Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok agree but that doesn't mean that you increase the probability. It's like letting anyone in your house because you believe people are generally good people but all it takes is letting one bad one in.
Also people tend to move to communities with the same background. That one bad one may not do anything other than spew his rhetoric. We all know that all it takes is one bad apple for bad attitudes to spread.
That's what vetting is for, and by all accounts, it's largely working. Again, when dealing with people, you're never going to be 100% on anything. Even the most extreme of vetting can't be flawless because it doesn't take into account the possibility that someone isn't radicalized long after they're let in, and vetting can only be done on who people are up to that point in time. And it doesn't guarantee that natives don't do anything, either. It doesn't make sense to me to base policy on the expectation of absolute safety, because that just doesn't exist. Terrorism in the US is extremely low, both in total numbers and as a ratio to refugees/immigrants. Even in Europe, the events seem extreme only without context. Even if there were a few incidents a year that caused more than 100 deaths, the rate would remain far lower than most other threats, such as drunk driving deaths, lightning strikes, or just regular 'ole gun violence.
Clearly tiny Europe is incapable of defending itself from massive Russia:
European Union 509 Million People with a $16.31 Trillion GDP has nukes.
Russia 146 Million People with a $1.33 Trillion GDP has nukes.
We must subsidize the military expenses of Europe for another 72 years. It is a basic human right to have the US pay for your defense. Only if Hillary had won, we could have built more military bases in Europe to prop up local economies there while letting Europe relax its military spending so they can fund their healthcare more.
Additionally, I was perfectly fine with Obama doing bigger military arms deals with Saudi Arabia, selling to Yemen, letting assault rifles fall into the hands of murderous drug cartels, dumping free tax-payer funded weapons to every moderate rebel from power vacuums that he created in Libya to Syria that almost always end up being ISIS, Al Qaeda, or some similar group. But I am outraged that Trump may do the same sort of Obama stuff, because of 9-11 and his orange cheeto-skin. Am I right?
Quote:
Clearly tiny Europe is incapable of defending itself from massive Russia:
European Union 509 Million People with a $16.31 Trillion GDP has nukes.
Russia 146 Million People with a $1.33 Trillion GDP has nukes.
Europe has been our Allie and supported us through some of our Darkest hours....likewise we have
been their Friend and done the same. No matter stats.....Putin is not our Friend and cannot be
trusted.
Quote:
Putin is killing and causing chaos in Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, Georgia, and in his own country. He supports a very brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who indiscriminately drops barrel bombs on hospitals and residential neighborhoods.
The people they bomb, predominantly Sunnis, do not have proper political representation in their capital cities of Damascus and Baghdad. There is something profoundly wrong with this war that is causing millions to flee. And Putin, along with his allies in Iran, are at the epicenter of the most brutal tactics being used in those countries. My hope is that as our decent politicians and media representatives engage with the likes of Putin, they never forget that they are dealing with one of the world’s worst criminals. For all his calm talk and advice, we can never trust him.
OBVIOUS ADVICE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP - DON'T TRUST PUTIN
We're wondering which — over time — turns out to be the bigger bombshell development regarding Russia: Is it the forced resignation of President Donald Trump's national security adviser? Or Vladimir Putin's reported secret deployment of a menacing new cruise missile?
Granted, the first story is significant. There's a lot we still don't know about Michael Flynn's ouster Monday night. Flynn had to go, the White House said Tuesday afternoon, because he wasn't forthright about conversations he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. More about that below.
But whoa, that second story — the one literally about Russian bombshells — is also troubling. These missiles (medium-range, nuclear tipped) violate a long-standing treaty. The United States cannot allow an adversary to disregard a missile accord without paying a price. Otherwise, such agreements become worthless.
The New York Times, citing government sources, said Tuesday that Russia deployed a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The Arms Control Association called Russia's alleged move a breach of the U.S.-Russia architecture that helped halt the Cold War nuclear arms race. These Russian missiles were in development for years, and the focus of some mild protests by the Obama White House. Then in December, just after Trump's election, one battery of the missiles went active in Russia, the Times said.
