Biden Presidency and the Consequences.

[alan5616]

Your point about a rigged election may have some traction. To me, Trump committed a crime against the people when he withdraw America's support from the Paris agreement. Only by tackling climate change can we hope to leave a world fit for human inhabitation

 

[J Livermore]

Only by tackling climate change can we hope to leave a world fit for human inhabitation

I agree with you that combating climate change is important but if you don’t combat population growth at the same time you are waging a losing war.

Look at it from a mathematical perspective. If we lowered the amount of pollution that each person emitted by 50%, it would be something to celebrate, right? Not so fast. If Earth’s population were to double (like it always has so far) then the environment would be at "break even" again, not a “profit”. Then, if the population were to increase beyond a double (which nothing seems to be able to stop) then the environment is in the "loss" column all over again.

Another thing to consider is the increasing wealth of poor people the world over. They have a growing use of cell phones, the internet and businesses because they don’t want to be poor forever. They want a lifestyle similar to the US, western Europe, Japan, ect. How are we going to manage the environment in the future if poor people the world over start pulling themselves out of poverty (and achieve a high lifestyle) if we don’t lower the world’s birth rate? I hope you don’t advocate keeping the third world citizens poor do you? Everybody deserves prosperity but if we don’t cut the world’s population, pollution is going to go from bad to worse in a rather short period of time.

 

[tomorton]

It doesn't really matter who the US President is, nor which party he represents. America is controlled by the "deep state", which is a cabal of the CIA, FBI, armaments companies, banks and international corporations.

This is a well known conspiracy theory.

A thing which puzzles me about conspiracy theories is that they remain strongly held beliefs, despite the lack of evidence. So if lack of evidence is not a barrier to strongly held beliefs, then surely all conspiracy theories should be held, not just one here or one there. Are there any conspiracy theories which you have looked at and dismissed?

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Deep state is a conspiracy theory but lobbies are a reality.

 

[Atilla]

I was listening to RT News and some of the accounts from US marines are quite interesting. They reported quite often that their commanders didn't know what they were supposed to be doing in Afghanistan and politicians give it a lot of spin.

The Afghan police and army could have continued doing the job the US military did with much fewer troops as long as they had US presence and air support.

One then has to consider that the US has a big army and it's difficult to keep marines busy. If not in Afghanistan then they'd be somewhere else eating up US taxpayers money.

We should also not forget, the US were bombing every hunch and rumour including weddings and disguising civilian deaths as ISIS gatherings. They have a lot of blood of innocents on their hands.

All that death and destructions and now there is talk of ISIS-H and K and all sorts of faction labels to justify continued spending on defence.

Difficult to describe the whole sh!t show as nothing but shenanigans. So the question is, where will all the troops from Afghanistan be deployed next?

Now confirmed that the US as their leaving present, bombed an aid worker killing 10 people, 7 of which were children in White Toyota.

Freaky fecking hell. How can they get the intelligence so wrong? Bombing weddings, bombing camera men and now mistaking the loading of water into a car as weapons??? REALLY.

How were they able to mistake 7 children if they had been watching this vehicle for up to 8 hours before???

The car was bombed at a house. Not even en route to any place. Apparently this vehicle posed a threat.

Anyone who believes all this tosh and the TOTAL FUCKUPS of these highly trained men with ultra-high intelligence gotta have their freaking heads examined.

The guy is on telly saying he was responsible for those deaths. We are told US take all precautions to avoid civilian deaths indeed. REALLY??? The hell they do freaking cowboys. There needs to be accountability. Saying it was a mistake is b0ll0cks. Sooo many freaking mistakes.

Apparently over 47,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan. In contrast 2400+ US marines were killed with 20600+ wounded. What a tragic waste and total balls-up???

So sad.

I feel very sad too.

 

[alan5616]

The US is the biggest danger to the world. They are responsible for the deaths of millions, including civilians. Remember Saddam Hussein's WMDs, which were used as an excuse by George W Bush to invade Iraq? Those WMDs were never found and, according to UN weapons inspectors, never existed.

The only people to benefit from the war were the Kurds in the North and the Shia in the South. The rest of Iraq is still unstable. The other people to benefit, as they always do, were US weapons manufacturers and oil companies.

