Things You Thought Today - kurtster - Jul 18, 2018 - 5:39am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jul 18, 2018 - 4:47am
 
Trump - kurtster - Jul 18, 2018 - 4:12am
 
Avatars - SomersetBob - Jul 18, 2018 - 3:13am
 
Song Overlap on app on iPhone 5S - SomersetBob - Jul 18, 2018 - 3:06am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 17, 2018 - 9:02pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - oldviolin - Jul 17, 2018 - 8:12pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - lily34 - Jul 17, 2018 - 7:15pm
 
On this day: 1991, Freddie Mercury dies - Red_Dragon - Jul 17, 2018 - 7:13pm
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - Jul 17, 2018 - 5:56pm
 
I don't think they know what that word means... - Coaxial - Jul 17, 2018 - 1:19pm
 
Trade War - aflanigan - Jul 17, 2018 - 1:19pm
 
What makes you smile? - Coaxial - Jul 17, 2018 - 11:54am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - PoundPuppy - Jul 17, 2018 - 11:27am
 
Counting with Pictures - pigtail - Jul 17, 2018 - 9:46am
 
OUR CATS!! - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 17, 2018 - 7:37am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Jul 17, 2018 - 6:05am
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - Antigone - Jul 16, 2018 - 4:04pm
 
Happy 40th Anniversary, Queen! - haresfur - Jul 16, 2018 - 3:15pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - haresfur - Jul 16, 2018 - 3:05pm
 
What makes you angry? - haresfur - Jul 16, 2018 - 3:01pm
 
New Music - black321 - Jul 16, 2018 - 8:09am
 
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio... - haresfur - Jul 15, 2018 - 5:23pm
 
What are you listening to now? - islander - Jul 15, 2018 - 3:30pm
 
Republican Party - westslope - Jul 15, 2018 - 1:04pm
 
Guns - Steely_D - Jul 15, 2018 - 12:26pm
 
Free Mp3s - R_P - Jul 15, 2018 - 12:14pm
 
First World Problems - Red_Dragon - Jul 15, 2018 - 8:27am
 
The Image Post - SeriousLee - Jul 15, 2018 - 6:53am
 
Chromecast support please! - jarro - Jul 15, 2018 - 12:53am
 
Classical Music - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 14, 2018 - 11:34pm
 
The House I Want (Today) - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 14, 2018 - 11:05pm
 
Beer - sirdroseph - Jul 14, 2018 - 1:01pm
 
Home repair, maintenance, and other headaches - Alexandra - Jul 14, 2018 - 9:03am
 
What Makes You Sad? - Red_Dragon - Jul 14, 2018 - 7:07am
 
What Did You See Today? - Antigone - Jul 14, 2018 - 7:06am
 
Best Song Comments. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 14, 2018 - 1:27am
 
Error: Could not retrieve offline list - BillG - Jul 13, 2018 - 5:48pm
 
How's the weather? - Rockit9 - Jul 13, 2018 - 5:34pm
 
Your favorite tshirts - Red_Dragon - Jul 13, 2018 - 3:14pm
 
New Echo (Alexa) Skill - Red_Dragon - Jul 13, 2018 - 3:11pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jul 13, 2018 - 11:47am
 
Testing your Metal? - Proclivities - Jul 13, 2018 - 10:36am
 
Advertising Gone Mad - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 12, 2018 - 5:22pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jul 12, 2018 - 12:48pm
 
Girls Just Want to Have Fun - R_P - Jul 12, 2018 - 11:59am
 
illegal immigrants - Rod - Jul 12, 2018 - 10:19am
 
Things that piss me off - Steely_D - Jul 12, 2018 - 10:13am
 
Democratic Party - black321 - Jul 12, 2018 - 10:08am
 
History of past donations? - BillG - Jul 12, 2018 - 9:25am
 
Roku RP app issue; sound stutters after 1 hour and eventu... - Relayer - Jul 12, 2018 - 8:12am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 12, 2018 - 8:06am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - Proclivities - Jul 12, 2018 - 7:19am
 
