Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a foreigner, you bear none of the burden, so whatevs Bro.

Can you drop this gak. Hpnestly

Lets see the EU do it. You can't even defend yourself from Russia.

Wrong in every way. The Russian military is a pile of gak. EU members vs Russian Federation will end up in the EU's favor every time. We help protect them because it's in our interest. And you refuse to understand this.

The Dutch military does not even have enough funds to buy ammunition for training exercises. They can't sustain operations involving a few hundred soldiers for more than a few years. A lot of other European militaries aren't in better shape, not to mention that even the militaries of big powers like France and Germany are very small, pretty much hollowed out since the end of the Cold War by constant budget cuts. Militarily, Europe is a wet noodle that hasn't been able to accomplish anything without US support. Russia's military has seen better days as well, but it is united, larger, better equipped, more experienced and at much higher readiness than European militaries are. Not to mention that Russia is very actively building up its military strength, whereas European nations are largely neglecting their defense. Basically, Russia may be in bad shape, but Europe is in even worse shape.

I would heavily disagree. Versus one country sure they spend more. But taking only two counties (UK and DE) they spend 20b more than Russia does on the military. That's just the UK and Germany. France spends only 12b less than Russia. Combined the EU (and only countries in the EU) spends $605.22b on defense. *Ten times* that of Russia. That shiny new T-14 (which western armies had counters for within the year)? They've managed to build less than 30. America has roughly 1

Hell Russia assumes it will lose the air war to the point they have put more into ground based anti-air than any other western army. The Russian military would be bodied by the EU. The issue is that both sides have nukes and millions of civilians would be killed.

Plus Russia has two strategic fronts, the most important being an increasingly expansionist China.

Europe can focus everything on Russia.

 thekingofkings wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a foreigner, you bear none of the burden, so whatevs Bro.

Lets see the EU do it. You can't even defend yourself from Russia.

Well. Good thing we don't have to defend against Russian army. Frankly I would be more affraid of American army than Russian army. And anyway not like America would help Europe against Russia anyway.

Why would you even consider that, The US has zero interest in invading Finland, it literally offers us nothing,it is neither friend nor enemy. Of the two of us, only the Russians have ever occupied or invaded Finland. The only time in history we were ever really involved in the same war, Finland was an axis power and actively sided with the nazis against our Russian ally. If they ever felt the need, Russia could easily overwhelm the gutted European armies, though I suspect the Poles would fight like lions. And honestly with the relations the way they are now, I hope we wouldn't interfere if the Russians did decide they had had enough of the EU's prattling on.

So because Trump is acting like a spoiled brat and ruining relations you would be content to leave us to die? That's fething classy man...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Therefore, the US' military presence in Europe is absolutely essential to deterring Russia. The fear of the US response if Russia were to kill American soldiers in its invasion of the Baltic states is what keeps Russia dormant. Without US presence, Russian irredentism will have free reign in Eastern Europe. The people of the Baltic states are very willing to defend their home, but they are massively outgunned and outnumbered, and Western Europe is of little help. They simply do not have much in the way of military capability. An American presence in Eastern Europe is absolutely essential for long-term peace and stability in Europe. And it brings a lot more than just military benefits. If the US wants to keep its number one spot in the world, it needs to maintain its military presence across the world. And yes, I am saying this despite being Russian. I don't want any more post-Soviet conflicts in Europe, and the American military is key to that. It is important that the American people know this.

Yes, but not to the degree you say. Europe can easily take care of it's self (and we certainly would see more military spending from Europe if we did pull out), but it's in our best interest in political, defense, and economic, to make sure nothing happens in Europe.

Yes, the idea that the US can just leave overnight is silly. There would be a transition period (unavoidable as the US will have to begin the political process) in which the European nations would feel obligated to scale up spending back to the Cold War level. The Russia stuff is straying into fantasy land again.

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a foreigner, you bear none of the burden, so whatevs Bro.

Lets see the EU do it. You can't even defend yourself from Russia.

Well. Good thing we don't have to defend against Russian army. Frankly I would be more affraid of American army than Russian army. And anyway not like America would help Europe against Russia anyway.

Then there's no need for the US. We agree!

Well fact is us has been illegally invading and toppling goverments past few decades than russia. So with us having proven track record of that i worry more about us invading europe than russia. Odds are lot bigger.

tneva82 wrote:
Well fact is us has been illegally invading and toppling goverments past few decades than russia. So with us having proven track record of that i worry more about us invading europe than russia. Odds are lot bigger.

agreed. You should demand the US leaves.

Hmph. I never did see those defending the child separation saying much about Trump reversing course.

