On the Nature of Things | Forum

manolo wrote:.

Folks,

This link gives a clear account of President Obama's achievements in office. This is a record which is hard to argue with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence- ... 51392.html

Climate change policy for the first time, venomous relations with Iran and Cuba cooled, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Affordable Care Act. Finally, the most memorable of Obama's achievements has been lifting America out of the ditch, and the Republican efforts to make him fail – failed.

The greatest president since FDR.

Alex.

.

seconded


Said many times, Obama the smartest, most intelligent, President America had since long long time


.

Heracleum Persicum wrote:

manolo wrote:.

Folks,

This link gives a clear account of President Obama's achievements in office. This is a record which is hard to argue with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence- ... 51392.html

Climate change policy for the first time, venomous relations with Iran and Cuba cooled, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Affordable Care Act. Finally, the most memorable of Obama's achievements has been lifting America out of the ditch, and the Republican efforts to make him fail – failed.

The greatest president since FDR.

Alex.

.

seconded


Said many times, Obama the smartest, most intelligent, President America had since long long time


.

Three years ago Obama told Medvedev that he would be free to act to eliminate Nuclear weapons after he was re-elected
4JpPU-SwcbE
Now Obama is making plans to restart the cold war

https://audioboom.com/boos/4139013-nato ... accord-com

Are you missing Dubya yet?

Nope.

Doc wrote: . . .

Are you missing Dubya yet?

Less than I miss an outbreak of Ebola.

So you feel that smart micro nuclear weapons intended to be used in a conventional war are a good thing? Or is it just still all bush's fault?

Doc wrote:So you feel that smart micro nuclear weapons intended to be used in a conventional war are a good thing? Or is it just still all bush's fault?

It's Clintonbushobama's fault.

YMix wrote:

Doc wrote:So you feel that smart micro nuclear weapons intended to be used in a conventional war are a good thing? Or is it just still all bush's fault?

It's Clintonbushobama's fault.

Obama is also planning to spend $385 billion to improve the defense of Europe from Putin. Is Europe really worth that much to the US?

I have no idea.

YMix wrote:I have no idea.

Of course 400 billion is worth it for the United States. I imagine it's on the cheap side- Europe is a cheap date.

This has bad idea written all over it.

I just wonder how much of it is inevitably linked to the fact that the people in charge have no memory of the Second World War.

maybe the cold war didnt stop and russia just needed a timeout.

for all the lavender people give the merkin millitary complex its not like pooty poot and his gang are built of any different materials.

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:This has bad idea written all over it.

Frankly, if your people spent the 400 billion on building Eastern Europe's infrastructure and eliminating corruption (physically if necessary), it would make the region more secure and, at the same time, increase your country's prestige immensely. Ten years from now, the Russians would be crossing the border to become Ukraine's cheap labor.

noddy wrote:maybe the cold war didnt stop and russia just needed a timeout.

for all the lavender people give the merkin millitary complex its not like pooty poot is built of any different materials.

that's certainly a way of examining it too.

YMix wrote:

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:This has bad idea written all over it.

Frankly, if your people spent the 400 billion on building Eastern Europe's infrastructure and eliminating corruption (physically if necessary), it would make the region more secure and, at the same time, increase your country's prestige immensely. Ten years from now, the Russians would be crossing the border to become Ukraine's cheap labor.

Now, I have people?

Would Eastern Europe really want us physically eliminating corruption? That sounds like the start of another fun war.

But yes, frankness- if I had my druthers, I'd probably wouldn't be keen on spending anything anywhere. That's my gut and I'm a cheapskate.

The way the map is drawn and by the rules of the current game, spending 400 billion on keeping "Europe" (Western Europe, right?) in the Anglo-American sphere of influence is small potatoes. No one is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts now.

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:

YMix wrote:

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:This has bad idea written all over it.

Frankly, if your people spent the 400 billion on building Eastern Europe's infrastructure and eliminating corruption (physically if necessary), it would make the region more secure and, at the same time, increase your country's prestige immensely. Ten years from now, the Russians would be crossing the border to become Ukraine's cheap labor.

Now, I have people?

Would Eastern Europe really want us physically eliminating corruption? That sounds like the start of another fun war.

nar, you just need to hire a local consultant to point out which ones need shooting.

i hear ymix has reasonable rates.

And I can put together a comprehensive list.

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:But yes, frankness- if I had my druthers, I'd probably wouldn't be keen on spending anything anywhere. That's my gut and I'm a cheapskate.

Well, the money would obviously be better spent at home, improving your own country.

YMix wrote:

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:But yes, frankness- if I had my druthers, I'd probably wouldn't be keen on spending anything anywhere. That's my gut and I'm a cheapskate.

Well, the money would obviously be better spent at home, improving your own country.

We've obviously given up on that. Now we just go around like the neighbor with nothing to do, sticking our noses in through your window....if that neighbor had an arsenal of nuclear weaponry and a messanic complex. You know, the usual nosy neighbor.

You mean... like Russia?

YMix wrote:You mean... like Russia?

Isn't it, by old stereotypes, that Russians and Americans have a lot in common?

That's why we don't do so well together. Too similar. Difference is a spice of life!

Actually, they do.

YMix wrote:Actually, they do.

God help us all. If we couldn't laugh to the gallows, what use are we?

But the corruption you are talking about is no laughing matter. I just don't see asking outsiders to shoot your insiders helpful. Corruption is a pernicious thing which tends to swallow everyone from the inside. The new boss tends to learn from the old boss. So it's like asking for everyone to be shot.

On the bright side, there are good lampposts on every corner. And if you are in want of rope, we have plenty to spare.

Doc wrote:So you feel that smart micro nuclear weapons intended to be used in a conventional war are a good thing? Or is it just still all bush's fault?

"Micro nuclear weapons" are a dubious concept at best, from the scientific, the operational and the political point of view.

Doc wrote:Obama is also planning to spend $385 billion to improve the defense of Europe from Putin. Is Europe really worth that much to the US?

Europe, no.

However, the US military-industrial complex has been worth orders of magnitude more, maybe not to the American people, but to all US presidents no matter their political persuasion, ever since this fair guy warned about it:

8y06NSBBRtY

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Counting only "military"-tagged expenditures, America is presently spending a minimum of 35% of global military expenditures, which is three to four times as much as the next spender China.

The sum total of military expenditures of America + her allies is a minimum of 60% of global military expenditures, that is three & a half to five times as much as the sum total of China+Russia together.

Now total US defense expenditures include also other things like Veteran care, for a total of roughly 810 billion$ in FY 2016. So the actual difference between US and the next big spender is more like a x 4 to x 5 factor.

===> Given the actual military capabilities of the US' potential rivals, given the existence of US allies in Europe and Eastern Asia and their actual military capabilities, it would be possible to reduce US total defense expenditures by a minimum of one third, and possibly up to half, while keeping equivalent level of security.



Now, of course, special interests wouldn't be served. And which should get priority, special interests or a country's general interests?

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:But the corruption you are talking about is no laughing matter. I just don't see asking outsiders to shoot your insiders helpful. Corruption is a pernicious thing which tends to swallow everyone from the inside. The new boss tends to learn from the old boss. So it's like asking for everyone to be shot.

<sigh> I know, I know.