TinyViolins · 31-35, M
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@TinyViolins exactly. That is why trump’s obsession makes no sense, and if he truly believes it (those around him claim he is obsessed with the idea even when the cameras are off), then he very clearly has accelerating cognitive decline.
KunsanVeteran · M
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
In my opinion it's more interesting and important to note the US public reaction to Trump's floated proposals.
Y'all are okay with colonialism and war. Y'all are fine with economic war. Yup.
As Trump talks, the USA admits more and more about itself, its politics, its lethality.
Y'all are okay with colonialism and war. Y'all are fine with economic war. Yup.
As Trump talks, the USA admits more and more about itself, its politics, its lethality.
View 6 more replies »
KunsanVeteran · M
@trollslayer Little hope for JD…in fact it’s more likely Rudy The Red Nosed wins both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize in Physics
BohemianBabe · M
BohemianBabe · M
@trollslayer This is very sad.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@BohemianBabe agreed. The difference is in the bullying way Trump approaches it.
Funny story - in first grade I pointed to a map and asked about canada and greenland, and when she told me they weren’t part of the USA, I asked when they would become part of the USA. She chuckled and said the world doesn’t work that way…
Funny story - in first grade I pointed to a map and asked about canada and greenland, and when she told me they weren’t part of the USA, I asked when they would become part of the USA. She chuckled and said the world doesn’t work that way…
BohemianBabe · M
@trollslayer Yeah, there's nothing really inherently wrong with acquiring land. I just think it's silly that so many presidents wanted Greenland. But sure, if the Greenlanders took a vote, and the majority wanted to join America, I would support America buying it from Denmark.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
The crazy thing is this is not new. During Trudeau Senior's day there was a scandal in the 70s when it was declassified that the US had official war plans to invade Canada as recent as the 1930s.
Basically the reason for it at the time was that if after the war the UK didn't peacefully hand over most of the British Empire to the Americans they would invade Canada and use it as a bridgehead for a war with the British Empire. Insane stuff.
Basically the reason for it at the time was that if after the war the UK didn't peacefully hand over most of the British Empire to the Americans they would invade Canada and use it as a bridgehead for a war with the British Empire. Insane stuff.
22Michelle · 61-69, T
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Have a look at US and UK plans for war in the 1920's and 1930's. Most were made at a time shen neither had, or were politically willing to, provide the resources required for these "wars". The USA had a small military capability, but their plans assumed it would be rapidly, and massively expanded. The UK was bringing in the Winston Churchill 10 year plan, which assumed no war was foreseen in the next 10 yesrs. It was then largely responsible for the poor state of its military power in the 1930's, and pushed it into the polucy of appeasement. Many of these plans assumed allies would be forthcoming. The UK had, until 1964 a War Office, which then became the Ministry of Defence.
Different times, and importantly times when milutary planners had much greater freedom and latitude to dream up scenariis and threats. Yet they were divorced from political realities.
Different times, and importantly times when milutary planners had much greater freedom and latitude to dream up scenariis and threats. Yet they were divorced from political realities.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@22Michelle We know from supporting documentation from the period that both countries considered it a real possibility that they could come to blows.
And you should know decisions of who you prepare for war with outside of a military junta is not decided by the military or even often by someone who knows anything about the military.
Capability almost never has anything to do with it.
Canada planned and war gamed a direct military conflict with the Red Army for almost 100 years. The 1940s was the only period in our history where that was not a totally laughable idea.
We had battle plans for a direct war with the USSR in the 1980s when the Soviet airborne contingent the VDV outnumbered the entire Canadian Army.
Do you seriously think anyone on the Argentine Army seriously thought they could defeat the British Army? Do you seriously think Saddam's officers thought they would defeat the US military in 1991?
Of course not. But the officers don't decide the wars.
This has nothing to do with military planners going rogue.
And as for the war office being renamed the MOD that was just politics. Being honest about what your "Ministry of Defense" was really for was no longer politically correct.
It is the same reason European and American colonies became "overseas territories."
And you should know decisions of who you prepare for war with outside of a military junta is not decided by the military or even often by someone who knows anything about the military.
Capability almost never has anything to do with it.
Canada planned and war gamed a direct military conflict with the Red Army for almost 100 years. The 1940s was the only period in our history where that was not a totally laughable idea.
We had battle plans for a direct war with the USSR in the 1980s when the Soviet airborne contingent the VDV outnumbered the entire Canadian Army.
Do you seriously think anyone on the Argentine Army seriously thought they could defeat the British Army? Do you seriously think Saddam's officers thought they would defeat the US military in 1991?
Of course not. But the officers don't decide the wars.
This has nothing to do with military planners going rogue.
And as for the war office being renamed the MOD that was just politics. Being honest about what your "Ministry of Defense" was really for was no longer politically correct.
It is the same reason European and American colonies became "overseas territories."
22Michelle · 61-69, T
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Well, I almost wish I had your self confidence and certsinty. Some of the plans, the scenarios had very real possibilities, even probabilities of coming to a fruition. Others were always just someone's bright idea, based on nothing more on sharing a border, or "how would we fight a war so far away.
And as for the examples you give it's worth remembering that the actual Argentinebplan was pretty sound, and based on not having to fight the British army. The invasion should have happened later and ensured Brirain coild not have mounted the naval force they did, as the South Atlantic winter would have arrived. The plan being to force a diplomatic agreement with the likes of the USA not wanting a long drawn out war and pushing the UK to settle. Instead the Argentines jumped the gun landing on South Georgia and then having to bring the planned invasion of the Falklands forward. All of which demonstrates wars hardly ever go as planned.
And as for the examples you give it's worth remembering that the actual Argentinebplan was pretty sound, and based on not having to fight the British army. The invasion should have happened later and ensured Brirain coild not have mounted the naval force they did, as the South Atlantic winter would have arrived. The plan being to force a diplomatic agreement with the likes of the USA not wanting a long drawn out war and pushing the UK to settle. Instead the Argentines jumped the gun landing on South Georgia and then having to bring the planned invasion of the Falklands forward. All of which demonstrates wars hardly ever go as planned.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
They'll defend his obsession with Canada to the death. And I'm here for it.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@ron122 Still lying to yourself I see.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
BohemianBabe · M
1490wayb · 56-60, M
his way of negotiating...a bunch of hot air. he is narcisstic NOT dementia