OT: Trump now literally a laughingstock...

[Alan Baker]

'World leaders don't generally troll each other, but the prime ministers
of the five Nordic countries are giving it a shot.

They just posted a photograph of themselves clasping a soccer ball - a
droll take on a photo of U.S. President Donald Trump, Saudi King Salman
and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi holding a glowing orb that
went viral last week.'

<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nordics-trump-idUSKBN18Q2FU?>

[toms...@gmail.com]

Just like they were laughing when Trump told them point-blank to start living up to their NATO 2% of GDP agreement. These idiots might as well have clown suits on.

[Alan Baker]

The clown suit is on Trump...

...it goes with the orange face makeup.

:-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

Is that the BEST comeback you have? Pathetic...

[Alan Baker]

It's all the comeback required for you.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Just as I thought: you're stumped!!!

[Alan Baker]

You should be careful about that sort of "comeback"...

[toms...@gmail.com]

Face it: you're STUMPED!

[-hh]

> to start living up to their NATO 2% of GDP agreement...

You do realize that the 2% GDP goal wasn't even agreed to until
2014, right? And that the promise is to hit 2% by 2024, right?

After all, developing a new budget with higher spending does
take time. For example, the USA hasn't even written & passed
a new budget since this agreement was signed.


-hh

[toms...@gmail.com]

SO WHAT? They AGREED to it and MOST don't even COME CLOSE! Some would only be competitive in a BATTLE OF THE BANDS!

[Alan Baker]

Are you having a tantrum?

[-hh]

> SO WHAT? They AGREED to it and MOST don't even COME CLOSE!...

And as per said agreement, they're not required to yet. That
means that they've not defaulted or in violation of anything.

Today's 2017, not 2024: the deadline is still 7 years in the future.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-31 10:09 AM, Moderate wrote:
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:

>>
>> And as per said agreement, they're not required to yet. That
>> means that they've not defaulted or in violation of anything.
>>
>> Today's 2017, not 2024: the deadline is still 7 years in the future.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>>
>

> Oh please. They have been under paying for decades.
>

Proof?

Support?

Do you have ANYTHING?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:09:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:
>>

>> And as per said agreement, they're not required to yet. That
>> means that they've not defaulted or in violation of anything.
>>
>> Today's 2017, not 2024: the deadline is still 7 years in the future.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>>
>

>Oh please. They have been under paying for decades.

If there isn't a requirement signed

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:09:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:
>>

>> And as per said agreement, they're not required to yet. That
>> means that they've not defaulted or in violation of anything.
>>
>> Today's 2017, not 2024: the deadline is still 7 years in the future.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:09:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:
>>

>> And as per said agreement, they're not required to yet. That
>> means that they've not defaulted or in violation of anything.
>>
>> Today's 2017, not 2024: the deadline is still 7 years in the future.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:09:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:
>>

>> And as per said agreement, they're not required to yet. That
>> means that they've not defaulted or in violation of anything.
>>
>> Today's 2017, not 2024: the deadline is still 7 years in the future.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>>

>Oh please. They have been under paying for decades.

Oh please. Not so if they haven't signed the agreement yet. How
stupid can you be? Never mind, we know the answer to that already.

[-hh]

BobbyK wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:09:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
> <nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

> >-hh Wrote in message:

> >>
> >> And as per said agreement, they're not required to yet. That
> >> means that they've not defaulted or in violation of anything.
> >>
> >> Today's 2017, not 2024: the deadline is still 7 years in the future.
> >>

> >Oh please. They have been under paying for decades.
>
> Oh please. Not so if they haven't signed the agreement yet. How
> stupid can you be? Never mind, we know the answer to that already.

If memory serves, the prior agreement dates from 2006, which called
for a budget of 1% of GDP ... which many did achieve.