Are they married yet? YES THEY ARE! - Antigone - Jul 12, 2018 - 6:01am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Jul 12, 2018 - 5:32am
 
Questions. - Red_Dragon - Jul 11, 2018 - 8:34pm
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - islander - Jul 11, 2018 - 11:07am
 
Oops! - Proclivities - Jul 11, 2018 - 10:49am
 
Audio quality and compression filters - BillG - Jul 11, 2018 - 9:50am
 
ONE WORD - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2018 - 9:26am
 
TWO WORDS - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2018 - 9:13am
 
I'm just not sure about this... - Proclivities - Jul 11, 2018 - 7:39am
 
Climate Change - rhahl - Jul 11, 2018 - 3:07am
 
Live Music - R_P - Jul 11, 2018 - 12:28am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 11, 2018 - 12:22am
 
Make Justine Laugh.... - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 10, 2018 - 9:23pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 10, 2018 - 4:50pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - R_P - Jul 10, 2018 - 4:15pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 10, 2018 - 12:40pm
 
Products that make you think (not for long though). - Proclivities - Jul 10, 2018 - 8:11am
 
FLAC Roll Out - HHrvoje - Jul 10, 2018 - 7:39am
 
USA! USA! USA! - Proclivities - Jul 10, 2018 - 6:33am
 
Russia - R_P - Jul 9, 2018 - 9:34pm
 
Latin Music - R_P - Jul 9, 2018 - 5:05pm
 
Word Association - oldviolin - Jul 9, 2018 - 1:48pm
 
Index » Internet/Computer » The Web » Trump Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 498, 499, 500  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 4:12am

 kcar wrote:


Maybe you and your buddy Bill Mitchell can check out this neat-o new thingy on the Interwebs CALLED GOOGLE AND ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS. 

Why don't you stop posting in a desperate attempt to distract this thread from Trump's complete crap-the-bed moments of the last two days and READ instead? 

Examining the physical server isn't as revealing as Trump thinks. Crowdstrike gave the FBI images of the server, which provides far more information. Read the Politico piece if you don't understand what I just wrote. 

What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack—And Trump Doesn’t

First off, CrowdStrike, the company the DNC brought in to initially investigate and remediate the hack, actually shared images of the DNC servers with the FBI. For the purposes of an investigation of this type, images are much more useful than handing over metal and hardware, because they are bit-by-bit copies of a crime scene taken while the crime was going on. Live hard drive and memory snapshots of blinking, powered-on machines in a network reveal significantly more forensic data than some powered-off server removed from a network. It’s the difference between watching a house over time, carefully noting down who comes and goes and when and how, versus handing over a key to a lonely boarded-up building. By physically handing over a server to the FBI as Trump suggested, the DNC would in fact have destroyed evidence. (Besides, there wasn’t just one server, but 140.)
An advanced investigation of an advanced hacking operation requires significantly more than just access to servers. Investigators want access to the attack infrastructure—the equivalent to a chain of getaway cars of a team of burglars. And the latest indictments are rich with details that likely come from intercepting command-and-control boxes (in effect, bugging those getaway cars) and have nothing to do with physical access to the DNC’s servers.
How Russian hackers stole information from Democrats, in 3 simple diagrams

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks
5 revelations from Mueller's indictment of Russians in DNC hack
How Russia Hacked the Democrats in 2016
Russians tried to hack Clinton server on day Trump urged email search



 
I admit that I stopped reading the tweet after the FBI part and did not see the or anyone else part.  Bad on my part.  No excuses, would not have posted it had I read it more carefully because I knew that it was examined by CrowdStrike.

Yes, I knew that CrowdStrike did do an analysis way back when.  Not good enough, though.  So you're saying that the FBI is not capable of properly examining the servers.  You may be right about the FBI's capabilities.  They sure have been deficient at finding evidence requested by Congress.  It is quite clear that the FBI was more interested in the outcome of the election on a partisan basis than anything else as we have come to find out, although I know that you certainly disagree with that.

