But who is your real Prime Minister?I prefer Tuu.
Fucking welder barely speaks English.But who is your real Prime Minister?
Eventually you will be bowing down to Daddy Lofven.
And he is your Daddy Emperor.Fucking welder barely speaks English.
I haven’t payed taxes in 18 years and haven’t been in Sweden for 8. He ain’t getting my loot.And he is your Daddy Emperor.
Eventually you will go crawling back.I haven’t payed taxes in 18 years and haven’t been in Sweden for 8. He ain’t getting my loot.
Lol how’d you figure? Probably suicide first.Eventually you will go crawling back.
The volunteer military wasn't created to give employment opportunities to people whom would otherwise be unemployed.I would agree with that. But that's not the point. I'm not here to besmirch people in the military (I have no respect for boot lickers, but I do have some respect for those that serve), we are talking about the ways that different governments absorb workers that would otherwise be unemployed.
There is a large percentage of the US military not anywhere near life risking harm, stationed around the globe doing a variety of tasks. Theoretically the job could entail mortal risk, but as an overall percentage of the Department of Defense and even active duty military, only a very small percentage are put in risk of danger.Someone whom is offered and accepts a menial task for financial gain is dramatically different from someone who volunteers to potentially sacrifice everything, up to and including their life.
By design? No, but that's the way it has evolved. Unemployment and recruitment rates are directly correlated i.e the military literally absorbs a large amount of unemployed workers during economic downturns. So do other government departments too of course.The volunteer military wasn't created to give employment opportunities to people whom would otherwise be unemployed.
I'd hold off applauding Trump. Looks like he has back flipped already on Syria and there's a reasonable chance he's just going to turn Afghanistan over to Blackwater.There is a large percentage of the US military not anywhere near life risking harm, stationed around the globe doing a variety of tasks. Theoretically the job could entail mortal risk, but as an overall percentage of the Department of Defense and even active duty military, only a very small percentage are put in risk of danger.
If we started to view the military as labor like it really is, we'd be able to demystify it and have more honest conversations about it, particularly who benefits from it in the US. There are congressional districts that got fat off of defense contracts and several of them have been hard hit in the past couple decades as the mission has changed and funding priorities have shifted. There are also regions where significant percentages of the population choose the military owing to lack of other places to sell their labor. It's potentially a risky job, but it's policymakers who make it risky. I applaud Trump for trying to decrease some of that risk by drawing down troop strength in Syria, but in practice that just means it will be someone else's job to assume the risk. The odds of more people overall living to see their children given the situation in the region are likely now considerably lowered.
No. It's entirely different because the guy who ends up shoving boxes around on an overseas base didn't sign up with the sole intention of doing that. The paperclip guy on the other hand is doing exactly what he signed up for.By design? No, but that's the way it has evolved. Unemployment and recruitment rates are directly correlated i.e the military literally absorbs a large amount of unemployed workers during economic downturns. So do other government departments too of course.
But the US spends 3x the amount on its military than Canada does as a percentage of government spending (similar in terms of GDP). It's just a matter of where they shove the extra unemployed - pushing paper clips around in Alberta or moving boxes around on a US overseas military base, it's much of a muchness.
Again, you're bringing the motivation/character of the individual into it, which has nothing to do with what I am saying.No. It's entirely different because the guy who ends up shoving boxes around on an overseas base didn't sign up with the sole intention of doing that. The paperclip guy on the other hand is doing exactly what he signed up for.
'Sell their labor'? Hmm. I smell a red! Get him MAGA comrades!There is a large percentage of the US military not anywhere near life risking harm, stationed around the globe doing a variety of tasks. Theoretically the job could entail mortal risk, but as an overall percentage of the Department of Defense and even active duty military, only a very small percentage are put in risk of danger.
