advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Cost plus 50%
Posted by: samintx
Date: March 10, 2019 02:51PM
How do feel about 45s budget injection?

We have been losing allies . This should be the final nail.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2019 02:59PM by samintx.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: March 10, 2019 03:25PM
Lotsa problems with that.

1. It turns US troops into security-for-hire for other nations. That's not what our military is for.
2. The US has it's own strategic reasons for placing troops in all those countries. It's to our benefit to be there, so we should be paying.
3. This opens the door pretty wide for those countries to say, um, no thanks. Go home yanks. See #2.

[www.bloomberg.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: March 10, 2019 03:54PM
Step 3: privatize it and Erik Prince gets his money and Trump gets his private armies.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: March 10, 2019 04:54PM
This is #3 on Putin's To Do List for Trump.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: Ted King
Date: March 10, 2019 05:24PM
Quote
cbelt3
Step 3: privatize it and Erik Prince gets his money and Trump gets his private armies.

yup
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: max
Date: March 10, 2019 11:04PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Lotsa problems with that.

1. It turns US troops into security-for-hire for other nations. That's not what our military is for.
2. The US has it's own strategic reasons for placing troops in all those countries. It's to our benefit to be there, so we should be paying.
3. This opens the door pretty wide for those countries to say, um, no thanks. Go home yanks. See #2.

[www.bloomberg.com]

Once again conveniently and hypocritically forgetting that we rented out our troops to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, even made money on the exercise.....

[www.nytimes.com]
Quote

the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the gulf emirates made $84 billion in direct payments to the United States...
[library.cqpress.com]
Quote

MIT Professor Emeritus William Kaufmann, a former adviser to several secretaries of Defense...
“I find it hard to run up the costs [of the war] beyond, say, $60 billion, and I regard those numbers as conservative,” Kaufmann says. That figure would be even lower....




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: pdq
Date: March 11, 2019 01:13AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Lotsa problems with that.

1. It turns US troops into security-for-hire for other nations. That's not what our military is for.
2. The US has it's own strategic reasons for placing troops in all those countries. It's to our benefit to be there, so we should be paying.
3. This opens the door pretty wide for those countries to say, um, no thanks. Go home yanks. See #2.

[www.bloomberg.com]

I think #3 is the biggie. It’s just inviting allies and others to ask “so why do we have a US military base on our soil, again?”

PS - does Cheeto propose to charge Cuba for Guantanamo?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: March 11, 2019 09:50AM
It makes you wonder whether a giant bureaucracy could grind things to a halt in order to wait out a presidency.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: March 11, 2019 03:58PM
Quote
max
Quote
Lemon Drop
Lotsa problems with that.

1. It turns US troops into security-for-hire for other nations. That's not what our military is for.
2. The US has it's own strategic reasons for placing troops in all those countries. It's to our benefit to be there, so we should be paying.
3. This opens the door pretty wide for those countries to say, um, no thanks. Go home yanks. See #2.

[www.bloomberg.com]

Once again conveniently and hypocritically forgetting that we rented out our troops to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, even made money on the exercise.....

[www.nytimes.com]
Quote

the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the gulf emirates made $84 billion in direct payments to the United States...
[library.cqpress.com]
Quote

MIT Professor Emeritus William Kaufmann, a former adviser to several secretaries of Defense...
“I find it hard to run up the costs [of the war] beyond, say, $60 billion, and I regard those numbers as conservative,” Kaufmann says. That figure would be even lower....


Your response is a misunderstanding of what Trump is asking nations to do, compared to what they already contribute. Japan contributes the most towards the cost of maintaining US troops in their country, but only a fraction of what the US spends.
The US has not had non-training troops based in SA for 15 years. So there's not really anything for them to reimburse us for.
We currently have troops in the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar but their contributions to that cost are not made public.
Trump is asking all nations to not only cover the full cost of the troops (which none do) but also to add an additional 50% on top of that because we're doing them a favor.
This completely ignores the strategic value to the US of these military alliances.

[www.latimes.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Cost plus 50%
Posted by: bfd
Date: March 11, 2019 08:27PM
Mexico will pay for it
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 166
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018