Trump to stress "America First" in NatSec strategy.

  • 49 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#1 Posted by nintendoboy16 (35252 posts) -

The Hill

President Trump in a speech on Monday will detail the administration’s new national security strategy, which will reportedly emphasize the threats from Russia, China and North Korea and promote his "America First" agenda.

According to excerpts of the document reported by Reuters, the president will label China and Russia “revisionist powers.”

“They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence,” an excerpt says, as reported by the news service.

Trump will also talk about the threat of hacking, but will not label climate change a threat to national security, as the previous administration did.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment, released by Trump administration scientists last month, issued a dire warning on the impact of climate change, including an increase in wildfires due to heat waves and severe droughts.

A report earlier this month said Trump had approved a national security strategy that had won the support of key Cabinet secretaries like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Trump in the strategy to be outlined on Monday is also expected to highlight North Korea’s aggression, which the president has tried to quell with China's help.

“As missiles grow in numbers, types, and effectiveness, to include those with greater ranges, they are the most likely means for states like North Korea to use a nuclear weapon against the United States. North Korea is also pursuing chemical and biological weapons which could also be delivered by missile,” an excerpt reads.

Not looking forward to that.

Avatar image for horgen
#2 Posted by Horgen (118335 posts) -

North Korea is a threat?

Avatar image for resevl4rlz
#3 Posted by resevl4rlz (3824 posts) -

oh boy wonder who is controlling trump

Avatar image for kod
#4 Posted by KOD (2754 posts) -

@horgen said:

North Korea is a threat?

While i dislike the narrative that they are a threat, because they are not, ive been a big fan of doing something about NK for a while now.

Its a hostage state. Its worse than Iraq under Saddam.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#5 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164988 posts) -

@kod said:
@horgen said:

North Korea is a threat?

While i dislike the narrative that they are a threat, because they are not, ive been a big fan of doing something about NK for a while now.

Its a hostage state. Its worse than Iraq under Saddam.

You cannot categorically say they represent no threat. That borders on foolish.

Avatar image for kod
#6 Posted by KOD (2754 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

You cannot categorically say they represent no threat. That borders on foolish.

A viable and realistic threat? No.

Im more concerned with the jr high kid down the street who just got his first gun than i am NK. But again, i do actually support military action against them because having a dictator holding the entire nation hostage is unacceptable.

Avatar image for tryit
#7 Posted by TryIt (11764 posts) -

Just no new organization please! NSAFBICIAHOMELANDSECURITY is enough

other than that its just standard GOP chest pumping for the ignorant that happens all the time

Avatar image for horgen
#8 Posted by Horgen (118335 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

You cannot categorically say they represent no threat. That borders on foolish.

Realistically I would say they are borderline no threat at all. Unless Kim Jong-Un is a complete idiot, he will never actually launch any kind of attack against anyone. He simply wishes to continue develop weapons because he believes that agreeing to stop doing so will be his first step towards his fall from power.

Avatar image for kod
#9 Edited by KOD (2754 posts) -

@horgen said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

You cannot categorically say they represent no threat. That borders on foolish.

Realistically I would say they are borderline no threat at all. Unless Kim Jong-Un is a complete idiot, he will never actually launch any kind of attack against anyone. He simply wishes to continue develop weapons because he believes that agreeing to stop doing so will be his first step towards his fall from power.

LJS does not believe in self preservation. He thinks Kim Jong Un is just some insane guy with no reasons or motivation aside from blowing shit up. We know why they want nukes and its simply to keep the US at bay because the US has a nice long history of invading everyone without them.

Avatar image for tryit
#10 Posted by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@horgen said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

You cannot categorically say they represent no threat. That borders on foolish.

Realistically I would say they are borderline no threat at all. Unless Kim Jong-Un is a complete idiot, he will never actually launch any kind of attack against anyone. He simply wishes to continue develop weapons because he believes that agreeing to stop doing so will be his first step towards his fall from power.

LJS does not believe in self preservation. He thinks Kim Jong Un is just some insane guy with no reasons or motivation aside from blowing shit up.

I think the confusion here is Trump getting people to think that we arent already on top of it.

