A more assertive US? From the guy who wants the US to leave Ukraine to Russia, and overrode the Republican party on the platform issue? Stating that he wants to give Putin a free hand in Syria? Insists that there's no evidence that he kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries? The guy who's exchanged repeated back-and-forth praise with Putin on the campaign trail, with fawning language like "It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond" and "a very bright and strong leader"... so much of a bromance that people in Eastern Europe have started painting murals? Are you talking about the same Donald Trump here?
Trump said nothing about leaving Ukraine to Russia. On NATO, he has demanded that if US troops are to still be in Europe decades after the Cold War, then Europe needs to pay its fair share. That doesn't mean that he'll sign off to Russia everything Putin wants.
Trump is right on Syria, however. The policy of the US State Department, as well as the EU/NATO has been to pretend that nothing has changed since 1991. But since 9/11, Islam has clearly replaced Communism as the ideological threat to the West, and Trump's suggesting a partnership with Moscow reflects a recognition of that simple fact. Russia has been busy since 1991 fighting the Chechens, and other potential Muslim secessionist groups. The policy of the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas was to support these Jihadi campaigns against Moscow. Trump recognizes that Jihadi victories anywhere represent Jihadi victories everywhere, and is reversing policy on that. He doesn't have to endorse Russian incursions into the Donbass, but he is doing well by encouraging Putin to accept the US as a partner, instead of countries like Iran.
Another point: NATO is as outdated today as the League of Nations was after WWII. NATO existed for the explicit purpose of stopping a Communist conquest of all of Europe. That threat has ceased to exist since 1992. However, since 2001, there has been an Islamic threat to the rest of the world, and NATO, the way it currently exists, has Turkey as a member, while considering Russia as an adversary. But Russia is not out there backing an Islamic takeover of any place in the world. Turkey is, and under Erdogan, has been busy rediscovering its Turkic Islamic roots. They've been the gateway for Jihadis from the world over to go to Raqqa via Gaziantep to join ISIS. Any organization that includes Turkey but excludes Russia is completely anachronistic, and stuck in the 80s. If Trump is the only one who recognizes that Muslims are the enemy, all power to him!!!
The U.S. is unsure if the missing vessel is adrift under the sea or whether it has sunk, the officials said, but believes it suffered some type of failure during an exercise.
Since submarines normally operate underwater, how will they know if it's 'sunk'?
...At least we didn't lose one of our own submarines...
Yeah, they make it sound like Pyongyang missing a submarine is a bad thing
What we have w/ Islam is far more dangerous. In the Warsaw Pact, the Russians, Poles, Czechoslovaks, Bulgarians et al weren't believers in Communism. The threat was well defined, and usually, people from those countries who defected to the West were genuine, and themselves targets of the KGB, rather than Trojan horses or Fifth columnists here in the West.
The situation is flipped w/ Islam. Here, most of the governments are recognized as 'allies' - including countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, et al which have no plans of waging war against the US. However, an indeterminate number of people of these countries are Jihadists, who either want to come here and terrorize us into accepting Shariah law, or want to strike any symbols of our presence there. Since 9/11, there have been thousands of people worldwide killed in Jihadist attacks. The Jihadists come from a wide variety of Muslim countries - not just Iraq or Syria, but as far apart as Indonesia to Nigeria. In short, our enemies come from the Muslim populations of all these countries, and it's impossible to determine how many of them have those intentions. Given that Islam itself endorses - via the Quran and Sunnah - all these acts of the Jihadists, it is nothing less than PC multi-culturalism to pretend that Islam itself is not our enemy.
Whether such an alliance itself is needed or not, one thing is clear: NATO is obsolete. It existed to prevent Europe from being overrun by Communists: today, the only threat that former Soviet republics on Russia's frontiers face is Moscow threatening them - either genuinely, or using a strawman - of persecuted Russians in those countries. Without endorsing Putin, what happens there is a regional conflict, and while it's fine of Europe to back Ukraine, Georgia and Latvia, it's not a global issue. That's not the case w/ Islam, where you have Muslims from anywhere in the world committing acts of terror anywhere in the world - be it their own countries or other. Russian revanchalism is not a global threat: Islam is.
