Newt on Trump

[candycorn]

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

And after you and Donald sacrifice Estonia the Russians should be satisfied........is that right?

Why are you completely incapable of answering any of my questions or points?

And why do you think you are such a special snowflake that you can completely ignore my questions and expect for me to answer yours?

Here's another country you and Donald Trump believe we should simply hand over to the Russians.

You are now just making up crap. Straw men is to soft a word.

You are a ******* liar.

I would be surprised if either of them could identify Europe on a map. Given this sad performance by Cuntell or whatever her name is…I’m not so sure.

 

[Correll]

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?

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.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Our NATO allies evidently do more than you and Donald Trump know about.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post. You might have replied to the wrong post.

Here is my post for you to try again.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept of a strategic deterrent.

I understand it fine.

For instance, I understand that it didn't deter Turkey from shooting down a Russian plane. Thank God that Putin's response was restrained and not inflammatory.

Do you really want to bet World Peace on Putin's forbearance?

 

[Correll]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t help communication shitbrains. It does nothing to strengthen cooperation, prevent overlap, etc... **** you’re dense.

No, you are the dense one, asshole.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations. I did not claim it would "strengthen cooperation", I said it would not prevent cooperation. And it would not.

 

[Liminal]

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

Nor will he ever. His Resorting to cartoons over and over is a sure sign he’s lost.

I think we should be a little more tolerant of his ignorance, it might not be his fault. Maybe no one ever took the time to teach him anything.....or maybe he can't be taught. All we can do is try to be patient so we can hopefully enlighten the less fortunate.

It's all his fault. I'm so enjoying the exchanges. Funniest shit Evah!

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

And of course, cartoons.

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

 

[Correll]

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

And after you and Donald sacrifice Estonia the Russians should be satisfied........is that right?

Why are you completely incapable of answering any of my questions or points?

And why do you think you are such a special snowflake that you can completely ignore my questions and expect for me to answer yours?

Here's another country you and Donald Trump believe we should simply hand over to the Russians.

You are now just making up crap. Straw men is to soft a word.

You are a ******* liar.

I would be surprised if either of them could identify Europe on a map. Given this sad performance by Cuntell or whatever her name is…I’m not so sure.

 

[Liminal]

Or maybe we should start the lesson at an earlier point in history.

 

[Liminal]

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Our NATO allies evidently do more than you and Donald Trump know about.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post. You might have replied to the wrong post.

Here is my post for you to try again.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept of a strategic deterrent.

I understand it fine.

For instance, I understand that it didn't deter Turkey from shooting down a Russian plane. Thank God that Putin's response was restrained and not inflammatory.

Do you really want to bet World Peace on Putin's forbearance?

Golly, we'd better thank our lucky stars Putin doesn't get mad at us or something.

 

[Correll]

Nor will he ever. His Resorting to cartoons over and over is a sure sign he’s lost.

I think we should be a little more tolerant of his ignorance, it might not be his fault. Maybe no one ever took the time to teach him anything.....or maybe he can't be taught. All we can do is try to be patient so we can hopefully enlighten the less fortunate.

It's all his fault. I'm so enjoying the exchanges. Funniest shit Evah!

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

And of course, cartoons.

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

If you have something to say, SAY IT.

 

[Correll]

Or maybe we should start the lesson at an earlier point in history.

This has nothing to do with the question of whether NATO is more likely to prevent war, or drag us into a larger war.

You are an idiot.

 

[Correll]

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Our NATO allies evidently do more than you and Donald Trump know about.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post. You might have replied to the wrong post.

Here is my post for you to try again.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept of a strategic deterrent.

I understand it fine.

For instance, I understand that it didn't deter Turkey from shooting down a Russian plane. Thank God that Putin's response was restrained and not inflammatory.

Do you really want to bet World Peace on Putin's forbearance?

Golly, we'd better thank our lucky stars Putin doesn't get mad at us or something.

A very obtuse response.

Are you happy about NATO nations shooting down Russian planes?

Maybe I should ask this question. I assumed the answer was no, but I'm starting to wonder.


Do you want to have World War Three?

Cause opening fire on Russian forces is one of the best ways to start it, if that is want you want.

 

[Liminal]

I think we should be a little more tolerant of his ignorance, it might not be his fault. Maybe no one ever took the time to teach him anything.....or maybe he can't be taught. All we can do is try to be patient so we can hopefully enlighten the less fortunate.

It's all his fault. I'm so enjoying the exchanges. Funniest shit Evah!

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

And of course, cartoons.

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

If you have something to say, SAY IT.

Had the Ukraine been admitted to NATO membership the Russians would not now control the Crimea nor would there be any fighting in the Donbass.

 

[Liminal]

Our NATO allies evidently do more than you and Donald Trump know about.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post. You might have replied to the wrong post.

Here is my post for you to try again.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept of a strategic deterrent.

I understand it fine.

For instance, I understand that it didn't deter Turkey from shooting down a Russian plane. Thank God that Putin's response was restrained and not inflammatory.

Do you really want to bet World Peace on Putin's forbearance?

Golly, we'd better thank our lucky stars Putin doesn't get mad at us or something.

A very obtuse response.

Are you happy about NATO nations shooting down Russian planes?

Maybe I should ask this question. I assumed the answer was no, but I'm starting to wonder.


Do you want to have World War Three?

Cause opening fire on Russian forces is one of the best ways to start it, if that is want you want.

Had the western democracies not been so weak in their response, giving encouragement to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, the Russians wouldn't be in Syria now.

 

[Correll]

It's all his fault. I'm so enjoying the exchanges. Funniest shit Evah!

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

And of course, cartoons.

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

If you have something to say, SAY IT.

Had the Ukraine been admitted to NATO membership the Russians would not now control the Crimea nor would there be any fighting in the Donbass.

Would you be willing to fight WWIII to stop them from taking the Crimea?

Because that is what the threat would be that you assume would deter Russia.

Are you really willing to pay that price to keep the Crimea in Ukrainian hands?

Which means exactly ZERO to American interests or security.

I am not willing to blow up the planet over the Crimea.

 

[Liminal]

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

And of course, cartoons.

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

If you have something to say, SAY IT.

Had the Ukraine been admitted to NATO membership the Russians would not now control the Crimea nor would there be any fighting in the Donbass.

Would you be willing to fight WWIII to stop them from taking the Crimea?

Because that is what the threat would be that you assume would deter Russia.

Are you really willing to pay that price to keep the Crimea in Ukrainian hands?

Which means exactly ZERO to American interests or security.

I am not willing to blow up the planet over the Crimea.

Again, the concept of a standing deterrent is important to understand here.

 

[Correll]

Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post. You might have replied to the wrong post.

Here is my post for you to try again.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept of a strategic deterrent.

I understand it fine.

For instance, I understand that it didn't deter Turkey from shooting down a Russian plane. Thank God that Putin's response was restrained and not inflammatory.

Do you really want to bet World Peace on Putin's forbearance?

Golly, we'd better thank our lucky stars Putin doesn't get mad at us or something.

A very obtuse response.

Are you happy about NATO nations shooting down Russian planes?

Maybe I should ask this question. I assumed the answer was no, but I'm starting to wonder.


Do you want to have World War Three?

Cause opening fire on Russian forces is one of the best ways to start it, if that is want you want.

Had the western democracies not been so weak in their response, giving encouragement to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, the Russians wouldn't be in Syria now.

What if Russia was NOT deterred by a stronger NATO response in the Ukraine?

How far would you be willing to take it?

Russia taking the Crimea hurt American interests and security NOT AT ALL.

 

[Liminal]

Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept of a strategic deterrent.

I understand it fine.

For instance, I understand that it didn't deter Turkey from shooting down a Russian plane. Thank God that Putin's response was restrained and not inflammatory.

Do you really want to bet World Peace on Putin's forbearance?

Golly, we'd better thank our lucky stars Putin doesn't get mad at us or something.

A very obtuse response.

Are you happy about NATO nations shooting down Russian planes?

Maybe I should ask this question. I assumed the answer was no, but I'm starting to wonder.


Do you want to have World War Three?

Cause opening fire on Russian forces is one of the best ways to start it, if that is want you want.

Had the western democracies not been so weak in their response, giving encouragement to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, the Russians wouldn't be in Syria now.

What if Russia was NOT deterred by a stronger NATO response in the Ukraine?

How far would you be willing to take it?

Russia taking the Crimea hurt American interests and security NOT AT ALL.

Perhaps you can cite an example of Russia invading a NATO member.

 

[Correll]

And of course, cartoons.

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

If you have something to say, SAY IT.

Had the Ukraine been admitted to NATO membership the Russians would not now control the Crimea nor would there be any fighting in the Donbass.

Would you be willing to fight WWIII to stop them from taking the Crimea?

Because that is what the threat would be that you assume would deter Russia.

Are you really willing to pay that price to keep the Crimea in Ukrainian hands?

Which means exactly ZERO to American interests or security.

I am not willing to blow up the planet over the Crimea.

Again, the concept of a standing deterrent is important to understand here.

I understand it perfectly.

I understand before you make a commitment like that, you need to ask yourself, if you are really willing to meet it.

I am NOT willing to fight WWIII over the Crimea.

Are you prepared to pay that price? Even if there is a good chance it would go nuclear? Even if Russia would have tremendous home field advantage?

 

[Liminal]

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

If you have something to say, SAY IT.

Had the Ukraine been admitted to NATO membership the Russians would not now control the Crimea nor would there be any fighting in the Donbass.

Would you be willing to fight WWIII to stop them from taking the Crimea?

Because that is what the threat would be that you assume would deter Russia.

Are you really willing to pay that price to keep the Crimea in Ukrainian hands?

Which means exactly ZERO to American interests or security.

I am not willing to blow up the planet over the Crimea.

Again, the concept of a standing deterrent is important to understand here.

I understand it perfectly.

I understand before you make a commitment like that, you need to ask yourself, if you are really willing to meet it.

I am NOT willing to fight WWIII over the Crimea.

Are you prepared to pay that price? Even if there is a good chance it would go nuclear? Even if Russia would have tremendous home field advantage?

Fortunately our foreign and defense policies aren't determined by anyone with your level of understanding.

 

[Liminal]

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

And of course, cartoons.

Cartoons.......yes of course. Why didn't I think of it before? This may be the solution for his problem, perhaps he can learn. We'll start very slowly, no sense in getting our hopes up.

If you have something to say, SAY IT.

Had the Ukraine been admitted to NATO membership the Russians would not now control the Crimea nor would there be any fighting in the Donbass.

Would you be willing to fight WWIII to stop them from taking the Crimea?

Because that is what the threat would be that you assume would deter Russia.

Are you really willing to pay that price to keep the Crimea in Ukrainian hands?

Which means exactly ZERO to American interests or security.

I am not willing to blow up the planet over the Crimea.

 

[Correll]

I understand it fine.

For instance, I understand that it didn't deter Turkey from shooting down a Russian plane. Thank God that Putin's response was restrained and not inflammatory.

Do you really want to bet World Peace on Putin's forbearance?

Golly, we'd better thank our lucky stars Putin doesn't get mad at us or something.

A very obtuse response.

Are you happy about NATO nations shooting down Russian planes?

Maybe I should ask this question. I assumed the answer was no, but I'm starting to wonder.


Do you want to have World War Three?

Cause opening fire on Russian forces is one of the best ways to start it, if that is want you want.

Had the western democracies not been so weak in their response, giving encouragement to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, the Russians wouldn't be in Syria now.

What if Russia was NOT deterred by a stronger NATO response in the Ukraine?

How far would you be willing to take it?

Russia taking the Crimea hurt American interests and security NOT AT ALL.

Perhaps you can cite an example of Russia invading a NATO member.

Oh, so you're happy making these commitments because you are sure that you will never be called on to fulfill them?

That is not a responsible basis for policy.

Before you make a commitment you should be sure that you are willing to meet it.

I am not willing to blow up the world over the Crimea.

Are you prepared to fight WWIII over the Crimea?