.
This is the 1 year chart of LMT's share price. Kinda takes the spin off the twatter.
There was very little volume in the final minutes of LMT on Friday. Was in done in pre-market today ?
Like I said, I see $73k of trading before 8:26, at prices in line with Friday. Only once the tweet hit at did the volume pick up and the shares get pressured.
I also think the man's own picture is 'falsified'. He has 8:25 marked in the original chart he's using, but then he red arrows what is 8:26 and calls it 8:20.
There was also literally no trading between 8:20 and 8:26.
So...more fake news, then?
Donald Trump’s sharp contrast from Obama and Bush on Islam has serious implications
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-serious-implications/?utm_term=.d712ac5d34a2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-serious-implications/?utm_term=.d712ac5d34a2
I was a bit unsure about the lower scale myself, the same moment is labelled differently in the two pictures.
There's not much a country can do in those circumstances other than declare war. Since Turkey is a member of NATO the Russians had no choice but to take it on the chin.
It's much easier to defy a no fly order and keep your planes in the air. Then the onus is on NATO to fire the first shot.
That's exactly why the founding fathers created the electoral college. It's kind of an insurance net incase someone is elected who shouldn't have been. It's perfectly legal for an elector to not vote the way their state did.
He won what? The Electoral college? But the electoral college system hasn't concluded yet and lets be honest if he doesn't win the real vote (when all the electors actually vote), which is very unlikely but still, he hasn't won the electoral college or the popular vote, how can you say he has won in that case?
Actually when you defy a no-fly zone, it is much more justified for the one enforcing it to shoot you down. The actual shooting down that occurred was completely unprovoked. They would have had more grounds for some form of response.
The faithless elector stuff is pretty moot, if they don't get him 270 then it'll go to the House and the only thing you can count on with Ryan is he'll do whatever makes it easiest to slash welfare and taxes.
That is a Democratic spin. not restricted to any one party. She is simply a moderate Republican in the Democratic party.
Hillary has a lot in common with the other two.
no contradition.
China is exerting its influence over region it considers it has a right to.
Us not simply towing the line about taking a phone call is nothing. We are in discussion with them about South China.
Problem is we are not even talking to Russia.
- Status