I will not dispute whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC's servers.  It certainly wasn't hard to do.  Seems all kinds of people got in.  I will dispute your assertion that Russia was Wikileaks source.  Assange has to this day 100% credibility and has said that Russia was not his source.  I have to go with Assange on this.  

Our bullpen does have big problems.  While we may take our division, we ain't getting past the Bosox or the Yankees.  Not worth giving up the farm for a rent a player that likely will not be enough to go all the way anyway.  As we always say in Cleveburg, wait until next year ...


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 12:17am

yet more painful irony
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 12:06am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
I hope Steely isn't holding his breath.{#Roflol}

 
And yet the people around me are glad I'm holding it.

#CovfefeBreath 
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 11:45pm

 kurtster wrote:

My memory is better than your's evidently ...

The US has been in Germany continuously since the end of WW II, well before NATO came into being.

The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".

Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasion – doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of France from NATO's military structure in 1966 for 30 years. 

NATO has been a shaky organization throughout its entire existence.  France was in then they were out and now they are back.  France looks out for France and that is that.  Hitler said "Boo" and France fell.  They did teach you that in school ?  Right ?   

From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, France pursued a military strategy of independence from NATO under a policy dubbed "Gaullo-Mitterrandism". Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the return of France to the integrated military command and the Defence Planning Committee in 2009, the latter being disbanded the following year. France remains the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group and unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, will not commit its nuclear-armed submarines to the alliance. Few members spend more than two percent of their gross domestic product on defence, with the United States accounting for three quarters of NATO defense spending.

...
At the subsequent 2014 Wales summit, the leaders of NATO's member states formally committed for the first time spend the equivalent of at least 2% of their gross domestic products on defence by 2024, which had previously been only an informal guideline. In 2015, five of its 28 members met that goal. At the beginning of 2018, eight of the 29 members either were meeting the target or were close to it; six others had laid out plans to reach the target by 2024 as promised

That means that only half of the current members intend to spend their fair share by 2024.

Libya was my WTF moment as far as NATO is concerned.  Under the guise of 'genocide' France initiated an intervention into a so called civil war.  Actually Qadaffy was about to cut France off from its Sweet Libyan Crude which it is so dependent upon due to their oil refining limitations.  The US does not use nor need Libyan crude.  We primarily refine heavy crude such as from Venezuela and Canada and West Texas Intermediate grades.  But since NATO members other than the US had not been investing their 2% GDP into their defense, they were unable to do any of the heavy lifting and that is how the US got dragged into that mess, albeit with Hillary's urging.  So militarily speaking, NATO is nothing without the US.  Sure members do contribute forces, but they are limited in scope and severely limited in capabilities.  This is the reason that the US refuses to put US forces under direct NATO command.

So until NATO members pony up and the other members build up their own national defenses with a 2% GDP commitment, it is toothless without the US.  But what kind of domestic spending cuts are going to be required to make that commitment ?   Raising retirement ages ?  Stuff like that ?  That'll go over well, right ?

And $1.25 billion just for the headquarters building in Brussels ?  WTF ?  NATO is more of a bureaucracy than anything else.

Back to you ...  tell me where I've got things wrong, again ...

 
with pleasure! I don't even need to do any research as you deliver the ammunition yourself

1) The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" 

Firstly, this comment was made in 1949, shortly after WWII. Secondly, you seem to have overlooked the  "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in," part which, as time moved on became by far the prevailing motive, particularly after the Soviets got the bomb. 

2)  NATO has been a shaky organization throughout its entire existence.  France was in then they were out and now they are back.  France looks out for France and that is that.  Hitler said "Boo" and France fell.  They did teach you that in school ?  Right ? 

 seriously?  The decision of France to develop its own nuclear deterrent is appearing more and more sane by the day. 

