Damual Travesty

I am not certain of what embassies if any still are allowed to give a letter. The American Embassy letter was no longer accepted because the US Embassy refused to actually verify anyone's income. Is the Dutch Embassy verifying yours or just giving you a statement that they verify you wrote a statement of such in front of them?

Having said all that, if I were you, because it's very easy to get, I would go to the bank and get your cover statement that shows deposits, and bank statement. Better safe then to be told you need one after you get there.

Just my two cents.

On 7/28/2020 at 10:10 AM, heybruce said:

 

As I explained earlier, Russia has no business being in.  It is not a large, advanced, developed free market economy.  It is a developing resource dependent economy with a big corruption problem.

You still did not speak to my question Bruce. And the invitation was to attend was it not? Not to be given membership necessarily, I think Russia is declining to attend anyway without membership, but why would you be opposed to their attending? They are somewhat of an advanced economy. They have nuclear weapons, put up a space station, a modern navy, and air force (all self built) and weapon systems that are quite sophisticated, and not to be taken lightly.

So while the free market economy is not developed I would not simply write them off as unworthy, and as they are a previous member that was booted over Crimea, it seams ridiculous to me to keep them from participating. I do not share the tactic of Russian isolation from Europe. I think it unwise. In fact I think that closer relationships with Russia should be formed.

From an American perspective, I think keeping your adversary close makes more sense. I simply do not see what the harm is for allowing them back in. I say that especially in light of the rise of a real adversary in the East that has shown now to be a serious threat. As for the invasion of Crimea, I think this was primarily the fault of US/NATO allies appearing to be close to putting Ukraine into NATO which in my opinion was a very unwise move and one that Russia simply could not stomach for their own sense of security. Would love to hear some Russians chime in to this conversation.

Spain, and its lovely people should get out of that club run by Germany as soon as possible!

To my fellow Americans on the right side of the law, we all know that the truth lay in what is not covered. God Bless America, and let's all hope and pray sanity is restored soon. Bill Barr testified like a champion!

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can claim people here get this all wrong, but it still doesn't go toward addressing points made.

 

Whether you like to accept it or not, your opinions as to what other countries are certain of, how they perceive Trump, or how they assess the PRC's threat and ways to address it are neither set in stone nor are they necessarily supported by facts.

 

It would be hard to claim that "they are quite certain where the Trump administration stands on China". Not when Trump already made several flip flops during his term, not when his foreign policy is filled with other examples of such, and not when it is rather obvious that his main focus is on Trump, rather than anything else.

 

Aligning with the USA is one thing, doing so when the USA leadership is unpredictable and inconsistent is another.

You put a lot of credence into the idea that Donald Trump has made several flip flops. You are clearly not understanding US policy - now, or how it was during the Obama years. The United States has a pretty clear policy on China at the moment - thank you very much. That of course all changes should Trump lose the election.

17 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

maybe so, but those sovereign states that do not want to work with the US military are plentiful

Good - as they should be. This is really only something that should interest any Nation in Asia that would feel the need for closer military ties with the United States. Those that have no such interests I guess that this would not be of any interest. Those nations who are content to be where they are - in terms of their relationships should stay right where they are. As I said earlier (twice), not a time for ambiguity. A Nation either feels threatened by China or it does not. There is no middle ground on that point. If they do feel threatened, the level of cooperation with US forces in the region I suppose would depend on how they are gauging the threat, as measured against their own strength. Is China threatening? Decide for yourself. If you are Laos or Cambodia with economies that essentially make them vassal states of China - well - I would not expect them to seek a military alliance with the USA now would I. All nations in the region affected could always seek appeasement with China - give away their sovereignty over territorial waters, fishing rights, etc.

Quite honestly, it's never happened to me since I arrived in 2016.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:40 PM, colinneil said:

Now before i get attacked for my comment, i am half Scottish, half English.

Well one of your hands should smack the English half!

Simply amazing to me. I lived in the North of Scotland from 1981-1983, and the SNP was quite a small party at that time. My how times do change.

On 7/27/2020 at 8:51 AM, Morch said:

 

The USA response was slow, confused and sometimes contradictory. Not much of a display when it comes to leadership and competence. Overall, IMO, not the best advertisement for heading an anti-PRC drive.

