What does this mean?

[ErikViking]

We should only use our military if we get something in return for doing so. Make these other countries pay for their own defense, instead of social programs, and pull our troops out of Europe and other places around the world.

My god, that’s really shallow. Please tell me you are millennial.

Personally I would nuke Sweden. It’s a waste of good snow.

Either way, from a strategical standpoint- nuking Sweden would remove the buffer to Norway, a minute stretch of land that would instantly get Russia access to the southern Atlantic with the capability of reaching Britain in less than two minutes. That would effectively push the US back to the mainland, most likely at the cost of Island. Because... snow?

 

[cutter]

We are in such debt I think it’s time to bring all our troops home from all countries worldwide. Let the differnt countries defend themselves for a while. We can still sell them weapons and they can pay for them. Keep our military industrial corporations happy and our workers employed. We can post our military on our borders that give us problems and with all the money we save by not being the worlds police force we can pay down the debt. As far as troops being deployed in foreign countries we will only use them to defend our embassies. If we have a need to have our military around the world we have a navy to fill that roll. With the navy we can have a military base anywhere we need it in days.

 

[ErikViking]

We should only use our military if we get something in return for doing so. Make these other countries pay for their own defense, instead of social programs, and pull our troops out of Europe and other places around the world.

Do morons like you ever "think" that having bases overseas may be for OUR benefit?

So morons like you ever "think" of how foreigners feel about our overseas' bases

Germans want Donald Trump to pull US troops out of Germany, poll finds
Germans actually want Donald Trump to pull US troops out of Germany, poll finds

Tens of thousands rally for removal of US base from Japanese island
Tens of thousands rally for removal of US base from Japanese island

Back in the 80's Germans would have riots demanding American go home. So yes I knew.
I also knew I had no live ammo in my weapon. We were 13 people in the middle of nowhere and all our ammo was locked in a safe. If attacked we were supposed to run. We provided communications for the three point border. Troops in Germany aren't trusted with live ammo, so why are they there? All we do is play games in pretend wars that never happen. Pull our troops out and make Europe defend themselves.

Anecdotes from the Cold War now? It’s a ******* war you should be thankful ended cold, rather than hot. Much to the thank of US resilience and economic muscles. It has nothing to do with the European ability to defend itself. Your lack of historical grounding is breathtaking.

 

[DOTR]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

It means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

This is what amazes me. Just when you thinK you couldn’t admire Trump any more he goes and does something like this.
Not tired of winning yet...but getting used to it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

It means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

It doesn’t really mean a country can pay money to have US troops available then.

Don’t think anyone should expect someone else to fight their wars.

Oh please but we do.


.

 

[ErikViking]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

It means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

It doesn’t really mean a country can pay money to have US troops available then.

Don’t think anyone should expect someone else to fight their wars.

Oh please but we do.


.

Extremley hard to interpret.

 

[ErikViking]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

It means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

This is what amazes me. Just when you thinK you couldn’t admire Trump any more he goes and does something like this.
Not tired of winning yet...but getting used to it.

Yes, because it’s more entertaining if you shift your covfefe every other year.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It doesn’t really mean a country can pay money to have US troops available then.

Don’t think anyone should expect someone else to fight their wars.

Well Sweden must have, because in 2015 your military spending was 1.1% of GDP. To say that is pathetic is obvious. Also, to say Sweden just expected to have the US military as its de facto military is obvious.

Well, the US military, via Trump and to NATO, is saying no more. At least Sweden looks to be responding.

What has the US military done for Sweden?

Deterred Russia. A complete waste, because Russia is our friend.

Was Russia going to invade Sweden?

You never fail to miss complex subtleties, do you?

Sorry to burst your bubble blondie, but you are about as complex as a 2nd grade math problem.

 

[Taz]

We should only use our military if we get something in return for doing so. Make these other countries pay for their own defense, instead of social programs, and pull our troops out of Europe and other places around the world.

