US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Catfish]

The US occupation costed Germany appx a billion Euros in the last ten years

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Catfish

The US occupation costed Germany appx a billion Euros in the last ten years

Maybe they just want to be sure that you’ve really learnt your lesson this time

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Canada is about to designate Proud Boys and several other such groups as terrorist groups. This comes with a whole sack of legal and law-enforcement options by which Canadin authorities can pursue and contain these groups' finances, and activities. The Canadian prime minisier is followign demands for this move made by the Canadian parliament last month, so the Canadians seem to have a wide political basis in support of this step.

PB originally were founded by a Canadian residing in the US. The accusation is that they are neo-fascist, racist, and that Canadian intel found them to be engaged not just in words, but active planning of violence, which constantly escalated. The attack on the Capitol was the last straw that broke the camel's back.

yes, but it is more of a politically correct knee jerk reaction. Normally, designating a group as a "terrorist organisation" is a lengthy process and it is based on hard evidence on how much of a threat the group actually is.

Designating an organisation as a "Terrorist Group" is also a serious step since any member is now guilty of a criminal act in Canada just by being a member of said group. That goes against the concept of English criminal law where a person should only be found guilty of criminal acts which are proven against him.

For example, the "Hells Angels" motorcycle club is not listed as a terrorist organisation, even though its members have killed a lot more people than the "Proud Boys".

Many Canadian criminal lawyers have reservations about this law and terrorist designations and there are legitmate question about whether it is even constitutional in Canada. Watering it down by designating groups for political reasons certainly does not help.

In Canada, this is viewed as just a crass political move. Trudeau is in a minority government and all signs point to a spring election so the Liberals are doing all the politically correct moves to increase the chance of winning back a majority.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

yes, but it is more of a politically correct knee jerk reaction. Normally, designating a group as a "terrorist organisation" is a lengthy process and it is based on hard evidence on how much of a threat the group actually is. [...]

I agree, they are not a threat. Here's the hard evidence :

[Bilge_Rat]

yes...ok

anyway, another reason why civil liberties advocates in Canada are leery of this move is that by the same standards, Canada could list BLM and several Canadian indigenous land defenders as terrorist groups.

The "Proud Boys" do not really fit in the definition of terrorist groups, technically, Parliament would have had to amend the law to expressly catch them, but that could catch many other groups. The governement is just modifying its "interpretation" of the law, but by expanding the definition, those groups are now potentially included and could be, at a minimum, subject to surveillance by law enforcement:

TORONTO -- Anti-hate and civil rights groups are cautiously relieved the terrorist designation wasn’t expanded for the Proud Boys, which they say could have given law enforcement more leeway to surveil Black Lives Matter, Indigenous land defenders or others.

Critics have been worried about the definition of terrorism potentially being expanded since the federal government first publicly indicated it’d be considering adding the extremist group to its list of terrorist entities. This action followed the Proud Boys’ involvement in riots in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network, which monitors and researches hate groups, had been publically and privately lobbying the feds to ensure the neo-fascist Proud Boys fit the current criteria and officials “didn’t lower the bar” on the definition.

“We’ve concerned about who might be caught up in that net, or down the road that [expanded legislation] could be exploited to include BIPOC or anti-racist groups that the state doesn’t like,” the group’s executive director Evan Balgord told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview Wednesday.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cana...ters-1.5294785

The Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group says it is imperative that the Liberal government take concrete steps to counter hate and violence, but it stresses the terror list is a "deeply problematic" provision that undermines basic principles of justice.

In a lengthy statement, the national coalition of dozens of civil society organizations noted the federal listing process takes place in secret, based on advice from security agencies.

"Groups who are added are not informed in advance, nor given the chance to address the accusations levelled against them," the coalition said. "Only once a group is added does the listing become public, and they are in a position to challenge their listing."

Even then, a group is not granted access to all the information used against it, which can be withheld based on several exceptions -- including national security grounds -- making it "incredibly difficult" to mount a defence, the civil liberties coalition added.

Ottawa lawyer Yavar Hameed went to court on behalf of the Canadian branch of the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy, known as IRFAN-Canada, after it was added to the list in 2014.

The government said that between 2005 and 2009 the organization transferred about $14.6 million worth of resources to various organizations with links to Hamas.

While the attorney general can authorize specific transactions by a listed group, it refused to allow IRFAN-Canada to raise funds to pay legal fees, Hameed said.