3) Spending  - I touched on this already. US decisions to spend so much on its military are a combination of its own national interest and extremely powerful lobbying by the military-industrial complex. The US is categorically not motivated primarily by selfless obligations towards NATO but rather its own strategic advantage. And anyway, Trump's argument is contradictory. He wants other NATO states to spend more on defense (up to 2%) to counter a threat that he himself says no longer exists. Well, if you are so angry about spending so much on defense, then stop doing it!  No one is asking you to keep doing it, well at least no one can force you to!!

4) Sure members do contribute forces, but they are limited in scope and severely limited in capabilities.  This is the reason that the US refuses to put US forces under direct NATO command.    oh really?  yeah, right. 

Listen Kurtster, let me put it to you as plainly and fairly as I can. No one is disputing that the world has generally benefited from US hegemony since WWII. Firstly, during the Cold War to protect against the Soviet threat and then after the fall of the Soviet Union to intervene in various regional conflicts. But to argue as Trump has that the US has been doing this out of selflessness and the rest of the world has been freeloading  is preposterous. With a few very rare exceptions, the US has been following its own national interests (which are closely tied to the interests of large corporations) the entire time. The fact that these sometimes - but not always - align with the interests of most other western economies is fortuitous but seen from the perspective of US allies, not a causus belli. It is possible you know to establish treaties and closer ties simply by trading and negotiating.

If you are really tired of spending so much on defense, then stop doing it! I am sure other powers will adjust to the resulting power vacuum with their own strategic spending, just like they always have. And now, with a president in power who is cuddling up to proto-fascists and tyrants, I am sure that very prospect is being debated at various cabinet meetings around the world. So whose side is Trump on? Is he a threat to world peace or its guardian? What do you think, Kurtster?  What's your vision? What are you after? And how do you plan to get there?


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 9:27pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Well, he certainly did mis-speak. No one in their right mind would have said what he said. NB: "right mind."

 


Your post speaks to one of the big questions surrounding Trump: is he fit to serve as President (the 25th Amendment to the Constitution)? It would take a lot of stuff for either party to go down that road. Apparently if the President opposes the majority opinion of his VP and cabinet that he is not fit to rule, the VP and cabinet must send their declaration of unfitness for approval by 2/3 of both chambers of Congress. 

So the 25th Amendment is tougher sledding than impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors (Article 2, section 4) which if we remember Slick Willie's Wild Ride only requires a simple majority of the House of Reps to move impeachment along (2/3 majority in the Senate). And can you imagine Mike Pence actually voting to remove "Double-negative Don"? What would Mother say! 

Mike Pence and wife and bunny
(Marlon Bundo has a nicer cage than these illegal immigrant children 
flown in for a touching photo-op. Deportación para ti, niños!)



ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 8:11pm

 kcar wrote:
oh gosh, I misspoke. 
 
Well, he certainly did mis-speak. No one in their right mind would have said what he said. NB: "right mind."
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 7:35pm

 kurtster wrote:

You lose any further credibility with me if you truly believe the bolded and that Comey had no bias as well. 

Since I have no cred with you already ... there we have it.

 


Oh playa, please show us proof of their bias affecting their work and the investigation!!! You're the one making that claim, so STEP UP AND PROVE IT. 

Actually, it'd be so much better if you'd stop posting for a while and answer your own questions—such as how Mueller et al. knew that the Russians hacked the DNC server. Feel free to use the links I provided. The first link, the one to the Politico article, is quite informative. Vox and NYT have diagrams if you're into visually oriented summaries—I certainly am. 

And get Tito and the Tribe to fix their bullpen! 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 7:21pm

 kcar wrote:
Brennan and Clapper and McCabe are not active in that community. Strzok and Page are bit players and an investigation into their work found no bias. Page no longer works at the FBI. If you can tell us how Comey's work was biased, please do. The guy practically twisted himself into knots trying to do the right thing.  

 
You lose any further credibility with me if you truly believe the bolded and that Comey had no bias as well. 

Since I have no cred with you already ... there we have it.


