Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little manOf course the response is as vapid as the Candidate. The absence of specifics is there (again—as it’s always been).
You couldn’t post one so I don’t expect a list. But continue with the lie that you’re more than you are; it’s gotten Trump this far.
And nothing but more lies.
It always amazes me that lefties like your self can lie and lie and lie, and it never occurs to them, that if the Truth is not on their side, that that means that THEY are on the WRONG side.
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.
Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little manAnd nothing but more lies.
It always amazes me that lefties like your self can lie and lie and lie, and it never occurs to them, that if the Truth is not on their side, that that means that THEY are on the WRONG side.
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
No doubt you can draw from your extensive military expertise to describe what those potential threats are.I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
I have made no claim of extensive military expertise.
Good cuz you have none
Russians bombing in Syria........but no need to be concerned about Russian expansionism. Trump's so called foreign policy statements would seem to indicate a desire for a retreat of American power and influence from global affairs. So I guess your idea of "refocusing" our strategic position means going on the defensive, retreating into an isolationist bunker mentality. Maybe if we simply extricate ourselves from all international treaties and military agreements we can sit back watch as global destabilization leads to more regional conflicts and inevitably larger wars.Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
Russians bombing in Syria........but no need to be concerned about Russian expansionism. Trump's so called foreign policy statements would seem to indicate a desire for a retreat of American power and influence from global affairs. So I guess your idea of "refocusing" our strategic position means going on the defensive, retreating into an isolationist bunker mentality. Maybe if we simply extricate ourselves from all international treaties and military agreements we can sit back watch as global destabilization leads to more regional conflicts and inevitably larger wars.I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
You may have missed it; we’ve fought 2 wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan in the last 25 years.
NATO has been attacking terrorists. That Trump didn’t know that (and neither did you) is funny.
Drumpf was his name. It was changed for publicity reasons. It would seem you’d know more about your Messiah.
"Non interventionist"........otherwise known as "isolationist".Russians bombing in Syria........but no need to be concerned about Russian expansionism. Trump's so called foreign policy statements would seem to indicate a desire for a retreat of American power and influence from global affairs. So I guess your idea of "refocusing" our strategic position means going on the defensive, retreating into an isolationist bunker mentality. Maybe if we simply extricate ourselves from all international treaties and military agreements we can sit back watch as global destabilization leads to more regional conflicts and inevitably larger wars.I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
You see it as "Retreat".
I see it as "Non interventionalist".
It is one of the ways that Trump is, IMO, better than his rivals for the Republican Nomination.
"Non interventionist"........otherwise known as "isolationist".Russians bombing in Syria........but no need to be concerned about Russian expansionism. Trump's so called foreign policy statements would seem to indicate a desire for a retreat of American power and influence from global affairs. So I guess your idea of "refocusing" our strategic position means going on the defensive, retreating into an isolationist bunker mentality. Maybe if we simply extricate ourselves from all international treaties and military agreements we can sit back watch as global destabilization leads to more regional conflicts and inevitably larger wars.They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
You see it as "Retreat".
I see it as "Non interventionalist".
It is one of the ways that Trump is, IMO, better than his rivals for the Republican Nomination.
NATO has been our most successful alliance, one that has kept the peace for more than six decades.Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little manAnd nothing but more lies.
It always amazes me that lefties like your self can lie and lie and lie, and it never occurs to them, that if the Truth is not on their side, that that means that THEY are on the WRONG side.
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
NATO has been our most successful alliance, one that has kept the peace for more than six decades.Another detail free post of yours reinforces the truth of my posts. Thanks. Now run along little man
I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
It's not an either or proposition. We don't have the option of simply withdrawing from global affairs. We need a smart policy of active engagement that seeks to avoid global destabilization and more wars."Non interventionist"........otherwise known as "isolationist".Russians bombing in Syria........but no need to be concerned about Russian expansionism. Trump's so called foreign policy statements would seem to indicate a desire for a retreat of American power and influence from global affairs. So I guess your idea of "refocusing" our strategic position means going on the defensive, retreating into an isolationist bunker mentality. Maybe if we simply extricate ourselves from all international treaties and military agreements we can sit back watch as global destabilization leads to more regional conflicts and inevitably larger wars.Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
You see it as "Retreat".
I see it as "Non interventionalist".
It is one of the ways that Trump is, IMO, better than his rivals for the Republican Nomination.
So. Do you wish to argue that a more interventionalist foreign policy is superior to a non-interventionalists one, or do you want me to make MY case for avoiding wars?
Or do you just want to keep making snarky and information free comments?
Exactly.NATO has been our most successful alliance, one that has kept the peace for more than six decades.I've provided plenty of "details" which you have ignored.
I provided two very good examples of how your method of judging military strength by comparing budgets demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue.
I provided one good detailed example of how some of Trumps positions would lead to a stronger military.
YOu have ignored all of that and done nothing but lie.
I did see the two idiotic examples of cost control. They were about 20 light years from any relevance. There was no detailed example on how Trump would strengthen the military.