We are on top of it, we got it, the chiefs know what they are doing about a billion times more than Trump does. we got this, he doesnt need to fling his dick around to remind us, we know it.

Avatar image for kod
#11 Edited by KOD (2754 posts) -

@tryit said:

I think the confusion here is Trump getting people to think that we arent already on top of it.

We are on top of it, we got it, the chiefs know what they are doing about a billion times more than Trump does. we got this, he doesnt need to fling his dick around to remind us, we know it.

Well yah, part of the confusion is neroliberalism telling them to worry about Trump. Then in turn they worry about NK and pretend they are a real problem. You can go back to our last thread about this where i had to remind the neoliberals how often we've seen NK do missile tests over the past 20 years.

Avatar image for horgen
#12 Posted by Horgen (118335 posts) -

@tryit said:

I think the confusion here is Trump getting people to think that we arent already on top of it.

We are on top of it, we got it, the chiefs know what they are doing about a billion times more than Trump does. we got this, he doesnt need to fling his dick around to remind us, we know it.

He has one? I thought he was compensating.

@kod said:

LJS does not believe in self preservation. He thinks Kim Jong Un is just some insane guy with no reasons or motivation aside from blowing shit up. We know why they want nukes and its simply to keep the US at bay because the US has a nice long history of invading everyone without them.

They are blowing up one of their own mountains, aren't they?

Avatar image for tryit
#13 Posted by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@tryit said:

I think the confusion here is Trump getting people to think that we arent already on top of it.

We are on top of it, we got it, the chiefs know what they are doing about a billion times more than Trump does. we got this, he doesnt need to fling his dick around to remind us, we know it.

Well yah, part of the confusion is neroliberalism telling them to worry about Trump. Then in turn they worry about NK and pretend they are a real problem. You can go back to our last thread about this where i had to remind the neoliberals how often we've seen NK do missile tests over the past 20 years.

I am not following what your saying.


what I am saying is that just because nobody has said anything does not mean the military chiefs of this country are not doing anything and are not aware of what is happening.

and Trump is a moron and anyone who thinks he is the person who has the best view on this subject needs to be contained in my opinion

Avatar image for kod
#14 Posted by KOD (2754 posts) -

@horgen said:
@tryit said:

I think the confusion here is Trump getting people to think that we arent already on top of it.

We are on top of it, we got it, the chiefs know what they are doing about a billion times more than Trump does. we got this, he doesnt need to fling his dick around to remind us, we know it.

He has one? I thought he was compensating.

@kod said:

LJS does not believe in self preservation. He thinks Kim Jong Un is just some insane guy with no reasons or motivation aside from blowing shit up. We know why they want nukes and its simply to keep the US at bay because the US has a nice long history of invading everyone without them.

They are blowing up one of their own mountains, aren't they?

Apparently with one of their last tests they "reshaped" one of their mountains. Which... i mean... wtf does that mean and who cares? We've done a total of 904 in Nevada alone. Im sure they've reshaped the landscape in the process.

Avatar image for kod
#15 Posted by KOD (2754 posts) -

@tryit said:
@kod said:
@tryit said:

I think the confusion here is Trump getting people to think that we arent already on top of it.

We are on top of it, we got it, the chiefs know what they are doing about a billion times more than Trump does. we got this, he doesnt need to fling his dick around to remind us, we know it.

Well yah, part of the confusion is neroliberalism telling them to worry about Trump. Then in turn they worry about NK and pretend they are a real problem. You can go back to our last thread about this where i had to remind the neoliberals how often we've seen NK do missile tests over the past 20 years.

I am not following what your saying.

what I am saying is that just because nobody has said anything does not mean the military chiefs of this country are not doing anything and are not aware of what is happening.

and Trump is a moron and anyone who thinks he is the person who has the best view on this subject needs to be contained in my opinion

Im saying people like LJS believe Trump is the end of the world. So in order to help justify this idea, they see threats where they do not exist. In this case because Trump was talking shit to NK, they have to pretend NK is a real threat. When the reality is NK is no threat at all.

