Reality versus crazed, left wing rhetoric.

Germany was not at war with anyone for 21 years and then Poland started trouble.
What has China done lately? Invaded Nepal, had border skirmishes with Vietnam, forced down an American plane in international air space, has occupied some of the Spratly islands belonging to the Philippines, stolen intellectual property, poisoned thousands of pets, executed tens of thousands for their organs, violated US election law, damaged the US steel industry by dumping, covertly supported North Korea, and the list goes on. Trump is calling them on their shenanigans. Once again you stand against the US.

Business is warfare to the Chinese.

They have been continually at war with the West since economic "Modernization" after the death of Mao.


High - speed Rail - how is that any comparison?
Take a look at Gov Gruesome and the "Success" of the Federally funded high speed rail - now reduced to a fractioni of planned - and Billions of tax-payer dollars lost into the cesspool that is Kalifornia corrjuption and DPST politics.

There is your "high-speed rail" TDG.

I don't want to get involved in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. This is a Shiite and Sunni war that is going on over there. Why the f**k are we trying to get involved in it. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Trump's instincts on getting involved in foreign wars are better than most politicians, Republican or Democrat. The problem is he shoots from the hip. So he decided to play chicken with a suicidal maniac. Khamenei won't talk to us, won't reply to Trump's letters, and instead is shooting our drones out of the sky. Trump to his credit is trying to deescalate the situation, but we wouldn't be in this situation if he'd exercised better judgement. If he were more of a globalist and less of a nationalist we would have the Europeans and others on our side, on Iran and China.

President Carter said it best when talking about China.

“Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None. And we have stayed at war.” The U.S., he noted, has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history, making the country “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” Carter said. This is, he said, because of America's tendency to force other nations to “adopt our American principles.”

In China, meanwhile, the economic benefits of peace were clear to the eye. “How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” he asked. While China has some 18,000 miles of high-speed rail, the U.S. has “wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on military spending. “It's more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that's why they're ahead of us. In almost every way.” Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This is interesting. I don't subscribe to Carter's view that America is a force for evil. But he's right about the cost. China's defense expenses went down from around 7% of GDP in the early 1980's to around 1.8% in 1989, and then stayed there. Their GDP growth per annum since then has averaged about 9% per year. Admittedly, lower defense expenditures didn't play a major part in that, but they would have helped.

During that same 29 year period, from 1989 to present, U.S. defense expenditures as % of GDP averaged about 3.8%. The difference between the U.S. figure, 3.8%, and the Chinese figure, 1.8%, is 2% of GDP. Apply that over 29 years, and in 2019 dollars, that's about $8 trillion. That would have gone a long way towards paying off the national debt.

Potato, potaato. Sometimes a war comes to a country whether they want it or not. Carter was a failure in so many ways it is an embarrassment to use him as a source. We chose Vietnam, we chose World War I, we chose the Spanish-American war, we chose the Mexican-American war, and you could say that we (this includes democrats) chose the Iraq war. The rest came knockin at our door. Of course, Spain would still be in Cuba and PI under fascist Franco. The US would not have clear title to New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California. The USSR would still be around and maybe Kaiser Wilhelm VI would rule the German hegemony. The point is that you can't change what has happened. You can only speculate about the outcome. It is very unfair to makes vague assumptions about a leader based on no real time evidence of what he or her believes.
As for the Chinese economy, it was easy for them to achieve 9 % GDP growth, they started at nothing. By hook and crook they've grown. They stole, they cheated, they browbeat, they held the world hostage to get that growth...and now it gets harder. If the overlords don't get growth then they get revolution.

Potato, potaato. Sometimes a war comes to a country whether they want it or not. Carter was a failure in so many ways it is an embarrassment to use him as a source. We chose Vietnam, we chose World War I, we chose the Spanish-American war, we chose the Mexican-American war, and you could say that we (this includes democrats) chose the Iraq war. The rest came knockin at our door. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

You left out the Korean War. we chose that too.


only 3 wars that came knocking on our door.

Potato, potaato. Sometimes a war comes to a country whether they want it or not. Carter was a failure in so many ways it is an embarrassment to use him as a source. We chose Vietnam, we chose World War I, we chose the Spanish-American war, we chose the Mexican-American war, and you could say that we (this includes democrats) chose the Iraq war. The rest came knockin at our door. Of course, Spain would still be in Cuba and PI under fascist Franco. The US would not have clear title to New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California. The USSR would still be around and maybe Kaiser Wilhelm VI would rule the German hegemony. The point is that you can't change what has happened. You can only speculate about the outcome. It is very unfair to makes vague assumptions about a leader based on no real time evidence of what he or her believes.
As for the Chinese economy, it was easy for them to achieve 9 % GDP growth, they started at nothing. By hook and crook they've grown. They stole, they cheated, they browbeat, they held the world hostage to get that growth...and now it gets harder. If the overlords don't get growth then they get revolution. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Those are reasonable points. I can't argue with them, except that China didn't hold the world hostage. Yes, a seemingly bad decision can result in favorable consequences. In the case of Iran, Trump wanted to curtail Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missile testing, and assertive behavior in the Middle East. So far his policies have had the opposite effect. And the tariffs on China, and China's response, have hurt both the U.S.A. and China, while some other countries like Taiwan and Vietnam stand to marginally benefit. It's certainly possible that the end result could be an Iran that's no longer a threat to its neighbors and a China that treats our businesses more fairly. I think the results are more likely to be negative though.