I don't think we should let that slide, frankly.

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well fact is us has been illegally invading and toppling goverments past few decades than russia. So with us having proven track record of that i worry more about us invading europe than russia. Odds are lot bigger.

agreed. You should demand the US leaves.

So, since you want us to become a reclusive nation and you are complaining about the wealthy getting wealthier, are you finally giving up on capitalism?

tneva82 wrote:
Well fact is us has been illegally invading and toppling goverments past few decades than russia. So with us having proven track record of that i worry more about us invading europe than russia. Odds are lot bigger.

Well the last time the US invaded a European country they were fighting against Hitler (unless you really want Yugoslavia to be the hill to die on). The last time Russia did it was 2014. If you worry about the US invading Europe over Russia you really are betting on the wrong horse, you know, with your bigger odds and all.

Yeah this idea that Russia is nicer than the US is total bs. Neither is particularly "nice" but the US is definitely preferable in most ways.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well fact is us has been illegally invading and toppling goverments past few decades than russia. So with us having proven track record of that i worry more about us invading europe than russia. Odds are lot bigger.

agreed. You should demand the US leaves.

So, since you want us to become a reclusive nation and you are complaining about the wealthy getting wealthier, are you finally giving up on capitalism?

I am a fan of free enterprise. That's different. Should I ask if you are a fan of imperislism? Are we taking a poll?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well fact is us has been illegally invading and toppling goverments past few decades than russia. So with us having proven track record of that i worry more about us invading europe than russia. Odds are lot bigger.

agreed. You should demand the US leaves.

So, since you want us to become a reclusive nation and you are complaining about the wealthy getting wealthier, are you finally giving up on capitalism?

I am a fan of free enterprise. That's different. Should I ask if you are a fan of imperislism? Are we taking a poll?

So you for more regulation of capitalism to prevent the wealthy getting wealthier?

 Da Boss wrote:
Hmph. I never did see those defending the child separation saying much about Trump reversing course.

I don't think we should let that slide, frankly.

Especially sinc ethe new EO is so poorly worded that it can mean just about anything. In addition, the Immigration Bill can't get a vote in the House due to the Freedom Caucus Rs.

Speaker Ryan probably can not wait to retire and get out of town thanks to those folks in his own party making it impossible to do anything..... again!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Onion can't even anymore.

This article hit the nail ont he head. It said...

Jesus Christ! Please make this stop!

I think right about now that is the only person that could.... and he would still split the R base politically.

Tom Arnold says he's teaming up with Michael Cohen and 'taking Trump down'

Comedian Tom Arnold said Friday that he and President Trump’s former, longtime personal lawyer are teaming up to “take down” the president.

Arnold tweeted a photo with Michael Cohen on Thursday with the caption, "I Love New York," which Cohen retweeted without comment.

Arnold then told NBC News that he met with Cohen as part of a show he is working on for Vice, in which he searches for incriminating videos of the president.

This gak cannot get any weirder.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a foreigner, you bear none of the burden, so whatevs Bro.

Can you drop this gak. Hpnestly

Lets see the EU do it. You can't even defend yourself from Russia.

Wrong in every way. The Russian military is a pile of gak. EU members vs Russian Federation will end up in the EU's favor every time. We help protect them because it's in our interest. And you refuse to understand this.

The Dutch military does not even have enough funds to buy ammunition for training exercises. They can't sustain operations involving a few hundred soldiers for more than a few years. A lot of other European militaries aren't in better shape, not to mention that even the militaries of big powers like France and Germany are very small, pretty much hollowed out since the end of the Cold War by constant budget cuts. Militarily, Europe is a wet noodle that hasn't been able to accomplish anything without US support. Russia's military has seen better days as well, but it is united, larger, better equipped, more experienced and at much higher readiness than European militaries are. Not to mention that Russia is very actively building up its military strength, whereas European nations are largely neglecting their defense. Basically, Russia may be in bad shape, but Europe is in even worse shape.

I would heavily disagree. Versus one country sure they spend more. But taking only two counties (UK and DE) they spend 20b more than Russia does on the military. That's just the UK and Germany. France spends only 12b less than Russia. Combined the EU (and only countries in the EU) spends $605.22b on defense. *Ten times* that of Russia. That shiny new T-14 (which western armies had counters for within the year)? They've managed to build less than 30. America has roughly 1

Hell Russia assumes it will lose the air war to the point they have put more into ground based anti-air than any other western army. The Russian military would be bodied by the EU. The issue is that both sides have nukes and millions of civilians would be killed.