Avatar image for tryit
#16 Posted by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@tryit said:
@kod said:
@tryit said:

I think the confusion here is Trump getting people to think that we arent already on top of it.

We are on top of it, we got it, the chiefs know what they are doing about a billion times more than Trump does. we got this, he doesnt need to fling his dick around to remind us, we know it.

Well yah, part of the confusion is neroliberalism telling them to worry about Trump. Then in turn they worry about NK and pretend they are a real problem. You can go back to our last thread about this where i had to remind the neoliberals how often we've seen NK do missile tests over the past 20 years.

I am not following what your saying.

what I am saying is that just because nobody has said anything does not mean the military chiefs of this country are not doing anything and are not aware of what is happening.

and Trump is a moron and anyone who thinks he is the person who has the best view on this subject needs to be contained in my opinion

Im saying people like LJS believe Trump is the end of the world. So in order to help justify this idea, they see threats where they do not exist. In this case because Trump was talking shit to NK, they have to pretend NK is a real threat. When the reality is NK is no threat at all.

ah I gotcha.

well I think its a threat but its not the level of threat people think and I think the military is on what needs to be on.

Its a sad day that I have more faith in Miltiades generals to make the right and reasonable choice about peace but there is where I think we are

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#17 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164988 posts) -

@horgen said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

You cannot categorically say they represent no threat. That borders on foolish.

Realistically I would say they are borderline no threat at all. Unless Kim Jong-Un is a complete idiot, he will never actually launch any kind of attack against anyone. He simply wishes to continue develop weapons because he believes that agreeing to stop doing so will be his first step towards his fall from power.

I'm not giving an opinion either way. I'm saying you shouldn't do that either way.

Avatar image for kod
#18 Edited by KOD (2754 posts) -

@tryit said:

Its a sad day that I have more faith in Miltiades generals to make the right and reasonable choice about peace but there is where I think we are

Meh, like i said before, im actually a big fan of actually doing something about NK and the sooner we do this the better. Its a hostage state, ran by a dictator who tortures his people, imprisons them for anything he wants, allows his people to starve to death, etc. Its probably the most religious totalitarian state in the world Its just not an acceptable situation. We should have done it when his father was in charge, and i know because of capitalism we will never intervene but i think its the moral and ethical thing to do.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#19 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164988 posts) -

@tryit: FYI....he's wrong.

Avatar image for tryit
#20 Edited by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@tryit said:

Its a sad day that I have more faith in Miltiades generals to make the right and reasonable choice about peace but there is where I think we are

Meh, like i said before, im actually a big fan of actually doing something about NK and the sooner we do this the better. Its a hostage state, ran by a dictator who tortures his people, imprisons them for anything he wants, allows his people to starve to death, etc. Its probably the most religious totalitarian state in the world Its just not an acceptable situation. We should have done it when his father was in charge, and i know because of capitalism we will never intervene but i think its the moral and ethical thing to do.

we should not get into conflicts over how a country treats its people and we usually dont. We just use that has cover to get public support.

1. we are not the country that can be a moral authority to others REGARDLESS of the context.

2. if we have nothing directly to gain from it then military action is a price that is far to high. Miltary engagements are EXTREEMLY expensive, they make pretty much the entire public service sector look like childs play. So unless you consider the rights of people in other countries to be more important than your childs education and safe roads then one should back off from morality on that reason

Avatar image for kod
#21 Posted by KOD (2754 posts) -

@tryit said:
@kod said:
@tryit said:

Its a sad day that I have more faith in Miltiades generals to make the right and reasonable choice about peace but there is where I think we are

Meh, like i said before, im actually a big fan of actually doing something about NK and the sooner we do this the better. Its a hostage state, ran by a dictator who tortures his people, imprisons them for anything he wants, allows his people to starve to death, etc. Its probably the most religious totalitarian state in the world Its just not an acceptable situation. We should have done it when his father was in charge, and i know because of capitalism we will never intervene but i think its the moral and ethical thing to do.

we should not get into conflicts over how a country treats its people and we usually dont. We just use that has cover to get public support.

1. we are not the country that can be a moral authority to others REGARDLESS of the context.

2. if we have nothing directly to gain from it then military action is a price that is far to high. Miltary engagements are EXTREEMLY expensive, they make pretty much the entire public service sector look like childs play. So unless you consider the rights of people in other countries to be more important than your childs education and safe roads then one should back off from morality on that reason

I highly disagree with this.

1. Not only has the UN and US already taken this on, when it comes to dictators and totalitarian regimes, i think its an easy answer. We're not talking simply different forms of government or fake communist fears. We are talking about a hostage state.

2. It would be very easy to fund a NK operation. But it wont happen. It wont happen because China and Russia are too invested in exploiting them for resources.

Avatar image for tryit
#22 Edited by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@tryit said:
@kod said:
@tryit said:

Its a sad day that I have more faith in Miltiades generals to make the right and reasonable choice about peace but there is where I think we are

Meh, like i said before, im actually a big fan of actually doing something about NK and the sooner we do this the better. Its a hostage state, ran by a dictator who tortures his people, imprisons them for anything he wants, allows his people to starve to death, etc. Its probably the most religious totalitarian state in the world Its just not an acceptable situation. We should have done it when his father was in charge, and i know because of capitalism we will never intervene but i think its the moral and ethical thing to do.

we should not get into conflicts over how a country treats its people and we usually dont. We just use that has cover to get public support.

1. we are not the country that can be a moral authority to others REGARDLESS of the context.

2. if we have nothing directly to gain from it then military action is a price that is far to high. Miltary engagements are EXTREEMLY expensive, they make pretty much the entire public service sector look like childs play. So unless you consider the rights of people in other countries to be more important than your childs education and safe roads then one should back off from morality on that reason

I highly disagree with this.

1. Not only has the UN and US already taken this on, when it comes to dictators and totalitarian regimes, i think its an easy answer. We're not talking simply different forms of government or fake communist fears. We are talking about a hostage state.

2. It would be very easy to fund a NK operation. But it wont happen. It wont happen because China and Russia are too invested in exploiting them for resources.

1. again, the vast majority of the time what is sold to the american public and the world is NOT the real motovation for the war. Iraq war is a perfect example, that was 10000% about one thing, control of oil.

2. Sun Tzu has said that war is the absolute total last resort, it is a sign of weakness and desperation. Its horribly expensive and yes...one war can easily cost more than the entire education system of this country. Frankly if someone considers themselves a patriot they should consider that. which is more important? helping Iraq childern? or educating our entire population? because that is very literally the cost.

Avatar image for kod
#23 Edited by KOD (2754 posts) -

@tryit said:

1. again, the vast majority of the time what is sold to the american public and the world is NOT the real motovation for the war. Iraq war is a perfect example, that was 10000% about one thing, control of oil.

2. Sun Tzu has said that war is the absolute total last resort, it is a sign of weakness and desperation. Its horribly expensive and yes...one war can easily cost more than the entire education system of this country. Frankly if someone considers themselves a patriot they should consider that. which is more important? helping Iraq childern? or educating our entire population? because that is very literally the cost.

1. Im not suggesting it is. But here is a reality of war people need to face. No matter the intentions, people profit. The idea is if we need to go to war, we make it about something noble and worthy of war, like for example, millions of people living in a hostage state... like they did in Iraq as well. Iraq, which was a very mixed bag of reasons that went back to agreements made in the first Gulf war when the UN signed a blood for oil deal, making it so the US could not finish removing a sadistic dictator (which lead to the 98 iraqi liberation act signed by the US and UN) that kept that region "stable" through mass murder. No, Iraq was not 10000% about one thing and i highly recommend you touch up on that subject before saying this. For America, arms manufacturers and private military had their hands way deeper in this pot than oil.

2. You're acting like its a zero sum game and last i checked we were able to feed, house and cloth most of our population in the 20th and 21st century, while also bombing the shit out of everyone, having two world wars, having the longest war in written history, etc. Of course im not in favor of all of these acts, but again, its not the zero sum game you're trying to pretend it is. While things have declined, we've flourished as a nation while doing all of this.

Avatar image for tryit
#24 Posted by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@tryit said:

1. again, the vast majority of the time what is sold to the american public and the world is NOT the real motovation for the war. Iraq war is a perfect example, that was 10000% about one thing, control of oil.

2. Sun Tzu has said that war is the absolute total last resort, it is a sign of weakness and desperation. Its horribly expensive and yes...one war can easily cost more than the entire education system of this country. Frankly if someone considers themselves a patriot they should consider that. which is more important? helping Iraq childern? or educating our entire population? because that is very literally the cost.

1. Im not suggesting it is. But here is a reality of war people need to face. No matter the intentions, people profit. The idea is if we need to go to war, we make it about something noble and worthy of war, like for example, millions of people living in a hostage state... like they did in Iraq as well. Iraq, which was a very mixed bag of reasons that went back to agreements made in the first Gulf war when the UN signed a blood for oil deal, making it so the US could not finish removing a sadistic dictator (which lead to the 98 iraqi liberation act signed by the US and UN) that kept that region "stable" through mass murder. No, Iraq was not 10000% about one thing and i highly recommend you touch up on that subject before saying this. For America, arms manufacturers and private military had their hands way deeper in this pot than oil.

2. You're acting like its a zero sum game and last i checked we were able to feed, house and cloth most of our population in the 20th and 21st century, while also bombing the shit out of everyone, having two world wars, having the longest war in written history, etc. Of course im not in favor of all of these acts, but again, its not the zero sum game you're trying to pretend it is. While things have declined, we've flourished as a nation while doing all of this.

1. I dont think you are hearing me exactly. Iraq war was 100% (not 99% but 100%) about one thing. Controlling oil. In fact Sun Tzu also teaches this, you get your population behind you on moral grounds, your intentions however should always be 100% pragmatic, clear with a measurable outcome. Doing a war that costs billions of dollars to better off other people is not only non-patriotic, it doesn't happen in reality.

2. it a very simple measurable equation, the cost of the Iraq war cost the same as two years of the ENTIRE public school education system. Money for war really does exist, its not in some kind of magical economy where it doesnt affect anything else. it has a direct and measurable impact on services americans enjoy.

Avatar image for kod
#25 Edited by KOD (2754 posts) -

@tryit said:

1. I dont think you are hearing me exactly. Iraq war was 100% (not 99% but 100%) about one thing. Controlling oil. In fact Sun Tzu also teaches this, you get your population behind you on moral grounds, your intentions however should always be 100% pragmatic, clear with a measurable outcome. Doing a war that costs billions of dollars to better off other people is not only non-patriotic, it doesn't happen in reality.

2. it a very simple measurable equation, the cost of the Iraq war cost the same as two years of the ENTIRE public school education system. Money for war really does exist, its not in some kind of magical economy where it doesnt affect anything else. it has a direct and measurable impact on services americans enjoy.

1. You can say the Iraq war was 100% about oil, but we know it was not. Even when you attempt to link Bush and members of his cabinet with vested interests, it turns out as i mentioned before, arms manufacturers and private military was FAR more invested and made WAY more profits. So if youre going to go with the silly idea that the Iraq war was about one thing, you might want to shift your claim to private military. Also, stop with the Sun Tzu philosophy, i dont care. We are not talking philosophy, we are talking about real history on a very specific topic.

2. So again you're just kind of wrong here. The US creates funds out of nowhere all the time and those funds to do not affect anything else, its called quantitative easing. Even if we do not go that direction, again, this is not the nonsense zero sum game you still want to present... or i guess now you're conceding a bit that it could "affect" other things, but that is extremely vague and again, if you've lived in America in the 20th or 21st century, you'll note that wars have not really had an impact on our spending for education or social services.

Avatar image for tryit
#26 Edited by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@tryit said:

1. I dont think you are hearing me exactly. Iraq war was 100% (not 99% but 100%) about one thing. Controlling oil. In fact Sun Tzu also teaches this, you get your population behind you on moral grounds, your intentions however should always be 100% pragmatic, clear with a measurable outcome. Doing a war that costs billions of dollars to better off other people is not only non-patriotic, it doesn't happen in reality.

