Not sure the Iraqis would agree(abt US defending freedom)
And last time I looked Europe was free and Russia hasn’t even threatened to invade.
Maduro certainly doesn’t agree, neither does Kim.
Yeah I suppose Israel needs defending but you already give them 40 bill a year anyway,
Ignore the source - look at the message.
Is it not immoral for the ‘‘leader’’ of the free world to spend more than 50% of it’s revenue trying to kill the rest of the free world?
We’re not trying to kill the rest of the world, you disingenuous conspiracy theorist. You should direct your hatred toward the goddamned radical Muslims, the goat fuckers that make women into slaves, fuck children, throw gays off rooftops, send their own children into schoolyards with suicide vests…
They have sworn to do what you stupidly say we do.
2 Likes
It was the star wars Initiative that push it over the top. Many forget the spending that took place to break the soviet union.
That would man Trump would be requesting 2.6 trillion bucks for the military.
That just won’t happen. do the math, he’s requesting 4.75 trillion for 2019.
1.2 trillion for SS/retirements, 1.3 trillion for healthcare means something will come up short.
Now whos being disingenuous?
You spend abt $500 bil a year on the military - the military exists for one thing and one thing only - it possesses enough weaponry to kill everyone on the planet 10 times over and that is exactly what the US military has been doing for nearly 300 years.
And yes Islamic Jihadists are a threat but maybe they would be less of a threat if you weren’t bombing the shit outta their countries. And maybe they’d stay in their own countries, instead of invading Europe?
Now this IS a REAL conspiracy theory.
I think our Military is more than funded enough already, and we abuse the hell out of the 2 Year Limit of a standing Army.
Cut the black budget projects out and we already have enough to pay our Service Members the nation median income while keeping them better equipped and trained than our enemies.
Again, you are full of shit. Having the wherewithal to defend your country does not equate to intent to kill. Aiding in the defense of allies that are being killed by attacking countries does not equate to aggression.
No doubt that are some demented Brits that do not appreciate our killing of Germans and Japs to save your asses from having to change languages.
The two bombs we used to stop WWII saved more lives than they took.
1 Like
How would the EU army fit into this? After all, Macron wants it to defend against Russia, China and the US.
1 Like
The US participated in this exercise. Why would Moonbat Macron think there’d be a need to defend against the US?
That is what I don’t get. They are EU countries and the US, a NATO exercise. The EU army will be at odds with NATO. Macron and probably Merkel are up to something. Just when the death knell is sounding for the EU. Coincidence! 
1 Like
You need to take a step back and think about the other uses of, and reasons for the existence of, the military.
An amount of the reason for the rag-heads being so pissed at the Americans has nothing to do with bombing, and a lot to do with the cost of operating their own economies. The ‘closeness’ of the Americans, be it due to oil or other considerations, makes the cost of doing business in those countries nonviable. Farmers cannot afford the fuel costs to take their crops to market … except in Iran where gasoline is/was around 15-cents per litre.
1 Like
There are few enumerated duties of the American Federal Government. One clear duty is to provide for the common defense.
As we all can see from Chaimberlain’s failure, and the Reagan/Thatcher success, it is far cheaper to have a clearly dominant military than it is to meet an aggressive foe on the field of battle.
See those F-15 aircraft in the picture? I worked with the team that created some of the avionics suite for one of the modern variants.
With sticks that fearsome, it is easy to walk softly.
1 Like
Something like this was to be my next post. Thanks.
1 Like
Maybe when France realizes that the only army that it can field is composed of conscripted Muslim immigrants?
Just a conjecture.
I found this article interesting.
Could Brexit Yet Rise Like a Phoenix?
Our Brexit Diarist Holds Out Hope
By STEPHEN MacLEAN, Special to the Sun | March 29, 2019
Is Brexit a phoenix in disguise? Imitating that fabled bird, Brexit went down in flames at Brussels last week. Britain’s true independence from the European Union, however, may yet be resurrected from the ashes. Has Brexit, phoenix-like, acquired new life?
In a desperate bid to save her Withdrawal Agreement, Prime Minister Theresa May met her parliamentary party Wednesday and, in exchange for their support, promised to resign. The idea would be to allow new leadership to take charge of the trade deal portion of Britain’s two-step exit from the EU.
