The Ramifications

Scuttlebutt
101

The annual contribution of the U.S. to NATO is $572 Million

The annual contribution of the U.S. to Israel is $3.8 Billion

Which is the better investment? What relative value does the U.S. get from these two programs? Does every investment have to come with a direct and equal benefit or return? Or should wealthy, prosperous nations provide support only when guaranteed a return or perhaps also for those things, ideals, and nations that we believe are good and moral and better the world?

If the U.S. were attacked (9/11 comes to mind), the years of investing in support of NATO would yield far more mutual defense and support in our time of need than all the years of “generosity” towards Israel.

1 Like
102

“Look, I am not advocating leaving NATO but we certainly do not get out of it, what we put into it.”

In any grouping there will always be the biggest dog. For the time being we are it.

I find it odd that folks still fear communism, when it’s so apparent that it’s doomed to failure among humans. In todays world even the former large communist countries have come around to see the benefits of at least incorporating some sort of “for profit” markets into their existence. The small countries deemed communist today seem to be more dictatorships under authoritarian rule.

2 Likes
103

No foreign country needs to occupy us to own us or destroy us, we are quite capable of doing that ourselves as current events and current leadership daily illustrate.

2 Likes
104

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome’s decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.”

— Will Durant,

Wiki:

The decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire was a complex, centuries-long process driven by a combination of severe internal decay and external pressures. While traditional narratives often focus on “barbarian” invasions (external), modern scholarship generally agrees that internal instability—political, economic, and military—made the empire incapable of resisting those pressures, essentially rotting from within before it was broken from without

Centuries.

1 Like
105

Rome had an Empire that lasted centuries. The US does not have an empire only a hegemony paid for by the citizens of the US at their own expense of no health care among other things and manipulated by corrupt politicians for their own self interest for the last 50 years or so. In the grand scale of history the US at its current rate of self inflicted decline of power will be but a footnote. It is a shame as the US had much to offer until they fell victim to their military industrial interests which they were warned about by former President Eisenhower. But in the US rabid capitalistic non democratic system money not reason rules all decisions as the politicians of both parties who make the decisions are corrupted by money.

3 Likes
106

THX .If I wrote it it would be called drivel.

2 Likes
107

The folly of the present administration and elimination of the “petro dollar”, will result in the removal of USD as the world’s trading and reserve currency.
This will hasten the fall of USA from it’s present position. How fast and how far it falls will depend on what comes after this administration.

108

Not likely for many reasons

109

I am not. I am pointing out that other nations in NATO are not allowing us to use their bases for military operations during the Iran war and possibly, the NATO agreement needs to be questioned if we are getting what was promised? I am also stating that our military is capable, by itself, to defend against China occupying the United States. 5:1 or not, China has zero chance to launch a ground invasion on the US mainland. It is universally agreed upon by experts. It is impossible.

3 Likes
110

It wasn’t that long ago when the majority thought the same about these issues that currently divide us. Something as basic as border security, Schools having kid’s educations as their top priority. People used to respect the police and their neighbors in general. People were there to help and support one another when there was a need. Just like the environmental crisis is being exploited to siphon trillions into special interest groups and the coffers of the global elite, so are the seeds of division to pit us against one another. There hasn’t been a single honest message from either political party for a very long time.

I do not disagree with your prediction aside from the blame you place on the current administration. Your party has their share of crazy and it’s hardly any less destructive.

2 Likes
111

It ain’t my party! I don’t vote for anyone anymore, I vote AGAINST criminals, liars, and professional political profiteers.

I am the voter they all fear.

1 Like
112

Interesting that you think the environmental crisis is siphoning trillions towards the “global elite”. I’m pretty sure that energy companies like ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell are about as “global elite” as they come.

Looking for alternative sources of energy to help wean us and our economy from being so fully dependent exclusively on oil & gas, especially volatile foreign sources, hardly seems like siphoning to the “elite”. Instead it feels like building environmental, energy, and national security resilience so we are less vulnerable to things like what is currently going on in the Strait of Hormuz.

3 Likes
113

If that’s your opinion so be it. But I keep in mind that the USA created NATO for one purpose. To keep America in Europe, to keep the Russians out, and to ‘keep Germany down’.

That last part means to keep Germany almost completely disarmed.

That was OUR plan. WE came up with it. We came up with it to prevent another world war beginning in Europe, being sick of the last two.

And it was a damn good plan. We wanted Germany nearly disarmed so they didn’t start another war. And we had no problem with the rest of Europe doing so, for the same reason.

And we were happy to supply most of the firepower to keep Russia at bay because that made us top dog, calling the shots for European peace.

But Iran isn’t in Europe. It wasn’t threatening Europe. Yet, the president could have still gotten Europe on side for his Middle East conflict. It’s been done before.

George HW Bush mobilized Europe for the Gulf War. That war was a walkover. People who say the USA doesn’t win wars always fails to mention the stunning international success of that war.

Even lunkhead GW Bush got some Europeans onside for the Iraq war, even if that war was poorly advised and even more poorly planned. But Europeans and Australians were there too.

And they suffered for it too.

But those two presidents did the hard work of maintaining coalitions. They didn’t go around belittling, humiliating, threatening, or placing tariffs on European leaders, and then ask them to go into a conflict that would blowback more on Europe than on the USA.

The sociopath-level derangement of the present president on this matter is jaw dropping.

5 Likes
114

Not just this particular matter, there are too many other “matters” to list.

115

When have anybody in any position of influence in China threatened to invade USA mainland, or any other part?
China is NOT interested in getting into a war with USA. What could they possibly gain by that? Nothing good come out of such a conflict.

But they ARE getting ready to defend themself, if USA should, for any perceived threat by China, (or domestic political reason?) attack China.
So far it has been tough talk and bluster, mainly for US domestic political reasons, which any rational person know.

What could China gain from a war that is bound to be devastating for both parties, that they can not obtain by economical and political means?
They are already well on their way to overtake USA as a trading and economical partner for most countries and blocks in the world. All they have to do is developing their own economy and staying out of conflicts with other countries.

What would the US gain from escalating (say the Taiwan situation), or from getting into fighting a war in the South China Sea?
Taiwan is not a member UN, nor recognized as an independent country, even by USA.
Taiwan is an integral part of China, even by still carrying on with ROC as the official name of the Government. They have given up the hope regaining control of mainland China, however.

Nobody has anything to gain from a war between two nuclear armed powers.

1 Like
116
2 Likes
117

And everybody, including the two nuclear armed powers, has everything to lose.

2 Likes
118

Are You suggesting ALL matters.?

Horrible.

119

“ALL matters?” Hardly, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day so they say. It would be a huge improvement if our sociopath in chief got it right once or twice a year.

1 Like
120

I have consulted one president I like most and that is ME!!!

Nobody has ever seen anything like that before.

image
image431×564 68.3 KB

3 Likes