2. it a very simple measurable equation, the cost of the Iraq war cost the same as two years of the ENTIRE public school education system. Money for war really does exist, its not in some kind of magical economy where it doesnt affect anything else. it has a direct and measurable impact on services americans enjoy.

1. You can say the Iraq war was 100% about oil, but we know it was not. Even when you attempt to link Bush and members of his cabinet with vested interests, it turns out as i mentioned before, arms manufacturers and private military was FAR more invested and made WAY more profits. So if youre going to go with the silly idea that the Iraq war was about one thing, you might want to shift your claim to private military.

2. So again you're just kind of wrong here. The US creates funds out of nowhere all the time and those funds to do not affect anything else, its called quantitative easing. Even if we do not go that direction, again, this is not the nonsense zero sum game you still want to present... or i guess now you're conceding a bit that it could "affect" other things, but that is extremely vague and again, if you've lived in America in the 20th or 21st century, you'll note that wars have not really had an impact on our spending for education or social services.

1. no it was...end of story. we will just have to disagree on that. I am telling you its standard policy for centuries to get citizens behind a war for morality while doing it actually for pragmatic reasons. If it has any chance of changing your mind I can find sources that provide evidence of that.

2. again sorry you are wrong. principles of economics do not magically disappear because its related to military operations when you are talking literally 1 trillion dollars!!!!!!!!!! which is how much the Iraq war cost. You do not spend 1 trillion dollars to help citizens of other countries at the expense of your own (and yes!!!!!! 1 trillion DOES cost amercians) and then consider yourself anything other than un-patotic.

I think we are at an impass because I know I am right and I know I am not moving

its complely absurd for people to consider themselves patioritc while supporting a 1 Trillion dollar war to 'help' citizens of another country AND at the same time think that public service spending here in this country needs to be cut. that is totally absurd

Avatar image for kod
#27 Edited by KOD (2754 posts) -

@tryit said:

1. no it was...end of story. we will just have to disagree on that. I am telling you its standard policy for centuries to get citizens behind a war for morality while doing it actually for pragmatic reasons. If it has any chance of changing your mind I can find sources that provide evidence of that.

There is no disagreement here. I am mentioning facts, you're saying "thats not true" and then talking about Sun Tsu.

How about this.... you demonstrate, give me citations that would show us that it was strictly about oil. Meanwhile, if you'd like, i can provide citations for the Iraqi liberation agreement, arms manufacturers and private military profiting more than oil, etc. You're not going to do this though are you? Because you cant, because you're not working in the realm of reality, you're simply repeating nonsense without knowing anything about the topic and then running to military philosophy to some how prove it.

@tryit said:

2. again sorry you are wrong. principles of economics do not magically disappear because its related to military operations when you are talking literally 1 trillion dollars!!!!!!!!!! which is how much the Iraq war cost. You do not spend 1 trillion dollars to help citizens of other countries at the expense of your own (and yes!!!!!! 1 trillion DOES cost amercians) and then consider yourself anything other than un-patotic.

Learn what quantitative easing is, how we use it, how and when we pay it back, etc. and then get back to me. As it stands, you seem to know nothing about economics or the Iraq war. The "impasse" you mention is from you not recognizing history and reality.

If you are incapable of citing one single thing in your response, don't respond.

Avatar image for tryit
#28 Edited by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@kod said:
@tryit said:

1. no it was...end of story. we will just have to disagree on that. I am telling you its standard policy for centuries to get citizens behind a war for morality while doing it actually for pragmatic reasons. If it has any chance of changing your mind I can find sources that provide evidence of that.

There is no disagreement here. I am mentioning facts, you're saying "thats not true" and then talking about Sun Tsu.

How about this.... you demonstrate, give me citations that would show us that it was strictly about oil. Meanwhile, if you'd like, i can provide citations for the Iraqi liberation agreement, arms manufacturers and private military profiting more than oil, etc. You're not going to do this though are you? Because you cant, because you're not working in the realm of reality, you're simply repeating nonsense without knowing anything about the topic and then running to military philosophy to some how prove it.