Mrs. May’s sacrifice of power for her preferred deal gathered strength, in a relative way, when, during “indicative votes” in the Commons later that day, none of the alternatives gained a majority.
No. 10 interprets this as a sign that the continuing stalemate may work to the Government’s benefit. Rumors circulate that Mrs. May’s personal agreement with her party has had the contrary effect, souring opposition MPs who had been prepared to vote in favor to get Brexit behind them. (Why discussions among members of the governing party are now deemed “extra-parliamentary” is bewildering.)
Meanwhile, other MPs, are seeing the EU extension as an opportunity to bargain for better terms. They had previously voted for Mrs. May’s deal and are said to be rethinking their voting strategy.
In a developing twist, Mrs. May will bring only part of her Withdrawal Agreement to the Commons for a vote — the “divorce” component, not the political statement of the UK-EU relationship.
As details emerge, the Government must get legislation passed by the “old” Brexit date (today) if Britain is to leave the EU by the new May 22 deadline. Are mandarins devising rules on the fly, to bedevil an amical exit?
If the latest Government bill is defeated, leaving April 12 with no deal — “WTO Brexit” — comes to the fore once more, barring another Article 50 extension. Our Brexit saga whets the appetite again. Nil desperandum.
One question remains: Who will take up the cause of WTO Brexit in Parliament? None shine as Brexit’s paladin-premier. “Put not your trust in princes,” as the Psalmist wrote.
Former stalwarts Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg have blotted their copy-books, offering Mrs. May’s deal provisional support, on the basis of Irish Democratic Unionists coming onside or her departure before ongoing UK-EU negotiations.
As potential leaders, Cabinet Brexiteers like Michael Gove, Liam Fox, or Andrea Leadsom enjoy a certain consistency for having stood by the Prime Minister and her plan, but who wants another roll of those dice? Once bitten, twice shy. (In that vein, I dasn’t even consider those Remainers in Government, like David Lidington, who have been cited as possible successors.)
Alternatively, there are former Cabinet members who, for various reasons, resigned on principle in opposition to the Government’s Brexit agenda. MPs like Steve Baker and Dominic Raab. Little known outside the Westminster bubble, it is doubtful they could command enough support to get Tory MPs to bolster their candidacies.
A third rank of Conservatives do Brexit proud. Peter Bone, Sir William Cash, David Davis, Nigel Evans, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Sir John Redwood, and countless others. They form the backbone of Britain’s struggle to exit the EU. Future residence at Downing Street, though, is highly unlikely.
No matter. Achieving WTO Brexit now trumps partisanship. (Labor MP Kate Hoey, for instance, is a study in courage.)
As one of the eight indicative votes on offer, “no deal” lost by 160 to 400. Only the byzantine “Malthouse compromise” did worse, with 422 against. Two options received less support than “no deal” and two surpassed it by no more than 28 votes.
The option with the greatest support, at 264 votes, was for a customs union. Given that UK freedom to secure its own trade agreements, plus set its own tariffs and regulations, was a driving force behind the 2016 referendum, this option seems dead on arrival. (The eighth option, for a “confirmatory referendum,” isn’t an arrangement with the EU at all.)
With 650 seats in the House of Commons, Brexit needs 326 votes to get over the finish line. With 160 MPs supporting the “WTO-no deal” option, each need only persuade or cajole an opposing colleague (as it were) to ensure success.
The phoenix, “from the sacred ashes of her honor,” Shakespeare wrote, “shall star-like rise as great in fame as she was, and so stand fixed.” She is the metaphor for Brexiteers to emulate, in this hour of Britain’s struggle to shake off the EU and rise again to independence.
No I do not appreciate your intervention - not because it was not the right and moral thing to do(at the time), it is only with the benefit of nindsight that we can see the mistakes…
But because it was misguided and only enabled a much worse outcome.
We, and you, were fighting the wrong enemy and you didn’t ‘‘win’’ the war - Russia did.
It’s a total joke - we are still fighting the last war.
If we ever move even one soldier into Russia they’ll vapourise London.
… FUCK OFF !!
1 Like