My god, that’s really shallow. Please tell me you are millennial.

Personally I would nuke Sweden. It’s a waste of good snow.

Either way, from a strategical standpoint- nuking Sweden would remove the buffer to Norway, a minute stretch of land that would instantly get Russia access to the southern Atlantic with the capability of reaching Britain in less than two minutes. That would effectively push the US back to the mainland, most likely at the cost of Island. Because... snow?

Sweden’s national motto is: we surrender. You’re not even any good at hockey.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

It means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

It doesn’t really mean a country can pay money to have US troops available then.

Don’t think anyone should expect someone else to fight their wars.

Oh please but we do.


.

Extremley hard to interpret.

5 words?

 

[ErikViking]

We should only use our military if we get something in return for doing so. Make these other countries pay for their own defense, instead of social programs, and pull our troops out of Europe and other places around the world.

My god, that’s really shallow. Please tell me you are millennial.

Personally I would nuke Sweden. It’s a waste of good snow.

Either way, from a strategical standpoint- nuking Sweden would remove the buffer to Norway, a minute stretch of land that would instantly get Russia access to the southern Atlantic with the capability of reaching Britain in less than two minutes. That would effectively push the US back to the mainland, most likely at the cost of Island. Because... snow?

Sweden’s national motto is: we surrender. You’re not even any good at hockey.

Oh, if a subject regarding the life of millions isn’t entertaining enough for you I suggest you spend some time figuring out what is real: WWII or WWF. At the brink of the capabilty of a citizen of Entertainistan, I know, but you will find it challenging.

 

[ErikViking]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

It means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

It doesn’t really mean a country can pay money to have US troops available then.

Don’t think anyone should expect someone else to fight their wars.

Oh please but we do.


.

Extremley hard to interpret.

5 words?

Sorry!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Well Sweden must have, because in 2015 your military spending was 1.1% of GDP. To say that is pathetic is obvious. Also, to say Sweden just expected to have the US military as its de facto military is obvious.

Well, the US military, via Trump and to NATO, is saying no more. At least Sweden looks to be responding.

What has the US military done for Sweden?

Deterred Russia. A complete waste, because Russia is our friend.

Was Russia going to invade Sweden?

You never fail to miss complex subtleties, do you?

Sorry to burst your bubble blondie, but you are about as complex as a 2nd grade math problem.

You're right. I'm a simple girl. Give me food, give me sex, and I'm pretty much happy.

You know what's not simple? Swedish-Russian international relations. The two countries have a long thousand year history, predominantly as adversaries. In recent decades relations have been increasingly sour as both continue to vie for control of the Baltic, while ideological differences continue to divide the two. One famous incident from the 80s saw a Russian Whiskey class submarine run ashore along the Swedish coast, prompting the Swedes to initiate a naval blockade along their territorial water line to prevent the Russians from sending rescue teams, with orders to open fire on any Russian ship that attempted to cross the line. The incident became known as 'whiskey on the rocks.'

Take all of that, then add in the purpose of the post-war 'alliances' that were referenced from the beginning (i.e. NATO, whose purpose has always been "To keep Germany down, Russia out, by keeping the US in") an intelligent person who is well informed on the fundamentals of 21st century international relations in the western world can put two-and-two together.

But once again, you prove that you're just not part of that group. Keep it up and I'll have to start charging you for all these spankings.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're right. I'm a simple girl. Give me food, give me sex, and I'm pretty much happy.

You know what's not simple? Swedish-Russian international relations. The two countries have a long thousand year history, predominantly as adversaries. In recent decades relations have been increasingly sour as both continue to vie for control of the Baltic, while ideological differences continue to divide the two. One famous incident from the 80s saw a Russian Whiskey class submarine run ashore along the Swedish coast, prompting the Swedes to initiate a naval blockade along their territorial water line to prevent the Russians from sending rescue teams, with orders to open fire on any Russian ship that attempted to cross the line. The incident became known as 'whiskey on the rocks.'