Therefore, the US' military presence in Europe is absolutely essential to deterring Russia. The fear of the US response if Russia were to kill American soldiers in its invasion of the Baltic states is what keeps Russia dormant. Without US presence, Russian irredentism will have free reign in Eastern Europe. The people of the Baltic states are very willing to defend their home, but they are massively outgunned and outnumbered, and Western Europe is of little help. They simply do not have much in the way of military capability. An American presence in Eastern Europe is absolutely essential for long-term peace and stability in Europe. And it brings a lot more than just military benefits. If the US wants to keep its number one spot in the world, it needs to maintain its military presence across the world. And yes, I am saying this despite being Russian. I don't want any more post-Soviet conflicts in Europe, and the American military is key to that. It is important that the American people know this.

Yes, but not to the degree you say. Europe can easily take care of it's self (and we certainly would see more military spending from Europe if we did pull out), but it's in our best interest in political, defense, and economic, to make sure nothing happens in Europe.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Tom Arnold says he's teaming up with Michael Cohen and 'taking Trump down'

Comedian Tom Arnold said Friday that he and President Trump’s former, longtime personal lawyer are teaming up to “take down” the president.

Arnold tweeted a photo with Michael Cohen on Thursday with the caption, "I Love New York," which Cohen retweeted without comment.

Arnold then told NBC News that he met with Cohen as part of a show he is working on for Vice, in which he searches for incriminating videos of the president.

This gak cannot get any weirder.

Edit: misread

 Iron_Captain wrote:

jouso wrote:


Plus Russia has two strategic fronts, the most important being an increasingly expansionist China.

Europe can focus everything on Russia.

That is a bit off-topic, but China and Russia are getting along very well. The days of the Sino-Soviet split are long gone. They have settled their border disputes and even gotten to the point of holding frequent military exercises together. While Russia does have plenty to fear from China, that is all on the economical front, with Russia becoming increasingly reliant on Chinese support. Militarily, Russia has nothing to fear from China. As the Russian leadership views it, they face only one military threat, and that threat comes from the west. There would be no second front.

On a strategical level, yes they would.

Their improved relationship comes from a common foe in the Western powers, but in the absence of that foe their spheres of influence would overlap. Plus Russia is an economic minnow next to China, and everything points at them being a military minnow in a few years time. The increasingly expansionist Chinese leadership of Xi might well find out that it's better to take a bite out of Russia than somewhere else that's supported by the west.

Why would you even consider that, The US has zero interest in invading Finland, it literally offers us nothing,it is neither friend nor enemy. Of the two of us, only the Russians have ever occupied or invaded Finland. The only time in history we were ever really involved in the same war, Finland was an axis power and actively sided with the nazis against our Russian ally. If they ever felt the need, Russia could easily overwhelm the gutted European armies, though I suspect the Poles would fight like lions. And honestly with the relations the way they are now, I hope we wouldn't interfere if the Russians did decide they had had enough of the EU's prattling on.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Europe are no friends to us anyhow, hypocritically pointing fingers at the US to hide its own issues and using the US as a whipping boy for whenever its politically or culturally expedient. The US is not a European colony, out troops are only in Europe because the Germans wouldn't behave. Trump has nothing to do with my opinion of Europe. Spent way too much time over there to be sympathetic to anyone west of the Oder.

Just like the US points hypocritical fingers at Europe trying to hide its own issues you mean? Trump being current world champion finger pointer.

Its the kettle calling the pot black, what horror right.

No, your troops are in Europe because of something called NATO, which is not related to the Germans. For someone having spent way too much time over here its strange that you don't seem to know why that was.

Edit: also saying the US isn't a European colony is pretty ironic, considering how desperately a lot of Americans cling to their European heritage.

 thekingofkings wrote:

If they ever felt the need, Russia could easily overwhelm the gutted European armies, though I suspect the Poles would fight like lions. And honestly with the relations the way they are now, I hope we wouldn't interfere if the Russians did decide they had had enough of the EU's prattling on.

Dude, Europe outspends Russia in defense something like 10 to 1. It's cool to think about columns of T-72 rolling through the Fulda gap over a few beers on a FoW TY game, but those days are long gone.

jouso wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

jouso wrote:


Plus Russia has two strategic fronts, the most important being an increasingly expansionist China.

Europe can focus everything on Russia.

That is a bit off-topic, but China and Russia are getting along very well. The days of the Sino-Soviet split are long gone. They have settled their border disputes and even gotten to the point of holding frequent military exercises together. While Russia does have plenty to fear from China, that is all on the economical front, with Russia becoming increasingly reliant on Chinese support. Militarily, Russia has nothing to fear from China. As the Russian leadership views it, they face only one military threat, and that threat comes from the west. There would be no second front.

