80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
High Strangeness
 
  -2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 11:44 am
When Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982 and Britain went to kick them out, NOT ONE of Britain's NATO "allies" sent planes and ships and troops to help, not even the American administration under Reagan.
Huh, so much for NATO "solidarity"..Wink
Walter Hinteler
 
  7  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 11:51 am
@High Strangeness,
The UK didn't invoke NATO Article 5 during the Falklands War because it wasn't an "armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America".
The Falklands are obviously not in Europe or North America and are located south of the Tropic of Cancer (see Article 6) thus outside the territories covered by Article 5.

So much for your knowledge.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 11:56 am
@cicerone imposter,
Focus on the electoral college, not the plain polls.

http://www.270towin.com

It's a useful site - updated regularly with analysis based on polling (you can peel back to the raw numbers if that is your preference).
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 12:00 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
How many times did a Democratic Congress take Reagan's or Bush's policy to a re-vote even twice let alone forty times? How many times did Congress take Iran-Contra to hearings? ONCE. How many times did Reed ever say, "I'm going to make this President a failure"? NEVER.

Are we talking about the last 10 years or are we going to talk about events from 30 years ago? If you have to go back that far to make a point, then you have no point. You sure do love that way back machine don't you?

Quote:
If facts aren't working for you - keep working up your dunder, right?

You dodge the facts by reaching back to the 80's and avoiding what was brought up about Reid and the Dem controlled Senate which buried any bills from The House in committee and refused to vote on them. You bring up Reagan?
ehBeth
 
  2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 12:05 pm
@ehBeth,
Another analysis of Electoral College numbers

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-we-ve-updated-our-electoral-college-1473191189-htmlstory.html

Quote:
We've updated our electoral map.

You can see the old map above. The new one is here.

As you can see, not much has changed since we updated the map in early August -- just one state, in fact.

We previously had New Hampshire listed as a tossup. We've moved the state into the Favors Democrats category after five polls in the past month, using different methodologies, showed Hillary Clinton leading by between six and 15 percentage points.

Overall, our map currently gives Clinton 279 electoral votes to Donald Trump's 191. Winning the White House requires 270.

Four states with 68 electoral votes still seem truly to merit the tossup label: Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida. To win the White House, Trump would have to carry all four and pull one or more of Clinton's states into his column.

Right now, polling averages show Clinton leading in three of the four, though by small margins. The two candidates are virtually tied in Iowa.

The map is interactive, so you can check out as many electoral scenarios as you like.


I'm interested in Ohio and Florida but North Carolina is the one I wasn't expecting to see in the toss-up column. I thought they'd be straight-out Republican.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 12:12 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:


So obviously, finances have not prevented NATO from doing its very important job superbly. All without any public airing of grievances about finances sending messages to America's enemies that NATO is divided. To the world, NATO is totally united. A united front is NATO's strength, and Trump is doing his level best to erode that unity as publicly as possible. Trump's ass-backwards reversal of priorities-from the traditional putting America's and Europe's security first and putting finances second to one where NATO's finances are put first and America's security is put second-disqualifies Trump immediately from consideration for the presidency.


You missed the essential points. The Soviet Union collapsed largely on its own internal contradictions, though the strength of our military deterrent accelerated the process, in spite of the failure of our NATO allies to live up to their military committments. Our main strategic concern during the 1975-1995 period was a Soviet Conventional attack on the inter German border - something that could have profoundly altered the balance of power and for which the nuclear deterrant might not be effective. The U.S. paid a high economic price for making up for our allies shortfalls.

Now due to the leadership void provided to our feckless president and the continuing lassitude of our NATO allies the alliance's deterrent to an ambitious Russia is highly vulnerable. No one but Blickers is fooled by the "Unity" of the alliance- certainly not Vladimir Putin. Moves by him against Ukraine or the Baltic Countries are very likely indeed. Trump is right to raise the issue.
High Strangeness
 
  -2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 12:17 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Thanks, so it seems NATO doesn't care if one of it's members is attacked somewhere else in the world like the Falklands.
Incidentally I heard US Def Secretary Caspar Weinberger say on TV after the war "We would have sent a carrier if we'd been asked", thereby implying that Maggie Thatcher didn't ask for help. If that's so, she was a silly woman.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 12:38 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
.Our main strategic concern during the 1975-1995 period was a Soviet Conventional attack on the inter German bordert ...

http://i65.tinypic.com/28wdszl.jpg
Probable Axes of Attack of Warsaw Pact. Taken from Graham H. Turbiville, "Invasion in Europe--A Scenario," Army, November 1976, p. 19. (via wikipedia)


I totally disagree with that above opinion of yours.
Since the late 1960's, I literally was surrounded by US-led nuclear weapons aiming at targets in the East.