You left out the Korean War. we chose that too.


only 3 wars that came knocking on our door. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'd call this...North Korea invaded South Korea. What do you think would have happened if our soldiers in place had laid down their arms and said , "it's all yours?"

Tiny - Fine - you oppose Trump's response to Iran.
Pray Tell - do you have an alternative pathway to alter the Iranian Theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons they have promised repeatedly to use to destroy Israel and the US?
Or, do you simply not take Iran seriously?
Please define a course of Action for peace in the Middle east from Your side of the political spectrum
Thank You

Oeb, I only offer solutions for tax and energy issues. For everything else I just bitch and complain. If I B Hankering and adav8s28 come up with an answer they both agree on I'll sign on.

I suspect we would have been better served if Trump had worked with our allies to moderate Iranian behavior instead of going it alone. The Europeans and Russians have been working against us on this. The Iranians presumably won't be able to launch a ballistic missile that would hit us anytime in the foreseeable future. But, if left to their own devices, they could nuke Moscow or Berlin or Paris. So if the Russians and Europeans aren't interested enough to try to stop the Islamic fanatics from waging nuclear jihad, fuck them. This shouldn't be our problem.

That and $4.00 will buy you coffee at Starbucks. There are people here, probably including you, who know more about this than I do.

Oeb, I only offer solutions for tax and energy issues. For everything else I just bitch and complain. If I B Hankering and adav8s28 come up with an answer they both agree on I'll sign on.

I suspect we would have been better served if Trump had worked with our allies to moderate Iranian behavior instead of going it alone. The Europeans and Russians have been working against us on this. The Iranians presumably won't be able to launch a ballistic missile that would hit us anytime in the foreseeable future. But, if left to their own devices, they could nuke Moscow or Berlin or Paris. So if the Russians and Europeans aren't interested enough to try to stop the Islamic fanatics from waging nuclear jihad, fuck them. This shouldn't be our problem.

That and $4.00 will buy you coffee at Starbucks. There are people here, probably including you, who know more about this than I do. Originally Posted by Tiny

Interesting that in all of that, one of the underlying issues with Iran is energy as an issue. Energy issues are the largest item as to why we continue to make the Middle East our problem.

Interesting that in all of that, one of the underlying issues with Iran is energy as an issue. Energy issues are the largest item as to why we continue to make the Middle East our problem. Originally Posted by eccielover

It's less of an issue than it used to be because we're producing a lot more oil here in the USA, so are not nearly as dependent on Iran and the Middle East.

A little off topic, but I never could figure out why anyone would oppose the Keystone pipeline. The Canadians are going to pipe the oil to their west coast and ship it to Asia, or to our Gulf Coast so it can be refined here. Why not have it here, for the sake of energy security.

It's less of an issue than it used to be because we're producing a lot more oil here in the USA, so are not nearly as dependent on Iran and the Middle East.

A little off topic, but I never could figure out why anyone would oppose the Keystone pipeline. The Canadians are going to pipe the oil to their west coast and ship it to Asia, or to our Gulf Coast so it can be refined here. Why not have it here, for the sake of energy security. Originally Posted by Tiny

It's a trade off on whether it's less of an issue or not.

Yes, we are less dependent on foreign energy(oil, propane, nat gas, etc), but the global price still rules the market. Iran's actions can, and have, and will continue to, have influence on that, which effects our price at the pump.

It's a trade off on whether it's less of an issue or not.

Yes, we are less dependent on foreign energy(oil, propane, nat gas, etc), but the global price still rules the market. Iran's actions can, and have, and will continue to, have influence on that, which effects our price at the pump. Originally Posted by eccielover

Absolutely true

Tiny - thank you for your frankness
In reality - i think there are no good answers to the issues.

Rather than europe, Iran's major target is Israel, imho - and likely to start nuclear war.

I do not think Israel will permit iran to develop nuclear missiles capable of hitting their territory.

Tiny - thank you for your frankness
In reality - i think there are no good answers to the issues.

Rather than europe, Iran's major target is Israel, imho - and likely to start nuclear war.

I do not think Israel will permit iran to develop nuclear missiles capable of hitting their territory. Originally Posted by oeb11

I'm a lot more optimistic Oeb. I don't see Iran nuking or directly attacking Israel. Since Ahmadinejad left the Iranian presidency in 2013, you don't hear so much crazy rhetoric coming out of Iran. Israel is by far the strongest military power in the Middle East and they have nuclear weapons. They can take care of themselves. Sure we should give them moral support, but I'd rather not see us giving massive amounts of aid to them or risking our military to accomplish their goals. Same for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the Iranians' two other big enemies.