On a strategical level, yes they would.

Their improved relationship comes from a common foe in the Western powers, but in the absence of that foe their spheres of influence would overlap. Plus Russia is an economic minnow next to China, and everything points at them being a military minnow in a few years time. The increasingly expansionist Chinese leadership of Xi might well find out that it's better to take a bite out of Russia than somewhere else that's supported by the west.

Why would he need to when he already virtually holds control over Russia through the economy? Regardless of China's military capabilities, a war with Russia would be extremely devastating and potentially catastrophic for China (if it is losing, Russia would without a doubt nuke Chinese cities). And all that for little gain. The Russian Far East is a barren, inhospitable wilderness for the most part. There is some natural resources, but China already has full access to those. China would also lose one of its few allies and weaken itself, to the benefit of the US of course. A conflict between China and Russia is extremely unlikely. There is nothing to gain for either side and a lot to lose. I'd sooner see a war between the EU and the US happening (and the likelihood of that is practically 0, so go figure the likelihood of a Russia-China conflict).

jouso wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If they ever felt the need, Russia could easily overwhelm the gutted European armies, though I suspect the Poles would fight like lions. And honestly with the relations the way they are now, I hope we wouldn't interfere if the Russians did decide they had had enough of the EU's prattling on.

Dude, Europe outspends Russia in defense something like 10 to 1. It's cool to think about columns of T-72 rolling through the Fulda gap over a few beers on a FoW TY game, but those days are long gone.

Yes, and all that spending only gets them a tenth of what the Russians are getting for their money. How much you spend is not important, it is how much you get for it. If I spend a million dollars and get ten tanks, I am better off than the guy who spends 2 million dollars to get 5 similar tanks, despite the other guy having higher defense spending.
Defense spending is a really, really bad measurement for military strength. Russia's military may not be powerful enough to roll through the Fulda gap anymore, but it is plenty strong enough to cause a massive lot of trouble in Eastern Europe, without there being a whole lot that Europe could do to stop them.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Why would you even consider that, The US has zero interest in invading Finland, it literally offers us nothing,it is neither friend nor enemy. Of the two of us, only the Russians have ever occupied or invaded Finland. The only time in history we were ever really involved in the same war, Finland was an axis power and actively sided with the nazis against our Russian ally.

*Soviet* ally...who invaded Finland first, the same Finland that the UK and France considered backing against the USSR and joining in war against the USSR at one point, and the same Finland that the US was pointedly sending relief funds to.

If they ever felt the need, Russia could easily overwhelm the gutted European armies,

Russia has a large military, but has displayed no evidence of any ability to project that much force over that much territory for that much time. Russia couldnt set that up in a couple of months, that would be a very easily detected and long term effort.

Europe are no friends to us anyhow

I mean, aside from being our largest and closest trading, research, political, economic, educational, cultural, industrial, and military partners, sure...

hypocritically pointing fingers at the US to hide its own issues and using the US as a whipping boy for whenever its politically or culturally expedient.

Um...are we living in the same universe? That appears to describe the US modus operandi to a T the last 18 months...not Europe.

Yeah theres been an antiUS undercurrent in many european nations for years, but it would apply to any other state in the same position, and is primarily popular among out of power opposition groups. Once in power, European governments havent exactly been terribly hostile to the US. Just because they dont agree with us 100% on everything and dont march in perfect lockstep on everything hardly means that they arent friends.

The US is not a European colony,

its hard to buy the argument that mean ol' Europe is dictating anything meaningful to the US. When was the last time those mean old Europeans *forced* the US to do anything? When was the last time they prevented the US from doing what it really wanted?

out troops are only in Europe because the Germans wouldn't behave.

Yeah, 80 years ago...

Lets also not forget that the world wars are a major reason the US is as wealthy as it is today. The wealth of the British Empire ended up in US bank accounts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Supreme Court rules law enforcement needs warrant to search cellphone data

Big fan of this decision.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that law enforcement has to obtain a warrant in order to search and seize long-term cell phone records that would show a person's location.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the government’s acquisition of cell-site records from wireless providers is a Fourth Amendment search, including in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, to make up the majority.

That is certainly an...interesting court breakdown.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

jouso wrote:


Plus Russia has two strategic fronts, the most important being an increasingly expansionist China.

Europe can focus everything on Russia.

That is a bit off-topic, but China and Russia are getting along very well. The days of the Sino-Soviet split are long gone. They have settled their border disputes and even gotten to the point of holding frequent military exercises together. While Russia does have plenty to fear from China, that is all on the economical front, with Russia becoming increasingly reliant on Chinese support. Militarily, Russia has nothing to fear from China. As the Russian leadership views it, they face only one military threat, and that threat comes from the west. There would be no second front.