When a new motorway (Autobahn A 44) was built, the section next to my hometown was constructed to be a runway for US-military bombers.
(The HQ plus "a bit more" of the 5th US Army Artillery Group were there.)
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 12:41 pm
@High Strangeness,
High Strangeness wrote:
Thanks, so it seems NATO doesn't care if one of it's members is attacked somewhere else in the world .like the Falklands.
Or any other British and French Overseas Territories not mentioned explicitly in the NATO statute. (I do think that was a reason ... even if it's only in the name NATO)

NATO did act verbally, though:
Quote:
Ministers endorsed the statement by Eurogroup Ministers, in their communiqué of the previous day, in which they condemned Argentina's armed invasion of the Falkland Islands and the Dependencies as well as her failure to comply with Security Council Resolution Number 502; noted the importance of maintaining the principle that aggression or occupation of territory by force should not be allowed to succeed: and urged the need to seek a negotiated solution acceptable to all parties concerned on the basis of the implementation of Security Council Resolution Number 502 in all its parts.
Source: Final Communiqué, Brussels
6th-7th May, 1981. Defence Planning Committee
Quote:
In view of the fundamental importance which they attach to the principle that the use of force to resolve international disputes should be resolutely opposed by the international community, the Allies condemn Argentina for its aggression against the Falkland Islands and Dependencies and deplore the fact that after more than six weeks she has still not withdrawn her forces in compliance with Mandatory Resolution 502 of the Security Council. They call for a continuation of the efforts to achieve a satisfactory negotiated settlement in accordance with this Resolution in its entirety.
Luxembourg, 17th-18th, May, 1982 Final Communiqu´w, Security Council

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 01:18 pm
@georgeob1,
I've taken part (as a conscript in 1970, as a reserve officer between 1971 and 1973) in NATO-Baltic Sea Policing operations (mainly German minesweepers did the so-called "TN", tactical close-reconnaissance.

I still smell the rubber of the gas mask and can't recount, how often the only possibility to go on the open bridge was only via the ABC-lock ...
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 01:53 pm
@High Strangeness,
America’s role during the Falklands

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/04/americas_role_d.html

At 11.00 today on BBC Radio 4, [LISTEN AGAIN LINK] Peter Snow presented a programme analysing the role played by the USA during the Falklands conflict. The programme revealed that whilst President Reagan was ‘instinctively’ supportive of Britain, his officials were ideologically divided over whom to support. The thirty minute interview with former administration officials highlighted the roles of the three key players during the conflict.

Jeane Kirkpatrick

Kilpatrick_2

Jeane Kirkpatrick was America’s Ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the invasion. She led the group of Reagan officials called ‘Latinistas’ who opposed supporting Britain during the conflict. She argued that it was in America’s national interest to support Argentina. This was because there were fears that the USSR was dominating Latin America and a failure on the part of the US to support the Argentineans would encourage Latin American countries to seek closer relations with the Soviets. The British did not take kindly to the fact she chose to attend a dinner at the Argentinean embassy in the US shortly after she heard of their invasion of the Falklands. She argued that if she chose to abstain she would have difficulty persuading the Argentineans that they were neutral in try to reach a settlement. The British Ambassador Nicholas Henderson was not impressed. He responded by asking if the Americans would be happy if he attended dinner at the Iranian embassy after they heard that they taken 52 Americans hostage.