 

 

Again, people here get this all wrong. Any nation that is feeling threatened by China is more then welcome to open discussions with the United States to perhaps work together to deal with a very pressing issue that relates to such important matters as defence of territory, of territorial resource rights, and of freedom of navigation  for trade in international waters.

Those are mighty big issues for nations to have concern about. Such matters are not driven by a sales campaign to like the United States. Those nations of the region who have such concerns know what's up. They are quite certain where the Trump administration stands on China. The reason for that is they are watching U.S. actions in the region. A big difference from talking about a "pivot to asia" that came out of the mouth of the previous administration.

The U.S. Fleet on full patrol, the ability to work with that fleet for the mutual concerns of freedom of navigation, and protection of shipping. That is what this is about.

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

As to why Trump wants Russia in the G7...that's a very interesting question. 

I read your commentary and find nothing to disagree with, but there is a bigger picture here regarding Geo-politics, and power. A better question perhaps to ask is why it would be in the US interest for Russia to attend (or to invite them), rather then to pose the question as a personal one from the President of the United States. Think about everything you know regarding the subject of rising and falling power, balance, etc. For one thing, regarding Russia, I do not believe that the USA and Europe necessarily share the same interests here, and perhaps this is a source for future divide. The immediate threat to the United States is NOT Russia by any measure. That reality may be something the Europeans do not wish to admit to.

I guess my only question here is what exactly is the purpose of keeping the Russians out? What purpose does this serve for Europeans? Is there a mistaken belief out there that the Russians are going to someday un-annex Crimea?

7 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

Vietnam? Dunno. Would be interesting if it took place. A communist country seeking protection from US

Let's make this a bit more nuanced rather then stating "A communist country seeking protection" I think we can drill this down so that it's not quite as black and white as that. Seeking protection? How about putting it this way: (all within the last 30 days), as an aside when the USA and USSR were in relationship during world war II I don't think the Soviets were seeking "Protection".

https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/us-vietnam-ties-have-never-been-better/

https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/will-we-see-a-us-vietnam-strategic-partnership/

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-us-relations-25-year-testament-to-realpolitik-success-4128684.html

https://nypost.com/2020/07/03/us-vietnam-rip-china-for-military-drills-in-disputed-waters/

Additionally, on a side note regarding military alliances with USA in the last week the USA conducted Naval exercises in the South China sea with Australia and Japan.

19 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

agree with that;

 

the Chinese actions are current

the Chinese actions represent a threat

the Chinese actions are indeed real

 

don't think you can do much about it in the short time

 

concerted action with Pompeo or his likes on Penn Ave is not attractive to many countries

US credibility has gone, alas

US is not trustworthy, alas

reasonably run and managed sovereign states prefer to handle serious foreign policy issues

                 outside of tweeter and facebook

With respect to your position, much being made here regarding US credibility, I think that the situation is this. China is threatening Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, (and other nations with a stake in South China sea, Japan, and attempting to economically bully Australia with threats.  So let me just stop right there.

Military alliances are not about friendship. They are about countries making choices that effect their safety and security. For some Countries, the USA is still the best bet for that. Considering that it is ONLY the Trump administration that has taken a decidedly confrontational tactic with China, and not the previous administrations, it is rather obvious where the USA is heading at least under the current President.

The choice for the countries affected here is to either attempt some sort of neutrality (hard to do in the face of a bully), or fall in league with China, or seek alliance with the United States. All this business about domestic disturbance in the USA - as much as it is international news, I don't think comes into the equation if you are one of the countries seeing the very real - not imagined - threat coming from China.

Do you really think that a country in such a position makes a decision to move away from an American President that is showing resolve that was lacking for over 8 years and more, but especially the 8 years of the Obama administration that spent it's time lecturing the the Philippines?

If Vietnam for example, were to have closer military ties to the USA it has nothing to do with Friendship and everything to do with mutual concerns about regional safety. They don't care that people do not like the American President because they find him abrasive. I think they are far above such nonsense in their thinking.  An incoming Joe Biden administration, a man whose son took a diamond ring from Chinese business concerns as well as millions - and the weakness of the last Democrat administration on China, extreme weakness, embarrassingly so, is I am sure thought about with far more fear then is doing business with Donald J Trump. Countries understand that American strength benefits them, and American weakness, on the domestic front, is likely to become worse under a future Democrat administration. They have given gentle and kind words to domestic terrorists, supported such domestic terror organizations as BLM and ANTIFA, and people who make decisions understand that.  A strong United States, that puts down such violence, is one that can reach with strength into their region at a time when it is needed.

19 hours ago, RobFord said:

All that “who’s side would you rather be on” changed with Trump. I will never give the benefit of doubt again.

What does this mean? Benefit of the doubt regarding what?

On 7/25/2020 at 8:12 PM, Tug said:

Well it passed with a veto proof margin all military bases named after confederate generals will be renamed and it appears donald is in a snit and brooding lol

You are going to really love your world when the day comes that the Democrats take permanent power in the United States of America. That day is coming. Sadly. God help us all. You think you know what's going on don't you.

On 7/22/2020 at 10:10 PM, fvw53 said:

Would the world have been better off with two republics : the NSA (Northern States of America) and the SSA (Southern States of America)?  

Seriously? Is this the level of discourse here?

The way Southerners have looked at this, some, many, who knows, is that the Southern Flag stands for their states standing up to a Northern Invasion, one that drew first blood. And in a far more general sense, stands for being rebellious as in a rebel.

I do understand that the flag may be something that some people find offensive, but aren't there a lot of things that people find to be offensive in this world?

As for the statues, people have state and local governments. They can decide by the democratic way vote. All of this violence over a flag that has existed for decades, and has simply come to represent the South, and Southern defiance, is ridiculous.

Further, there is a bias in American media most of which originates in the North-east, or the West Coast, to depict country white people, especially Southern white people as evil, racist, ignorant, and I could go on. All of this creates a myth that people believe to be true because they are fed it 24/7 on television.

What is going on in the USA right now with all of this violence is very sad. It has been stoked by a political party and their media, which is no more then a mouthpiece for them. And that is about 85% of US media.

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes, nourishment

How many hours since the Japanese bombing in P H has USA not been involved

in armed conflict somewhere on the planet? That is what you do. And destabilising governement you don't fancy,

all over America Latin

 

anyway you are not alone, Russia and China are also pretty bad and have been for many years

this is how they secure dominance; violence - brutality - threats - undermining of legal governments

 

We are talking about a current Chinese threat. While I appreciate your negative view of the United States, is there a particular argument you are making regarding a Chinese threat which is quite real and unfolding as we speak? Or are you making a claim that there is no Chinese threat? Either of those arguments are not reliant of your take on history. We are talking about what is happening right now.

23 hours ago, Morch said:

It would be even better if these things were argued from a better position with regard to the USA's own issues.

Interesting. Perhaps you can give me an example of this argument?

9 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Should  History be a variable "interpretation"  or a complete  genuine record that obviates  interpretation?

 

 

This sentence is an absurdity. Historians spend their entire lives attempting to interpret the historical record. History is not only a chronology of events, but also a chronology of why events took place, including the human motivations behind them for better or worse. Human beings will always differ on these interpretations. Scholars argue with each other all the time.

Just now, stevenl said:

So you claim an argument can be made, but can not make it.

No surprise.

I claim the argument does not need to be made further. I think it would be hard for us to be where we are today had the previous steps of colonialism not taken place, but you can argue that with someone who wants to. I think it's obvious and alternate potential history is not something I wish to engage in. It's a fact Colonialism happened.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

"Nationalism is being stoked..." - MAGA?

You are correct here in that Nationalism is being stoked in the USA as well, but there is a difference. Can you see it? One Country is Democratic with an elections every two years, four years for President, and the other is not. The other has declared that they will allow Xi to be President for life. Have President's for life ever worked out well for the world. You seem to want to keep comparing China to the USA. Is it the bi-party system of the USA that you equate with the Chinese CCP? In power forever? Do you not see what is happening in the world regarding China in the South China sea, Hong Kong, threats to Taiwan and Japan etc. I get it. You do not like the President of the United States, but what kind of policy would you prefer that the USA be engaged in is a more pertinent question at the moment.  The big bad Orange man has four more years at the most. China is building ships man. For a purpose, that they have outlined very well in their last five year plan. You should read it.  The USA and other Countries as well - need something very important right now - the National will to face an obvious threat.