Wrong again
They were NOT about cost control. Neither of those costs can be avoided by the US military.
They are two examples of cost that inflate the US military budget without adding anything to US military Strength, relative to any local military forces that we might be fighting that will NOT have those costs.
Which showed that YOUR method of judging military strength ie budget comparisons is deeply flawed.
THe example I gave of ONE way that Trump has already communicated that he would use to strengthen the US military would be to address over extension, though focusing on real threats to US interests and thus increasing US military strength relative to the forces we would possibly be fighting.
Instead of our current posture to oppose the Soviet Red Army.
Thats our current posture? Earlier Drumpf was happy the Soviets err Russia was bombing Syria. Strange.
Seems as though the focus has been on fighting terrorism and not some hooey about the Red Army.
Irregardless, refocusing on what we've already been doing since 91 is, in no way a strengthening of the military dumbass.
Mmm, it kept the peace in EUROPE for 60 years.
Plenty of war elsewhere in the world.
It's not an either or proposition. We don't have the option of simply withdrawing from global affairs. We need a smart policy of active engagement that seeks to avoid global destabilization and more wars."Non interventionist"........otherwise known as "isolationist".Russians bombing in Syria........but no need to be concerned about Russian expansionism. Trump's so called foreign policy statements would seem to indicate a desire for a retreat of American power and influence from global affairs. So I guess your idea of "refocusing" our strategic position means going on the defensive, retreating into an isolationist bunker mentality. Maybe if we simply extricate ourselves from all international treaties and military agreements we can sit back watch as global destabilization leads to more regional conflicts and inevitably larger wars.We have been TALKING about refocusing our military, we haven't been DOING IT.
ACTUALLY refocusing, would be a strengthening of the US military.
And yes, NATO expansion shows that our Political Elite's mindset is still stuck back in the mid 80s.
Donald Trump was happy the RUssians were bombing Syria, not our government.
And for your pathetically childish making fun of Trump's name?
For you.
You see it as "Retreat".
I see it as "Non interventionalist".
It is one of the ways that Trump is, IMO, better than his rivals for the Republican Nomination.
So. Do you wish to argue that a more interventionalist foreign policy is superior to a non-interventionalists one, or do you want me to make MY case for avoiding wars?
Or do you just want to keep making snarky and information free comments?
I support the idea that the NATO alliance is inviolable.It's not an either or proposition. We don't have the option of simply withdrawing from global affairs. We need a smart policy of active engagement that seeks to avoid global destabilization and more wars."Non interventionist"........otherwise known as "isolationist".Russians bombing in Syria........but no need to be concerned about Russian expansionism. Trump's so called foreign policy statements would seem to indicate a desire for a retreat of American power and influence from global affairs. So I guess your idea of "refocusing" our strategic position means going on the defensive, retreating into an isolationist bunker mentality. Maybe if we simply extricate ourselves from all international treaties and military agreements we can sit back watch as global destabilization leads to more regional conflicts and inevitably larger wars.
You see it as "Retreat".
I see it as "Non interventionalist".
It is one of the ways that Trump is, IMO, better than his rivals for the Republican Nomination.
So. Do you wish to argue that a more interventionalist foreign policy is superior to a non-interventionalists one, or do you want me to make MY case for avoiding wars?
Or do you just want to keep making snarky and information free comments?
So, you support the idea of going to war with RUssia over Estonia, if the situation arises?
IMO, in such a situation, the cure, ie US/NATO involvement in a war against Russia, would be worse for the US and the World than the initial problem, ie a smaller war limited to just Estonia.
IMO, even if nukes are NOT used, it would take several years, and tens of thousands of US deaths to Liberate Estonia.
That does not seem to be smart to me, nor contribute to Global stability.
Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?
I support the idea that the NATO alliance is inviolable.It's not an either or proposition. We don't have the option of simply withdrawing from global affairs. We need a smart policy of active engagement that seeks to avoid global destabilization and more wars."Non interventionist"........otherwise known as "isolationist".You see it as "Retreat".
I see it as "Non interventionalist".
It is one of the ways that Trump is, IMO, better than his rivals for the Republican Nomination.
So. Do you wish to argue that a more interventionalist foreign policy is superior to a non-interventionalists one, or do you want me to make MY case for avoiding wars?
Or do you just want to keep making snarky and information free comments?
So, you support the idea of going to war with RUssia over Estonia, if the situation arises?
IMO, in such a situation, the cure, ie US/NATO involvement in a war against Russia, would be worse for the US and the World than the initial problem, ie a smaller war limited to just Estonia.
IMO, even if nukes are NOT used, it would take several years, and tens of thousands of US deaths to Liberate Estonia.
That does not seem to be smart to me, nor contribute to Global stability.
Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?
WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.
WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.
Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.
I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.
Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?
Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?
Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?
I happily await to see how you will support your position.
Will you argue the merits of YOURS?
Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?
The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?
WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.
WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.
Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.
I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.
Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?
Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?
Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?
I happily await to see how you will support your position.
Will you argue the merits of YOURS?
Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?
