Love seeing Trump face down the pampered political and media classes, but I think Sanders would beat him. Trump's ego, wealth and semi-bigoted statements would be the perfect foil for Sander's message. Not sure Hillary could be as effective. On the other hand, Hillary would do better against someone like Kasich.
Democrats are scared of Trump.
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
LOL, yeh canadian geese are annoying as hell, they are all over the golf courses here, they shit all over the place, and they are downright ornery bastards, ive been attacked a few times by them, lol.
LOL, yeh canadian geese are annoying as hell, they are all over the golf courses here, they shit all over the place, and they are downright ornery bastards, ive been attacked a few times by them, lol.
We need a very tall fence across the northern border to keep these unwanted illegal immigrants out.
That is a curious argument. Of all the republican candidates, other than Rand Paul, Trump has been the most measured regarding use of force. The others are all out there blathering about no fly zones and confronting Russia. Trump said he would work with Putin.
Trump is by nature a dealmaker. I see him protecting US interests first and not getting drawn into other countries' disputes.
Humpy - Where do you get the 4 million figure from?
I attempted to add up the totals for soldiers and civilians for the conflicts the U.S. has been involved in. The largest number being Vietnam at 1,450,000... but it is short of 4 million.
It is a rough guestimate.
I put the Vietnam figure higher than you at approx. 2 million
Say 1 million in the Middle East
With about another million in smaller skirmishes from The Bay of Pigs, Panama, Sudan, proxy wars etc.
OK all approximates but the figures are high however you cut it.
Can it be justified by any tangible results ? Can't see anything myself.
The first question needs to be - "What is the objective of U.S. foreign policy?"
If the objective of U.S. foreign policy is to destabilize regions to prevent potential competing regional powers from ascending then you can make the case that our country has been hugely successful at producing the desired tangible results.
We industrialized the regional power with the most human capital. It loans us money to keep the lights on.
All part of the master strategy, eh?
Keep in mind that Chinese have a tradition of using diplomacy over the long term rather than war to arrive at their policy objectives.
Their relationship with the U.S. is mutually beneficial for the most part (ignoring the conflict over the East China Sea and support of North Korea). China is already an established regional power, not a rising regional power that poses a direct threat to U.S. policy -- therefore the lack of conflict.
There are no doubt greater minds and people more in the know, but I've seen enough klepto-capitalism from the well-connected on both side of the aisle to keep my eyes open.
Post-industrial Britain didn't slip much because it had its former colony for muscle. We're in unexplored territory here.