Every White House administration faces early tests of its resolve. Ready or not, Trump is at risk of being outfoxed by Putin and needs to respond...
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE AT THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE Obvious advice for President Trump: Don't trust Putin - Chicago Tribune
So lets see Putin has violated arms deals, tried to hack into our computers, interfere into our election
process...and he is Ex-KGB and a ruthless Killer...so yeah, I can see where you might want to throw
all our closest allies under the bus and buddy up with Vlad.
Quote:
We must subsidize the military expenses of Europe for another 72 years. It is a basic human right to have the US pay for your defense. Only if Hillary had won, we could have built more military bases in Europe to prop up local economies there while letting Europe relax its military spending so they can fund their healthcare more.
The reason we have so many Military Bases in Europe, actually have more to do, with us wanting to
keep a Military Presence in the Region....we built them for our Benefit, not to necessarily to defend
Europe. And it is ridiculous to say that we are paying the entire amount for their defense.
Quote:
"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should," Trump told heads of NATO states assembled Thursday in Brussels. "Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."
It's not the first time Trump has suggested other NATO members have a debt to pay.
But NATO does not keep a running tab of what its members spend on defense. Treaty members target spending 2% of economic output on defense -- but that is merely a guideline.
NATO members spend money on their own defense. The funds they send to NATO directly account for less than 1% of overall defense spending by members of the alliance.
THE FACTS: Members of the alliance are not in arrears in their military spending. They are not in debt to the United States, or failing to meet a current standard, and Washington is not trying to collect anything, despite the president’s contention that they “owe massive amounts of money.†They merely committed in 2014 to work toward the goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024.
read more at... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ech/102236892/
Yes, the United States is a Military Superpower and we spend more than the rest of the whole world combined on Defense...unfortunately....so when you are dealing with percentages is it any wonder
our one or two percent is going to be more bloated than any one else's?
Quote:
President Trump Fails NATO
President Trump’s first NATO meeting was the moment to show that he would honor the example of his predecessors in leading a strong and unified alliance that has been and should remain the anchor of Western security. He failed. Instead of explicitly endorsing the mutual defense pledge at the heart of the alliance, Mr. Trump lectured the members for falling short on pledges to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic products on the military, much as he had hectored them on this subject during his presidential campaign. There were signs, too, that Mr. Trump and the allies remain at odds over Russia, which is deeply unsettling given mounting questions about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Mr. Trump has a point when he says the allies should increase their military budgets, which they have started to do, partly in response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine. But his obsession with the matter has reinforced the impression that he sees NATO as essentially a transactional arrangement, not as an indisputably important alliance that has kept the peace for 70 years and whose value cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Against this history, Mr. Trump’s repeated scolds are not just condescending but embarrassing.
What possesses him to treat America’s allies so badly? The NATO nations are mostly democracies with vibrant free markets that have helped America keep enemies at bay, including in Afghanistan. The question is made all the more pressing in view of Mr. Trump’s enthusiastic embrace of countless autocrats, among them Vladimir Putin of Russia and King Salman of Saudi Arabia, where he just paid a deferential visit and assured Sunni Arab leaders that “we are not here to lecture†despite their abominable records on human rights.
read more here
American experts have argued for years that Europeans can afford to have broader social programs that produce comfortable lives for their citizens partly because they spend so much less on militaries knowing they live under the security blanket of the United States. Overall, American military spending is 72 percent of the total spent by all 28 allies.But the vast bulk of increased American military spending since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks stemmed from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were instigated by the United States, not NATO. There is little indication that the United States would have spent less money in those wars if Belgium, Spain and Slovakia, for example, had spent more on their militaries.
Moreover, Mr. Trump has not argued that he wants to reduce American military spending. He has just proposed a 10 percent increase in the base defense budget.
