2 Likes
1 Like
Sure, why not, at least the Urban…
A slang term used by the hate filled left that describes any person that supports policies of the Trump administration no matter how good the policy.
How this for a definition for the urban dictionary used by the cesspool city dwellers.
1 Like
American democracy has gone.
Let us guess from which direction the shit-storm is coming.
( BTW, I am not an America, before I am labelled )
And the democrat party is no more, replaced by a more hateful progressive strain of the virus.
Ok, thank you for the disclosure. As there’s not a dimes difference in the two parties, if you’re correct, then it’s a two pronged attack.
Btw, it’s amazing to learn that there are so many non Americans vested in American politics, and not just a passing curiosity of interest, but enough to think (if not informed otherwise) that y’all are Americans. And the Trump worship is indistinguishable from American citizens…
I can’t imagine how I would have the time and energy to involve myself adequately in what must be most important to me, the politics/policies of the governments of my own country, and that of another on the level that you guys do. You’re all either super political junkies or super human…
Yes, I think Super human about fits.
It is not that I am especially interested in American politics, it is more that I am interested in whom is meddling in world affairs. The Chinese are colonising the South China Sea and causing great concern to Vietnam and the Philippines, not to mention the Australians. Of course nobody seems to be bothered about that …
You and I have a shared interest in such meddlings. I became particularly resentful as I became aware of how much the governments of probably all countries lie to their citizens. The cavalier attitude of a significant number of those occupying high-level positions displaying a complete disregard for the public.
The stench of the 2003 invasion of Iraq lingers. In the linked Executive Summary, which is easier to read than the whole report, you will find gems such as this:
“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood
sense of the term – namely a credible device capable of being delivered against
a strategic city target. It probably … has biological toxins and battlefield chemical
munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold
Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and
munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action
to disarm a military capacity that has been there for twenty years, and which we
helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s
ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of
UN inspectors?”
1 Like
From our CIA:
Key Judgments
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.
Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq’s WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
- Iraq’s growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad’s capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.
- Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
- Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
- Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
-
If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.
-
Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.
-
Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.
-
Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year.
1 Like
As well they should be as decisions made in the US affect them daily.
Well, lots of luck there.
(Actually, this is the very first time that I have heard it. And I would not be surprised if it is the last time, also–that is, unless I read it again in one of your posts.)
1 Like
The Bush administration based their decisions on the information provided by the CIA.
Obviously they were not even close. But that can be expected when your assessment is based on aerial observation only, nothing like human intelligence, boots on the ground.
Well that’s cool too…
So you’re also concerned about Vietnam and the Philippines…
China has legitimate claim to certain interests in the SCS.
You and I will have no disagreements on this…
China claims more than 80 per cent over territory stretching up to 2000kms from the Chinese mainland, to Indonesia and Malaysia.
2000km is a legitimate claim?
Your position to always take the opposite side regardless of logic, law or whatever is why people dislike you.
Arguing the stupidity is aways aggravating.
1 Like
Actually there’s all kinds of concern about that. Obama, you should remember, went to Australia in 2011 and gave a speech on the subject basically telling China that the US is back in town in case they want to start any shit, they’d have to go through us, as he announced that he was stationing US troops in Australia for the first time since WW2. That was to the consternation of some Australian MP’s who resented the US President choosing Australia to make such a provocative speech. I was offended by the speech and the deployment of US troops as well.
At any rate, it is the South China Sea, not the Taiwanese, Vietnam or Philippines sea. China is one of the oldest societies on earth, has been plying those waters for thousands of years, and has an extensive underwater archeological program underway to further prove their claims…the Center for Underwater Archeological Studies was created in the 1980’s to that end, expanded to the CCUCHP the China Center of Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection in 2009.
The 11 and later 9 dash line originated in 1947 and in 1954 the Geneva Convention recognized the Paracel and Spratlys to north Vietnam and in 1956 North Vietnam relinquish them to China.
In 1974 the PRC exercised military force during the Vietnam war to secure the islands after the US gave a non involvement promise to the PRC which enabled the People’s Liberation Army Navy to take control of the South Vietnamese islands…
In 1988 the Intercontinental Oceanographic Commission provided the PRC with a permit to build five observation posts for the conduction of ocean surveys, and one of the permitted observation posts was allowed to be located in the Spratly islands region.
And that is just the cliffs note version…there’s plenty of developing evidence of chinas rightful claims to the assets of the SCS. And then of course there is might makes right, exercised by both the UK and US at various times in history.
So at the very least, I don’t see where it’s our business to inject ourselves…
… and on the other side of the peninsula which includes Malaysia and Thailand we have … the Indian Ocean.
Now imagine going into Madagascar and declaring that they have to pay for access to the local waters. Or the west coast of Australia for that matter.
South China Sea … it is just a name … derived possibly from ‘south of China sea’ which implies no ownership at all.
Some countries claim a 90 mile limit others claim a 200 mile limit, China demands a 2000 mile limit.
1 Like