Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
No, that was the 1st one
Who cares whether NATO nations poke fun at our Dear Leader? NATO has grown too big 4 its britches anyway...it is going where it doesn't belong. NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization...what the Hell is it doing in Afghanistan then? Let Me elucidate: NATO has been 'encouraged'" to send its forces to Afghanistan so IT can do what our DOD and Mr. Trump do NOT want OUR soldiers doing which is being in Harms Way. U C the objective is to avoid those flag-covered coffins from coming back with Americans inside them.
It boggles the mind to listen to our president condemn Europe for not paying its dues or not paying enough. Apparently SPENDING Europe's human lives is not enough for Mr. Trump and DOD. Let 'others' do the dirty work. Ostensibly NATO in Afghanistan was to provide guidance to Afghan soldiers. Believe that and I still have that bridge for sale.
Hear Hear! Bravo for your commentary on Rudy. Alas and Alack our president has abiding trust in Mr. Giuliani who is willing to do whatever is necessary...apparently even going to prison. Rudy and Mr. Trump know that even if BOTH of them end up going to the penitentiary it'll only B for a couple of months - tops. How do they know that? Simple. Just study the histories of Richard Nixon's & his Associates.
Following the machinations of the Trump administration and the GOP is like watching a circus - clowns all with the ringmaster having them jumping through flaming hoops.
Guantanamo is not a threat to Cuba, as poor as the Cuban military is, they could overrun it before the first American plane or ship got off the ground. A few years back I was teaching in Havana, and went to check it out from the outside - it is indefensible. Cuba is not making any money from the rent because they aren´t cashing the checks. They made a serious mistake in the early Castro days, when the lease was up for renewal. while they were negotiating, someone cashed one of these checks after the lease ran out, so the U.S. assumes that acceptance of payment is evidence of an agreement to an unsigned or unrenegotiated contract. The fact is, if the U.S. belonged to the world court, Cuba could sue to nullify the entire arrangement because the first contract was signed under duress, e.g. invalid.
The fact is, if the U.S. belonged to the world court, Cuba could sue to nullify the entire arrangement because the first contract was signed under duress, e.g. invalid.
As I undestood it, the US created the "World Court" (ie the ICJ?) and has total control over the laws it attempts to enforce.
You know the story of the "World Court" telling the US to desist from terrorism?
Can you guess the result?