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 7:12pm

 kurtster wrote:


 

Maybe you and your buddy Bill Mitchell can check out this neat-o new thingy on the Interwebs CALLED GOOGLE AND ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS. 

Why don't you stop posting in a desperate attempt to distract this thread from Trump's complete crap-the-bed moments of the last two days and READ instead? 

Examining the physical server isn't as revealing as Trump thinks. Crowdstrike gave the FBI images of the server, which provides far more information. Read the Politico piece if you don't understand what I just wrote. 

What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack—And Trump Doesn’t

First off, CrowdStrike, the company the DNC brought in to initially investigate and remediate the hack, actually shared images of the DNC servers with the FBI. For the purposes of an investigation of this type, images are much more useful than handing over metal and hardware, because they are bit-by-bit copies of a crime scene taken while the crime was going on. Live hard drive and memory snapshots of blinking, powered-on machines in a network reveal significantly more forensic data than some powered-off server removed from a network. It’s the difference between watching a house over time, carefully noting down who comes and goes and when and how, versus handing over a key to a lonely boarded-up building. By physically handing over a server to the FBI as Trump suggested, the DNC would in fact have destroyed evidence. (Besides, there wasn’t just one server, but 140.)
An advanced investigation of an advanced hacking operation requires significantly more than just access to servers. Investigators want access to the attack infrastructure—the equivalent to a chain of getaway cars of a team of burglars. And the latest indictments are rich with details that likely come from intercepting command-and-control boxes (in effect, bugging those getaway cars) and have nothing to do with physical access to the DNC’s servers.


How Russian hackers stole information from Democrats, in 3 simple diagrams

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks


5 revelations from Mueller's indictment of Russians in DNC hack


How Russia Hacked the Democrats in 2016


Russians tried to hack Clinton server on day Trump urged email search


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 7:12pm

I assume that you are talking to me. 

I hope you can last another 6 years.

cuz that's how long he'll be around.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 7:11pm

Chris Henson
37 mins
So, the NRA and GOP used the fear of tyranny to achieve the tyrannical overthrow of the US.

Think about this. Since the 1970s, the NRA’s primary selling point for the looser interpretation of the Second Amendment — which guarantees a slurry of military assault-style firearms into the carefully lined beds of F150s around America — was that our nation’s humble and illiterate citizen militias must be heavily armed in order to repel the inevitable “liberal communist tyranny” that would undoubtedly infiltrate our democracy someday. This is a scenario they have spelled out time and time again. NRA spokes hack Dana Loesch has made commercials expressly about this.

After the Helsinki Summit fiasco, it is absolutely clear that our government is being manipulated to some extent by Putin, an actual tyrant currently in power in Russia, a country that was definitely communist until the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, according to the Mueller indictments and the allegations leveled at the Russian national Maria Butina, Putin gained his alarming influence over our government through various back channels created with the knowledge, support and efforts of members, candidates, staffers and legislators from the Republican Party. This was done in part with large amounts of money and influence flowing through the NRA.

In other words, over the past 40 years the GOP and NRA worked together to promote voting habits and gun sales through the threats of doomsday scenarios of communist infiltration into our government, and then they actually facilitated that infiltration scenario.

They used fear of tyranny and bullshit hero warrior fantasies to move people to vote and then convinced their people to vote for tyranny and put that tyranny in power over the United States.

Take a wild guess at what happens next.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 7:01pm

Like your president, you have no credibility. None. The is no defense. There. Is. No. Defense. Your attempts at deflection serve only to point that out. If deflection is your only defense, you have none. There was PLENTY of shit I disagreed with Obama about, but your man makes him a pathetic, rank amateur. Your man takes egregious avarice to a whole new level. His hubris and incompetence are beyond the pale.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 6:54pm

There is only 3 minutes that need to be watched once it starts to make the point.




kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 6:40pm


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 6:37pm

 kcar wrote:

The most disturbing aspect of Trump's words and behavior during that summit and press conference was his apparent desire to put himself and his concerns above the interests of the country. Even his appointees agree with the intelligence assessment and the indictment of the 12 Russians. Yet Trump threw his intelligence community under the bus and relied solely on his gut reaction to Putin's denial of involvement.

