What I would do if I were President

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, November 7, 2024 15:03
VIEWED: 1863
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 16, 2023 9:58 PM

the one thing that the biden* administration revealed to the world, even if we haven't figured it out yet, is how fundamentally weak we are, militarily and econmically.

and biden* & co did this by starting what they thought was going to be a quick and easy economic, financial, and proxy war against russia which would quickly bring russia to its knees. instead, they (and therefore we, since they decided for all of us), found themselves/ourselves in an industrial-scale war of attrition.

by looking at dismal failure of even our proxy war, where we depend on someone else fighting and dying for our cause (destroy russia), it's become blindingly clear - to me and, IMHO any rational, thinking person- that we will not be able to fight an industrial-scale war against a near-peer overseas, anywhere, for at least a couple of decades and possibly not ever. especially given the current state of missile technology.

our weapons are fragile and hard to maintain. they were designed for profit, not field use. and our weapons production can't keep up with russia's or china's.

and think about deployments and materiel overseas: NATO as a whole, for example, can't keep up with russia. looking at the problems of weapons in ukraine, since every nation wanted its own arms industry, there is no inter-operability between them, no common spare parts, no common repair facilities or training. sending a hodge-podge of weapons to ukraine, on which soldiers can barely be trained, is only enough to get them killed.

and how many soldiers do we have stationed in europe? 100,000? hardly enough to even slow a determined and well-armed push from russia.

IF we wanted to fight a REAL war with russia ...or china... we would have to either convoy or airlift massive amounts of soldiers and weapons into europe. airlifts take a long time and are vulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles. surface ships are vulnerable to the formidable russian submarine navy and to the formidable russian missile systems.

same goes with taiwan. there, we would depend on our aircraft carriers to bring weapons to the china coastline. those aircraft carriers are vulnerable to the array of ship-killer cruise and ballistic missiles, whether hypersonic or not.

while we were busy developing fancy new expen$ive fragile whiz-bang weapons that only work under ideal circumstances and require 10 hours of maintenance for every hour in the field, russia and china were busy developing defensive missiles/drones/bombs that can negate our expeditionary efforts in a flash.

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 16, 2023 10:39 PM

so AFA ukraine is concerned ... remember, 'cluster' in only half a word.

IMHO russia is only interested in russian border security. unlike SECONDS protrayal, they are not slavering hordes determined to take all of europe, they are responding to OUR push to destroy them, and they have warned over and over again that ukraie in NATO was their last red line. we refused to listen and kept pushing forward.

very much the same with china: china is NOT military threat unless we make it so by aggressively trying to pry taiwan away.

we are the author of our own problems which will lead ... is leading ... to our downfall if we keep pushing for world-straddling hegemony: we will never get there, and we will die (economically, financially, politically, nuclearly in worst case) trying.

so now we have fix the clusterfuck that biden* & co set in motion, and the disaster that we have prepared for ourselves over decades of 'exceptionalist' thinking.

ukraine: i would be prepared to accept an agreement that russia gets to keep the terrirtory it now holds, and that the remainder of ukraine be constitutionally neutral, like austria. i know putin wants to roll NATO borders back to 1991's. not prepared for that, but i WOULD agree to remove all of our missile bases from nations bordering russia (currently poland and romania) and engage in security guarantee negotiations with russia and frontline nations.

taiwan: i would stop pointlessly provoking china with high-level visits and arms sales. taiwan in part of china, period. china is content to keep its relationship with taiwan status quo, with taiwan maintaining its own elected leadership. let it alone.

i would fire all of those generals, cia heads, and state dept employees who failed to provide an honest assessment of our prospects in ukraine. either they were incredibly stupid, too cowardly to speak truth to the wh, or working on an obsessional agenda and not for america's strategic interests. let the generals who approved the development of uexpensive contracts and useless weapons go find their home in northrop grumman or raythheon or wherever.

and i would SERIOUSLY think about america's strategic interests, not as world hegemon and reserve currency but to defend our borders and our friends against agressors, and mandate the development of field-practical weapons.

****

wtf are we still doing in syria and iraq??? i would pull those troops out and redeploy them to our southern border, where they can do some good in another hot, sandy environment for which they're well equipped and trained.

