FabSwingers.com forum: Suckers of the world?

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Trump, addressing troops in Iraq:

"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on the Earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all.

"If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price, and sometimes that is also a monetary price, so we're not the suckers of the world.

"We're no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren't looking at us as suckers. And I look at you folks (pointing to military audience) because most of you are nodding your head this way (in agreement).

"We're respect again as a nation. We're respected again.

"Some people say well, maybe somebody comes from the area and they hit us on our homeland. If that happens, then they will suffer consequences over here like nobody has ever suffered before.

"Let me just tell you, I hope they hear this loud and clear, that's not going to be a threat, this is a fact. If anything should happen at all, nobody will have suffered the consequences they will suffer. Just remember I said that."

What do you think he is on about?

No-one asked the US to invade and occupy Afghanistan, to invade and occupy Iraq or to attempt regime change in Syria.

Is he saying the US Empire is over?

Or is he just saying he is fed fighting ISIS?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Feels like a UN pop to me.

I do wonder how the troops felt. If I were in the forces I’d hope my leaders would be sending me to places they think I it’s right for me to serve and reinforce that message rather than talk about the cost of me being there. Especially the economic cost.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Am I allowed to post a link to You Tube?

This is where I watched the clip of him addressing the troops.

He seems to be depicting the US as victims.

Victims of what, I do not know.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Am I allowed to post a link to You Tube?

This is where I watched the clip of him addressing the troops.

He seems to be depicting the US as victims.

Victims of what, I do not know.

You need to be mindful of your bias against him.

Surely this is great news for the world?!

One less fake war

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

You need to be mindful of your bias against him.

That's why I'm interested in the views of others, to understand what he is saying.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You need to be mindful of your bias against him.

That's why I'm interested in the views of others, to understand what he is saying.

Well I'm a staunch pacifist so it sounds good on paper.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Trump is well aware of the single purpose of war. Profit.

This is not a dig at Trump, every US president in my lifetime has perused an aggressive foreign policy for the profit of the US arms companies and the firms that supply the US army.

We will see what this is all about. It could be a precursor to his plans for war in Iran. So we have to see what happens here (his Iran war is possibly coming just before the next election, which is traditionally when they start another war), and we have to see if they can effectively pull out and provide the support to rebuild Syrian infrastructure. The lack of post invasion support and rebuilding in Iraq contributed to the situation today in Syria.

Trump doesn’t have a good record dealing with foreign aid so I’m not hopeful.

In conclusion, we have to wait and see if this is a load of hot air, or if the US will do the right thing this time around.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 27/12/18 08:51:28]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

I am former teeth arms in fact I am former cutting edge of a spearhead. Some will understand what I have said some will not. But CinC Bonespurs is typical of his kind, he knows fuck, has risked fuck all, but is more than willing to sacrifice everything that others are willing to risk to make him look good...

No doubt soon we will hear how he has awarded himself a purple heart or 2 for cutting his chin while shaving in theatre...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I am former teeth arms in fact I am former cutting edge of a spearhead. Some will understand what I have said some will not. But CinC Bonespurs is typical of his kind, he knows fuck, has risked fuck all, but is more than willing to sacrifice everything that others are willing to risk to make him look good...

No doubt soon we will hear how he has awarded himself a purple heart or 2 for cutting his chin while shaving in theatre..."

You prefer to keep the war machine rolling?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

You prefer to keep the war machine rolling?

I prefer to keep my war machine well honed and working far from our shores.

The problem is from once the macine is set in motion there are only 2 outcomes.

Win or loose.

CinC bonespurs is claiming a win when there is none. That will in time come back to kick the fuck out of the USA and if we are not very lucky us and every other ally of CinC Bonespurs...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You prefer to keep the war machine rolling?

I prefer to keep my war machine well honed and working far from our shores.

The problem is from once the macine is set in motion there are only 2 outcomes.

Win or loose.

CinC bonespurs is claiming a win when there is none. That will in time come back to kick the fuck out of the USA and if we are not very lucky us and every other ally of CinC Bonespurs...

What would do?

Wipe out all the afghans and syrians just in case?

