Formerly Manchurian Global

Remember: Donald Trump’s aversion to war cost some very powerful people hundreds of billions of dollars.

 
Even the New York Times now admits they’re back in business and once again control the Oval Office.

This entry was posted in American politics, International. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Formerly Manchurian Global

  1. Roger

    Joe Biden’s message to world leaders: “We’re back in the game.”

  2. Roger

    The Great Game?

    In its current iteration.

  3. Grip

    Defence spending increased every single year under Trump.

    During most of the Obama years it went down.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54060026

  4. min

    Well for him the game has already started in his own country . Do you think all the disgruntled voters out marching and rallying for Stop the Steal are suddenly going to become gruntled ?
    Just asking .

  5. duncanm

    You have to ask yourself why they didn’t publish this prior to the election.

    The NYT is actively facilitating Biden’s return.

  6. Tom

    Imagine that. The American left spent the second half of the 20th century professing its hatred of foreign wars.

    But the American left is now all in with the US military industrial complex in opposition to the peacenik president trying to end the military industrial complex’s endless wars.

    Just as well the Marxist education establishment removed history from the list of subjects now taught to children.

  7. cuckoo

    You have to ask yourself why they didn’t publish this prior to the election.

    Amazing that they’re publishing it at all.

  8. cuckoo

    I just hope the next Republican president (Dominion permitting) makes a point of shunning all this “office of the President elect” garbage.

  9. Grip

    You have to ask yourself why they didn’t publish this prior to the election.

    Maybe because it’s about Biden’s choices made since he won the election?

  10. Roger

    Do you think all the disgruntled voters out marching and rallying for Stop the Steal are suddenly going to become gruntled ?

    Not at all; they’re not going anywhere.

    Unless they’re in the military.

  11. H B Bear

    Swamp’s back baby. Swamp’s back.

  12. egg_

    The old cadaver is a front for Daddy Warbucks?

    Who’d’ve thunk?

  13. C.L.

    Defence spending increased every single year under Trump.

    During most of the Obama years it went down.

    So you’re saying Obama pursued his war goals with a depleted defence force and Trump kept the peace with a rejuvenated defence force.

    OK.

  14. Makka

    Get a grip. Trump started a completely new military arm and had to refurbish the gear Obambi wouldn’t for 8 years. Of course military spending went up.

    I have been saying all along the CIA want the money spigot opened , they are hand in glove with military contractors. Trump had to go.

  15. Infidel Tiger

    Eternal wars. Blood and treasure lost forever.

    That’s the Swampian way.

  16. a happy little debunker

    The spice must flow…

  17. John A

    C.L. #3678379, posted on December 3, 2020, at 11:26 am

    Defence spending increased every single year under Trump.

    During most of the Obama years it went down.

    So you’re saying Obama pursued his war goals with a depleted defence force and Trump kept the peace with a rejuvenated defence force.

    OK.

    He who wishes to enjoy peace must prepare for war. Or something like that – it is necessary to defend the peace. You can argue about the (in)effectiveness of the spending but the spending has to happen.

  18. Damon

    Biden’s character was clear the moment he admitted blackmailing the Ukranian President. America is a poster child for corrupt politics, and will probably go the way of Venezuela, though with a bit more bloodshed.

  19. Kneel

    “…all this “office of the President elect” garbage.”

    FYI:

    Candice Owens got “fact checked” by Politifact for Fakebooking Biden was not legally president elect – marked as “False”.
    She threatened them with legal action.
    They folded faster than superman on laundry day, withdrew and apologised.
    MSM globally continues the falsehood.

    https://www.blackenterprise.com/candace-owens-takes-a-victory-lap-after-fact-checker-reverses-decision/

  20. Perfidious Albino

    Get a Grip – you need to differentiate between capital investment in defence capability (long overdue equipment renewal) and conflict related casualties and spending (wasted blood and treasure).

  21. Rex Anger

    Grip assumes that Donld.Trump must be a warmonger because defence spending in thenUSA went up over.his.term.

    Obama refused to spend on the upkeep and modernisation of the US Military, while running it down and exhausting it with rolling and incessant long-term commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    Exactly the same things happened under the Ridd-Gillard-Rudd government in Australia. For more or less.the same ideological reasons.

    But that’s OK, Grip. We totally get your leftwit gaslighting.

    Now, since you’re determined to Astroturf here, I want to order a gross of fumy.glue. Ruby took my.order and disappeared just after the election, so I just have to grift.off the next Astroturfer to surface on this blog…

  22. duncanm

    Grip
    #3678354, posted on December 3, 2020 at 10:58 am
    You have to ask yourself why they didn’t publish this prior to the election.

    Maybe because it’s about Biden’s choices made since he won the election?

    Blinken was advising Biden months back.

    here’s an article from May

  23. Old Lefty

    Beltway Bandit is another term Americans use to describe the species – as in the beltway surrounding Washington.

  24. A Lurker

    I find it remarkable that the ageing hippies, peaceniks and pacifists who loathe guns and war, and would happily disarm America, still mindlessly vote for the warmongering Democrats.

  25. stackja

    Donald Trump is good.
    Donald Trump critics are bad.

  26. Grip

    So you’re saying Obama pursued his war goals with a depleted defence force and Trump kept the peace with a rejuvenated defence force.

    So is defence spending good, or bad? The first line of the post only made sense if you thought defence spending and greedy defence industrialists were rightfully deprived of money by peacenik Trump.

    But apparently, defence spending going up is good.

    Trying to have it every which way are we?: as long as it’s Trump’s way. [Same with future deficit, of course. GOP is already signalling becoming deficit hawks again under Biden. What a surprise.]

  27. Watch Your Back

    Dear Cats,

    On the subject of war, I posted part of the frontispiece from a novel I’m reading on Facebook only to have my account closed because ‘community standards’. The book is about the last year of the Italian Resistance up to the capture of Mussolini at Lake Como. The quote is as follows:

    Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day. —Benito Mussolini.

    To me and you, this is a warning against totalitarianism and the fragility of democracy. I am dismayed at FB’s ignorance of history and sheer stupidity.

    Well, I’ve opened an account with MeWe. I’m looking forward to instructing FB to close my account in 3 days’ time.

    The best that can be said about these people is that they are lightly educated.

    Salute!

  28. Bronson

    Don’t be the dick you are Grip try and comprehend what has been posted instead of banging on with your failed ideological position. Obama and Biden continued the US engagement in overseas wars while strangling the forces for necessary updates and renewals expenditure. Between them they successfully degraded the military capability of the US by running it personnel and equipment into the ground. Regardless of who was president after Obama/Biden expenditure to replace and renew worn out equipment and recruit fresh personnel would have seen the increase in expenditure that occurred.

  29. Grip

    PBS in 2016 did a fact check on how much money was being spent on weapons systems upgrades under Obama:

    Total spending for the modernization for major weapons systems actually has remained stable since Bush’s brother, President George W. Bush, left office in January 2009. The department’s “selected acquisition reports,” which detail past, current and future investments in dozens of weapons programs, show the value of the military services’ modernization portfolio in November 2008 was $1.64 trillion. The latest reports, from March 2015, show a value of $1.62 trillion.

    The armed forces are undergoing a transformation, according to the Defense Department’s budget strategy. The military services will no longer be sized for large, prolonged operations — a reference to the lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which involved massive reconstruction and humanitarian relief components. The focus now is on building a high-tech force that is nimble enough to defeat Islamic State militants and much more sophisticated adversaries.

    For example, the Air Force is pushing ahead with the development and acquisition of an advanced bomber, known as Long-Range Strike, to replace the aging fleet of B-1 and B-52 bombers. The B-52s were first deployed when Dwight Eisenhower was president. The B-1s, which were fielded in the 1980s, are no longer certified for nuclear missions.

    The new bomber is a highly classified, $80 billion project designed to build an information-age aircraft that eventually may be capable of flying without a pilot aboard. The Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman Corp. the bomber contract in October. The contract is part of the Pentagon’s broader plan to modernize the entire nuclear force — missile-toting submarines, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers.

    The nagging question for any major weapons program is how to keep them from becoming budget busters. On Obama’s watch, the Joint Strike Fighter — the single most expensive military project ever — has experienced significant cost, schedule, and performance setbacks that have driven up the price tag. The Government Accountability Office estimated last year that nearly $400 billion will be needed to buy the planned 2,457 aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

    Funding defence forces and equipment is always complicated. You can always rely on pro-defence industrialists and the Pentagon to argue they could do with more.

    What is nonsense is to make the apparent claim that Trump’s attitude to wars meant that defence industrialists were losing out on government spending.

  30. Roger

    Biden has named Brennan protege Avril Haines as Director of National Intelligence.

  31. miltonf

    Spending more money on defense is different from starting/continuing endless was in MENA halfwit.

  32. Squirrel

    Starting to sound like JFK without a grassy knoll – the Oliver Stone film will be a must-see.

  33. Kneel

    “Defence spending increased every single year under Trump.”

    Last budget may have been planned in advance, so that Trump could make his threat re: defense procurement bill and section 230 – if they call his bluff, there may already be money “put away” for the contingency.
    Not saying it’s true, but it’s certainly possible…

Comments are closed.