I don't like the man's behaviour, but its difficult to fault this headline......
"US President Donald Trump has said that the United Nations is not living up to its potential because of bureaucracy and mismanagement."
|
That can be said about any organisation.
Trump's problem (one of many) is he spouts populist keich without solid examples and/or solutions.
How do you rate his wall programme on the chart of effectiveness, 'value for taxdollars', and susceptibility to feed $$$ to his chums?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 22:43
|
Oh his policies are s***e, without exception.
His popularity is based upon what he hates and abuses, not what he would do himself.
|
If he starts a war, my opinion of him will change, only if his sons and daughters are called up and serve in the front line like all of the other sons and daughters have to.
Prince Andrew served on the front line as did Prince Harry. The older Kennedy brothers both served in WW2 as did George HW Bush. Even George W Bush served in the Air National Guard.
|
>> Prince Andrew served on the front line as did Prince Harry. The older Kennedy brothers
>> both served in WW2 as did George HW Bush. Even George W Bush served in
>> the Air National Guard.
>>
While in Texas I visited the Chester Nimitz museum in Fredericksburg. One exhibit recorded the military service of successive Presidents from FDR to Dubya, though FDR was in politically appointed role as Navy Secretary.
|
>> Prince Andrew served on the front line as did Prince Harry.
They did have bodyguards, security, etc right next to them though to reduce the risk of them coming to any harm.
Something the other serving force members didn't have.
|
"They did have bodyguards, security, etc right next to them though to reduce the risk of them coming to any harm.
Something the other serving force members didn't have."
Harry & William did have big targets painted on their chests, though, something the other serving force members didn't have
|
>> They did have bodyguards, security, etc right next to them though to reduce the risk
>> of them coming to any harm.
>>
>> Something the other serving force members didn't have.
>>
they were both helicopter pilots for pete's sake, where exactly were the bodyguards, in the other helicopter behind??
|
>> they were both helicopter pilots for pete's sake, where exactly were the bodyguards, in the
>> other helicopter behind??
It was simpler than that, they just weren't given the dangerous assignments.
The safest place to be in the Falklands War was where Andrew was.
|
>> The safest place to be in the Falklands War was where Andrew was.
>>
The safest place to be was back home, thousands of miles from where the bullets & missiles were, some people are determined to criticise.
|
>> >> The safest place to be in the Falklands War was where Andrew was.
>> >>
>> The safest place to be was back home, thousands of miles from where the bullets
>> & missiles were, some people are determined to criticise.
>>
If you are determined to believe that members of The Royal Family served under exactly the same conditions, took the same risks of being killed or seriously wounded as other members of the armed forces, then you carry on believing that, because I don't believe it.
|
>> If you are determined to believe that members of The Royal Family served under exactly
>> the same conditions, took the same risks of being killed or seriously wounded as other
>> members of the armed forces, then you carry on believing that, because I don't believe
>> it.
>>
They certainly had the same risks as the guys they were flying with or fighting beside, 2n people in the same Apache are facing the same probability of being shot at.
Were they at the same risk as everyone else out there, probably not, but they were there and not in some staff job well away from any action.
If either of my sons had chosen to join the forces and been in the same place as they were I would have been worried about the risks.
|
>> they were both helicopter pilots for pete's sake, where exactly were the bodyguards, in the other helicopter behind??
Err, helicopters have more than one seat. Chinooks for instance have bags of room.
|
Err, helicopters have more than one seat. Chinooks for instance have bags of room.
>>
Harry was an Apache pilot and they don't have a great deal of extra room just one more seat, the second crew member doubled up as a body guard? I don't think so.
|
>> Harry was an Apache pilot and they don't have a great deal of extra room
>> just one more seat, the second crew member doubled up as a body guard? I
>> don't think so.
If you honestly thought the Army would put someone who at the time was 3rd in line to the throne at risk, then you're very much mistaken.
|
> If you honestly thought the Army would put someone who at the time was 3rd
>> in line to the throne at risk, then you're very much mistaken.
>>
I'll take that as a no but still convinced you're right. ;)
|
And when Prince Andrew was back on the ship in the Falklands, the royal protection officers were able to ensure an Exocet missile did not hit the ship to protect Andrew? That's some training they get.
This should be in the conspiracy theory thread.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 12:19
|
>>
>>
>> Err, helicopters have more than one seat. Chinooks for instance have bags of room.
>>
More seats are going to be a great help when your 'copter is hit by a missile.
|
Trump hates stuff.
He's not too good on teh alternatives, hasn't really got any idea how to solve stuff, has no policies that really matter, but is quite clear on what stuff he hates.