Caspar Weinberger

Weinberger_2_3

Caspar Weinberger who was the Defence Secretary at the time was the leader of the group called the ‘Atlanticists’ who believed that America should support her closest NATO ally and it would send a clear message that America did not support brutal and aggressive dictators. His staunch support later earned him a British Knighthood. He provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment she required during the war. Ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. All this was done very discreetly. His actions led to divisions amongst Reagan’s staff. Whilst Weinberger claimed that he has received authorisation from Ronald Reagan to provide covert support to the UK, others disagreed. Admiral Dennis Blair was asked by Snow if he was aware of the Reagan’s consent. He said ‘no’ and that there were too many secrets in the administration. Alexander Haig who was charged with mediating the dispute between Britain and Argentina also stated that he did not believe that Reagan authorised the covert supply of weapons. This, he said, was due to Reagan’s administration being a ‘loose ship’ with a ‘flawed system’ of conducting policy. When Snow asked Haig if he thought Reagan was responsible for the flawed system, he responded by stating that it was not Reagan’s fault but the fault of his staff.

Alexander Haig

Haig_2

Alexander Haig was the Secretary of State at the time of the crisis. He was charged with negotiating a peaceful settlement of the dispute between Britain and Argentina. He narrated his meeting with Margaret Thatcher at Downing Street on the first leg of his mediation tour. He said Thatcher took him on a tour of Downing Street and showed him photos of former prime ministers like Churchill. She told him that they were great because they never lost wars. She also told him that she did not want to be a Chamberlain and would not negotiate until the Argentineans withdrew from the Falklands. He said after his meeting with Thatcher he realised that war was imminent. He immediately reported this to General Galteiri of Argentina who responded by arguing that the British would not fight. The General believed that there were only two great powers: USA and USSR. He argued that other countries were on an equal footing and as such Argentina could defeat the British. Haig warned him that the British were battled hardened from their superior training, technology and experiences in regions like Northern Ireland. Haig also warned him that if war broke out, the US would support Britain.

British victory

The British Ambassador at the time of the conflict Nicholas Henderson expressed his disappointment that when Britain emerged victorious, the MOD forbade anyone from mentioning the role America played during the conflict. They wanted it to be seen as a British victory.

April 04, 2007 at 03:18 PM in BBC on America, Falklands war | Permalink
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 01:55 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
WigglewigglewigglewiggleWigglewigglewigglewiggle


Can't you pick a point and stick to it???????????
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 01:57 pm
@High Strangeness,
After the Brits vaporized the Adm DelGado, war fever subsided. The Brits needed no help and at any rate got intelligence reports from the US.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 02:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
American plans were to hold up the USSR as long as possible in Germany using German and other NATO troops as cannon fodder. There were plans to use nuclear weapons on even West German territory to accomplish this.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 02:02 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
That would be you bob. I bring up Reid's Senate blocking House bills and you reach back to the 80's for some reason.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 02:11 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The fact is that at high levels of U.S. strategic planning the U.S. military did not believe that NATO would agree to a nuclear response to a Soviet conventional (only) attack in Europe on the then inter German border. There was great concern that such an attack in Europe only by the Soviets might significantly alter the balance of power by reaching (say) towards Frankfurt, folowed by a Soviet proposal for negotiations. That is what motivated the U.S. to install huge stores of materials for fast reaction forces in Northern Norway and Hokkaido Japan. The point was to convince them they couldn't contain such a conventional war to Europe where their in place mobile forces gave them such advantages. Instead it would quickly get out of their control. Such is the perverse logic of deterrance - to deprive one's opponent of the ability to concoct a winning strategy. (Sadly 1914 confirmed that logic doesn't always rule.)

In any event in those years only West Germany came close to its 4% of GDP military spending limits, and, as you may recall, getting European agreement to our installation of mobile nuclear weapons to counter Soviet mobile ballistic Missiles targeted at western Europe was a very close thing politically.

I believe the situation now with regard to Russia, both politically and miliratily is very dangerous. Only the weak Russian economy protects you.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 02:45 pm
@georgeob1,
It's interesting that the Russian government continues to play world politics while the people at home are suffering from the sanctions and low price for oil.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/12/world/europe/russian-economy-tumbling.html?_r=0
RABEL222
 
  4  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 03:09 pm
@Blickers,
If he released his income taxes we might find he has business ties with Russia, Putin and China. Than his anti Europe attitude might not be so surprising. We already know he has business ties with China.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 04:04 pm
@High Strangeness,
I'm more concerned about the invasion of Commonwealth member Grenada. Not a lot of NATO solidarity there.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Wed 7 Sep, 2016 04:09 pm
@RABEL222,
Or, Trump may have so many bankruptcies to write off any profit he may make, so that his taxable income is negligible.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 09/18/2024 at 05:05:14