181–190 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they bother when all of Trump's cabinet is plutocrats and they're pursuing a radical pro-business agenda?
What do you consider a "radical pro-business" agenda to be?
e: Also probably cuts to social spending.
I keep thinking China could take the opportunity here to open up its own political system and really start competing against the US as a desired landing spot for US/EU tech/science grads, and other capable/interested young talent. In a play for "world dominance", this could be a prudent non-military move. It would force The West to reconsider the direction it's heading too.
- Xi Jinping is consolidating his power to be the dictator of China. He is removing rivals using routing out corruption as excuse (and not targeting his own supporters)
- China's economy is crashing. It's approaching 300% debt ratio in combined corporate + government + individual. Its gross reserve is down to less than 3T (IMF believes China needs at least 2.7T to operate). Its net reserve (gross - debt) is down to 1.7T. It had a capital outflow of 700B in 2016. Yuan fell the most in 2016, since 1994. It is now trying to close up the internal system via capital control, rights restrictions, censorship, etc
as for desired spot for foreigners
- Poisonous air - "pollution levels hovering over 12 times the level recommended by the World Health Organization" http://theweek.com/articles/672007/filth-breathe-china
- Poisonous food: "Fake Chinese seasoning ring, operating for 10 years using cancerous industrial ingredients" http://shanghaiist.com/2017/01/17/fake_seasoning_factories.p...
- Dirty water: "Shanghai water supply hit by 100-tonne wave of garbage" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/shanghai-water...
- censorship, bad access to world internet, corruption, zenophobia/racism, bad manners/behaviors from locals, no weed
- China only has 600,000 foreigners registered living in there in 2016. Half of those are from Taiwan/Hong Kong. Super small number for a country of 1.3B.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The history of my country (Poland) tells me that military alliances are worth shit when someone decides to call the bluff. The Second World War started with France and Britain failing to fulfil their obligations when Hitler invaded Poland. Somehow I don't expect NATO troops to show up if Russian forces cross the Polish-Ukrainian border.
Wait, what? Britain and France declared war on Germany two days after it invaded Poland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?
For the record: Georgia initiated their conflict with Russia.
From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three." While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to r…
The pros and cons of each system? You think the US would only use 3 types if there was any strategic value to more? We have lobbyists and congressmen salivating at the whisper of evidence that more war machines need to be built. They exist because they are old outdated technology that the host countries feel no pressure to replace since they have to buy their replacements not build them and thr expectation of war has…
Even if they were each best at something, diversity comes at a very high cost. Every additional design of MBT means an additional supply chain for parts and ammunition. Additional personnel are needed for every line of MBT.
Since you have a different logistics line for each tank, they can't support each other on the battlefield without bringing their whole logistics with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be operating under the belief that the disintegration of the EU started three weeks ago or something? It's been an ongoing saga for years. I mean, Brexit predates Trump, and Brexit itself is the result of years of pressures. I can see why you'd be so confused by the "strategy" if you think Trump is causing it, but he's reacting to it. And my assessment of the situation is the other way around; there's not…
The Brexit campaign was fueled by lies. The real issue is a trend of anti-intellectualism and xenophobia, which I fear we've seen before, triggered by the great depression and a precursor to WWII. It's as if, whenever a financial crisis happens, people go dumb.
It's almost as if this economic boom > financial crash > war socioeconomic system we have in place is utter insanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record: Georgia initiated their conflict with Russia.
This is not true. Unless by "initiated their conflict" you mean cessation from the USSR in 1991.
"EU investigation says Tbilisi launched indiscriminate assault on South Ossetia..with a massive artillery attack"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.
Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.
Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record: Georgia initiated their conflict with Russia.
This is not true. Unless by "initiated their conflict" you mean cessation from the USSR in 1991.