"Ultimately, this crippled the ability of the charity to maintain its delisting application and to challenge the constitutionality of the listing provisions themselves."

It also meant that all donations ceased, as contributing to the charity would make donors liable to criminal prosecution, Hameed said.

"In turn, the listing caused a chilling effect within Muslim communities throughout Canada as the threat of legal prosecution forced donors to completely disassociate themselves from any link with the charity."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/terror...-say-1.5288941

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Understandable, maybe?
.

For the most part I was fine with Trump seeing past the political words, theatrics and showmanship. I didnt vote for him but even I thought he got railroaded. Buy hey that's politics, and it made the media tons of money . No doubt he was his own worst enemy and his undoing though. But what ticked my off to no end was, without any solid proof of fraud he brought discredit and doubt to the election system after he had been voted out. How he thought that was the right thing to do is beyond me. And the more I think about it, the more I think the Senate ought give him the boot.

Now for the military. I'm good with any General stepping up and giving an honest opinion to the president or to anyone. But I see no difference between a General publicly criticizing the commander in chief in front of the troops and when a president publicly criticizes the election system after he has been voted out. Its not good for the country, and breaks down good order and discipline. Last thing I want to see is the armed forces of this country divided into political factions, what he did was stupid and irresponsible.

Neither of their behavior is anything to be proud of and IMO both should be given the boot

[Skybird]

A military commander lacking military competence and running the military like a profit-oriented business company, is a problem. There is strategic value and necessity than cannot be expressed in money saved. That is not just a problem with Biden'S predecessorl but the Germna defenc eminsitres Guttenmberg and Leyen also sufferedf form this kind of incompetence and wishful thinkling - they tried to run the military like a business company. Did work only very, very, very bad, and made most of the bad things even worse.

In chess, gambits are an example. You seem to get a material gain - but you pay with substantial loss in options, time, positional quality. Gambits are "poisoned". Thats what makes them a gambit and not a present.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Catfish

The US occupation costed Germany appx a billion Euros in the last ten years

The US paid Germany over 4 billion to have a military base in Germany. But Germany does suck up infrastructure costs and other amenities. The US cash does not go directly to Germany from my understanding.

[Catfish]

^ @Skybird i agree regarding Trump (shock!)
But this says nothing about T's generals. He sure had some field days firing even close supporters when they dared to point out that the Potus might be wrong..
On the other hand it is not a general's job to criticize the president openly, publicly, and after he has been fired. Maybe write memoirs, but some things are "bad style". Not that Trump himself did not lower the mark drastically.

A lot of military men left voluntarily though, since they did not want responsibility following Trump's views. And this is indeed a bad sign, even without outspoken critic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mari...20-2?r=DE&IR=T





edit: just saw Warhawks post: Thanks

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

A military commander lacking military competence and running the military like a profit-oriented business company, is a problem. There is strategic value and necessity than cannot be expressed in money saved. That is not just a problem with Biden'S predecessorl but the Germna defenc eminsitres Guttenmberg and Leyen also sufferedf form this kind of incompetence and wishful thinkling - they tried to run the military like a business company. Did work only very, very, very bad, and made most of the bad things even worse.

In chess, gambits are an example. You seem to get a material gain - but you pay with substantial loss in options, time, positional quality. Gambits are "poisoned". Thats what makes them a gambit and not a present.

From what I've read the purpose of domestic base closures and withdrawing troops from other locations like Germany. Is to support ongoing operations in other places in the world without having throw even more money at the military industrial complex. It places an incredible burden on our domestic economy and infrastructure. Believe it or not our expansion into over 170 foreign countries around the world costs a crap-ton of cash to operate and maintain. Try it sometime.

Oh, and I can guarantee you we are not leaving Europe. One of our goals is to upset and check growing German influence and business ties with Russia. Navalny <cough cough>. But for now its a good idea to reduce costs, especially these days I think it's more important than maintaining a large presence in a nation and region that has lived in peace for well over 75 years.

Anyway its also my opinion by placing the plan to reduce troop deployment on hold for review by the Biden administration. Is political speak for, its still going to happen but it will now be known as the 'Biden Plan'.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Oh I can guarantee you we are not leaving Europe.

