D

dlaloum

Audioholic Chief
This is the real threat and not just related to the current war. Americans believe they have been subsidizing Europe, NATO, Korea, etc. and will soon realize the subsidies go both ways in a system that up until now allowed the U.S. to accumulate a quarter of the world's wealth.
Except most of the bases the US has throughout Europe have been paid for by their hosting governments - Germany has been paying circa US$1B per annum to support US bases....

Really it is worth asking whether it was Europe subsidising US bases - rather than the other way around!

With Europe expanding its military, the logical next step will be to tell the US to leave....

Which will put a major crimp in USA's ability to project global power.
 
H

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Except most of the bases the US has throughout Europe have been paid for by their hosting governments - Germany has been paying circa US$1B per annum to support US bases....

Really it is worth asking whether it was Europe subsidising US bases - rather than the other way around!

With Europe expanding its military, the logical next step will be to tell the US to leave....

Which will put a major crimp in USA's ability to project global power.
Do we have a country nearby that poses the threat USSR did?
 
N

NMG

Junior Audioholic
I see Trump has now threatened to end an entire civilization. Quite something to see the President of the United States proposing a genocide unless the country they attacked agree to his terms so that oil prices can stabilize.

This guy is an absolute lunatic.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
Except most of the bases the US has throughout Europe have been paid for by their hosting governments - Germany has been paying circa US$1B per annum to support US bases....

Really it is worth asking whether it was Europe subsidising US bases - rather than the other way around!

With Europe expanding its military, the logical next step will be to tell the US to leave....

Which will put a major crimp in USA's ability to project global power.
I hope Europe does ask the US to leave based on Trumps behaviour.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
I see Trump has now threatened to end an entire civilization. Quite something to see the President of the United States proposing a genocide unless the country they attacked agree to his terms so that oil prices can stabilize.

This guy is an absolute lunatic.
Trump will break all the international laws of engagement by going after civilians just like Netanyahu did in Palestine and is now doing in Lebanon. It truly is disgusting that non humans are allowed to run like this without any consequences.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
Trump will break all the international laws of engagement by going after civilians just like Netanyahu did in Palestine and is now doing in Lebanon. It truly is disgusting that non humans are allowed to run like this without any consequences.
If Trump takes it to the level he's blowing his mouth off about, I suspect there will be consequences, hopefully beyond a mid-term 'toilet flush' ...........
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
Trump will break all the international laws of engagement by going after civilians just like Netanyahu did in Palestine and is now doing in Lebanon. It truly is disgusting that non humans are allowed to run like this without any consequences.
Points for "non humans." :)
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord

There is a lot of talk about "TACO Tuesday", but I'm relieved that they've come to a ceasefire.

That said, the two sides are still pretty far apart.

Iran:
Iran has put forward a 10-point proposal that calls for significant concessions from the U.S. and Israel.

The plan includes compensating Iran for war damage, lifting all sanctions against the country, releasing the freeze on ‌Iranian assets and ⁠withdrawing U.S. combat ⁠forces from all ‌bases in the region, Reuters reported, citing Iranian media.

Iran's plan also includes charging fees for ships to pass through the strait and using the money for reconstruction, The Associated Press reported Tuesday. The New York Times reported that the fee would total $2 million US per ship.
I don't see how any of these conditions will be acceptable to the US; it would be tantamount to an American surrender.

US:
Meanwhile, the Trump administration's framework for a peace deal remains the 15-point plan that Iran rejected two weeks ago. It includes a rollback of Iran's nuclear program, monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and limits on the country's ballistic missile systems.
After what has happened over the past few weeks, the Iranians would be nuts to render themselves essentially defenceless.

Meanwhile, I can see why the "TACO" accusations are floating around again. About the only thing that can be confirmed is the destruction of the Iranian navy.
"The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran," Trump posted.

The U.S. may indeed have "met and exceeded" its military objectives, given how often Trump and his officials have moved the goalposts of what those objectives actually are. The four most frequently cited have been eliminating Iran's missile capabilities, destroying its navy, ending its support for militants outside its borders and ensuring the regime can never obtain a nuclear weapon.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
In mine opinion, Trump is stalling and I would give this a ceasefire maybe a week. I think Trump's balls are shrinking because he knows he's lost all chances to Mcgiver a way into another term. There's also a very strong possibility that he stands to make big financial gains in the markets during this "ceasefire". Either way, this cease fire is very suspicious from both countries and fragile at best.

The Palestian haulocost agent, Netanyahu is still going through Lebanon destroying that country just like he did with Palestine. That villian needs to be brought to justice.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
Per PBS....