The real problem is that San Francisco adamantly refuses to build more housing to meet demand. Sorry, but that's the way the market works. If you don't increase the supply to meet the demand, the price is going to go up as the demand does. Instead, though, they insist that they want to keep it "the way it is", not build new apartment buildings that might relieve some of the excess demand for housing, and the corresponding infrastructure to go with it. That leaves them only with hoping that the demand goes down, which is idiotic. I hope it does go down though - I hope the tech industry increasingly decides to just say "F**k San Francisco" and moves elsewhere, where there's more land, cheaper cost of living (because at this point almost anywhere is cheaper), and less insane/stubborn neighbors. San Francisco has its upsides, sure, but none that are worth enough to make me want to live there unless you're offering me 4-5 times as much as I make elsewhere. Let San Francisco's economy tank, because that's what they clearly would prefer to actually dealing with the boom that most cities would bend over backwards for half of.
Does San Francisco really have any more headroom to increase supply to address the demand? I'm not sure there is. Aside from having the most control freaks of a government and a populace that wants to regulate everything, the biggest issue about San Francisco is that it is completely packed.
I agree w/ you about the tech industry. They have their own financial pressures, but despite that, they have a fetish towards being based in San Francisco that defies comprehension. I could have understood the trend in the 90s, but today, w/ so much of work going on remotely, there is a good case for them to be more distributed - like the cloud - and have people work from wherever they are. Maybe have small offices in cities where they might have quite a number of employees, but other than that, avoid paying fortunes to line the pockets of property owners in San Francisco
Actually, it balances out. If one is w/o a car and has a workplace in San Francisco, one would need to either live within the city, or anywhere b/w Millbrae and Fremont - along the BART or Muni lines. If one chooses to lower one's rent by living, say, in Pleasanton or San Jose or Concord, one would have to buy a car and spend hundreds in gas weekly just commuting. So when you add up everything, it's pretty expensive to live anywhere in the extended Bay Area - now talking about anything from San Francisco to Tracy, and Albany to Monterrey.
Given how telecommuting and virtual work can enable people, it would help a lot if tech workers were more distributed throughout the country - be it in Dallas, Denver, Atlanta, Charlotte, St Louis, et al rather than try and cram everybody within the Bay Area. Within California itself, they could put people in places like Riverside, San Bernardino, Sacramento, Fresno and a few other cities
I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area before and it's a real shithole (as is most of California). Why stay when there are so many better places to live?
The above story - were they referring to the City & County of San Francisco, or were they referring to the Extended Bay Area - Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and San Francisco counties?
I agree with you about the city of San Francisco - ugly parking, horrible traffic, plenty of one-way streets as well as the city interrupting the 101 freeway. But I've lived in the other cities - Santa Clara, Sunnyvale & Milpitas. Not bad if one is w/o kids, but horribly expensive. What annoys me is so many tech companies insisting on being there, when there are so many other places both within and outside California
What Iran is doing is known in Islam as 'taqfir' - implying internecine Muslim-on-Muslim violence - the pretext being that one of the groups is less Islamic/not truly Islamic. Iran's opposition to ISIS is not a result of any motivation towards religious pluralism, which is what motivates Western opposition to it: it's b'cos Iran is Shia and ISIS is Sunni.
Islam is very much the enemy. What ISIS does has a solid backing in Islamic texts - the Quran and Sunnah. That is why they, like other Jihadist groups before them, have been able to claim a lot of support from Muslims worldwide. It's why Jihadi groups worldwide - from Abu Sayyaf in Philippines to Boko Haram in West Africa - pledge allegiance to ISIS. All the opposition that ISIS gets is from groups that oppose al Baghdadi's claim to be Caliph, but few Muslim leaders are genuine champions of religious pluralism, since Islam is NOT for religious pluralism either.
"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.