@tryit said:

2. again sorry you are wrong. principles of economics do not magically disappear because its related to military operations when you are talking literally 1 trillion dollars!!!!!!!!!! which is how much the Iraq war cost. You do not spend 1 trillion dollars to help citizens of other countries at the expense of your own (and yes!!!!!! 1 trillion DOES cost amercians) and then consider yourself anything other than un-patotic.

Learn what quantitative easing is, how we use it, how and when we pay it back, etc. and then get back to me. As it stands, you seem to know nothing about economics or the Iraq war. The "impasse" you mention is from you not recognizing history and reality.

If you are incapable of citing one single thing in your response, don't respond.

think on this for a second

'we can save 1 trillion dollars by cutting spending to social services'

'we can spend 1 trillion dollars by sending our troops to help people in iraq'

why is it that people think the reality of ecomonics at the 1 trillion dollar level is different if its war.

LITERALLY people are saying we need to cut back on spending for our citizens on public services to save money THOSE EXACT SAME PEOPLE want to spend 1 TRILLION dollars to save iraq childern.

hello???????????????????? they LITTERALLY want to take from american childern and give to iraq childern and they are so damn blind they dont even see it

IN ONE SENTENCE: here is what they are saying

'we need to cut spending on american schools so we have more money for the military so that we can save iraq childern'

Avatar image for horgen
#29 Posted by Horgen (118335 posts) -

@kod said:

2. So again you're just kind of wrong here. The US creates funds out of nowhere all the time and those funds to do not affect anything else, its called quantitative easing. Even if we do not go that direction, again, this is not the nonsense zero sum game you still want to present... or i guess now you're conceding a bit that it could "affect" other things, but that is extremely vague and again, if you've lived in America in the 20th or 21st century, you'll note that wars have not really had an impact on our spending for education or social services.

Are you aware of inflation?

Avatar image for tryit
#30 Edited by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@horgen said:
@kod said:

2. So again you're just kind of wrong here. The US creates funds out of nowhere all the time and those funds to do not affect anything else, its called quantitative easing. Even if we do not go that direction, again, this is not the nonsense zero sum game you still want to present... or i guess now you're conceding a bit that it could "affect" other things, but that is extremely vague and again, if you've lived in America in the 20th or 21st century, you'll note that wars have not really had an impact on our spending for education or social services.

Are you aware of inflation?

the problem with the argument he is making is that one can make the same argument about funding for education.

So clearly we cant quantitatively ease everything so we have to pick.

literally...iraq childern over american childern.

Avatar image for horgen
#31 Posted by Horgen (118335 posts) -

@tryit said:

the problem with the argument he is making is that one can make the same argument about funding for education.

So clearly we cant quantitatively ease everything so we have to pick.

literally...iraq childern over american childern.

Bombing over educating... I'm glad you got your priorities in order.

Avatar image for tryit
#32 Edited by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@horgen said:
@tryit said:

the problem with the argument he is making is that one can make the same argument about funding for education.

So clearly we cant quantitatively ease everything so we have to pick.

literally...iraq childern over american childern.

Bombing over educating... I'm glad you got your priorities in order.

I was trying to boil it down to its basics.

People who think we are fighting wars overseas to save Iraq children( a example) (which is really not the reason we do it) is very literally helping saying we should help iraq childern at the expense of american childern.

I consider that un-patiotic myself

Avatar image for horgen
#33 Posted by Horgen (118335 posts) -

@tryit said:

I was trying to boil it down to its basics.

People who think we are fighting wars overseas to save Iraq children( a example) (which is really not the reason we do it) is very literally helping saying we should help iraq childern at the expense of american childern.

I consider that un-patiotic myself

People believed that?

Avatar image for tryit
#34 Edited by TryIt (11764 posts) -

@horgen said:
@tryit said:

I was trying to boil it down to its basics.

People who think we are fighting wars overseas to save Iraq children( a example) (which is really not the reason we do it) is very literally helping saying we should help iraq childern at the expense of american childern.

I consider that un-patiotic myself

People believed that?

yup.

there are people who think we go to war mostly to save people out there, including the example of iraq