On a strategical level, yes they would.

Their improved relationship comes from a common foe in the Western powers, but in the absence of that foe their spheres of influence would overlap. Plus Russia is an economic minnow next to China, and everything points at them being a military minnow in a few years time. The increasingly expansionist Chinese leadership of Xi might well find out that it's better to take a bite out of Russia than somewhere else that's supported by the west.

Why would he need to when he already virtually holds control over Russia through the economy? Regardless of China's military capabilities, a war with Russia would be extremely devastating and potentially catastrophic for China (if it is losing, Russia would without a doubt nuke Chinese cities). And all that for little gain. The Russian Far East is a barren, inhospitable wilderness for the most part. There is some natural resources, but China already has full access to those. China would also lose one of its few allies and weaken itself, to the benefit of the US of course. A conflict between China and Russia is extremely unlikely. There is nothing to gain for either side and a lot to lose. I'd sooner see a war between the EU and the US happening (and the likelihood of that is practically 0, so go figure the likelihood of a Russia-China conflict).

jouso wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If they ever felt the need, Russia could easily overwhelm the gutted European armies, though I suspect the Poles would fight like lions. And honestly with the relations the way they are now, I hope we wouldn't interfere if the Russians did decide they had had enough of the EU's prattling on.

Dude, Europe outspends Russia in defense something like 10 to 1. It's cool to think about columns of T-72 rolling through the Fulda gap over a few beers on a FoW TY game, but those days are long gone.

Yes, and all that spending only gets them a tenth of what the Russians are getting for their money. How much you spend is not important, it is how much you get for it. If I spend a million dollars and get ten tanks, I am better off than the guy who spends 2 million dollars to get 5 similar tanks, despite the other guy having higher defense spending.
Defense spending is a really, really bad measurement for military strength. Russia's military may not be powerful enough to roll through the Fulda gap anymore, but it is plenty strong enough to cause a massive lot of trouble in Eastern Europe, without there being a whole lot that Europe could do to stop them.

If you count by ton of scrap metal sure, by actual capabilities though....

We are talking about the same Russia that is sending Su-25s dropping iron bombs in Syria right?

jouso wrote:


If you count by ton of scrap metal sure, by actual capabilities though....

We are talking about the same Russia that is sending Su-25s dropping iron bombs in Syria right?

Well if you don't care about collateral or want to hit civilians they are still pretty decent.

I think this thread will probably be taxing enough for Manchu without extended tangents about how a war between the EU and Russia might unfold, which is pretty far afield from US politics.

Russia vs EU might be a pretty cool new thread though, assuming conventional forces only.

Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

 feeder wrote:
Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

The intent was not to practice Catch & Release, ala previous administrations. Which will be necessary anyways as they can only detain the migrant kids for 20 days (per the Flores doctrine).

Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

 feeder wrote:
Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

Between Sessions, Nielsen, Trump, and Huckabee, I believe each has tread the "not intended/not real", "was totally intended and should be a deterrent", and "its the Democrats in congress fault" spectrum within the space of 5 days.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

The intent was not to practice Catch & Release, ala previous administrations. Which will be necessary anyways as they can only detain the migrant kids for 20 days (per the Flores doctrine).

Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

"The tree of Off Topic must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Whataboutism."






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

Between Sessions, Nielsen, Trump, and Huckabee, I believe each has tread the "not intended/not real", "was totally intended and should be a deterrent", and "its the Democrats in congress fault" spectrum within the space of 5 days.

That's the kind of infuriating tomfethery I'm talking about. The amount of doublethink the GOP is asking it's members to engage in is insane.

 whembly wrote:
Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

In Canada, 151 children were detained. As your own article states, about half were seperated but usually children are kept with their mothers. So, lets say 75 children over the course of a year.

Comparing that to over 2,000 children seperated from their parents 100% of the time in less than 2 months is literally the laziest, crappiest attempt at "both sides are equally bad" that perhaps has ever been typed on these forums - like taking a free throw, but you miss by 15 feet, and your pants fall off, also.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

The intent was not to practice Catch & Release, ala previous administrations. Which will be necessary anyways as they can only detain the migrant kids for 20 days (per the Flores doctrine).

Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

Looking at the article, the context in Canada is different. Canada held 151 children, with their parents, and 11 unaccompanied minors, in detention over the space of a year, based on risk assessment criteria.

That is a very different thing from the current issue here. The US intentionally separated 2,000 children from their parents in the space of a few weeks and held them in custody as a general policy.