Politics

[Scott CWO]

Actually I don't like name dropping which is why I didn't use any. You for some reason wanted to suggest I had never been to Africa and suggest I am not conservative. Don't know why...but that is your issue.

But since you seem to think hunting in Africa is some special qualification in politics I should mention that not only has President Trump never hunted in Africa, he says he doesn't even believe in hunting:

“My sons love hunting. They're hunters and they've become good at it. I am not a believer in hunting and I'm surprised they like it,” Trump.

That was confirmed by his son Don Jr. who said in an interview that his father could not understand why he and his brother like hunting but has always let them do so.

But on the central issue, I could not imagine a circumstance that would have made me vote for Kamela (if I had a vote), but that doesn't mean Trump is doing a good job or is remotely competent or even particularly bright. You will have to call me when the dividend cheques for the 600% decrease in drug prices he promised start rolling in.

But if we run into each other in person, first beer is on me and I hope you get some great trophies for your upcoming clients.

I never said that African hunting experience has anything to do with qualifications in politics. I only mentioned it due to wondering what you are doing on the political forum of an African hunting website instead of some other website that more directly links with politics? You will see my posts all over this website, not just on this thread.

I am well aware of Trumps thoughts on hunting. A stupid decision he made in his first term cost a lot of us on here to not receive our elephant trophies in a timely manner or at all. This same decision caused the indirect decimation of lots of wildlife and habitat in Tanzania, and elsewhere, when outfitters pulled out of bidding for some great concessions because they thought it was fruitless and economically untenable to operate in those concessions without elephant hunting revenue. As a result, poaching and farming ruined hundreds of thousands of acres in vacant concessions areas that will likely never recover.

As for his sons, one of my best friends has guided Jr. in Alaska for mountain goat and the same hunt is donated again at SCI this year for the winning bidder to hunt with Jr. and him again. Thankfully, Don Jr. and Eric have done a great job with helping select the USFWS Director and other positions in the Department of Interior and Agriculture. I am sure those of us going to SCI Nashville will see Don Jr. and he will likely share some other "wins" for hunters.

 

[Red Leg]

But I wonder Scott, what being a hunter in Africa has to do whether or not Trump's policies are any good? Why don't you have the courage or intellect to actually step up and deal with the issues?

The way you are approaching this makes me wonder if you if you are a coward, running away from the issues or just too stupid to understand them. Perhaps it is a mix of both.

As a Trump skeptical conservative, I appreciate, even if not always in agreement with, many of your contributions to the political discussion.

That said, I have enormous respect for @Scott CWO. You, I do not know form Adam. But he brings a hands on, hunting related business perspective that the typical dilatant on this site does not. Perhaps you were indeed the Teddy Roosevelt of our era ending wars and rubbing elbows with the great and the good. Though, from my experience the latter is rather overrated and oversold.

But to the quotes above - while, I suppose, somewhat more articulate - they are exactly the sort of nonsense about which you have spent numerous pages castigating @Brent in Az.

 

[Scott CWO]

6-2? Maybe strictly by the numbers and with everything counting as 1 Scott. That Putin thing though feels like it's worth 4 or 5 all on its own to me.

Fair enough, my friend.

 

[Brent in Az]

I think there are a lot of people on here who should put their resumes in for Trump’s foreign policy advisers position. Every move is calculated and with purpose. Made by people who know a lot more than any of you.

Sign me up. I have all the answers. Just ask me.

 

[KJE81]

Sure, your TDS as Canadians is showing.

Ceasefire in Gaza. Iran’s nuclear program debilitated. A possible Iranian revolution. Removal of a socialist dictator in Venezuela. Renewal of the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere. Getting NATO to pay up.

His only two missteps are Greenland (so far) and not standing up enough to Putin. He’s 6-2 so far. Not bad.

Not canadian, but cant say anything about my potential TDS, as it does seems to afflict everyone who is not convinced MAGA from time to time.

Ceasefire in Gaza seems to be rather shaky but perhaps it will work out in the end.

Iranian Nuclear program was a nice one, and good that he came through in the end.

As to the Iranian revolution I think he chickened out there unfortunately, but who knows, I guess that he might still come around and do something about the thousands of killings that happened after he threatened them that the US would get involved if they started to kill protesters.

The Venezuelan affairs I have no objections to as to the removal of Madura was most likely a good thing. But it unfortunately seems to have made him somewhat of a megalomaniac which would seem to be a not so good thing.

Getting Nato to pay up is probably also a good thing, unfortunately he seems to be hell bent on breaking Nato up but it might be a good thing that Europe stops being dependent on the US, and finally gives up the idea of thinking that everything will reset once a normal human being is elected as republican president or a democrat is elected.

His love for Putin seems to be hard to shake, but as I understands it the US is hardly sharing any intelligence with the Ukrainians any longer and gives nothing else either since Trump was elected so perhaps it doesnt matter in the long run. Now that he got his beloved peace prize medal perhaps he will leave Ukraine alone.

 

[KJE81]

You sir being from Sweden and not USA may have your bar set a little low for that appraisal of foreign policy, some of us over here are still reeling from the Afghanistan withdrawal. which killed and maimed so many unnecessarily. A marine on overwatch there had the bomber/ terrorist IDd and in the crosshairs but was denied the shot and ordered to stand down. That may just be an example of disobeying a lawful/ unlawful order, had he killed the bomber he would have saved many many lives. and would not be missing an arm and legs. Said marine testified in congress , look it up. another foreign/ domestic policy failure was leaving our border wide open to 130 nations for 2 + years ,come 1 come all we will pay for that for years and even decades. Then the policy of flying in to the us plane loads of terrorist from Afghan and Somalia, and Venz, and you name it without any proper vetting. no excuse for that. This also includes moving 10,000s of children across our border and then releasing them to anyone. Going all the way back to Clinton who tried to pay N KOREA to not build nukes, same with Iran and biden how did that work for us. So then theres G. Bush who invited Putin down to the ranch in Texas and said I looked into his eyes and soul and say a man I could deal with?, what ever that meant. Oh less I forget all that Minn. fraud money that has funneled back to the somali terror group by the millions over the years, now we see the true Timmy Walz, camel's vice running mate. Ther was 2012 when obama drew a red line for Syria not to cross regarding chem weapons, but that line quickly turned yellow when he did nothing. Remember the great reset button with Russia in 2009 Howed that work out .
This is beginning to give me belly ack, so Im done . Trumps Policy hasn't been given enough time yet to crystalize. But not my first choice on several fronts, but If I was Pres. we'd be in a war,in a major way,so .
Greenland is not as big a deal as the media wants it to be, Trump is being Trump in his deal making, and it will settle . Weve tried to buy it before, twice, may succeed this time. its needed for Hypersonic missile defense and arctic shipping defense , the Artic is going to be a hot spot. Trumps policy is our hemisphere first yet we will continue to exsert influence in the world. Can we do all this in a Greenland that is owned by Denmark but autonomist in rule Maybe but its risky in todays world.

Thats true that I am not from USA but still I can read even though I have not have the benefit of the US educational system and from what I read it would seem that his foreign policies are a little shall we say controversial.

As to the Afghanistan withdrawal it seems to have been a disaster, perhaps Biden was unable to execute it properly, if I understand it correctly the withdrawal was negotiated by Trump? So one assumes it was masterfully negotiated at least.

I concur that trying to pay Iran, North Korea and others not to invent/make nuclear weapons seems like an insane policy from the start and I have nothing against Trump taking military action against these states just wish he would have followed through on his threat on the Ayatollas but he didnt and they ended up killing thousands.

As to Greenland I cant see the problem really, the treaty with Denmark allready allows military bases and garrison aswell as missile defence systems on the ground and the NATO article five should (if the US indeeds those plan to honor it) be enough to deter the Chinese and the Russians from ever doing anything to the Island.

 

[KJE81]

The ignore button is getting easier and easier to push. Sadly, the residuals linger

I agree it is much easier to push the ignore buttom rather then try to make an argument for ones case, but at least for my self I feel that its the easy way of handling things, I rather read everyones viewpoint and if it is to crazy/weird I just dont engage, but each to his own.

If one uses the Ignore buttom the thread would probably just end up containing those individuals sharing the same belief as ones own and thus much less interesting, but like I wrote, I guess its just a matter of taste

 

[Hank2211]

Not canadian, but cant say anything about my potential TDS, as it does seems to afflict everyone who is not convinced MAGA from time to time.

Ceasefire in Gaza seems to be rather shaky but perhaps it will work out in the end.

Iranian Nuclear program was a nice one, and good that he came through in the end.

As to the Iranian revolution I think he chickened out there unfortunately, but who knows, I guess that he might still come around and do something about the thousands of killings that happened after he threatened them that the US would get involved if they started to kill protesters.

The Venezuelan affairs I have no objections to as to the removal of Madura was most likely a good thing. But it unfortunately seems to have made him somewhat of a megalomaniac which would seem to be a not so good thing.

Getting Nato to pay up is probably also a good thing, unfortunately he seems to be hell bent on breaking Nato up but it might be a good thing that Europe stops being dependent on the US, and finally gives up the idea of thinking that everything will reset once a normal human being is elected as republican president or a democrat is elected.

His love for Putin seems to be hard to shake, but as I understands it the US is hardly sharing any intelligence with the Ukrainians any longer and gives nothing else either since Trump was elected so perhaps it doesnt matter in the long run. Now that he got his beloved peace prize medal perhaps he will leave Ukraine alone.

When it comes to Europe and Canada (as well as some other countries) pulling their weight - or not - in terms of their own defense, I think we could all use a bit of a history lesson.

@Red Leg would be the best placed to address this, I think, but I will give it a bit of a stab.

The potential impact of nuclear weapons became pretty evident after the end of WW2. This led, as I think we can all agree, to a nuclear arms race of sorts between the Soviet Union and the US. Other countries came to believe that without their own nuclear weapons, their defence would be at risk. This then led some of the more technologically advanced countries, such as the UK and France, to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

These developments were disturbing to the US at the time. The US did not want to see a proliferation of nuclear-armed countries, even if they were allies. This in turn led to the establishment of what became known as the “US nuclear umbrella.”

The theory behind the umbrella was that if countries would forgo the development of their own nuclear weapons, the US would “shelter” them under the US ‘umbrella,’ that is, the US would defend them in case of nuclear war. Almost every European country as well as Canada could have developed their own nuclear capacity, but as a result of the umbrella, did not, because it suited both them and the United States (but especially the latter).

I don’t usually quote Wikipedia, but it’s late:

As the USSR and other countries became nuclear powers as well, however, the risk of any nuclear exchange became more clear. This, in part, motivated the US to adopt the new strategy of deterrence, in which they would have more control over the situation, while still maintaining the ability to intervene in conflicts, a nuclear umbrella. The US provides protection and deterrence for various countries under its umbrella, and in turn, the countries do not pursue nuclear weapons programs themselves.

[As an aside, I would have thought the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed in 1968 rendered the umbrella redundant, but perhaps not].

As the decades went by, and it became clear(er) that any war was more likely to be conventional than nuclear, countries continued to believe that the US umbrella would protect them, even though the umbrella was never meant, to my knowledge, to be a guarantee of security in conventional war. That guarantee was provided, in the case of western countries, by NATO. This has resulted in the situation where we found ourselves some years ago - where the US decided that NATO counties weren’t pulling their weight on the conventional side. Having said that, it’s not, I would suggest, entirely fair to blame countries for relying on the US for a substantial portion of their defense, since that was what the US seemed to have wanted.

But times change, and that point about defence spending by NATO allies was made by presidents other than President Trump, but to his credit, it was mostly as a result of his ‘urging’ that progress was made, and continues to be made.

The question which I haven’t seen anyone ask, is whether the US nuclear umbrella remains. I don’t think it’s lost on anyone that both Russia and North Korea get airtime because of their nuclear capability, rather than their conventional capability. If the umbrella is no more, I would think that the non-proliferation treaty might get the heave-ho as well, as other countries conclude that they have to be in charge of their own defense, both nuclear and conventional.

Is that a world the US wants?

[Happy to be corrected on any of this - a military historian I am not!]

 

[spike.t]

Hispanic voters sent Trump back to power. Now some are souring

After sending Trump to the White House in a historic shift, some Latinos feel he's not improving the economy.

www.bbc.com

 

[spike.t]

Just seems not much has changed.....

Dictator ousted but regime intact – what next for Venezuela’s opposition? | Venezuela | The Guardian https://share.google/bsEC0E86LBw3Cvjbw

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Who knows what or why Donald Trump is doing...? Well gentlemen, Trump doesn't need the money but Trump the investor is not dead!

I read the above posted article in the Guardian dot com. Seeking another point of view, I searched for "Trump buys Netflix" in the Wall Stree Journel and look at what I found,

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/trump-purchased-netflix-warner-bonds-in-days-after-deal-announcement-2a5da67f?st=ig3awW&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

WSJ aritcle sites the Netflix and Warner Bros bond purchases were among 191 bond transactions. From the subject WSJ article,

"President Trump purchased up to $2 million of Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery bonds in December in the days after the streaming giant agreed to buy Warner’s studios and HBO Max streaming business for $72 billion.

A financial disclosure form released by the White House showed that Trump bought between $250,001 and $500,000 of Netflix NFLX -0.06%decrease; red down pointing triangle bonds on Dec. 12, and again on Dec. 16. He also bought bonds valued in that range for Discovery Communications LLC, a Warner subsidiary, on the same dates.

The disclosure form was dated Jan. 14, with a list of 191 bond purchase and sale transactions, including municipal bonds and debt for CoreWeave CRWV 6.55%increase; green up pointing triangle, Victoria’s Secret, Boeing, Macy’s and other companies.

The form didn’t disclose if an outside firm executed the trades on Trump’s behalf. The transactions weren’t given exact values, but the disclosure form provided ranges; some were in the $15,001 to $50,000 band, while at the high end, others were listed in the range of just over $1 million to $5 million."

There were also bond transactions for Victoria's Secret. Do you think Trump wants his own Monica-type in the latest ladies’ lingerie for the Oval Office? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Frankly, I am surprised my esteemed and accomplished AH friends missed that.

Personally, I wish that Netflix would be controlled by more conservatives. It shows way too many LGBQXYZ-whatever man on man, woman on woman, trans-persons and so on scenes. I don’t care what a couple butt-buddies do but I don’t what to see it.

Notes:

• Donald Trump is an egotistical axxhole of the highest order. Concerning politicians, perhaps Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan were not egomaniacs but maybe deep inside they were. One doesn’t become the President of the USA without some ego. I do miss the polite and professional days of Reagan bantering with Tip O’Neal!
• Politics is a slimy, cutthroat world that my “Do the right thing” heart never allowed. Lacking good, super-capable persons such as some of my AH friends, and YOU know who you are, running for office, people like Trump are the best we have. Live with it or run for office. I’ll vote for you!

 

[mohdisim]

The United States is not a party to the ICC. It does not allow its citizens to be tried by the court, and it is unlikely to arrest or extradite a foreign national based on an ICC warrant..


As a result, individuals such as Netanyahu, who has an ICC warrant, and I believe Paul Kagame, are able to travel freely to the United States.

 

[KJE81]

Spectrum. Huh... had never considered that. I just think he's the biggest narcissist to ever hold the office.

I know I have said several times that he reminds me of a 5 year old. I actually taught Kindergarten once upon a time. There is far less exaggeration to that than you might think.

This latest stunt (or escalation on the Greenland matter) actually sounds a lot like something a five year old might pull, apparantly its a letter from Trump to the Norwegian prime minister thats basically reads "since you did not gave me the peace prize I dont need to think so much about peace anymore"

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

I spent so much time editing my last post that I forgot to include the quote,

Why is he doing this? I guess a million here or there adds up to real money at some point.

Trump buys $1m in Netflix and Warner Bros bonds days after saying he’ll ‘be involved’ in merger

Warner Bros is also being pursued by Paramount Skydance, helmed by David Ellison, son of president’s ally

www.theguardian.com

So, let's try this again!

Who knows what or why Donald Trump is doing...? Well gentlemen, Trump doesn't need the money but Trump the investor is not dead!

I read the above posted article in the Guardian dot com. Seeking another point of view, I searched for "Trump buys Netflix" in the Wall Stree Journel and look at what I found,
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/...f?st=ig3awW&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

WSJ aritcle sites the Netflix and Warner Bros bond purchases were among 191 bond transactions. From the subject WSJ article,

"President Trump purchased up to $2 million of Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery bonds in December in the days after the streaming giant agreed to buy Warner’s studios and HBO Max streaming business for $72 billion.

A financial disclosure form released by the White House showed that Trump bought between $250,001 and $500,000 of Netflix NFLX -0.06%decrease; red down pointing triangle bonds on Dec. 12, and again on Dec. 16. He also bought bonds valued in that range for Discovery Communications LLC, a Warner subsidiary, on the same dates.

The disclosure form was dated Jan. 14, with a list of 191 bond purchase and sale transactions, including municipal bonds and debt for CoreWeave CRWV 6.55%increase; green up pointing triangle, Victoria’s Secret, Boeing, Macy’s and other companies.

The form didn’t disclose if an outside firm executed the trades on Trump’s behalf. The transactions weren’t given exact values, but the disclosure form provided ranges; some were in the $15,001 to $50,000 band, while at the high end, others were listed in the range of just over $1 million to $5 million."

There were also bond transactions for Victoria's Secret. Do you think Trump wants his own Monica-type in the latest ladies’ lingerie for the Oval Office? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Frankly, I am surprised my esteemed and accomplished AH friends missed that.

Personally, I wish that Netflix would be controlled by more conservatives. It shows way too many LGBQXYZ-whatever man on man, woman on woman, trans-persons and so on scenes. I don’t care what a couple butt-buddies do but I don’t what to see it.

Notes:

• Donald Trump is an egotistical axxhole of the highest order. Concerning politicians, perhaps Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan were not egomaniacs but maybe deep inside they were. One doesn’t become the President of the USA without some ego. I do miss the polite and professional days of Reagan bantering with Tip O’Neal!
• Politics is a slimy, cutthroat world that my “Do the right thing” heart never allowed. Lacking good, super-capable persons such as some of my AH friends, and YOU know who you are, running for office, people like Trump are the best we have. Live with it or run for office. I’ll vote for you!

And here's one for you about another but much lesser know rule breaker,
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AaaA3GbyC/

"Theodore Roosevelt Jr. landed on the wrong beach at Normandy on June 6, 1944, looked around under German fire, and told his officers, “We’ll start the war from right here.” He was fifty six years old, walking with a cane, carrying heart disease, arthritis, and orders that said he should never have been there at all.

Roosevelt was not supposed to see combat. He was a brigadier general. He had survived World War I. He had survived two heart attacks. Army doctors had stamped him unfit for frontline duty. Command wanted younger men leading the first wave. Roosevelt overruled them. He personally requested to land with the troops at Utah Beach, knowing the chances of survival were slim.

At 6:30 a.m., his landing craft hit sand nearly a mile off target. Machine gun fire cut across the beach. Units were scattered. Radio communications failed. Officers froze, waiting for corrected orders that would never arrive. In an invasion involving 156,000 Allied troops, a mile mattered. Mistakes at the shoreline could unravel everything inland.

Roosevelt assessed the terrain in seconds.

Instead of ordering a withdrawal or waiting for permission, he made a decision that violated doctrine. He reorganized shattered units on the fly, redirected landing craft, and sent runners inland with new objectives. He walked the beach upright, cane in hand, bullets snapping around him, calmly issuing instructions. Witnesses later said seeing a general that exposed steadied men who were seconds from panic.

The gamble worked.

Because Roosevelt landed off target, his troops avoided the heaviest German fortifications. Casualties at Utah Beach were under 300, the lowest of any Normandy landing zone. Historians later called it a mistake that saved lives. Roosevelt never called it luck.

The cost arrived quietly.

On July 12, 1944, just over a month after D Day, Theodore Roosevelt Jr. collapsed and died of a heart attack in France. He never returned home. He never saw the war end. He became the only general to land with the first assault wave on D Day and the oldest man to do so.

In 1944, the Army awarded him the Medal of Honor. The citation praised bravery. It did not mention defiance. It did not mention that he disobeyed medical orders, ignored landing plans, and rewrote strategy on the sand because waiting would have k!LLed more men.

Theodore Roosevelt Jr. did not win Normandy by following the plan.

He won it by recognizing that leadership sometimes means accepting the blame in advance and acting before permission catches up."

And how about Marine Medal of Honor winner Dakota Meyer defying orders?

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/defying-orders-to-rescue-his-friends.html

How about General Patton, he didn't exactly follow the crowd...

How will history judge Trump? That depends on how is breal the rules behavior plays out! Time will tell.

Once again, Trump is an Axxhole of the First Class but, at this time he is the best we have.
I would have voted for DeSantis over Trump but he wan't on the ticket.

Finally, here's a 55 second clip from Die Hard,
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"

 

[skydiver386]

It is clearly anti-American. More like something an Islamic cleric or banana republic dictator would do. I'm sure Trump would love it if the federal govt told him what days and times he could do business at Maro Lago. That draft dodging coward wrapping himself up in some kind of wannabe heroic military identity should be galling to any true patriot. Certainly for any veteran.

Like I have said so many times before, I wake up every morning asking myself, "What crazy bullshit nonsense has Trump been spewing today?" Why does anyone listen to anything he says anymore? I just hope the world can hold on till November. One third of the Senate and all of the House are up for reelection. It's getting harder and harder for the Trumplodite disciples to tow the line if they want to survive. Every day it gets harder to stay Republican.

More incoherent anti Trump dribble.

 

[WesRic404Jeff]

This latest stunt (or escalation on the Greenland matter) actually sounds a lot like something a five year old might pull, apparantly its a letter from Trump to the Norwegian prime minister thats basically reads "since you did not gave me the peace prize I dont need to think so much about peace anymore"

View attachment 740105

You shouldn't look so negatively at 5-year-olds or kindergarten children in general. Most of them understand what is being said or done when things are explained to them !

 

[spike.t]

Haven't watched all of it just the beginning ...wanted to see the part where all the state Iranian TV channels were hacked .....pretty amazing....

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

I spent so much time editing my last post that I forgot to include the quote,



So, let's try this again!

Who knows what or why Donald Trump is doing...? Well gentlemen, Trump doesn't need the money but Trump the investor is not dead!

I read the above posted article in the Guardian dot com. Seeking another point of view, I searched for "Trump buys Netflix" in the Wall Stree Journel and look at what I found,
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/...f?st=ig3awW&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

WSJ aritcle sites the Netflix and Warner Bros bond purchases were among 191 bond transactions. From the subject WSJ article,

"President Trump purchased up to $2 million of Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery bonds in December in the days after the streaming giant agreed to buy Warner’s studios and HBO Max streaming business for $72 billion.

A financial disclosure form released by the White House showed that Trump bought between $250,001 and $500,000 of Netflix NFLX -0.06%decrease; red down pointing triangle bonds on Dec. 12, and again on Dec. 16. He also bought bonds valued in that range for Discovery Communications LLC, a Warner subsidiary, on the same dates.

The disclosure form was dated Jan. 14, with a list of 191 bond purchase and sale transactions, including municipal bonds and debt for CoreWeave CRWV 6.55%increase; green up pointing triangle, Victoria’s Secret, Boeing, Macy’s and other companies.

The form didn’t disclose if an outside firm executed the trades on Trump’s behalf. The transactions weren’t given exact values, but the disclosure form provided ranges; some were in the $15,001 to $50,000 band, while at the high end, others were listed in the range of just over $1 million to $5 million."

There were also bond transactions for Victoria's Secret. Do you think Trump wants his own Monica-type in the latest ladies’ lingerie for the Oval Office? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Frankly, I am surprised my esteemed and accomplished AH friends missed that.

Personally, I wish that Netflix would be controlled by more conservatives. It shows way too many LGBQXYZ-whatever man on man, woman on woman, trans-persons and so on scenes. I don’t care what a couple butt-buddies do but I don’t what to see it.

Notes:

• Donald Trump is an egotistical axxhole of the highest order. Concerning politicians, perhaps Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan were not egomaniacs but maybe deep inside they were. One doesn’t become the President of the USA without some ego. I do miss the polite and professional days of Reagan bantering with Tip O’Neal!
• Politics is a slimy, cutthroat world that my “Do the right thing” heart never allowed. Lacking good, super-capable persons such as some of my AH friends, and YOU know who you are, running for office, people like Trump are the best we have. Live with it or run for office. I’ll vote for you!

And here's one for you about another but much lesser know rule breaker,
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AaaA3GbyC/

"Theodore Roosevelt Jr. landed on the wrong beach at Normandy on June 6, 1944, looked around under German fire, and told his officers, “We’ll start the war from right here.” He was fifty six years old, walking with a cane, carrying heart disease, arthritis, and orders that said he should never have been there at all.

Roosevelt was not supposed to see combat. He was a brigadier general. He had survived World War I. He had survived two heart attacks. Army doctors had stamped him unfit for frontline duty. Command wanted younger men leading the first wave. Roosevelt overruled them. He personally requested to land with the troops at Utah Beach, knowing the chances of survival were slim.

At 6:30 a.m., his landing craft hit sand nearly a mile off target. Machine gun fire cut across the beach. Units were scattered. Radio communications failed. Officers froze, waiting for corrected orders that would never arrive. In an invasion involving 156,000 Allied troops, a mile mattered. Mistakes at the shoreline could unravel everything inland.

Roosevelt assessed the terrain in seconds.

Instead of ordering a withdrawal or waiting for permission, he made a decision that violated doctrine. He reorganized shattered units on the fly, redirected landing craft, and sent runners inland with new objectives. He walked the beach upright, cane in hand, bullets snapping around him, calmly issuing instructions. Witnesses later said seeing a general that exposed steadied men who were seconds from panic.

The gamble worked.

Because Roosevelt landed off target, his troops avoided the heaviest German fortifications. Casualties at Utah Beach were under 300, the lowest of any Normandy landing zone. Historians later called it a mistake that saved lives. Roosevelt never called it luck.

The cost arrived quietly.

On July 12, 1944, just over a month after D Day, Theodore Roosevelt Jr. collapsed and died of a heart attack in France. He never returned home. He never saw the war end. He became the only general to land with the first assault wave on D Day and the oldest man to do so.

In 1944, the Army awarded him the Medal of Honor. The citation praised bravery. It did not mention defiance. It did not mention that he disobeyed medical orders, ignored landing plans, and rewrote strategy on the sand because waiting would have k!LLed more men.

Theodore Roosevelt Jr. did not win Normandy by following the plan.

He won it by recognizing that leadership sometimes means accepting the blame in advance and acting before permission catches up."

And how about Marine Medal of Honor winner Dakota Meyer defying orders?

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/defying-orders-to-rescue-his-friends.html

How about General Patton, he didn't exactly follow the crowd...

How will history judge Trump? That depends on how is breal the rules behavior plays out! Time will tell.

Once again, Trump is an Axxhole of the First Class but, at this time he is the best we have.
I would have voted for DeSantis over Trump but he wan't on the ticket.

Finally, here's a 55 second clip from Die Hard,
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"

@Mark A Ouellette excellent post! One slight error in the part about Ted Roosevelt. There was one other Army General that landed on D-Day, Norman "Dutch" Cota.

Note: In the movie, "The Longest Day", Henry Fonda played Ted Roosevelt and Robert Mitchum played Cota.

Cota was one of the highest-ranking officers on the beach that day. After landing on the beach, he personally rallied shell-shocked, pinned-down survivors to open one of the first vehicle exits off the beach.[6] Cota and his men advanced to the seawall, where they used Bangalore torpedoes and wire cutters to punch through. They then destroyed a machine-gun nest, after which they made a breakthrough from Omaha Beach.[15][16][17] Two quotes Cota spoke during the initial fighting later became famous:

In a meeting with Max Schneider, commander of the 5th Ranger Battalion, Cota asked "What outfit is this?" Someone yelled, "5th Rangers!" In an effort to inspire Schneider's men to leave the cover of the seawall and advance through a breach, Cota replied, "Well, God damn it, if you are Rangers, then get up there and lead the way!"[6] "Rangers lead the way" became the motto of the U.S. Army Rangers.[18]

He was also credited with calmly rallying his troops with the statement "Gentlemen, we are being killed on the beaches. Let us go inland and be killed."[19]

For his heroic leadership on D-Day and in the days and weeks afterwards, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC)

 

[RLD]

I never said that African hunting experience has anything to do with qualifications in politics. I only mentioned it due to wondering what you are doing on the political forum of an African hunting website instead of some other website that more directly links with politics? You will see my posts all over this website, not just on this thread.

I am well aware of Trumps thoughts on hunting. A stupid decision he made in his first term cost a lot of us on here to not receive our elephant trophies in a timely manner or at all. This same decision caused the indirect decimation of lots of wildlife and habitat in Tanzania, and elsewhere, when outfitters pulled out of bidding for some great concessions because they thought it was fruitless and economically untenable to operate in those concessions without elephant hunting revenue. As a result, poaching and farming ruined hundreds of thousands of acres in vacant concessions areas that will likely never recover.

As for his sons, one of my best friends has guided Jr. in Alaska for mountain goat and the same hunt is donated again at SCI this year for the winning bidder to hunt with Jr. and him again. Thankfully, Don Jr. and Eric have done a great job with helping select the USFWS Director and other positions in the Department of Interior and Agriculture. I am sure those of us going to SCI Nashville will see Don Jr. and he will likely share some other "wins" for hunters.

I have a trip booked to go hunting in SA in Sept. I post about things I know, otherwise I don't have much to say.

On African hunting I know very little, so I read a lot and don't post much.

 

[Red Leg]

When it comes to Europe and Canada (as well as some other countries) pulling their weight - or not - in terms of their own defense, I think we could all use a bit of a history lesson.

@Red Leg would be the best placed to address this, I think, but I will give it a bit of a stab.

The potential impact of nuclear weapons became pretty evident after the end of WW2. This led, as I think we can all agree, to a nuclear arms race of sorts between the Soviet Union and the US. Other countries came to believe that without their own nuclear weapons, their defence would be at risk. This then led some of the more technologically advanced countries, such as the UK and France, to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

These developments were disturbing to the US at the time. The US did not want to see a proliferation of nuclear-armed countries, even if they were allies. This in turn led to the establishment of what became known as the “US nuclear umbrella.”

The theory behind the umbrella was that if countries would forgo the development of their own nuclear weapons, the US would “shelter” them under the US ‘umbrella,’ that is, the US would defend them in case of nuclear war. Almost every European country as well as Canada could have developed their own nuclear capacity, but as a result of the umbrella, did not, because it suited both them and the United States (but especially the latter).

I don’t usually quote Wikipedia, but it’s late:

As the USSR and other countries became nuclear powers as well, however, the risk of any nuclear exchange became more clear. This, in part, motivated the US to adopt the new strategy of deterrence, in which they would have more control over the situation, while still maintaining the ability to intervene in conflicts, a nuclear umbrella. The US provides protection and deterrence for various countries under its umbrella, and in turn, the countries do not pursue nuclear weapons programs themselves.

[As an aside, I would have thought the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed in 1968 rendered the umbrella redundant, but perhaps not].

As the decades went by, and it became clear(er) that any war was more likely to be conventional than nuclear, countries continued to believe that the US umbrella would protect them, even though the umbrella was never meant, to my knowledge, to be a guarantee of security in conventional war. That guarantee was provided, in the case of western countries, by NATO. This has resulted in the situation where we found ourselves some years ago - where the US decided that NATO counties weren’t pulling their weight on the conventional side. Having said that, it’s not, I would suggest, entirely fair to blame countries for relying on the US for a substantial portion of their defense, since that was what the US seemed to have wanted.

But times change, and that point about defence spending by NATO allies was made by presidents other than President Trump, but to his credit, it was mostly as a result of his ‘urging’ that progress was made, and continues to be made.

The question which I haven’t seen anyone ask, is whether the US nuclear umbrella remains. I don’t think it’s lost on anyone that both Russia and North Korea get airtime because of their nuclear capability, rather than their conventional capability. If the umbrella is no more, I would think that the non-proliferation treaty might get the heave-ho as well, as other countries conclude that they have to be in charge of their own defense, both nuclear and conventional.

Is that a world the US wants?

[Happy to be corrected on any of this - a military historian I am not!]

I think what you described is absolutely accurate in effect if not exactly how I believe the "umbrella" came into being.

Eisenhower was a great operational leader for an international army. With the exception of approving Market Garden, his decisions were generally cautious, but represented courses of action whereby the Allied forces could not lose once ashore in France. .

What he was not, much to Churchill's frustration, was a geo-political strategist equally focused on shaping postwar Europe as effectively as he led the destruction of the German Army in the West. To a large extent, that dutifully reflected Roosevelt's own dismissal of Churchill's concerns with regard to the threat posed by the USSR and Stalin's ambitions. The nearsightedness of those resulting actions gave the Soviet Union the time and opportunity to push the Red Army across most of Eastern Europe and seize Berlin.

Following the war, it was abundantly clear to Truman administration, that victory in Europe was meaningless to American interests if Western Europe, victor or defeated, collapsed into economic ruin and Soviet domination. As the United States turned its efforts to economic revival, it and the struggling nations of Western Europe were confronted by an ever more aggressive USSR that was constructing an "iron curtain" between East and West, and that was doing everything in its power to undermine Western European reconstitution efforts. This culminated in the USSR's attempted blockade of Berlin and ensuing Berlin airlift. It was this confrontation that became the final trigger to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in April of 49.

The mutual defense nature of the treaty carried with it the explicit understanding that member states would commit there military forces to mutual defense. While not explicitly addressed, nuclear weapons were viewed by member states, including the US, as another class of weapons that could be used along a scale of escalation. Party to the Manhattan Project's engineering effort, Britain developed its own arsenal as did France in its own efforts to be both part and separate from the alliance. Other member states allowed the US to pre-position weapons on their soil as part of contributing to the "nuclear alliance," a term used as recently as 2022.

It is also worth noting that the US has never renounced first use of nuclear weapons. Well into the eighties, US and NATO exercises were typically defensive in nature and typically would culminate with release of nuclear weapons. In those days, the US had thousands of nuclear rounds that would be fired tactically by 155mm and 8 inch artillery. By 1990, the US field artillery had to reinvent offensive fires and maneuver on the fly to support Desert Storm.

But yes, to your basic point, the Alliance represented an opportunity for most of Western Europe to lean heavily upon the defensive capabilities or umbrella, conventional and nuclear, provided by the super power member. You are also correct that the US strongly supported non-proliferation among the non-nuclear members of the alliance. The NPT has been a major part of US foreign policy efforts for three generations. But I believe the concept of "nuclear umbrella" was more a natural outgrowth of treaty responsibilities than a conscious nuclear policy.