AND THEN he comes up with the lamest, most pathetically transparent walkback—oh gosh, I misspoke. Not even a child would believe that crap. 

Trump doesn't care about the chaos he creates. He's just out to save his own skin right now. This man is a coward and a weasel. 

 
Weasels everywhere are profoundly offended.

This is exactly what I've maintained about the guy since the beginning - he doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone but himself. The world revolves around him.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 6:22pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Whatever tiny shred of credibility this jackass might have had is well and truly gone at this point. I don't know what Putin has on him, but it's obviously more than enough. The entire planet is laughing at America.

#MAGA

 


The most disturbing aspect of Trump's words and behavior during that summit and press conference was his apparent desire to put himself and his concerns above the interests of the country. Even his appointees agree with the intelligence assessment and the indictment of the 12 Russians. Yet Trump threw his intelligence community under the bus and relied solely on his gut reaction to Putin's denial of involvement.

AND THEN he comes up with the lamest, most pathetically transparent walkback—oh gosh, I misspoke. Not even a child would believe that crap. 

Trump doesn't care about the chaos he creates. He's just out to save his own skin right now. This man is a coward and a weasel. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 6:07pm

I hope Steely isn't holding his breath.{#Roflol}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 5:26pm


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 4:57pm

Whatever tiny shred of credibility this jackass might have had is well and truly gone at this point. I don't know what Putin has on him, but it's obviously more than enough. The entire planet is laughing at America.

#MAGA
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 4:55pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

Yes, Germany gets most of its petro energy from Russia and has for years, to the best of my knowledge, especially natural gas.

What is the purpose of NATO ?  It was put together to counter the threat of the USSR to Europe post WW II.  The USSR is now long gone.  NATO should have been ended at the same time as well.  Europe has been primarily defended since WW II on the backs of the US taxpayer.  That has allowed Europe to expand into socialism because they did not have to pay for their own defense and they got quite used to it and took it for granted, all the while condemning the US for its huge outlays for its defense budget.  Europe would be a much different place if it had to pay its own way since WW II.  

The whole flippin free world has taken the US for granted and milked it for all it could.  Of course we had strings attached.  Our military presence in Germany isn't because we couldn't trust Russia after WW II.  It is because we couldn't trust Germany.

Getting back to NATO.  It's a globalist / military complex thing.  It requires that military equipment be standardized throughout the network so that it can function as one.  Who is the primary beneficiary of that ?  The neocons and their military industrial complex.

Sorry for the incomplete thoughts.  Wish I had more time but I must go on the road now.  More later.

Whoa, hold on there cowboy.  Not sure what I find more distasteful, the cynical but knowledgeable manipulation of someone like Putin playing foreign leaders like puppets, or the hydrocephalic Yankee swagger of the US forcing others to be "rescued" from their imaginary demons, and then claiming we are freeloading.

First:  no, Europe has not been freeloading its defense to the US. Both France and the UK (now in doubt) have their own viable nuclear defense which they pay for out of their own budgets. Germany (like Japan) doesn't have a nuclear program, obviously. The "huge" outlays for the US military are not disputed. But, nobody outside the US asked for them. This is solely an internal US decision and has much more to with lobbying by your industry. 

Second: "allowed Europe to expand into socialism"  there is so much wrong in this one clause. Small reminder: many European economies are very stable, very wealthy and have fantastic social programs and this has nothing to do with not having to pay for defense. Europe has paid its own way since WWII. The one exception would be the Marshall plan which was brilliant but also had behind it the ulterior motive of shoring up a front line of defense against communist Europe.

Third: "the whole flipping' free world has taken the US for granted and milked it for all it could." Seriously, Archie Bunker, you need to travel a bit more. If you have been milked by anybody, it is by US corporate interests, which have been fully backed by the US military. The fact that they might have kept their profits hidden, avoided tax using offshore havens, and had their own interests more at heart than the US heartland is not something you can blame on the countries you "protected" by force..  Chile, Iraq, etc. the list goes on.  Seriously, I'd love to see you confront an orphaned Iraqi family with that accusation.. what do you want them to do? Pay for the missile that some dumb-arse drone operator fired at their innocent Dad? Really? C'mon you freeloaders, that missile was really expensive! Hork up some cash!!

Fourth: "Our military presence in Germany isn't because we couldn't trust Russia after WW II.  It is because we couldn't trust Germany."

This is simply Orwellian. Whatever happened to the Cold War in your brain? did that just somehow get erased from your memory?

 

 
My memory is better than your's evidently ...

The US has been in Germany continuously since the end of WW II, well before NATO came into being.

Let's go down memory lane shall we ?  There were a number of treaty organizations created in the late 40's and early 50's as a direct result of WW II.  Three of the biggest that matter for this discussion are :  ANZUS , SEATO and NATO.  SEATO is long gone, the other two are still in force.  SEATO did have a similar function to NATO but was disbanded when it was no longer needed, which may apply to NATO, eh ?

Let's look at NATO.  It was founded in 1949.

In 1948, European leaders met with US defence, military and diplomatic officials at the Pentagon, under US Secretary of State George C. Marshall's orders, exploring a framework for a new and unprecedented association.<13> Talks for a new military alliance resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed by US President Harry S. Truman in Washington on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states ( Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.<14>

The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".<15>


Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasion – doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of France from NATO's military structure in 1966 for 30 years. 

NATO has been a shaky organization throughout its entire existence.  France was in then they were out and now they are back.  France looks out for France and that is that.  Hitler said "Boo" and France fell.  They did teach you that in school ?  Right ?   

From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, France pursued a military strategy of independence from NATO under a policy dubbed "Gaullo-Mitterrandism". Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the return of France to the integrated military command and the Defence Planning Committee in 2009, the latter being disbanded the following year. France remains the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group and unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, will not commit its nuclear-armed submarines to the alliance.<41> <60> Few members spend more than two percent of their gross domestic product on defence,<138> with the United States accounting for three quarters of NATO defense spending.<139>

...
At the subsequent 2014 Wales summit, the leaders of NATO's member states formally committed for the first time spend the equivalent of at least 2% of their gross domestic products on defence by 2024, which had previously been only an informal guideline.<76> In 2015, five of its 28 members met that goal.<77> <78> <79> At the beginning of 2018, eight of the 29 members either were meeting the target or were close to it; six others had laid out plans to reach the target by 2024 as promised

That means that only half of the current members intend to spend their fair share by 2024.

Libya was my WTF moment as far as NATO is concerned.  Under the guise of 'genocide' France initiated an intervention into a so called civil war.  Actually Qadaffy was about to cut France off from its Sweet Libyan Crude which it is so dependent upon due to their oil refining limitations.  The US does not use nor need Libyan crude.  We primarily refine heavy crude such as from Venezuela and Canada and West Texas Intermediate grades.  But since NATO members other than the US had not been investing their 2% GDP into their defense, they were unable to do any of the heavy lifting and that is how the US got dragged into that mess, albeit with Hillary's urging.  So militarily speaking, NATO is nothing without the US.  Sure members do contribute forces, but they are limited in scope and severely limited in capabilities.  This is the reason that the US refuses to put US forces under direct NATO command.

So until NATO members pony up and the other members build up their own national defenses with a 2% GDP commitment, it is toothless without the US.  But what kind of domestic spending cuts are going to be required to make that commitment ?   Raising retirement ages ?  Stuff like that ?  That'll go over well, right ?

And $1.25 billion just for the headquarters building in Brussels ?  WTF ?  NATO is more of a bureaucracy than anything else.

Back to you ...  tell me where I've got things wrong, again ...
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 498, 499, 500  Next