Take all of that, then add in the purpose of the post-war 'alliances' that were referenced from the beginning (i.e. NATO, whose purpose has always been "To keep Germany down, Russia out, by keeping the US in") an intelligent person who is well informed on the fundamentals of 21st century international relations in the western world can put two-and-two together.

But once again, you prove that you're just not part of that group. Keep it up and I'll have to start charging you for all these spankings.

it is so cute when you talk dirty to me.

 

[Thinker101]

You're right. I'm a simple girl. Give me food, give me sex, and I'm pretty much happy.

You know what's not simple? Swedish-Russian international relations. The two countries have a long thousand year history, predominantly as adversaries. In recent decades relations have been increasingly sour as both continue to vie for control of the Baltic, while ideological differences continue to divide the two. One famous incident from the 80s saw a Russian Whiskey class submarine run ashore along the Swedish coast, prompting the Swedes to initiate a naval blockade along their territorial water line to prevent the Russians from sending rescue teams, with orders to open fire on any Russian ship that attempted to cross the line. The incident became known as 'whiskey on the rocks.'

Take all of that, then add in the purpose of the post-war 'alliances' that were referenced from the beginning (i.e. NATO, whose purpose has always been "To keep Germany down, Russia out, by keeping the US in") an intelligent person who is well informed on the fundamentals of 21st century international relations in the western world can put two-and-two together.

But once again, you prove that you're just not part of that group. Keep it up and I'll have to start charging you for all these spankings.

it is so cute when you talk dirty to me.

You two need a room?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're right. I'm a simple girl. Give me food, give me sex, and I'm pretty much happy.

You know what's not simple? Swedish-Russian international relations. The two countries have a long thousand year history, predominantly as adversaries. In recent decades relations have been increasingly sour as both continue to vie for control of the Baltic, while ideological differences continue to divide the two. One famous incident from the 80s saw a Russian Whiskey class submarine run ashore along the Swedish coast, prompting the Swedes to initiate a naval blockade along their territorial water line to prevent the Russians from sending rescue teams, with orders to open fire on any Russian ship that attempted to cross the line. The incident became known as 'whiskey on the rocks.'

Take all of that, then add in the purpose of the post-war 'alliances' that were referenced from the beginning (i.e. NATO, whose purpose has always been "To keep Germany down, Russia out, by keeping the US in") an intelligent person who is well informed on the fundamentals of 21st century international relations in the western world can put two-and-two together.

But once again, you prove that you're just not part of that group. Keep it up and I'll have to start charging you for all these spankings.

it is so cute when you talk dirty to me.

You two need a room?

Why, do you want to watch?

 

[Thinker101]

You're right. I'm a simple girl. Give me food, give me sex, and I'm pretty much happy.

You know what's not simple? Swedish-Russian international relations. The two countries have a long thousand year history, predominantly as adversaries. In recent decades relations have been increasingly sour as both continue to vie for control of the Baltic, while ideological differences continue to divide the two. One famous incident from the 80s saw a Russian Whiskey class submarine run ashore along the Swedish coast, prompting the Swedes to initiate a naval blockade along their territorial water line to prevent the Russians from sending rescue teams, with orders to open fire on any Russian ship that attempted to cross the line. The incident became known as 'whiskey on the rocks.'

Take all of that, then add in the purpose of the post-war 'alliances' that were referenced from the beginning (i.e. NATO, whose purpose has always been "To keep Germany down, Russia out, by keeping the US in") an intelligent person who is well informed on the fundamentals of 21st century international relations in the western world can put two-and-two together.

But once again, you prove that you're just not part of that group. Keep it up and I'll have to start charging you for all these spankings.

it is so cute when you talk dirty to me.

You two need a room?

Why, do you want to watch?

Thanks, just threw up in my mouth some.