Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

And don't forget the millions of refugees we can draft with the promise of citizenship.

I doubt many would take you up on it. They're there because they wanted to escape fighting, remember? What makes you think they'll stick around somewhere they haven't got even the slightest connection to? Besides, not even your own countrymen will fight for your country.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So apparently Martinuzz was being sarcastic, but we actually did (presumably do?) have considerable illegal immigrants in our armed services.  http://thehill.com/policy/finance/283762-house-rejects-effort-to-ban-illegal-immigrants-from-enlisting-in-military
And that's awesome.  Anyone doing that has earned citizenship, no questions asked short of felonies.

Whether middle-eastern refugees would be likely to do that is a different issue.  Significantly different demographic...  Generally less interested in integration.

[EnigmaticHat]

Privatization and free trade aren't the answer - that's how you asset strip a place. Places that were made to do that by IMF aren't actually in good shape now.

Rich nations actually have high government spending. All rich nations. Sure, some made a lot of money through exports but you'll find the successful nations of that type had heavy government intervention.

The only exceptions to that are some tax havens / one-city trading ports and the like, but they really skim off nearby much larger nations while avoiding the costs of having a large population to take care of.

But you want to trick poor nations by force into lowering their spending and slashing taxes. It's a case of "do as we say, not as we do".

Poor nations are generally poor because of post-colonialism.  The west, the first world, the developed world, whatever you want to call it, we had over a hundred years refining resources.  The rest of the world spent half that time only harvesting, not refining.  Two fundamentally different cases.  Remember, most former colonies have only been free since 100 years ago, many with WW2.  Sort this list by date for your reference (note that includes both colonies and not colonies).  What works for us is fundamentally irrelevant.  Hell, what worked for us when we were still developing industry is also irrelevant, do to the changing nature of globalism.

Remember, a lot of former colonies struggle to even raise taxes or recruit trustworthy ministers because their people don't have nationalistic sentiments yet.  Many of them consist of competing ethnic groups, in some cases with a minority put in power over a majority, or several other majorities.  Many struggle with under 50% literacy rates.  You just can't compare that to the US on any meaningful level.

As for the idea we should intentionally make governments poorer so they can't fund terrorists... yeah.  I'm sure a bunch of failed states with weak militaries will be such a blow to Al Queda  .  We can see this again and again in history, a weak government is prey for NGOs.

Don't get me wrong, I have no idea what the path is for, say, Rwanda to become a wealthy developed nation.  Its an open issue, what works will probably be decided by historians in a hundred years.  But I must say, "lol steal oil for their own good" is certainly one I've never heard before.

[Reelya]

CPAC just uninvited Milo from being their keynote speaker because of 'resurfaced' (read, someone linked the publicly available podcast and it went viral) comments defending relationships between men and underage boys, as well as claiming that woman teachers who have sex with school boys are the real victims. The American Conservative Union are having to clarify that they don't believe there is room for debate

Just as a note, in that podcast, Milo went on to point out that he wasn't supporting pedophilia because that is pre-teens. And being into 13 year old boys is completely different to that. He actually made that distinction. So when he says he never supported pedophilia - he already clarified he only means 12 and younger when he says that. Which is ... ewww.

[Sergarr]

I think you'll find that will backfire.

We tried that with Germany after WWI after all.

And as you'll notice the whole "sanctions" thing does fuck all to make places less dangerous.

WW1 Germany's economy was owned by Germans. That's what allowed them to rebound so fast. If it was owned by British and/or French people, they would have a much harder time building up their army.

And, well, yes. Sanctions are kinda useless, because they don't really do anything about said cash flow. Not even Iranian-level sanctions have managed to diminish their oil sales. And there are plenty of unprincipled countries (*coughRussiacough*) in the world willing to sell their arms to everyone who can buy it, no questions asked.

[Reelya]

I don't think you've thought this through. The net result would be mass unemployment or the like, a fertile breeding ground for terrorism. Basically weakening those nations is what got us where we are today. Mass privatization always leads to an expansion of unemployment.

We were in fact better off when we had Saddam and Ghdaffi keeping a lid on those places. Sure Saddam was a nasty fellow, but Iraqis were fairly well educated and were a middle income nation, much higher per capita incomes than India for example. And there is literally zero evidence of Saddam ever backing anti-Western terrorism. The west were his sponsors after all.

[palsch]

North Korean officials are preparing to come to U.S. for talks with former officials

Preparations are underway to bring senior North Korean representatives to the United States for talks with former American officials [known as "Track 1.5" talks], the first such meeting in more than five years and a sign that Pyongyang sees a potential opening with the Trump administration.

Arranging the talks has become a lot more complicated over the past eight days, with North Korea testing a ballistic missile and the assassination of Kim Jong Un’s half brother in Malaysia, an act that many suspect was ordered by the leader of North Korea. Malaysian police on Sunday named as suspects four North Koreans who left the country on the day of the attack.
...
The talks would be run independently of the State Department, where officials have privately questioned the utility of such discussions. But if the administration issued the visas, it would be an implicit seal of approval. And if the discussions go well, they could pave the way for official talks.

Just as a note, in that podcast, Milo went on to point out that he wasn't supporting pedophilia because that is pre-teens. And being into 13 year old boys is completely different to that. He actually made that distinction. So when he says he never supported pedophilia - he already clarified he only means 12 and younger when he says that.

Which was also the core of the Facebook defence he posted, which CPAC have for some reason said is insufficient.