Specifically because the Russians are there.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ @Skybird i agree regarding Trump (shock!)
But this says nothing about T's generals. He sure had some field days firing even close supporters when they dared to point out that the Potus might be wrong..
On the other hand it is not a general's job to criticize the president openly, publicly, and after he has been fired. Maybe write memoirs, but some things are "bad style". Not that Trump himself did not lower the mark drastically.

A lot of military men left voluntarily though, since they did not want responsibility following Trump's views. And this is indeed a bad sign, even without outspoken critic.

I do not know whether we really speak about the same events, however: when the first high ranking militaries stood up and spoke out against the plans by Biden's predecessor, they did so not early and not in a hurry. They were aware of the unusal step they took. To me this illustrates how serious and grave the concerns were that made them judging the issue worth to take this unusual step.

Again, the bases and established, proven, recently modernised infrastructure the American presence has established in Germany is of very high logistical and operational value for the US, for its global operations and namely the operation in Africa, ME. Its not any longer so much about the classical NATO versus Russia scenario, its about the global US network of military support lines and logistics and intel communication and remote control lines. The leg the US has in Germany, is a strogn and heavy one. Cutting it off really changes the global balance and setup - for the US, and to its disadvantage. I indeed think the US interest is Germany is outweighing the German interest of havign the US here. It is not indispensable, but could be relocated only at enormous costs in time and money.

Thats not to say the Germans are practically desinterested, no. But after Biden's predecessor, a sense of sobering has taken over, and the US is no longer blindly trusted and relied on in the future. What happend once in the US, can - and will, I say! - happen again. Easily. That the Germans are so eager to replace the Tornados with nuclear carrying capacity for the US nukes in Germany with any aircraft, not necessarily a future European model, but even buying a fighter in the US, is not so much because Germany wants to partly "own" US nukes, but keeping the nukes in germany is a way to keep the Americans in Germany. So, even if relations have cooled down and the interests have been redefined: one cannot say the Germans have lost all interest alltogether and want the US out. By far not. One has just become more realistic a bit regardin future expectations.

Unfortunately not yet realistic enough to draw all consequences that are needed and beefing up defence and Bundeswehr capapilities. The BW today is just a shadow of past times only. And in parts it is, honestly said, a "Lachnummer" (a joke). This military force can deter no determined party from anything.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

From what I've read the purpose of domestic base closures and withdrawing troops from other locations like Germany. Is to support ongoing operations in other places in the world without having throw even more money at the military industrial complex. It places an incredible burden on our domestic economy and infrastructure. Believe it or not our expansion into over 170 foreign countries around the world costs a crap-ton of cash to operate and maintain. Try it sometime.

Oh, and I can guarantee you we are not leaving Europe. One of our goals is to upset and check growing German influence and business ties with Russia. Navalny <cough cough>. But for now its a good idea to reduce costs, especially these days I think it's more important than maintaining a large presence in a nation and region that has lived in peace for well over 75 years.

Anyway its also my opinion by placing the plan to reduce troop deployment on hold for review by the Biden administration. Is political speak for, its still going to happen but it will now be known as the 'Biden Plan'.

I agree that you are overstretched and that the financial costs must be immense. But not every regiuonbal presenc eof yours is as relevant as any other. You have many bases scattered aorudn that are pratcially indefendable. Your most important and globally supporting bases to me are Okinawa and Germany. These two probabyl before any other. It makes no sense to me that if you want to save costs you close your two most relevant and important stations, while leaving a hundred others far less relevant bases open. It makes no sense. If one needs to control costs, one keeps the valuable and importent, relevant assets, and dumps the irrelevant, unimportant ones. You keep what keeps your strong, and get rid of what weakens you.

Maybe we disagree on the relevance of Korean bases, Okinawa, Germany, compared to others. Okay. But this is how I see it and apparently major parts fo your generals see it like as well. I have great sympathy for Eisenhowers warning of the industrial-military complex. But not here. I think that warning is far more relevant for the internal national US system of distributing/scattering defence production and keeping impractical defence projects alive in US federal states for anything but military reasons, but for reasons of political career planning, jobs, and so forth. Streamlining things in that swamp to focus on real necessities and cutting off what militarily is not needed, not paying attention to politicians re-election interests and all that - THAT is where you can save the real big money, I think.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Korean bases, Okinawa, Germany, compared to others.

These bases as well as others are simply to protect and watch the US interests in those regions.

[bstanko6]

Uncle Cornpop and Herman Munster fixing the planet! LOLOL!!!!!!!