I once heard an interview with Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. The interviewer asked Greenspan whether the Iraq war was about oil. His response was "probably".

 

[Atilla]

The US is the biggest danger to the world. They are responsible for the deaths of millions, including civilians. Remember Saddam Hussein's WMDs, which were used as an excuse by George W Bush to invade Iraq? Those WMDs were never found and, according to UN weapons inspectors, never existed.

The only people to benefit from the war were the Kurds in the North and the Shia in the South. The rest of Iraq is still unstable. The other people to benefit, as they always do, were US weapons manufacturers and oil companies.

I once heard an interview with Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. The interviewer asked Greenspan whether the Iraq war was about oil. His response was "probably".

Yes in the 1990s states were planning oil running out in 30 years. Mosul and Kirkuk had the largest confirmed reserves other than Sauidi Arabia's reserves which were being disputed. Iran's were off the map because they've built their nuclear facilities around them.

Don't forget the dollar standard either! Saddam was selling oil in Euro and refusing Dollars. The Iraqi treasury was getting rich as the dollar fell and Euro climbed to be on par with the dollar. Other countries were considering selling oil in Euro too.

The unthinkable... Can you imagine? Shock horror.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Don't forget the dollar standard either! Saddam was selling oil in Euro and refusing Dollars. The Iraqi treasury was getting rich as the dollar fell and Euro climbed to be on par with the dollar. Other countries were considering selling oil in Euro too.

The unthinkable... Can you imagine? Shock horror.

Spot on!
That is the US biggest fear: dollar losing its magic status of world reserve currency.

 

[tomorton]

The US is the biggest danger to the world. They are responsible for the deaths of millions, including civilians. Remember Saddam Hussein's WMDs, which were used as an excuse by George W Bush to invade Iraq? Those WMDs were never found and, according to UN weapons inspectors, never existed.

The only people to benefit from the war were the Kurds in the North and the Shia in the South. The rest of Iraq is still unstable. The other people to benefit, as they always do, were US weapons manufacturers and oil companies.

I once heard an interview with Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. The interviewer asked Greenspan whether the Iraq war was about oil. His response was "probably".

What millions of deaths is the US responsible for?

 

[Atilla]

What millions of deaths is the US responsible for?

Vietnam war alone notches up about 2m. No idea why the US were fighting some French colonialism objective out in Asia?

Recent Iraq civilians deaths about 500+ K not to mention those tortured abused and left homeless and destitute.
Then there is the infant mortality and deformed babies as a consequences of US using uranium tipped bombs and bullets.

I won't list the all the civilian deaths in Latin America at the hands of fascist dictators sponsored by CIA in the name of keeping socialism and communism back, denying people the right to pick their democratic regimes.

Then there are wars started by US like encouraging Iraq to attack Iran. Iran / Iraq war deaths anything around 500K-3m. Never guess who gave the gas and technology to Sadam to halt Iranian offensives?

I do think we should include people in refugee status as a consequence of US actions too. What a life it must be living in war torn countries.

 

[J Livermore]

Vietnam war alone notches up about 2m. No idea why the US were fighting some French colonialism objective out in Asia?

Recent Iraq civilians deaths about 500+ K not to mention those tortured abused and left homeless and destitute.
Then there is the infant mortality and deformed babies as a consequences of US using uranium tipped bombs and bullets.

I won't list the all the civilian deaths in Latin America at the hands of fascist dictators sponsored by CIA in the name of keeping socialism and communism back, denying people the right to pick their democratic regimes.

Then there are wars started by US like encouraging Iraq to attack Iran. Iran / Iraq war deaths anything around 500K-3m. Never guess who gave the gas and technology to Sadam to halt Iranian offensives?

I do think we should include people in refugee status as a consequence of US actions too. What a life it must be living in war torn countries.

Atilla,

How do you feel about China and Taiwan? If China invades, do you recommend the US and its allies do nothing?

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,

How do you feel about China and Taiwan? If China invades, do you recommend the US and its allies do nothing?

Well it depends on the Taiwan people? It's their call on whether they want to fight and ask for help or not.

If they do ask for help, nothing in life is free. How will they pay? We can help by selling them weapons. I do not see why we should risk lives. I wouldn't want my children fighting for some other far away countries wars.