Additionally, I was perfectly fine with Obama doing bigger military arms deals with Saudi Arabia, selling to Yemen, letting assault rifles fall into the hands of murderous drug cartels, dumping free tax-payer funded weapons to every moderate rebel from power vacuums that he created in Libya to Syria that almost always end up being ISIS, Al Qaeda, or some similar group. But I am outraged that Trump may do the same sort of Obama stuff, because of 9-11 and his orange cheeto-skin. Am I right?
Yes I know that Obama and other Presidents like Bush, etc. have sold arms to the Middle East before(...and that never ends well.) and NO I WAS NEVER PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.
Even though I may like the other Presidents it does not mean I support every little thing that they do.
It's never smart to sell a gun to someone who is probably eventually going to turn around and shoot with the said gun.
Quote:
Trump's Trip was a Catastrophe for U.S. - Europe Relations
Seven years after the end of the Second World War, on the 10th of March 1952, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the newly established Federal Republic of Germany received an astounding note from the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union offered to withdraw the troops that then occupied eastern Germany and to end its rule over the occupied zone. Germany would be reunited under a constitution that allowed the country freedom to choose its own social system. Germany would even be allowed to rebuild its military, and all Germans except those convicted of war crimes would regain their political rights. In return, the Allied troops in western Germany would also be withdrawn—and reunited Germany would be forbidden to join the new NATO alliance.
Historians have long debated whether the note represented a genuine offer or a cynical ploy. (Current consensus: ploy.) There’s no debate about what happened next. Determined to anchor Germany securely in the Western camp of nations, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer rebuffed the “Stalin note.†West Germany would enter NATO in 1955, build the European Union, and develop as an Atlanticist liberal democracy. The Soviets did not quit, however. Again and again through the Cold War they would probe for ways to split Germany from the West, and especially from the United States. They probably came closest in the early 1980s, when millions of Germans marched in the streets against NATO nuclear missile deployments.
But in the end … it didn’t work. The alliance held. The Soviet bid for dominance collapsed, as did the Soviet Union itself. Germany was reunited on Western terms: liberal and Atlanticist from the Moselle to the Oder. The deft diplomacy of President George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft over-mastered the objections of Moscow—and not just Moscow. “I love Germany so much that I am grateful there are two of them†went a quip usually attributed to the French novelist Francois Mauriac. For many in London and Paris, Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand very much included, the quip was no joke. Much of the present malfunctioning architecture of the European Union—including the lethal euro currency—originated in French demands for reassurance that reunification would lead to “a European Germany, not a German Europe.â€
Without the United States, German reunification would never have proceeded so smoothly or rapidly. That assistance is still gratefully remembered in Germany. But gratitude cuts only so much ice in international relations. When the U.S. tried to mobilize the European powers to manage the breakup of Yugoslavia, Germany balked at the risk. But it was the George W. Bush-Gerhard Schroeder split over the Iraq war in 2003 that definitively ended German deference to American leadership.
Since then, Germany has deferred less and less to the United States—and walked more and more its own path. Germans cheered candidate Obama in 2008, but German-U.S. relations if anything sank even lower under President Obama than under President Bush. Merkel ignored Obama’s pleas to reflate the German economy after the financial crisis of 2008 and the euro crisis of 2010. The Snowden revelations—including exaggerated claims that the United States had tapped Merkel’s ubiquitous personal cellphone—poisoned the mood even more deeply. In June 2014, Germany took the unprecedented step of expelling the senior U.S. intelligence officer in Berlin, even announcing the action over Twitter. (Never mind that it soon emerged that German intelligence had itself scooped up a Hillary Clinton phone call.) Here’s a link to an RT story gleefully—but accurately —noting that the percentage of Germans expressing trust in the United States had plunged from 76 percent after Obama’s election to 35 percent by 2014. Sixty percent of Germans characterized Edward Snowden as a hero. Whoever was elected president in 2016 would face quite a challenge renewing and rebuilding the German relationship. Trump has instead done further damage....
Here’s what’s really true: Donald Trump is doing damage to the deepest and most broadly agreed foreign-policy interests of the United States. He is doing so while people associated with his campaign are under suspicion of colluding with Vladimir Putin’s spy agencies to bring him to office. The situation is both ugly and dangerous. If it’s to be corrected, all Americans—eminent Republicans like Bob Corker above all—must at least correctly name it for what it is.
read the rest of this great article from the Atlantic here https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ermany/528429/
Hell, America can no longer trust America to defend America under Donald Trump. Effectively the man is a Russian Agent.
Oh, please ...you can't be serious. Really? What did Barrack Obama do to defend America? NOTHING! Trump has taken more steps to defend America in four months than Obama did in eight years! It started with a Constituitonal "travel ban" E.O. (which Courts, acting ex-Constitutionally, blocked), and a budget proposal that rebuilds our military, which Obama dismantled.
He also repealed some ridiculous Obama E.O's that put our men and women in combat at risk.
Can you itemize what he has not done to defend America?
That's what vetting is for, and by all accounts, it's largely working. Again, when dealing with people, you're never going to be 100% on anything. Even the most extreme of vetting can't be flawless because it doesn't take into account the possibility that someone isn't radicalized long after they're let in, and vetting can only be done on who people are up to that point in time. And it doesn't guarantee that natives don't do anything, either. It doesn't make sense to me to base policy on the expectation of absolute safety, because that just doesn't exist. Terrorism in the US is extremely low, both in total numbers and as a ratio to refugees/immigrants. Even in Europe, the events seem extreme only without context. Even if there were a few incidents a year that caused more than 100 deaths, the rate would remain far lower than most other threats, such as drunk driving deaths, lightning strikes, or just regular 'ole gun violence.
That's one messed up post. Impossible to vet with any sense of surety a Muslim wont terrorize once allowed into a western predominately Christian country. Terrorize means not only killing of innocents, it means rapings, gropings, beatings, intimidation, etc. Even if the immigrants themselves don't conduct a terrorists attack, it's possible their children or grandchildren will. This is about an ideology/religion that teaches them they can rape and kill non-Muslims. Any fair minded person should be able to see it's a bad idea to let them into your country. I doubt to the families of terrorist attack victims it seems like a small number.
Incorrect. He played you and everyone else who voted for him. He conned you into believing he would save us from the horrors that has befallen our country (whatever that was) and instead we have something far worse: the horrors of Trump, and we still have more than 3 1/2 years to go. Now he's spending all his time on the defensive, not the offensive. "Fake news! No comment! Now hiring (to replace the last person I fired.)"
1. Trump is correct to demand that Europe pay it's fair share for NATO.
2. Trump is also correct to give serious thought (& weigh the pros and cons) on whether NATO is an organization that the US should stay apart of. It might not be economically viable (or geo-politically necessary) anymore, since the threats of 1947 & 1987 are not the same threats of today.
3. The speech he made in Riyadh (and the possible coalition of Sunni moderate leaders there against Isis and other radical Shia groups) is more important than anything that was discussed with Merkel.
All of these facts were missed (or ignored) by the majority of the media & none of these thoughts or activities are "horrifying". They show that Trump indeed leads from the front & if the media talking heads (& CD anti-trump Political Posters) would stop setting setting their hair on fire, and stop screeching out the talking point of the day, they might have noticed this.
Geez, there were 50 pages of posts on him taking a golf cart half a mile (as opposed to walking with Merkel and two of her boy toys) & another 20 pages of his wife slapping his hand away. Good lord have any of you posters ever been married? Every married male who is reading this has experienced "The Silent Treatment" by his wife at least once every two months (so 6-10 times per year) for EVERY year of the damn marriage.
Taking a golf cart (to avoid Merkel...OR to save a few steps) or having an angry spouse (for ANY reason) is hardly newsworthy....except to the Hair on Fire p*ssys on the nanny state left. And telling Merkel to go pound sand is a legitimate option for any US president (or English Prime minister) and if he chooses to do so....it's certainly not "horrifying".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