That's what you've said before about requiring total domination to win a war.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

". That will in time come back to kick the fuck out of the USA and if we are not very lucky us and every other ally of CinC Bonespurs...

You've made my point for me.

Violence only begets violence and it would be a good lesson in minding your own business.

Neutrality like us drafted dodging lilly livered Irish is the way forward.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And god forbid some of them would end up displaced from their homes and families...to connect it to your other hot topic of the Tories putting you all out on the streets as they snort caviar.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem is from once the macine is set in motion there are only 2 outcomes.

Win or loose.

I disagree. Once the machine is set in motion. There is one outcome. Profit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem is from once the macine is set in motion there are only 2 outcomes.

Win or loose.

I disagree. Once the machine is set in motion. There is one outcome. Profit. "

It depends...Look at hyperinflation in Germany in the 20's as one example.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem is from once the macine is set in motion there are only 2 outcomes.

Win or loose.

I disagree. Once the machine is set in motion. There is one outcome. Profit.

It depends...Look at hyperinflation in Germany in the 20's as one example. "

Okay. I’ll adjust my statement to mean modern war, from the 1980s onwards

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem is from once the macine is set in motion there are only 2 outcomes.

Win or loose.

I disagree. Once the machine is set in motion. There is one outcome. Profit.

It depends...Look at hyperinflation in Germany in the 20's as one example.

Okay. I’ll adjust my statement to mean modern war, from the 1980s onwards "

The distinction is overseas war.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Also Willwill I've asked you in two other threads and you ignored me.

How do you reconcile your populist rich vs poor view knowing well that was the same discontent that brought Hitler to power?

I know you know your history and talk about parallels forming between then and now.

Don't be part of the problem!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Yes...

Thats the thing about WAR

Once you start there is only 1 outcome.

I side must have its will to fight totally destroyed.

There is no other way of ending a war, and in many (most) cases that requires the total destruction of the loosing side.

Fact is, the basic truth of conflict is that once conflict escalates to violent war then there will be no resolution until one sides will to resist (not to fight) is broken. All you have to do is look at the Irish conflict, nearly 500 years after the Irish were first defeated the conflict remains and there will only be 1 result, united Ireland. Not because the cause is just, but because in 500 years the Irish will to resist and fight has not been broken.

I would question the wisdom of starting any war, but I would fight all wars in our enemies homes rather than ours and not stop until our enemy was totally broken.

You will not like what I say because you are a civilian, and I understand and respect that.

However I am an (old) warrior and you (as a civilian) need to understand the realities of releasing the likes of me, and the fact that like it or not civilians get to start wars, warriors finish them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes...

Thats the thing about WAR

Once you start there is only 1 outcome.

I side must have its will to fight totally destroyed.

There is no other way of ending a war, and in many (most) cases that requires the total destruction of the loosing side.

I would question the wisdom of starting any war, but I would fight all wars in our enemies homes rather than ours and not stop until our enemy was totally broken.

You will not like what I say because you are a civilian, and I understand and respect that.

So that's a yes to murdering all the Syrians and Afghans, innocent or not...just in case their (wouldbe) grandkids have bloodthirst?

Can you at least acknowledge the ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY of what you are saying?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes...

Thats the thing about WAR

Once you start there is only 1 outcome.

I side must have its will to fight totally destroyed.

There is no other way of ending a war, and in many (most) cases that requires the total destruction of the loosing side.

I would question the wisdom of starting any war, but I would fight all wars in our enemies homes rather than ours and not stop until our enemy was totally broken.

You will not like what I say because you are a civilian, and I understand and respect that.

This raises the question of who determines the “enemy” for the British army? and presumably these “enemy” soldiers have been told that the invading British army or US army or Russian army etc is their “enemy”.

Maybe the people who start the wars can fight them, instead of the disposable working class people they traditionally sacrifice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"So that's a yes to murdering all the Syrians and Afghans, innocent or not...just in case their (wouldbe) grandkids have bloodthirst?"

Congratulations! Eventually you acknowledge the realities of war.