Completely unrelated to everything, the White House is having to walk back remarks over how many holes of golf Trump played over the weekend after getting caught out by a golf blog. I'm not sure there is topic left where White House statements have any credibility among those paying any attention.

[Frumple]

It was only a recommendation without any legal or political teeth. The sort of agreement made in public speeches but never written down. It has been codified as of 2014. As a target for 2024;

In September 2014, NATO’s heads of state and government agreed at the Wales Summit to make an obligation out of what hitherto had only been a recommendation: to spend 2% of their GDP on defence. Those who were spending less should undertake efforts to lift themselves to this level within ten years – by 2024. ...

Hey, cheers. Though the exact text of the wales summit appears to be here (part 14), still has nothing regarding consequences, and still has that guideline to measure progress in terms of real spending. The 2024 aim as just that, an aim, not an obligation, and even with that the wording is not to reach the 2%, just move towards it.

So... yeah. Badly misrepresented. Even that article seems to be doing it, heh. Still would be on board with supporting and pushing for more relatively equal contribution, but this hard 2% goal is looking more and more like a fair bit of bullshit, even without considering the issues that article you linked brought up.

[Reelya]

Yeah, and it seems to be very misleading for politicians to point out that some of NATO aren't meeting a voluntary guideline that was passed in only 2014, as proof of them not meeting their obligations.

Was Trump actually pitching this point in 2015 when he started running? If that's the case, then the ruling was only 1 year old, so not long enough to have even done any budget changes to match the requirements. And you don't just throw money into a pot and buy tanks and planes. That shit takes years of planning.

[Frumple]

Hell, the screwed up bit about that is that most of them are meeting the bloody guideline -- there's only five members that haven't seen an increase in real spending since 2014, and only four since 2015 (and there's not complete overlap there, either).* The goddamn politicians aren't trying to hold someone to a guideline they're failing to meet, they're trying to hold them to a guideline that doesn't exist.

*Well, not counting the US, that's over that 2% but has dropped real spending more than those four/five combined, if I'm adding right with this headache going.

E: Actually, the provision is for folks under the 2% contribution, really. Means at least one of those four/five mentioned don't count, since it's estonia and they're over the 2%. Greece is in there, too, now that I double check.

E2: Well, if they meet the 20% equipment expenditure thing, too. Which they don't, now that I check. Most of the members don't meet that one, and there doesn't look to be much rhyme or reason to which ones, heh. Though it does look like most of the ones with the allocation below that have been moving towards pretty well since 2014 -- there's like three or four that are down since then, with a few others up since '14 but down since '15. Either way, again, most of NATO's moving in the direction agreed on, there.

[Starver]

Anyone doing that has earned citizenship, no questions asked short of felonies.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Rolan7]

Oh good you got the reference
Except really though.

[palsch]

It's McMaster. Kellogg moved to be his Chief of Staff and KT remains as deputy, so he isn't getting to bring in his own senior staff as Harward and Petraeus had demanded. There are suspicions that Kellogg will be taking on some of the duties of deputy in his new role.

A length piece on McMaster from Iraq in 2006 that is being passed around as reason to be hopeful. Of course the big question is how he gets on with Trump's other staff, and how his critical, outspoken style plays with Trump himself first time he has a disagreement.

For some reason people are sharing this quote from his book.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

EDIT: Flawless machine!

[PTTG??]

Apparently the trumposphere response is it was to "prevent leaks," because, you know, it's not like people need to know who their boss is.

[palsch]

On the Milo story, now we have a dozen Breitbart employees willing to walk out if he isn't fired. It's odd how his public statements getting noticed by the wider media makes him toxic to those who have used his notoriety to build their brand.


The law around Sessions recusing himself from the Russia investigations. Short version, he is probably legally obliged to, but the only enforcement processes are political and internal so actual consequences are unlikely.


Trump has also announced he will be finding some unspecified role for Bolton with absolutely no details or timeline.

[misko27]

Yeah that's a war crime under international laws which USA is a signatory to. Breaks all the treaties.

If you want to do so, you're supposed to bribe some local leaders to sign a deal with you giving a contract to your buddies to extract the oil. That's what Bush did with Texan oil company Hunt Oil, who did a deal with Iraqi Kurdistan to get cheap oil. That's how you work around it. But just marching in with armies and unilaterally declared "dis oil is America's" is a crime.

Truly, Trump is the modern imperialist that makes the rest of the imperialists hang their heads in confusion and shame. Not because they feel bad of course, but that they have to be associated with such a buffoon.

On the Milo story, now we have a dozen Breitbart employees willing to walk out if he isn't fired. It's odd how his public statements getting noticed by the wider media makes him toxic to those who have used his notoriety to build their brand.

That sounds like collective action! And that sounds like COMMUNISM! Have them deported to Russia China.

And, well, yes. Sanctions are kinda useless, because they don't really do anything about said cash flow. Not even Iranian-level sanctions have managed to diminish their oil sales. And there are plenty of unprincipled countries (*coughRussiacough*) in the world willing to sell their arms to everyone who can buy it, no questions asked.

If sanctions are so useless, why would Iran agree to limit their nuclear program, if Iran rejected even the principle that the west had the right to stop Iran from doing whatever it wanted? It's a long way from "We categorically reject your right to even judge our obviously peaceful program" to "we agree to the following reductions, restrictions, and oversight in exchange for the following sanction reductions..."