*****

i would start preparing for america's energy independence. yanno, fracked oil and gas is expensive. well production drops to half to 10pct after five years unless the wells are constantly 'stimulated' and sooner or later, those wells WILL run dry. we need a national energy audit and forecast for five, 10, fifteen, 20 years into the future.

since the DoD uses up so much energy, i would start by looking at their energy expenditure FIRST. maybe if we stopped cruising around the world with our aircraft carrier fleets and stopped flying our jets hither thither and yon, and stopped producing so many useless weapons and cut back on our troop deployments to places that mean nothing to us, we might save quite a bit of energy.

i would also look at 'luxury' expenditures of energy. maybe tax jet fuel for private jets prohibitively.

solar makes sense for the sunshine states. railways are far more efficient long-distance carriers than trucks.

AFA climate change, rather than tossing money at already wealthy corporations for carbon credit schemes, i would employ a lot of young people in rehabilitating our forests to make them less fire-prone. i would fund research projects such as creating mile-wide firebreaks with in situ pyrolization of waste to make 'black earth', for example, along with more traditional hand-thinning. i would pay farmers to increase and maintain the carbon content of soi

THG

Monday, July 17, 2023 3:48 AM

What I would do if I were President

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, July 16, 2023 12:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 20
PAGE 1 of 1

And there it is. She would give Russia what it wants. She is pro-Russian and anti-America. Nothing has changed.

FU comrade

T

SIGNYM

Monday, July 17, 2023 5:34 AM

You're behaving like a bully, THUGR: wanting to take something... ANYTHING... away from the other kid, even if you can't possibly use it and and even if it costs you too much to grab it.

That's not looking out for America's interests, that's just behaving like an asshole, and a stupid one at that.

I would ensure that Russia AND China would be free from our meddling and "regime change" operations which, you would admit if you were an ethical person, we have no right to do.

I WOULD however defend our borders and a our allies by making our military combat-ready, if necessary pressuring our NATO "partners" to do THEIR part and adopt common combat-capable weapons.

More importantly, instead of behaving like a rabid dog, I would turn my attention to where AMERICANS need it most: HERE, AT HOME, not in some corrupt shit hole that people STILL can't find on a map.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

SECOND

Monday, July 17, 2023 6:32 AM

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
since the DoD uses up so much energy, i would start by looking at their energy expenditure FIRST. maybe if we stopped cruising around the world with our aircraft carrier fleets and stopped flying our jets hither thither and yon, and stopped producing so many useless weapons and cut back on our troop deployments to places that mean nothing to us, we might save quite a bit of energy.

Checking your math shows you are crazy, Signym:

The Pentagon outputs less than 2% of all greenhouse gases produced by the US.

From FY1975 to FY2018, total DOD greenhouse gas emissions were more than 3,685 million
metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

That’s 43 years.

In 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 5,981 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-gr
eenhouse-gas-emissions

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/Pentagon%20F
uel%20Use%2C%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20of%20War%20Revised%20November%202019%20Crawford.pdf

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Monday, July 17, 2023 6:56 AM

Quote:
The U.S. Military Emits More Carbon Dioxide Into the Atmosphere Than Entire Countries Like Denmark or Portugal
But no one knows exactly how much, because the Pentagon’s reporting is spotty. A Humvee gets between four and eight miles per gallon; an F-35 requires 2.37 gallons per mile.

...
But when she went to look up the figure, she couldn’t find anything reliable. Instead, she found scattered and incomplete data on how much fuel the military consumed and how much carbon it emitted. The information that did exist largely didn’t include overseas operations, even though the United States had been at war for nearly two decades. Major categories of fuel consumption, like much of the fuel used for aviation, seemed to be missing.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol—the world’s first legally binding, international climate treaty—created a reporting loophole for militaries, exempting many of the greenhouse gases emitted during military operations from counting against a country’s emissions totals. While the 2015 Paris Accords did away with this exemption, they didn’t replace it with an obligation. Rather, the decision of whether to report military emissions—and how to calculate them—was left up to individual countries.
...

On the final evening of negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of an all-night session in December 1997, U.S. negotiators pushed through one last demand. The final draft of the climate agreement included two sentences that exempted emissions from multilateral operations—activities that involve more than two countries—and from ships and aircraft involved in international transport. That meant that much of the carbon emitted during U.S. military operations overseas would not need to be tracked and reported to the United Nations—which was effectively the negotiators’ goal.

MORE AT https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18012022/military-carbon-emissions/

That's why it needs to be LOOKED AT. AUDITED. An ENERGY AUDIT. I believe that's what I posted.