And yes given the choice of in your words murdering Afghans and Syrians or seeing British and Irish being murdered I will slaughter the Afghans and Syrians.

And before you tell me what a fuck I am remember I would not start a war without real cause, however it seems as if you would condemn me for keeping you and your family alive (if I were fighting to protect you).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So that's a yes to murdering all the Syrians and Afghans, innocent or not...just in case their (wouldbe) grandkids have bloodthirst?

Congratulations! Eventually you acknowledge the realities of war.

And yes given the choice of in your words murdering Afghans and Syrians or seeing British and Irish being murdered I will slaughter the Afghans and Syrians.

You'd ask how high if the queen said jump

Yet condemn all the politicians...you are awfully mixed up in your thinking but I see where you got it.

War as you accurately put it is absolutely unworkable and pointless.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They were never a credible treat...fake wmds in an oil grab.

You've been lied to, face it. Parallels to the NHS bus.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They were never a credible treat...fake wmds in an oil grab.

You've been lied to, face it. Parallels to the NHS bus. "

No one is going to put their life on the line if they’re told “listen lads, we need to boost BAE share prices, so we’re sending you to Afghanistan”. So they have to make up some threat to the uk via imaginary WMDs.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Am I allowed to post a link to You Tube?

This is where I watched the clip of him addressing the troops.

He seems to be depicting the US as victims.

Victims of what, I do not know.

You need to be mindful of your bias against him.

Surely this is great news for the world?!

One less fake war

Hillary Clinton was the real Hawk between 2 choices in the US election. If she'd won the Presidency there is no way any troops would be coming home and she'd probably already be at war with Iran too. There wouldn't have been any peace talks with North Korea either.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The argument about the military-industrial complex is very good.

I have heard it repeated in the UK.

For example, the nuclear submarine builder at Barrow in Furness.

Unless you keep building submarines, the skills wither, the yard closes and the UK loses the capability.

It will be the same in the USA.

Unless you keep placing orders for new hardware, the complex starts to diminish.

However, that doesn't justify expending the hardware to kill people - that must be a political choice, not a commercial one.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

War is when the public are told who the enemy is.

Revolution is when the public work it out for themselves.

Viva la brexit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" War is when the public are told who the enemy is.

Revolution is when the public work it out for themselves.

Viva la brexit

XXL union jack flag: £23,

UKIO membership: £30,

Using French to celebrate your idea: priceless.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" War is when the public are told who the enemy is.

Revolution is when the public work it out for themselves.

Viva la brexit

XXL union jack flag: £23,

UKIO membership: £30,

Using French to celebrate your idea: priceless.

*UKIP... Sorry!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Am I allowed to post a link to You Tube?

This is where I watched the clip of him addressing the troops.

He seems to be depicting the US as victims.

Victims of what, I do not know.

Yes i think he's portraying the idea of victims who'll fight back, ignoring that US foreign policy came home to roost., and the countless victims they caused.

As for spending, the use of Blackwater and its mercenaries are reportedly sett to be used in place of occupying forces. A lot cheaper than government troops, despite the many mindless murders that they committed in iraq.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Forgot to add : are we the bigger suckers for being in the usa's pocket? This government and tony blair arse kissing upto uncle sam?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He is merely playing up to his puppet master Putin......Destabilising the West and its allies.....Yes money well spent getting the Trumpster into office Mr Putin

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

"Forgot to add : are we the bigger suckers for being in the usa's pocket? This government and tony blair arse kissing upto uncle sam? "

UK needs US.

The deal, dating back to swapping Diego Garcia for the Polaris missile and PWR submarine reactors.

Now it is the Trident missile system.

Britain gets it for cost + 5 per cent.

So Britain's defence is inextricably linked to the development of the US forces.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Forgot to add : are we the bigger suckers for being in the usa's pocket? This government and tony blair arse kissing upto uncle sam?

UK needs US.

The deal, dating back to swapping Diego Garcia for the Polaris missile and PWR submarine reactors.

Now it is the Trident missile system.

Britain gets it for cost + 5 per cent.

So Britain's defence is inextricably linked to the development of the US forces.