FYI, here's a quick article with a partial chart:

<http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11>

In any case, even if one wants to point out that the USA spends
more than 2%, the facts of the matter is that the USA's DoD
budget includes allocations for more theaters of operation than
merely EUCOM (the one that's NATO's back yard). All told, the
US has nine (9) different combat commands identified; here's a
quick primer:

<http://www.dodlive.mil/2016/08/17/dods-9-combatant-commands-what-they-are-what-they-do/>

Now just think about how much smaller the US Navy would be if
we didn't have the Indian or Pacific Oceans as theaters. This
is pretty much why the USA has more carriers (10) than the
rest of the world combined (8), even before we consider that
our nine (9) full-deck amphibious assault ships also do flight
operations and which are bigger than some other countries' carriers.


-hh

[toms...@gmail.com]

Think about it: since WWII the only NATO country that has undertaken an independent military action is Great Britain. They are TOTALLY dependent on the US for their national security. How would you feel if we were totally dependent on the French for our defense? I would be damn worried! Trump is kicking these pompous idiots in the butt to behave in their own best interest. Sounds like dealing with teenagers.

[-hh]

T.... Writes:
> Think about it: since WWII the only NATO country that has undertaken an
> independent military action is Great Britain.

Against Argentina. And the USA's sole independent actions were Grenada and Panama.
Overall, Argentina was the toughest one.

> They are TOTALLY dependent on the US for their national security.

Not really. They simply are only interested in a much smaller sphere of influence,
which invariably requires less resourcing.

> How would you feel if we were totally dependent on the French for our defense?
> I would be damn worried!

I'm not. It shows you how little you know about the French, particularly how
extensive their deployments have been in peacekeeping. Until we sent 100K
troops to Iraq, France was the #1 deployed military in the world.

> Trump is kicking these pompous idiots in the butt to behave in their own best interest.
> Sounds like dealing with teenagers.

Hardly: he tried to berate them for not finishing a decade long plan in but 3 years (which
would be 7 years ahead of schedule), and I can assure you that if not literally to his face,
they *are* very much laughing at this Administration's utter cluelessness. Just like how
Mexico is now laughing at getting those Carrier jobs that Trump "saved".

Hey, how's the payment plan going for that wall, eh?


-hh

[toms...@gmail.com]

You MIGHT be happy depending upon the French, but try getting ELECTED with that position!

Yes, Europe IS totally dependent on the US for their defense against the Russians. You think Luxembourg can defend themselves? You're typical of other Uber Libs I know - you're in TOTAL DENIAL!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-31 8:40 PM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:26:54 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
>> T.... Writes:
>>> Think about it: since WWII the only NATO country that has undertaken an
>>> independent military action is Great Britain.
>>
>> Against Argentina. And the USA's sole independent actions were Grenada and Panama.
>> Overall, Argentina was the toughest one.
>>
>>> They are TOTALLY dependent on the US for their national security.
>>
>> Not really. They simply are only interested in a much smaller sphere of influence,
>> which invariably requires less resourcing.
>>
>>> How would you feel if we were totally dependent on the French for our defense?
>>> I would be damn worried!
>>
>> I'm not. It shows you how little you know about the French, particularly how
>> extensive their deployments have been in peacekeeping. Until we sent 100K
>> troops to Iraq, France was the #1 deployed military in the world.
>>
>>> Trump is kicking these pompous idiots in the butt to behave in their own best interest.
>>> Sounds like dealing with teenagers.
>>
>> Hardly: he tried to berate them for not finishing a decade long plan in but 3 years (which
>> would be 7 years ahead of schedule), and I can assure you that if not literally to his face,
>> they *are* very much laughing at this Administration's utter cluelessness. Just like how
>> Mexico is now laughing at getting those Carrier jobs that Trump "saved".
>>
>> Hey, how's the payment plan going for that wall, eh?
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> You MIGHT be happy depending upon the French, but try getting ELECTED with that position!

So now it isn't about facts, but about what gets you elected?

