[quote]The Ukraine crisis was partly engineered by the US?
Explain, please.[/quote]
But, do you have any evidence at all that the US had a hand in this? Why would the US have a hand in this particular situation?
You’re being silly.
You make assumptions about something that you don’t know or understand. :no-no:
I don’t need to respect all opinions, even where I respect the person holding the opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. And anyway, there are in fact many opinions that I respect even when I hold a different or even opposite opinion.
We can respect each other. We don’t need to respect each other’s opinions.
Oooooh! If I didn’t give a fuck, I would not be asking questions. Come on, rip me to shreds!
[quote] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, for instance, has had six commissioners under President Obama, four of them in a caretaker role because they were not confirmed by the Senate.
…
The Senate has confirmed 10 top DHS officials in recent months, reducing a top-level vacancy rate that had reached 40 percent.
[/quote]
Republicans were filibustering every Obama appointment on simply partisan grounds i.e. they had no objections to the nominees, they just wanted to damage the government. The Senate Dems got rid of this unprecedented blocking of normal business.
[quote] The department’s woes date to the George W. Bush administration. Within a few years after DHS began operations in 2003, senior-level vacancy rates were already high and many top officials were leaving the fledgling department for jobs with private security companies. Among the most prominent is the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm led by former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff, which employs so many former officials it is known in homeland security circles as a “shadow DHS.’’
Private-sector salaries for high-level career officials, especially cybersecurity experts, can be double or triple the roughly $180,000 they can make at DHS.
[/quote]
Wait, isn’t that a good thing? Privatising vast areas of government in order to pump public money into your cronies’ pockets?
Coming up, the 74th Congressional hearing on BENGHAZI!!!
Goddamn overpaid pointy-head Federal gummint bureaucrats
So basically the DHS was a slapped-together bit of (bipartisan!) political grandstanding involving tossing a whole bunch of disparate agencies in one chicken coop, then setting them up for turf wars with the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Pentagon; the problem was exacerbated by Congressional interference and grandstanding, Republican filibustering of appointments, and handing out huge sums of money to politically-connected private companies which then outbid the gov’t for the best people.
[quote]
As the Washington Post reported, the first strikes Monday night included a volley of 47 Tomahawk cruise missiles from two warships, the guided missile destroyer Arleigh Burke and the guided missile cruiser Philippine Sea. They are part of the George H.W. Bush carrier battle group led by the aircraft carrier of the same name.
The problem, as we reported back in March, is that the Tomahawk was slated by Obama to be phased out of the Navy’s inventory, with no timely replacement ready. Under his budget proposals, the Navy, which as recently as last year had plans to buy 980 more Tomahawks, the primary cruise missile used throughout the fleet, would see purchases drop from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016.
Doing the math, we see that Obama has already consumed in one night of strikes 47% of next year’s planned purchases. The naval inventory will soon be depleted at this rate unless we crank up the arsenal of democracy and stop beating our swords into solar panels. As Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker calculates, the U.S. supply of roughly 4,000 Tomahawks would be exhausted in about 85 days at that rate of use.[/quote]
There’s more…
This guy should be an expert on inexcusably wasting money by now.
I could see your point if Americans were actually paying for all those expensive weapons in their futile effort to extricate themselves from the quagmire in Iraq. As it is though they’re buying them on credit and sending the bill to their grandkids who will undoubtedly be poorer and less able to pay for them than this generation of Americans. Nice ploy but in the long run it’s a financial time bomb that is going to end up doing radical Islam’s job for it while the Chinese are waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.
The US has no business meddling in the affairs of others.
The world obviously needs policing, and only the US is up to the task.
Then there are those who try to have it both ways, randomly switching between the two. Such as: the current US administration.
My thoughts:
The world needs a competent and trustworthy policeman.
No one needs an incompetent and/or untrustworthy policeman.
In the long run, the world should learn to police itself.
In the short run, there’s nobody right now who is in a position to police the world.
In the medium run, the US needs to get its own act back together. Then – and only then – we can talk about policing the world. A country that can’t or won’t secure its own borders is not going to secure, for example, Iraq.
What say you all?[/quote]
If the US stops being the world police, the first thing you’d notice is how Taiwan is annexed by China in less than 1 hour.
The US has no business meddling in the affairs of others.
The world obviously needs policing, and only the US is up to the task.
Then there are those who try to have it both ways, randomly switching between the two. Such as: the current US administration.
My thoughts:
The world needs a competent and trustworthy policeman.
No one needs an incompetent and/or untrustworthy policeman.
In the long run, the world should learn to police itself.
In the short run, there’s nobody right now who is in a position to police the world.
In the medium run, the US needs to get its own act back together. Then – and only then – we can talk about policing the world. A country that can’t or won’t secure its own borders is not going to secure, for example, Iraq.
What say you all?[/quote]
If the US stops being the world police, the first thing you’d notice is how Taiwan is annexed by China in less than 1 hour.[/quote]
If the U.S. were to permanently occupy Iraq against the will of its democratically elected government as some are now suggesting it should have done what’s to stop China from doing the same in Taiwan on the grounds that ‘it’s just doing its job’?
People forget now because one of the symptoms of a messiah complex is a short attention span but President Bush’s ignominious exit from Iraq amidst a hail of flying shoes made it pretty clear that Uncle Sam is about as welcome in Baghdad as Darren Wilson is on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri.
Point being that rule number one of appointing yourself world cop is that you’re automatically held to a higher standard and if you can’t walk the talk it’s time to take a hike because you’re little more than a trigger happy neighborhood watch vigilante.
The US has no business meddling in the affairs of others.
The world obviously needs policing, and only the US is up to the task.
Then there are those who try to have it both ways, randomly switching between the two. Such as: the current US administration.
My thoughts:
The world needs a competent and trustworthy policeman.
No one needs an incompetent and/or untrustworthy policeman.
In the long run, the world should learn to police itself.
In the short run, there’s nobody right now who is in a position to police the world.
In the medium run, the US needs to get its own act back together. Then – and only then – we can talk about policing the world. A country that can’t or won’t secure its own borders is not going to secure, for example, Iraq.
What say you all?[/quote]
If the US stops being the world police, the first thing you’d notice is how Taiwan is annexed by China in less than 1 hour.[/quote]
If the U.S. were to permanently occupy Iraq against the will of its democratically elected government as some are now suggesting it should have done what’s to stop China from doing the same in Taiwan on the grounds that ‘it’s just doing its job’?
People forget now because one of the symptoms of a messiah complex is a short attention span but President Bush’s ignominious exit from Iraq amidst a hail of flying shoes made it pretty clear that Uncle Sam is about as welcome in Baghdad as Darren Wilson is on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri.
Point being that rule number one of appointing yourself world cop is that you’re automatically held to a higher standard and if you can’t walk the talk it’s time to take a hike because you’re little more than a trigger happy neighborhood watch vigilante.[/quote]
Yeah sure. It’s really selfish, but for Taiwanese people, it’d be the best if the US stays being the world police.
The U.S. is hardly in a position either fiscally or militarily to deal with a just war in the Far East now that the quagmire in Iraq is reaching a boiling point again. Particularly since it’s the Chinese who are paying for I.R.A.Q.
[quote]The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and “enjoy life”, while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
Most Americans were not asked to make any sacrifice for the Iraq war, while its real costs were confined to the 1% of the population who fought and died there. As a result, the average American was never forced to confront whether pouring money borrowed from China into the corrupt Iraqi security services was worth it, or whether it made more sense to rebuild infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say, Philadelphia.[/quote]
Perhaps you’ve heard that a lot of officers have gotten the boot under this adninistration because they didn’t go along with policies of The Smartest Man In The Room. Well, who’s coming in to replace them?
If I didn’t give a fuck, I would not be asking questions. Come on, rip me to shreds! 