What he hates coincides with what a large proportion of the US electorate hates.
He wasn't elected on what he was going to do, on his ideas or even his proposals, he was elected because he hates the same stuff the people hate.
So the opposition, if they wish to defeat him in an election, need to stop criticizing his proposals (not the point), stop belittling his alternatives (not the point) and start addressing the things that both he and his supporters hate - media, Establishment, Washington, international politics, political correctness etc. etc.
One can draw significant parallels with Brexit; there were, of course, significant proportions voting for what they wanted. However, there were equally significant proportions voting against what they didn't want [if you see what I mean]. Trying to address people's dislike or "not want" of something by telling them that it is good really is just silly.
Something that one would hope "remain" politicians and anti-Trump politicians would learn, though I doubt that they will.
To then be surprised that Trump and his followers, and Brexit and their followers are lacking in alternative ideas, is rather missing the point. Neither were voting for what they wanted, they were voting against what they were damn sure they didn't want.
From a big picture perspective, I don;t think either side in either battle really knew what they did want.
|
It was certainly difficult (impossible) to say what voting leave was a vote for.
For a lot of people I think it was a feeling, the principle of self-reliance (two good and very entrepreneurial friends said exactly the same thing - "it's how I live my life"), and perhaps a feeling that conflict would in the medium term come from with the EU, rather than from being outside it.
Perhaps not equally, but to a great extent, the future of the EU was and is not certain, and the direction of travel seems idealistic rather than pragmatically designed to unite.
It was certainly about feelings on both sides, in my opinion.
As far as opposing Trump - if the next opportunity is towards the end of his term, that will be a case of pointing out all the things he said he would change that he hasn't.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 19 Sep 17 at 19:43
|
I think the "direction of travel" of the EU was awful, a terrible thing to be stopped or at least redirected.
I agree with many of the things that those who voted leave also thought. Probably the only significant difference would be EU freedom of movement which I think is a good thing.
The main difference was that I felt we could achieve what we wanted by kicking their a*** from within, not from flouncing off.
Briefly, someone threatening to leave is almost always a scarier thing than someone actually leaving.
I think a girlfriend taught me that when I was about 15
Once you've flounced, you have no weapons left.
|
Separately for a reason...
>>As far as opposing Trump - if the next opportunity is towards the end of his term, that will be a case of pointing out all the things he said he would change that he hasn't.
Meh, probably not. I think you're being rational which in this case is probably not the best perspective.
If Trump can point at one of the things he hates [say Muslim immigration], and then say he couldn't change it because of the resistance from another thing that he hates [Democratic political correctness] the provided the economy doesn't shoot him in the leg, which it probably won't, its a story that still works for the type of support he has.
And given that Muslim immigration is no kind of danger whatsoever to the US then reality is already not relevant. The courts, or international law, or business, or practicality will stop him banning Muslim immigration. But that won't hurt him, it will prove his point.
Ironically, actually banning Muslim immigration, however wrong that might be, would remove it as a point of empathy between him and his supporters.
I don't think I am explaining myself very well, but if it helps, 8I* know exactly what I mean.
|
|
Yes, you may be right. Particularly as his first reaction to anything seems to be to blame somebody else.
|
>> Yes, you may be right. Particularly as his first reaction to anything seems to be
>> to blame somebody else.
>>
In that respect he's no different from most other politicians, or indeed many of us mere mortals come to that.
|
Being an Apache pilot calls for a special kind of person.
They, the aircraft, are incredibly complicated (and BIG) beasts.
I had a brief tour of one a few years ago, with some techy stuff explained. You need great spatial awareness, the ability to handle really complicated electronics, whilst at the same time, actually flying the thing.
It's a job for those brought up in the electronic gaming age!
|
|
We see the apaches fairly often flying over the house, normally fairly low. Usually on a Saturday in pairs.
|
>>........ Usually on a Saturday in pairs.
>>
....that would be a Royal and the bodyguard. ;-)
|
|
About a year or so late ;-)
|
|
...can't have them arriving at the front-line on schedule; just think how dangerous that would be.
|
|
Well there's them and then...
|
"Action is the best option in treating the dotard who, hard of hearing, is uttering only what he wants to say," Mr Kim wrote, displaying a keen sense of the original meaning of the word.
But he ended his screed with the ominous line: "I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire."
|
I like the BBC though this is trying to make a Trump supersize story out of nothing, Trump canned Obama's plans for a new Airforce One down to cost, can't really criticise that frankly.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41311526
|
|
Trump will never fly on it which is ironic. By the time it's ready it will probably be after the next election which surely he won't win. If he even lasts that long.
|
Trump - yeah well, but........ - Lygonos