If we started to view the military as labor like it really is, we'd be able to demystify it and have more honest conversations about it, particularly who benefits from it in the US. There are congressional districts that got fat off of defense contracts and several of them have been hard hit in the past couple decades as the mission has changed and funding priorities have shifted. There are also regions where significant percentages of the population choose the military owing to lack of other places to sell their labor. It's potentially a risky job, but it's policymakers who make it risky. I applaud Trump for trying to decrease some of that risk by drawing down troop strength in Syria, but in practice that just means it will be someone else's job to assume the risk. The odds of more people overall living to see their children given the situation in the region are likely now considerably lowered.
Daddy Trump is in your head lolEndless wars will come to a glorious end... much like this magnificent run on sentence from Trump.
View: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1082484663216730113?s=21
So the people whom fill positions, have nothing to do with the position or their status within social structure?Again, you're bringing the motivation/character of the individual into it, which has nothing to do with what I am saying.
and that's where it starts and ends. People who apply to be paperclip sorters are doing so knowing the chances of the job entailing mortal risk are zero.There is a large percentage of the US military not anywhere near life risking harm, stationed around the globe doing a variety of tasks. Theoretically the job could entail mortal risk, but as an overall percentage of the Department of Defense and even active duty military, only a very small percentage are put in risk of danger.
and those are very valid conversations that should be had, but they aren't necessarily germane to the topic of someone equating bureaucratic creations with the military.If we started to view the military as labor like it really is, we'd be able to demystify it and have more honest conversations about it, particularly who benefits from it in the US.
Not in regards to the argument I was making, no.So the people whom fill positions, have nothing to do with the position or their status within social structure?
Here's Jason's original statement:Not in regards to the argument I was making, no.
You said, "The U.S. has that too. It's called the military."ottawa is hiring people to count paperclips and creating unnecessary govt jobs to cook the books
Clearly I was not referring to the entire military being analogous to the types of jobs Jason was referring to, just the jobs within the military that are analogous to those jobs. And you knew that - which is why you initially tried a different argument.Here's Jason's original statement:
You said, "The U.S. has that too. It's called the military."
That's not an argument, it's a categorically false statement. A country has a military regardless of economic conditions.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan snubbed national security adviser John Bolton and then slammed him for demanding the Turkish leader promise he wouldn’t attack Kurdish forces before the United States pulls its troops out of Syria.
“Bolton has made a serious mistake and whoever thinks like this has also made a mistake. It is not possible for us to make compromises on this point,” Erdogan said Tuesday in a speech to parliament.
He also said he wouldn’t make any concessions regarding the US-backed Kurdish troops that have played a critical role in the battle against Islamic State terrorists in Syria.
Ankara believes the fighters are aligned with Kurdish groups inside Turkey that are trying to disrupt the government.
“If they are terrorists, we will do what is necessary no matter where they come from,” Erdogan said.
Bolton met with his counterpart Ibrahim Kalin and other Syrian officials and pressed them on guaranteeing the safety of the Kurdish fighters, but did not get any.
Erdogan refused to meet with Bolton, according to Turkish media.
Bolton told reporters in Israel on Sunday that the US would not withdraw its 2,000 troops in Syria unless Erdogan commits not to attack the Kurdish forces and until ISIS is wiped out.
He also said the troop pullout would be gradual.
“Timetables or the timing of the withdrawal occurs as a result of the fulfillment of the conditions and the establishment of the circumstances that we want to see. And once that’s done, then you talk about a timetable,” Bolton said.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Sunday, Trump walked back earlier comments about when US troops would leave Syria.
“I never said we’d be doing it that quickly,” the commander-in-chief said. “We won’t be finally pulled out, until ISIS is gone.”
But those remarks were in contrast to what he said on Dec. 19 when he announced the troop withdrawal.
“Our boys, our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and they’re coming back now,” Trump said at the time. “We won.”
In a Twitter posting, he gave his reasoning: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”
The Trump administration’s shifting positions on Syria apparently frustrated Erdogan.
He said Ankara had a clear understanding with Trump, but “different voices have started emerging from different segments of the administration.”