What do you suggest the US and it's allies (UK) do?

 

[J Livermore]

Well it depends on the Taiwan people? It's their call on whether they want to fight and ask for help or not.

If they do ask for help, nothing in life is free. How will they pay? We can help by selling them weapons. I do not see why we should risk lives. I wouldn't want my children fighting for some other far away countries wars.

What do you suggest the US and it's allies (UK) do?

If China does an air and sea blockade of Taiwan in the process of invading it with armies then it forces the US to choose between war or doing nothing. If you choose non-war every time China decides to get aggressive then China is free to gobble up the entire Pacific as long as it leaves US territories alone. It would be no different than what Japan did before it attacked Pearl Harbor

Australia, New Zealand and/or Japan too are extremely vulnerable without US intervention. Would you advocate staying out of it, if for instance, Australia were invaded? Australia has a tremendous amount of commodities that could fuel an expanding empire.

BTW, it wouldn’t be the UK alone with the US. Japan is not only patrolling Taiwan’s waters to help deter the Chinese (in violation of their post WW II constitution) but Japan is giving the most up to date military technology (at no charge) to Indonesia because both countries are growing very scared of China. Japan is rearming

Civilian leaders are always fighting the last war and don’t adapt well to the latest technology and/or tactics. Who knows, in Europe maybe Russia could come up with an electronic attack that could disable both Britain’s and France’s nuclear deterrence in a single surprise. Wouldn’t you want allies to come to your aid before the worst could possibly happen?

When colonizers go after large pieces of territory they do it piece by piece in small amounts. Do you think it was wrong for Britain to declare war when Germany invaded Poland in 1939?

 

[Atilla]

If China does an air and sea blockade of Taiwan in the process of invading it with armies then it forces the US to choose between war or doing nothing. If you choose non-war every time China decides to get aggressive then China is free to gobble up the entire Pacific as long as it leaves US territories alone. It would be no different than what Japan did before it attacked Pearl Harbor

Australia, New Zealand and/or Japan too are extremely vulnerable without US intervention. Would you advocate staying out of it, if for instance, Australia were invaded? Australia has a tremendous amount of commodities that could fuel an expanding empire.

BTW, it wouldn’t be the UK alone with the US. Japan is not only patrolling Taiwan’s waters to help deter the Chinese (in violation of their post WW II constitution) but Japan is giving the most up to date military technology (at no charge) to Indonesia because both countries are growing very scared of China. Japan is rearming

Civilian leaders are always fighting the last war and don’t adapt well to the latest technology and/or tactics. Who knows, in Europe maybe Russia could come up with an electronic attack that could disable both Britain’s and France’s nuclear deterrence in a single surprise. Wouldn’t you want allies to come to your aid before the worst could possibly happen?

When colonizers go after large pieces of territory they do it piece by piece in small amounts. Do you think it was wrong for Britain to declare war when Germany invaded Poland in 1939?

Why would the US go to war with China over Taiwan? What a crazy prospect to think two superpowers would go to all out war over a small country of 20m people. Super powers have proxy wars using other countries to fight their battles. It is crazy to have two superpowers face each other on all out war.

Don't see China being aggressive? They are merely jostling over resources in the Pacific. I'm sure the Asian tigers can work out their national interests without the US pushing theirs in other peoples faces. If they need help then they can ask.

imo - It is US who is offensive and aggressive, pushing their national interests on other countries.

I think you are running away with your self, bringing in Australia, New Zealand and Japan into the picture. Don't have time to discuss your wild IF theories. You then escalate the debate to Russia, UK and France nuclear capabilities. You bored of living are you?

Why would you try and justify US fighting China by using UK and Germany's power struggle for colonial resources and grievances? The 1st and 2nd WWars were purely the remnants of old colonial powers battling for resources and influence. Hopefully, one which will not be repeated. fwiw in the economic sense UK lost both world wars, losing its power and dominance. Germany lost too.

If you want to draw lessons, UK and Germany lost US and Russia won.

ATB.

 

[J Livermore]

Why would the US go to war with China over Taiwan? What a crazy prospect to think two superpowers would go to all out war over a small country of 20m people. Super powers have proxy wars using other countries to fight their battles. It is crazy to have two superpowers face each other on all out war.

Don't see China being aggressive? They are merely jostling over resources in the Pacific. I'm sure the Asian tigers can work out their national interests without the US pushing theirs in other peoples faces. If they need help then they can ask.

imo - It is US who is offensive and aggressive, pushing their national interests on other countries.

I think you are running away with your self, bringing in Australia, New Zealand and Japan into the picture. Don't have time to discuss your wild IF theories. You then escalate the debate to Russia, UK and France nuclear capabilities. You bored of living are you?

Why would you try and justify US fighting China by using UK and Germany's power struggle for colonial resources and grievances? The 1st and 2nd WWars were purely the remnants of old colonial powers battling for resources and influence. Hopefully, one which will not be repeated. fwiw in the economic sense UK lost both world wars, losing its power and dominance. Germany lost too.

If you want to draw lessons, UK and Germany lost US and Russia won.

ATB.

You are going to have a very hard time proving I said the US should have total war with China because I never said it. Re-read my post.

When the US fought China in the Korean War, did we send troops into their mainland? No, we attacked the Chinese in Korea itself and pushed them back to roughly the current border between the North and South.

The days of total war are indeed over and NO it doesn’t require total war to push an enemy out of newly conquered territory.

If China is just “jostling” over resources then why shouldn’t the Pacific nations go without a military like Tibet did? After all, China would never attack a defenseless nation would it?

By the way, what mind reading device are you using? Is it for sale at Walmart so I too can read all of China’s intentions, present and future, just like you?

 

[Atilla]

Send in troops to protect Taiwan at what cost of life? Vietnam and Afghanistan comes to mind. War, retreat, repeat. How will they pay or is this going to come out of US tax payers whilst war mongering defence contractors get rich? I suppose it is the history of humans to fight wars. Always willing gladiators in the pipeline to die fighting for their country in far away places. Much like Syria inviting the Russians to defend itself against US aggression and oil interest in the ME.

Maybe China can then send some troops to Latin American countries not happy with uncle sam and perhaps setup a base in Venezuela and Cuba too with some pointed ojects facing US mainland.

How far are you prepared to go?

Here you go. Enjoy all that you do.

 

[J Livermore]

Send in troops to protect Taiwan at what cost of life? Vietnam and Afghanistan comes to mind. War, retreat, repeat. How will they pay or is this going to come out of US tax payers whilst war mongering defence contractors get rich? I suppose it is the history of humans to fight wars. Always willing gladiators in the pipeline to die fighting for their country in far away places. Much like Syria inviting the Russians to defend itself against US aggression and oil interest in the ME.

Maybe China can then send some troops to Latin American countries not happy with uncle sam and perhaps setup a base in Venezuela and Cuba too with some pointed ojects facing US mainland.

How far are you prepared to go?

Here you go. Enjoy all that you do.
View attachment 306585

It most likely wouldn’t have to involve US troops. If China wanted to test the US by sending in an invading ground force into Taiwan, it would be like wearing a target on their uniforms for air power if we chose to respond.

The Taiwanese military isn’t as dumb as you think they are. They can call in airstrikes if we are willing to work with them.

As far as Vietnam goes, you never saw the former generals of the North Vietnamese Army being interviewed. A number of them publicly stated that had we bombed them as heavily as we did towards the end of the war, at the beginning instead, they would have been knocked out of the war within months. We didn’t fight to win. That was a civilian mistake. Not military.

Are you now going to come up with some excuse as to why the statements by the former North Vietnamese generals are wrong?

FWIW, I agree with you that there is too much war in the world. But showing weakness and allowing your friends and/or allies to get attacked is no way to accomplish deterrence.

 

[Atilla]

It most likely wouldn’t have to involve US troops. If China wanted to test the US by sending in an invading ground force into Taiwan, it would be like wearing a target on their uniforms for air power if we chose to respond.

The Taiwanese military isn’t as dumb as you think they are. They can call in airstrikes if we are willing to work with them.

As far as Vietnam goes, you never saw the former generals of the North Vietnamese Army being interviewed. A number of them publicly stated that had we bombed them as heavily as we did towards the end of the war, at the beginning instead, they would have been knocked out of the war within months. We didn’t fight to win. That was a civilian mistake. Not military.

Are you now going to come up with some excuse as to why the statements by the former North Vietnamese generals are wrong?

FWIW, I agree with you that there is too much war in the world. But showing weakness and allowing your friends and/or allies to get attacked is no way to accomplish deterrence.

I find your point of view astonishing and remarkably bloody minded.

Then we have Tomorton the man asking how many lives US had taken endorsing your suggestion that if at the start of the war (not forgetting the ridiculous unjust cause that it was to extend and support French colonialism over Vietnam) by bombing the Vietnamese heavily, as US did at the end somehow it would have won a victory. REALLY?

Why do you, think the outcome would have been any different to other nations who also fought and won against their cruel colonial masters? Many who were tortured enslaved raped and driven from their lands.

What makes you think the Vietnamese would have rolled over instead of being outraged to fight harder. What lessons do you think the French might draw from the bloody oppression, torture and killing of millions of Algerians. Millions of lives lost at great expense to maintain what exactly?

Of all the countries losing their old colonial domination, you two think the yanks could have "won" the Vietnam war if they only acted more ruthlessly. Civilian mistake you say? Not a military mistake? You really know your biscuits well don't you?

I assume you know how Ghandi defeated the British ending their glory days, despite not firing one bullet. The British soldiers firing and killing Indian civilians protesting for justice and freedom didn't get them very far did it? Are you suggesting if they went in harder and killed the whole crowd of protesting civilians led by Ghandi the outcome would have been victorious to Britain?

Finding you two with your scary thoughts most distasteful.

 

[J Livermore]

I find your point of view astonishing and remarkably bloody minded.

Then we have Tomorton the man asking how many lives US had taken endorsing your suggestion that if at the start of the war (not forgetting the ridiculous unjust cause that it was to extend and support French colonialism over Vietnam) by bombing the Vietnamese heavily, as US did at the end somehow it would have won a victory. REALLY?

Why do you, think the outcome would have been any different to other nations who also fought and won against their cruel colonial masters? Many who were tortured enslaved raped and driven from their lands.

What makes you think the Vietnamese would have rolled over instead of being outraged to fight harder. What lessons do you think the French might draw from the bloody oppression, torture and killing of millions of Algerians. Millions of lives lost at great expense to maintain what exactly?

Of all the countries losing their old colonial domination, you two think the yanks could have "won" the Vietnam war if they only acted more ruthlessly. Civilian mistake you say? Not a military mistake? You really know your biscuits well don't you?

I assume you know how Ghandi defeated the British ending their glory days, despite not firing one bullet. The British soldiers firing and killing Indian civilians protesting for justice and freedom didn't get them very far did it? Are you suggesting if they went in harder and killed the whole crowd of protesting civilians led by Ghandi the outcome would have been victorious to Britain?

Finding you two with your scary thoughts most distasteful.

Oh yea, Gandhi the wonderful. He was an admirer of Hitler until the horrors of National Socialism was brought to the public’s view. If only the poor sap had read the copies of Mein Kampf that circulated inside Germany and not the sanitized versions that were cleaned up and sold to a gullible public outside of Germany.

I just knew you would fly into an angry fit of denial when the retired NVA generals made their analysis of the past war known to their public. Especially since there are no more qualified people than they are to know North Vietnam’s military capabilities.

I would never advocate for US airpower to target civilians. There has never been a clean war in history and you are wrong by thinking all civilian deaths are avoidable. As technology advances we can greatly reduce it but perfection in any life endeavor is never achievable.

You are beginning to get unhinged bringing Algeria into the conversation.

Is someone, like the Russian government perhaps, funneling a little money into peoples’ bank accounts (like yours) to bad mouth western countries? It’s a shame if they are because you aren’t giving the Russians their money’s worth.

 

[timsk]

Sorry to butt in on your exchanges chaps but, back on the topic of the horror show known as the Biden Presidency, here's proof - if proof were needed - that Biden's flipped into a totalitarian bat shit crazy monster and become the absolute antithesis of the libertarian values of liberty and justice upon which the U.S. is built. Trump would never do this and those that thought he was evil and dangerous seriously need to reevaluate him in light of this senile old lunatic who appears to be driving the U.S. towards it's next civil war.

Biden Administration Plans to Increase Fines on Companies with Unvaccinated Employees​