Yea, thats what im uneasy with. Are we allies or are we subordinates?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Britain, in the 1950s when airborne delivery became obsolete, was too poor.

So we have relied on the ICBMs of the US ever since.

France developed its own system.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Britain, in the 1950s when airborne delivery became obsolete, was too poor.

So we have relied on the ICBMs of the US ever since.

France developed its own system.

Oh right. Thsnks for yhe explanation

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

I cannot remember which PM it was, but they negotiated a deal very favourable to the UK. No development costs, just cost plus five per cent

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"I cannot remember which PM it was, but they negotiated a deal very favourable to the UK. No development costs, just cost plus five per cent"

Actually it was not a favourable deal at all. As well as the financial cost there were other hidden costs.

Fact is in the early 60's our nuclear and ballistic programs were far in advance of the USA and the Polaris deal was only offered after we detonated the largest ever (at the time) themo-nuclear device and the launching of Blue Streak. Both of which we were forced to give up and hand all research over to the Yanks in return for being 'allowed' to buy the US system which did not work and needed our research to perfect.

Of course this is nothing new and has happened on many other occasions and continues to this day.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

That's interesting.

I heard a different take on it.

In the 1950s, Britain relied on its V-force for delivery of nuclear warheads.

Valiant, Victor and Vulcan bomber aircraft would fly to the USSR and drop the bombs.

When the USSR shot down the US spy aircraft (Gary Powers?) over Siberia, flying at some incredible height, the UK realised that airborne delivery was now obsolete.

The USSR could take down the aircraft, so it no longer worked as a deterrent to a first-strike.

That was when Britain decided it needed to move its deterrent underwater, to guarantee it could deliver a second-strike response and so deter an attack.

That was where I heard the story of the negotiation with the US.

The US got Diego Garcia in the Pacific. The UK got the PWR power plant for the submarines, the Polaris missile and latterly the Trident missile. The price was cost plus five per cent (to contribute to the development costs).

The UK finally gave up its aircraft N-bombs in the 1990s and now relies solely on submarine delivery. Or so I believe.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"That's interesting.

I heard a different take on it.

In the 1950s, Britain relied on its V-force for delivery of nuclear warheads.

Valiant, Victor and Vulcan bomber aircraft would fly to the USSR and drop the bombs.

When the USSR shot down the US spy aircraft (Gary Powers?) over Siberia, flying at some incredible height, the UK realised that airborne delivery was now obsolete.

The USSR could take down the aircraft, so it no longer worked as a deterrent to a first-strike.

That was when Britain decided it needed to move its deterrent underwater, to guarantee it could deliver a second-strike response and so deter an attack.

That was where I heard the story of the negotiation with the US.

The UK finally gave up its aircraft N-bombs in the 1990s and now relies solely on submarine delivery. Or so I believe.

I am pretty certain of my facts. I believe the relevant cabinet and MoD papers were released in the 90's having having been 'sanitised' under the 25 year rule. Have a read about Blue Streak and Black Knight which made up our 2 stage Black Prince ICBM and went on to be developed into the civilian Ariane (ESA) project.

As for our nuclear arsenal, we all know that Trident carries our strategic nuclear deterrent. But I for on doubt that we do not have other tactical nuclear munitions and I would be very surprised if they do not include low yield bombs, shells, torpedoes and warheads for cruise missiles.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

I do remember the names of those missile systems (from reading or watching about them - I ain't that old!)

I'm sure UK has the capability to produce warheads other than those on the tips of the Trident missile.

The civil holding of Plutonium is over 100 tonnes - the largest of any country in the world. The MoD must have a few tonnes, too.

Whether we have a ready-made launcher for them, I do not know.

It's a very expensive business to maintain.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Another thing this conversation reminds me of is the independence of the nuclear deterrent.

Someone told me that, in the early days of Dreadnought etc, there was an American officer always on the UK submarine as one of the key-holders.

I could understand that.

The US had just shared its most advanced weapons delivery system with another country, and needed assurance it could never be pointed at the US.

I do not believe that is the case today.

All the answers given by Ministers in Parliament assert that the deterrent does not rely on any third party to be fired.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread