Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Meanwhile, Trump wants to increase military spending, develop more nukes, and get nations like Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes as well. What does he need all that for if not war?
    What you just said doesn't really fit.

    The points Trump makes are that we negotiate poorly with other countries that result in us scaling back our nuclear program, paying them money, and providing for their defense.

    By arguing that we should allow long time allies to protect themselves =/= increasing military spending. The opposite actually. The nuclear discussion is pointless unless there is some new technology that would prevent an Armageddon should they be launched anyway.

    And if you want to see just how similar Trump and Hillary are in regards to Russia just read her real beliefs in her emails:



    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakushisai View Post

    Let's not forget the Americans were quite for the war, the polls back then showed that nearly 60% of the polled Americans supported both wars/interventions and felt that the USA was obligated to safeguard the world. If Hillary had voted against it, she would have still been burned over it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    So a politician should not have beliefs of their own and should only ever bend to the will of popular opinion at the time? Bernie Sanders didn't support the wars in the middle east and seemed fine. It just took a little dignity and courage.

  2. #22
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Meanwhile, Trump wants to increase military spending, develop more nukes, and get nations like Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes as well. What does he need all that for if not war?
    It's funny because he said that American military is outdated. It just really shows how little he knows and how clueless he is over the little that he does know.

    I'm fairly sure the USA military has been working on advanced bombs, whether it's nuclear or not, doesn't matter. They'd always be obligated to deny it, to either prevent extra tension from building up, or to keep it a joker card when things go really bad, to tip the conflict into their own favor.

    Saudi Arabia might have nukes, the USA has Israel in that region, so they wouldn't even dare to do anything, because their fate would be sealed easily.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by badzerath View Post
    What you just said doesn't really fit.

    The points Trump makes are that we negotiate poorly with other countries that result in us scaling back our nuclear program, paying them money, and providing for their defense.

    By arguing that we should allow long time allies to protect themselves =/= increasing military spending. The opposite actually. The nuclear discussion is pointless unless there is some new technology that would prevent an Armageddon should they be launched anyway.

    And if you want to see just how similar Trump and Hillary are in regards to Russia just read her real beliefs in her emails:



    - - - Updated - - -



    So a politician should not have beliefs of their own and should only ever bend to the will of popular opinion at the time? Bernie Sanders didn't support the wars in the middle east and seemed fine. It just took a little dignity and courage.
    No she voted for what she thought was best, so be it. The outcome is always going to be either good or bad. It was a bad outcome but that's politics, you can't always make the winning decision in the end. If I had to vote for it, I would have voted in favor too, but I would have handled the aftermath differently.

    And the funding you say that cripples American military spending is bullshit, it's less than 1 percent of your GDP. That's not going to cripple anything. Yes other countries could and should contribute more, and they are, and no that's not Trump's achievement, they started negotiating about it in 2010, and they came to an agreement in 2014. And yes I know about this, because my country is one of them that is paying bigger contributions to NATO since 2014 (it was around a 25% increase).

    If your military has R&D issues related to budget, then it's because they are spending their budget inefficiently. The american military budget is huge, and even if they had next gen weapons, they would still not talk about it, simply because of strategic reasons, only idiotic countries like Russia and North Korea would do that, because they simply bluff to make themselves seem better than what they are, and because at the same time it protects them from a possible conflicts, due to other nations thinking they might be to hard to defeat.
    Last edited by mmoc925aeb179c; 2016-10-29 at 12:21 AM.

  3. #23
    Moderator Crissi's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    32,144
    Keep this crap in the megathreads please

    Closing

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •