heybruce

You're really hung up on the UN. Are you under the impression that wars can not begin without UN approval? Or that brutal suppression of an independent people is acceptable if they don't have a seat at the UN is acceptable? I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Kuwait. I assume it's just deflection and obfuscation.

I would place the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex to be much less than that of social media, pundits screaming about wokeness, the medical lobby, the farm lobby.... In all fairness to Eisenhower, how could he have anticipated this?

"why is the west willing to give up a substantial percentage of Ukraine" When did a former Secretary General become "the west"?

You have yet to provide credible evidence.

Complete nonsense. I have yet to see credible evidence of the US playing any significant role in the Maiden protests that toppled the Russian stooge President Viktor Yanukovych.

Since you didn't dispute my assumption I assume I am correct and you have no experience managing anything of complexity--such as the proper use of nuclear weapons that can destroy civilization. I didn't state that anyone with government experience is qualified to be President. However anyone with zero government or military experience is unqualified to be President.

"One glaring and major issue is that Chinese Police consider any and every Chinese person a criminal if they criticize, condemn or complain about the Chinese government or the CCP. They are also considered criminals if they don't cooperate and provide information to Chinese security agencies." That raises an interesting question: Will Chinese police be allowed to arrest Chinese citizens in Thailand who violate Chinese laws but not Thai laws?

From your post I assume you have zero experience in government, little or no experience in the military, and no experience in managing large, complex organizations. Every job looks easy to people who don't know anything about it.

I was going to respond to impulse's post, but I can't improve upon your response. Thanks.

"Perhaps Ramaswamy's run is an indication that the door is opening to the citizen leader envisioned by the founding fathers. The guy who puts down his plow, his lawbook or his set of tools, goes to Washington to serve for a few years and then goes back to thrive (or not) in the world he's created." The Founding Fathers envisioned only good, honorable, educated men would run for office, and would be selected by other good and honorable men, not directly elected. The Founding Fathers also envisioned factions with different interest negotiating and compromising. They warned against letting politics devolve into a two party system. The Founding Fathers did not envision weapons that could travel across the world and destroy cities within an hour of launch. They assumed that they would have months to prepare a citizen army for war and saw little need for a standing army. Anyone who does not understand the nuclear triad, survivable second strike capability and Mutually Assured Destruction has no business even considering becoming Commander in Chief. The world is very different from what it was over two hundred years ago. Unfortunately people aren't any smarter; in many ways they seem dumber. Many are unaware, and refuse to believe, that the President has the unchecked power to launch nuclear weapons. I don't want an amateur with no government experience holding that power. A certain amount of learning on the job is unavoidable, but for the office of the Presidency prior experience is essential.

I suggest talking to cyclists with experience in Chiang Mai before attempting to deal with local traffic and drivers.

Too bad she's incompetent: https://www.newsweek.com/alina-habba-mocked-fraud-trial-ivanka-trump-document-1842241 That makes the person who hired her incompetent as well.

Looks reasonable to me. I don't know why you call them concessions, unless you mean that 5, 6, 7, and 9 are clear concessions demanded of Russia.

From the link (for those who don't do X/twitter): "Speaker Mike Johnson told House Republicans In a closed-door meeting that there is “insufficient evidence at the moment to initiate formal impeachment proceedings" against President Biden, the Washington Post reports."

Waiting for the MAGA types to tell us that Trump appointed Judge Cannon is a Trump hating deep state operative.

The story illustrates how much influence China has in Myanmar. As things now stand China will not allow any form of government in Myanmar that it doesn't approve of.

Now it comes out: Trump is upsetting the US government by stealing, sharing, and in general mishandling classified documents and putting the country at risk. Clearly you think Trump regards the US as the opposition. That may be correct, he certainly regards rule of law as the opposition.

You're still hung up on semantics. Taiwan functions as an independent nation that does not want to be dominated by China. The US supports Taiwan because it agrees that Taiwan should not be forced to be part of mainland China. Why is this difficult for you to grasp? Regarding your twisted reading of the rest of my post; the US is supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russia's invasion. The US is not participating as a combatant. If that changes so would the need for firing on Russia. I never suggested sending weapons to Hong Kong, I pointed out that what China did to Hong Kong strengthened Taiwan's resolve to not be dominated by Xi. The US, Europe and China are playing a game of catch-up with Taiwan's chip manufacturing capability, but Taiwan is not standing still, it's getting better. Taiwan will be critical for the world economy for the foreseeable future. China can do what it wants, within reason, within its territory (which does not include all of the South China Sea). When it starts using military force to expand outside of its territory it must be resisted. I, and a lot of other people, don't regard Taiwan as being part of China's territory, regardless of what you think.

Does this mean an insanity plea?

Agreed. Now stop trying to make it about immigration.

I'm against US warships in the Black Sea for tactical and practical reasons: Getting there would be incredibly risky and unnecessary. Whether US warships should fire on the PRC if it attacks Taiwan depends on how the situation unfolds. The Taiwanese people don't want to go under Xi's rule, especially after seeing how Hong Kong has been treated. If China goes in with guns blazing I would hope the US would help Taiwan blaze back. There are also practical considerations; Taiwan is a critical part of the world economy. A great deal of essential technology would fail without inputs from Taiwan, and that would make the supply issues caused by the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine look like a tea party. I'm not commenting on the horrors of not getting a new phone every year, I'm talking about the horrors of people going hungry because distribution systems fail.

Summary: You're not ok with wars of conquest but you don't want to get involved and you don't care if Russia has violated the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the US, Russia and other countries gave assurances to respect Ukraine's borders. I assume you prefer to deal with wars of conquest using harsh language. Or is that going too far? I'm not concerned with the semantics of whether Taiwan technically qualifies as an independent nation, I'm concerned with what is right for Taiwan and the world. Letting Russia and China bully and invade neighbors at will is not good for the world.

Looks good, I'll look into it. Thanks.

Considering "Stumblin' Joe's" legislative and diplomatic accomplishments, especially when compared to Trump, I'd say they voted smart. Of course I base my opinions on facts, not on whatever it is that makes you believe the lies Trump tells.

So you're ok with wars of conquest, empire building, might makes right, etc. I'm curious, is there any point at which aggressive, unchecked expansion by China would upset you? Any countries you don't want to see taken by force?