Troll

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

SECOND

Monday, July 17, 2023 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

That's why it needs to be LOOKED AT. AUDITED. An ENERGY AUDIT. I believe that's what I posted.

Troll

The only audit that counts is at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958. The annual average carbon dioxide in 2022 was 418.56. (1959 was 316.) If Signym is President, the mental distractions in Signym's administration will make it impossible to achieve 316 again.

Personally, I don't think Signym and most lawyers/politicians/propagandists will ever understand one damn thing about climate change because they can only throw around words and are not the kind of people who could remove gigatonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. Instead, they will talk forever and never solve any problem because their talk is for disguising what they can't understand. It is all about publicly appearing to be full of knowledge, direction, and purpose without actually being in control. Signym and that ilk are all about bamboozling other people.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-ch
ange-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Monday, July 17, 2023 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

That's why it needs to be LOOKED AT. AUDITED. An ENERGY AUDIT. I believe that's what I posted.
Troll
SECOND The only audit that counts is at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii,

you're arguing with someone who used to control air pollution for a living, son. successfully, i might add.

there are several steps to controlling greenhouse gas emissions, just as there are severa steps to controlling other forms of air pollution.

first, you have to measure the air: what is the current concentration? there are sensors all over the planet, there are even research planes that fly through remote airpaces and take samples, as well as weather balloons and satellite sensors. bc the concentration changes in different locations and altitudes.

then you do what is called an emission inventory : what are your BIGGEST SOURCES? attempting to control emissions from smalll sources is a pointless exercise. attempting to control greenhouse gas emissions from the poorest billion people, for examples, is unlikely to have much impact on climate change

then you start exploring technologies and approaches to control the problem. from my experience, while trading 'credits' for this and that pollutant may appeal to the 'capitalist', 'free marketeer', and libertarian amongst us, it NEVER WORKS bc that aproach is far too vulnerable to scams and corruption:

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

THG

Monday, July 17, 2023 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You're behaving like a bully, THUGR: wanting to take something... ANYTHING... away from the other kid, even if you can't possibly use it and and even if it costs you too much to grab it.

You always post as though the west is at fault. Not that Russia invaded its neighbor. You should say that about Russia. But you won't will you COMRADE. You'll stick with give Russia what it wants. Why, because you're a Russian troll.

Well, Russia is not going to get what it wants. Instead, it's going to get and is getting, what it deserves.

T

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 18, 2023 1:07 AM

:

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You're behaving like a bully, THUGR: wanting to take something... ANYTHING... away from the other kid, even if you can't possibly use it and and even if it costs you too much to grab it.

THUGR: You always post as though the west is at fault.

When the west is at fault, yes.

Do you want to go to the "he started it" level? Bc WE started it.
We started it when we financed and fostered a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing their DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

WE promised entry into NATO

Victoria "fuck the EU" Nuland hand-picked the replacement regime.

Nuland's hand-picked regime outlawed the Russian language (spoken exclusively by 30-35 pct of Ukrainians),

fought a civil war against its own citizens and tried to ethnically cleanse the region

by shelling Donbas civilians for 8 years,

denied it's responsiblity for implementing the Minsk agreement (passed by the UN Security Council, which meant it was actually international law)

WE cynically used that time to arm Ukraine (and bragged about it afterwards)

and eventually in late 2022 Kiev massed its soldiers on the Donbas border

Ukrainians voted for Zelenskiy bc he was Russian-speaking, came from an ethnically Russian province, and he promised PEACE. He was ready to sign a peace deal March 2022 but Boris Johnson went to Turkey and twisted his arm, and Zelenskiy reneged on the deal.

WE avoided peace assiduously and pushed relentlessly for this war. WE GOT THE WAR WE WANTED. WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO USE UKRAINE AND FINANCIAL SANCTIONS TO TOPPLE RUSSIA. IT WAS ALL PART OF THE PLAN.

Well, things aren't going the way we planned.

Yanno, WE can rampage across the globe, toppling governments and installing friendly regimes, or leave great smoking ruins, failed states and misery wherever we go. And we can get away with it as long as we're a Mighty Power. But weaken, and the knives will come out.

What we're experiencing son, is BLOWBACK. Remember that term bc we're probably going to see an awful lot of it, from a lot of directions.

Quote:
THUGR: Well, Russia is not going to get what it wants. Instead, it's going to get and is getting, what it deserves.

Russia is going to win.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE