Politics

[farmer_john]

I see in the breaking news that Trump just withdrew his invitation for Canada to join his Board of Peace club. Oh, boo hoo! Just saved Carney the trouble of rejecting it (he had been "officially" sitting on the fence waiting for more details). And saved us $1B membership fee. Here's Trump's letter to Carney revoking the invitation. "Dear Prime Minister Carney: Please let this Letter serve to represent that the Board of Peace is withdrawing its invitation to you regarding Canada’s joining, what will be, the most prestigious Board of Leaders ever assembled, at any time."

Someone get that guy a cape and a phone booth. Har, har. Brother! Can anyone tell me who is the "prestigious leader" of Macedonia?

I'm sure Carney is terribly upset. Probably won't sleep a wink tonight.

Peace is a lie championed only by cowards.
Board of peace will be a clownshow

 

[Red Leg]

And the Czechs. And didn't the Canadian's assign a bunch of excellent snipers to our Marine Expeditionary Forces over there too?

Virtually all of NATO participated in some form to support us following 911 and essentially stayed to the bitter end. Polish troops earned a reputation for being particularly effective and fully 33,000 served during the course of the war and 43 were killed in action and nearly a thousand were wounded. Even Ukraine sent troops to serve on US and NATO staffs.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

40000 Canadians and 158 killed in Afghanistan, far more than just a few snipers embedded with marine unites

 

[spike.t]

Its not an insult or issue per say. But as a demographic pattern and generstional mentality its accurate. Just like saying most women in usa are 4th wave feminists is accurate.
Not having the ability to control yourself is Nothing impressive. And you should probably seek help for substance abuse.

Who cares how much you can drink. Your generations hedonism is gross. Go party with your boy Epstien. Drink each other under the table and party like its 1999

And yall have spend decades ruining the country. You should care because the younger generations do

As I said you are confusing me with someone that gives a fk especially about the high level moral drivvle that you spout.....

 

[Scott CWO]

When Trump spews absolute nonsense like this with respect to the sacrifice NATO troops made in Afghanistan it makes me sick to my stomach. This isn't clever trolling - it is ignorant disrespect. Nearly 500 British troops were killed and more than 2000 were wounded supposedly hiding "behind the front lines." British KIA represented almost 5% of their deployed forces while the approximately 2300 US KIA represented 2.3% of US deployed strength. In other words, deployed British forces were roughly 12% more likely to be KIA than their American counterparts. Trump shames everyone who served there with this ugly sort of stupidity.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014326134003916881

With all due respect to @Red Leg while also not giving credence to Trump’s disrespect for our NATO allies, I don’t think looking at the percentages provides the most accurate picture of losses of actual fighting forces. We must understand that the US military’s number of personnel in country also included nearly all the personnel involved behind the scenes, including everyone from doctors to maintenance crews and all kinds of other support crews that our allies really didn’t add to significantly. In addition, I am told by two former Army Green Berets who work for me now who were Tier 1 SOF Operators (one was the highest ranking NCO SGM in the 7th Group who was also General Kelley’s right-hand man at the FOB) that the US fighting teams conducted nearly all of the missions that were predicted to be the toughest and that the NATO teams were sent on somewhat easier missions where casualties were predicted to be lower. Obviously these “easier” missions were still quite dangerous and lives were lost. I’m told another reason that US teams conducted more of the toughest missions is also because they had access to advanced equipment that nobody else had. It’s not a secret that SOF have equipment that the regular army does not have (as recently reported in the Venezuelan operation) and this equipment is also not shared with our allies. In addition, the SGM said he often recommended that NATO teams be sent home early because they weren’t being fully utilized a lot of times and were using up valuable resources on base. I don’t believe he said any of those things due to a lack of respect for NATO teams. He said many were great guys and highly skilled operators, especially from certain NATO countries. In other actions around the globe, he also noted his great respect for Israeli and Australian teams.

I think if we were to have a way to analyze US loss percentages without all the support forces in the calculation, I’m guessing we would see US losses being the highest if only looking at actively fighting soldiers.

 

[Red Leg]

With all due respect to @Red Leg while also not giving credence to Trump’s disrespect for our NATO allies, I don’t think looking at the percentages provides the most accurate picture of losses of actual fighting forces. We must understand that the US military’s number of personnel in country also included nearly all the personnel involved behind the scenes, including everyone from doctors to maintenance crews and all kinds of other support crews that our allies really didn’t add to significantly. In addition, I am told by two former Army Green Berets who work for me now who were Tier 1 SOF Operators (one was the highest ranking NCO SGM in the 7th Group who was also General Kelley’s right-hand man at the FOB) that the US fighting teams conducted nearly all of the missions that were predicted to be the toughest and that the NATO teams were sent on somewhat easier missions where casualties were predicted to be lower. Obviously these “easier” missions were still quite dangerous and lives were lost. I’m told another reason that US teams conducted more of the toughest missions is also because they had access to advanced equipment that nobody else had. It’s not a secret that SOF have equipment that the regular army does not have (as recently reported in the Venezuelan operation) and this equipment is also not shared with our allies. In addition, the SGM said he often recommended that NATO teams be sent home early because they weren’t being fully utilized a lot of times and were using up valuable resources on base. I don’t believe he said any of those things due to a lack of respect for NATO teams. He said many were great guys and highly skilled operators, especially from certain NATO countries. In other actions around the globe, he also noted his great respect for Israeli and Australian teams.

I think if we were to have a way to analyze US loss percentages without all the support forces in the calculation, I’m guessing we would see US losses being the highest if only looking at actively fighting soldiers.

I respect the service of the NCOs you know in the SOF community, but I think I'll stick with my assessment of the contributions and sacrifices made by our NATO allies in Afghanistan and in trying to put those sacrifices in some sort of context. For instance, because the US was providing so much tail, many of the NATO elements, particularly the British in Helmand, were proportionally heavy in tooth. Should we have a separate assessment for them? We have the largest joint SOF collection of units in the world - so how should we compare SAS contributions, were they ever declassified, to those US elements? Also, remember that SOF made up a very small proportion of troops in country, Most combat action was seen by regular formations, not SOF. Total numbers, deployed verses casualties, seems to be the most logical, fair, and unarguable method. That math is what it is.

With respect to Trump, like his comments about John McCain, this is a subject about which he is either too uninformed, too lazy, or too duplicitous to speak truthfully about it. I find that reprehensible. Further, I find it incomprehensible he somehow finds such denigration necessary. I find it equally so that others seem all to ready to somehow rationalize, even applaud, such behavior.

 

[WAB]

I guess for some folks there are more important things than money. I don't expect most Americans to grasp that kind of thinking. But let me put it another way. Would you take a million bucks to sing the Russian anthem at NFL games for the rest of your life? Hmmm.

Greenlanders live in communities that still are communities. They can hunt and fish right out the back door. They're not getting overrun by foreign invader mining companies and real estate developers. They like what they have and don't want to see it change ... like Western Montana changed in just my lifetime. Good for them. They know what they have is priceless. Leave them alone as much as possible. They don't have to change their nationality or culture for America to take security measures. At least let them control how they change. They deserve that. This has never been about national security. It's been about the Trump show.

Please don’t play your Canadian card with me. I am more Canadian than you will ever be.

 

[Scott CWO]

I respect the service of the NCOs you know in the SOF community, but I think I'll stick with my assessment of the contributions and sacrifices made by our NATO allies in Afghanistan and in trying to put those sacrifices in some sort of context. For instance, because the US was providing so much tail, many of the NATO elements, particularly the British in Helmand, were proportionally heavy in tooth. Should we have a separate assessment for them? We have the largest joint SOF collection of units in the world - so how should we compare SAS contributions, were they ever declassified, to those US elements? But remember that SOF made up a very small proportion of troops in country, Most combat action was seen by regular formations, not SOF. Total numbers, deployed verses casualties, seems to be the most logical, fair, and unarguable method. That math is what it is.

With respect to Trump, like his comments about John McCain, this is a subject about which he is either too uninformed, too lazy, or too duplicitous to speak truthfully about it. I find that reprehensible. Further, I find it incomprehensible he somehow finds such denigration necessary. I find it equally so that others seem all to ready to somehow rationalize, even applaud, such behavior.

I’m definitely not rationalizing his behavior and I also found his statements about McCain to be delusional. McCain suffered abuse as a POW that would have killed Trump.

I was only pointing out that minus the support staff, the US suffered losses right up there with everyone else as far as fighting soldiers and I’m talking all types of fighters.

 

[RLD]

When Trump spews absolute nonsense like this with respect to the sacrifice NATO troops made in Afghanistan it makes me sick to my stomach. This isn't clever trolling - it is ignorant disrespect. Nearly 500 British troops were killed and more than 2000 were wounded supposedly hiding "behind the front lines." British KIA represented almost 5% of their deployed forces while the approximately 2300 US KIA represented 2.3% of US deployed strength. In other words, deployed British forces were roughly 12% more likely to be KIA than their American counterparts. Trump shames everyone who served there with this ugly sort of stupidity.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014326134003916881

Particularly unfortunate coming from the mind of President Bonespur.

 

[RLD]

Peace is a lie championed only by cowards.
Board of peace will be a clownshow

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Peace is the goal.

 

[Aaron N]

I’m definitely not rationalizing his behavior and I also found his statements about McCain to be delusional. McCain suffered abuse as a POW that would have killed Trump.

I was only pointing out that minus the support staff, the US suffered losses right up there with everyone else as far as fighting soldiers.

Absolutely they did. Everyone there was in it together, sadly not everyone came home together.

 

[Tanks]

Just saved Carney the trouble of rejecting it (he had been "officially" sitting on the fence waiting for more details). And saved us $1B membership fee.

I thought you were American, was I wrong?

 

[Hank2211]

As an insider, if the market is there, why aren’t Canadian firms taking in the projects? Expertise can be bought

Access to capital is one important reason. Canadian capital tends to be far more risk averse than US or Asian capital. In addition, some Canadian banks were refusing to provide loans to the oil and gas industry, probably as a result of pressure from NGOs.

Second reason is/was (he said hopefully) political risk. As a Canadian, it would be a difficult decision to invest in oil and gas when your own government was saying there was no business case for it, and that they effectively wanted the industry to be out of business within a decade. You might recall there was a lot of discussion about how to transition oil field workers to new fields of employment once their jobs disappeared.

The previous government (which shall not be named because I’ve run out of Pepcid) has a lot to answer for.

 

[Aaron N]

Access to capital is one important reason. Canadian capital tends to be far more risk averse than US or Asian capital. In addition, some Canadian banks were refusing to provide loans to the oil and gas industry, probably as a result of pressure from NGOs.

Second reason is/was (he said hopefully) political risk. As a Canadian, it would be a difficult decision to invest in oil and gas when your own government was saying there was no business case for it, and that they effectively wanted the industry to be out of business within a decade. You might recall there was a lot of discussion about how to transition oil field workers to new fields of employment once their jobs disappeared.

The previous government (which shall not be named because I’ve run out of Pepcid) has a lot to answer for.

In my layman brain, a PM travelling to the Middle East drumming up LNG investment, or China for mineral investment is enough of a de-risk for a Canadian company to take it on themselves.

 

[Wheels]

It's hard to believe that such statements come from a head of state.
From someone who dodged military service in Vietnam with heel spurs...
The serious insults he hurled in Davos, including against the host country Switzerland, the way he mimicked the president when she was trying to negotiate lower tariffs, against Canada, against France, etc.
By the way: the French are a proud people, and these insults against Macron will not be forgotten, even if Macron is no longer in office, as is likely.
Today, a French banker told me that France is seriously considering selling US bonds, and they don't care what retaliatory measures he will then take.
If France does that, it's only about 3%, but it will start a downward spiral, like pulling the plug on a bathtub. Europe holds a total of 20%, with the Chinese probably holding the rest.
Then the lights will go out for you.
No one can seriously want that.
On either side of the ocean.

US debt is quickly approaching 39T. Europe owns 4T-10T of the debt depending on the AI service I used. It would hurt if Europe sold all at once. The problem facing the European bankers and countries is do they want to take the massive losses they would incur by dumping the bonds on the international market. The US doesn’t have to redeem them until the due date.

As a reference last year Bessent refinanced 11T in debt with no real yield issues.

Many think China is a massive player and owns most US debt. China only owns apx 750B. Bessent can handle that in any month with no real issue.

As an American, US debt is a massive burden my generation has saddled our children and grandchildren with. It is doubtful that any foreign banks or central banks want to deal with the losses they would incur by dumping American debt in a we will show Trump manner. A managed liquidation over 4-7 years is a more likely scenario.

The other question is where does Europe want to put those funds. Do they want to remove it from an economy that is growing substantially faster,America, to invest it in a slower growing Europe.

 

[Altitude sickness]

When Trump spews absolute nonsense like this with respect to the sacrifice NATO troops made in Afghanistan it makes me sick to my stomach. This isn't clever trolling - it is ignorant disrespect. Nearly 500 British troops were killed and more than 2000 were wounded supposedly hiding "behind the front lines." British KIA represented almost 5% of their deployed forces while the approximately 2300 US KIA represented 2.3% of US deployed strength. In other words, deployed British forces were roughly 12% more likely to be KIA than their American counterparts. Trump shames everyone who served there with this ugly sort of stupidity.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014326134003916881

Denmark suffered if not the most. One of the most casualties per capita in Afghanistan. Danish forces operated in one of the most volatile areas, with heavy engagements against the Taliban. They were in Kandahar but primarily Helmand province. They were always in the mix. Not rearward. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

As I’ve stated here before. I’ve worked with Denmarks Navy. They are no joke and should be respected. As is most of European military members.

Trump should read a little history.

 

[farmer_john]

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Peace is the goal.

Na
If you want peace prepare for war.
Because war/violence is diplomacy by other means.

A lot of people like to think they are “non-violent.” Generally, people claim to “abhor” the use of violence, and violence is viewed negatively by most folks. Many fail to differentiate between just and unjust violence. Some especially vain, self-righteous types like to think they have risen above the nasty, violent cultures of their ancestors. They say that “violence isn’t the answer.” They say that “violence doesn’t solve anything.”

They’re wrong. Every one of them relies on violence, every single day.

On election day, people from all walks of life line up to cast their ballots, and by doing so, they hope to influence who gets to wield the axe of authority. Those who want to end violence — as if that were possible or even desirable — often seek to disarm their fellow citizens. This does not actually end violence. It merely gives the state mob a monopoly on violence. This makes you “safer,” so long as you don’t piss off the boss.

All governments — left, right or other — are by their very nature coercive. They have to be.

Order demands violence.

 

[farmer_john]

Denmark suffered if not the most. One of the most casualties per capita in Afghanistan. Danish forces operated in one of the most volatile areas, with heavy engagements against the Taliban. They were in Kandahar but primarily Helmand province. They were always in the mix. Not rearward. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

As I’ve stated here before. I’ve worked with Denmarks Navy. They are no joke and should be respected. As is most of European military members.

Trump should read a little history.

I worked with the danes in iraq a bit. Solid dudes.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

"Trump should read a little history."

Do they make enough of it in meme form to offer any level of benefit to him?

 

[Tanks]

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Peace is the goal.

Karl Von Clausewitz: 'War is the continuation of politics by other means.'