[-hh]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 3:53:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-05-31 8:40 PM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:26:54 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

> >> [tomseim2g] Writes:
> >>> Think about it: since WWII the only NATO country that has
> >>> undertaken an independent military action is Great Britain.
> >>
> >> Against Argentina. And the USA's sole independent actions
> >> were Grenada and Panama. Overall, Argentina was the toughest one.
> >>
> >>> They are TOTALLY dependent on the US for their national security.
> >>
> >> Not really. They simply are only interested in a much smaller
> >> sphere of influence, which invariably requires less resourcing.
> >>
> >>> How would you feel if we were totally dependent on the French
> >>> for our defense?
> >>> I would be damn worried!
> >>
> >> I'm not. It shows you how little you know about the French,
> >> particularly how extensive their deployments have been in
> >> peacekeeping. Until we sent 100K troops to Iraq, France was
> >> the #1 deployed military in the world.
> >>
> >>> Trump is kicking these pompous idiots in the butt to behave
> >>> in their own best interest. Sounds like dealing with teenagers.
> >>
> >> Hardly: he tried to berate them for not finishing a decade
> >> long plan in but 3 years (which would be 7 years ahead of
> >> schedule), and I can assure you that if not literally to his
> >> face, they *are* very much laughing at this Administration's
> >> utter cluelessness. Just like how Mexico is now laughing at
> >> getting those Carrier jobs that Trump "saved".
> >>
> >> Hey, how's the payment plan going for that wall, eh?
> >

> > You MIGHT be happy depending upon the French, but try
> > getting ELECTED with that position!
>
> So now it isn't about facts, but about what gets you elected?

Well, 'tomseim2g' has to move the goal posts somehow, particularly
considering how he was beaten on all of the other points I raised,
such that he's trying to ignore them. This included:

- False claim that UK was the only post-WW2 unilateralist;
- Failure to understand National Interests/Spheres of Influence;
- How Trump was factually wrong on the NATO 2% GDP bit;
- How Mexico still isn't paying for the Wall;
- How the Carrier "Saved Jobs!" has imploded.

> > Yes, Europe IS totally dependent on the US for their
> > defense against the Russians.

Except that this changed with the fall of the Warsaw Pact in '91.
Europe is actually a lot more self-reliant today, particularly
as previously WP countries have been joining the NATO alliance
(as well as the EU, CoE, & OSCE). Good enough to win an outright
battle? Well, if not, then just why did Russia change their
method of operations starting a ~decade ago (Georgia; 2008)?

> > You think Luxembourg can defend themselves?

From just what, specifically? Zika? Football hooligans?

> > You're typical of other Uber Libs I know - you're in TOTAL DENIAL!

And by resorting to lame Ad Hominem namecalling fallacies, our
new socky friend 'tomseim2g' has effectively confessed that he
knows that he lost the debate based on objectivity and facts.


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 20:40:12 -0700 (PDT), toms...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:26:54 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
>> T.... Writes:
>> > Think about it: since WWII the only NATO country that has undertaken an
>> > independent military action is Great Britain.
>>
>> Against Argentina. And the USA's sole independent actions were Grenada and Panama.
>> Overall, Argentina was the toughest one.
>>
>> > They are TOTALLY dependent on the US for their national security.
>>
>> Not really. They simply are only interested in a much smaller sphere of influence,
>> which invariably requires less resourcing.
>>
>> > How would you feel if we were totally dependent on the French for our defense?
>> > I would be damn worried!
>>
>> I'm not. It shows you how little you know about the French, particularly how
>> extensive their deployments have been in peacekeeping. Until we sent 100K
>> troops to Iraq, France was the #1 deployed military in the world.
>>
>> > Trump is kicking these pompous idiots in the butt to behave in their own best interest.
>> > Sounds like dealing with teenagers.
>>
>> Hardly: he tried to berate them for not finishing a decade long plan in but 3 years (which
>> would be 7 years ahead of schedule), and I can assure you that if not literally to his face,
>> they *are* very much laughing at this Administration's utter cluelessness. Just like how
>> Mexico is now laughing at getting those Carrier jobs that Trump "saved".
>>
>> Hey, how's the payment plan going for that wall, eh?
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
>You MIGHT be happy depending upon the French, but try getting ELECTED with that position!

Trump is GOING to have a PROBLEM in four YEARS because he's making a
FOOL of himself.

>
>Yes, Europe IS totally dependent on the US for their defense against the Russians. You think Luxembourg can defend themselves? You're typical of other Uber Libs I know - you're in TOTAL DENIAL!

I WAS going TO kill FILE you but YOU'RE such a CLOWN I just can'T.

You SURE DO like ALL CAPS.