Yougov poll says 15% support sending troops in.

Trump's Triumphal Arch at 250 feet tall will in part come out of taxpayer dollars.

18-25 year olds names will automatically be put in the draft. I remember Ayn Rand saying the draft is about the most anti-American thing there is because it is not volunteer based. I gueeeessss you could argue for it based on a worse case scenario, but since it's the antithesis to free choice, naturally Republicans support it. :rolleyes:

Edit: no draft actually regulates the amount of wars we can be in. An unregulated draft means who knows how many we could be in.

Trump: Regime change, but I was never after that.
Mmkay. :rolleyes:
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
I think for Republicans specifically the reason they would support the draft is because it's your patriotic duty. Trump's reasoning was not enough people are signing up for the military. Never mind that patriotism might be low due to who is in office LOL.

Ayn Rand vehemently opposed the military draft, calling it "the worst" statist violation of individual rights and a form of involuntary servitude. She argued that forced military service violated a person’s right to their own life, advocating instead for a fully voluntary army. Rand maintained that if a war is just, men will volunteer, and if it is not, a draft should not compel them.

Moral Objections: Rand believed that forcing individuals to serve in the military is an "abrogation of all rights". She argued that a government's role is to protect rights, not destroy them by treating citizens as property of the state.
Voluntary Army: Rand advocated for a volunteer military, arguing that it is more effective and consistent with a free society.
The Draft as "Statism": In a 1967 talk, she claimed the draft establishes the principle of statism—that the individual belongs to the state.
Critique of Vietnam War: She believed the draft made immoral, "senseless" wars like Vietnam possible, as it allowed foreign policy adventures that citizens might not otherwise support.
"Rights Impose Obligations" Myth: She rejected the idea that rights involve obligations to the state, viewing that argument as a way to turn rights into a gift from the government rather than an inherent, individual possession.

Rand's position was considered unique during the Vietnam era, as she attacked the draft on principled, moral grounds rather than simply pragmatic or political ones.



Maybe Rand's best line on the draft: a right to a paycheck but not a right to their life.
 
Last edited:
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
Except most of the bases the US has throughout Europe have been paid for by their hosting governments - Germany has been paying circa US$1B per annum to support US bases....

Really it is worth asking whether it was Europe subsidising US bases - rather than the other way around!

With Europe expanding its military, the logical next step will be to tell the US to leave....

Which will put a major crimp in USA's ability to project global power.
To be fair, the hosting countries don't cover the entire cost. Using Germany as an example, their funding covers indirect costs which amount to roughly a third. Still, your point is well taken as U.S. will have to cover the entire cost of those troops and also loses its influence and ability to project power as well.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
Trump Tales

Trump: Hold my hand.
Melania: Get your slimy hands off me!!! :p
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
I think for Republicans specifically the reason they would support the draft is because it's your patriotic duty. Trump's reasoning was not enough people are signing up for the military. Never mind that patriotism might be low due to who is in office LOL.

Ayn Rand vehemently opposed the military draft, calling it "the worst" statist violation of individual rights and a form of involuntary servitude. She argued that forced military service violated a person’s right to their own life, advocating instead for a fully voluntary army. Rand maintained that if a war is just, men will volunteer, and if it is not, a draft should not compel them.

Moral Objections: Rand believed that forcing individuals to serve in the military is an "abrogation of all rights". She argued that a government's role is to protect rights, not destroy them by treating citizens as property of the state.
Voluntary Army: Rand advocated for a volunteer military, arguing that it is more effective and consistent with a free society.
The Draft as "Statism": In a 1967 talk, she claimed the draft establishes the principle of statism—that the individual belongs to the state.
Critique of Vietnam War: She believed the draft made immoral, "senseless" wars like Vietnam possible, as it allowed foreign policy adventures that citizens might not otherwise support.
"Rights Impose Obligations" Myth: She rejected the idea that rights involve obligations to the state, viewing that argument as a way to turn rights into a gift from the government rather than an inherent, individual possession.

Rand's position was considered unique during the Vietnam era, as she attacked the draft on principled, moral grounds rather than simply pragmatic or political ones.



Maybe Rand's best line on the draft: a right to a paycheck but not a right to their life.
I can support conscription for a nation, or alliance, facing an existential threat. But, when it's in support of adventurism, there is no moral argument to support it.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
I can support conscription for a nation, or alliance, facing an existential threat. But, when it's in support of adventurism, there is no moral argument to support it.
I imagine Trump's intent was for adventurism.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top