2024 US Presidential Election.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 02 Sep 23 9.06am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
But he is represented by the firm of Fleegle, Bingo, Drooper and Snorky. very good indeed.
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Well-played, Sir Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 06 Sep 23 7.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
<iframe =src [Tweet Link]
Edited by Wisbech Eagle (06 Sep 2023 7.49pm)
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Sep 23 8.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
<iframe =sec [Tweet Link]
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 06 Sep 23 10.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Just posing it but do you think the USA needs NATO or the other way around.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 06 Sep 23 11.30pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Just posing it but do you think the USA needs NATO or the other way around. The number of people in the US who would fight is vastly reduced from say twenty years ago. We can see that in the polls on patriotism. There really has been a sea change and it's not just for generational reasons. But that's another discussion albeit largely pointless as it's a done deal thanks to the left and economic right. Nato without the US is essentially pretty weak. What it comes down to is how realistic you think the threats are to us in terms of our interests and obviously invasion.....even though that's unrealistic for various reasons. Problem is that we have a lot of money pumped into convincing the public that we are in a fight of good v evil so that they can justify their actions. Something they do with just about with anything. But to go back to your original question.....If Britain and wider Europe were being run by less careerists and by those more interested in the long term we would be concentrating on the original Nato mission, which was a strong northern Europe alliance.....US/France/Germany.....I'm adding Germany because for obvious reasons they weren't a part of that equation. Not reducing military budgets to pathetic 2 percent levels and living in this fantasy world where wide scale war never happens again so you don't need traditional militaries. That should have never happened until Russia was a functioning part of Europe....but again, due to several reasons after the Berlin wall fell...in my view, that wasn't the route pursued in good faith. But no one gets held accountable even though they could be....instead we get directed to hiss and boo like it's a simplistic Punch and Judy show...that's because that's all most people are capable of or interested in. But after 91 they decided on Nato expansion and ultimately decided on keeping the friend/enemy distinction with Russia while hiding behind America.....who stick their bases up everybody's arse. We have been a client state since WW2 and there needs to be more honesty about it. The arguments against expansion were made decades ago and lost and frankly we are seeing the consequences of bad decisions down the pipe. As Wilde once said, 'the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.'
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 07 Sep 23 6.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The number of people in the US who would fight is vastly reduced from say twenty years ago. We can see that in the polls on patriotism. There really has been a sea change and it's not just for generational reasons. But that's another discussion albeit largely pointless as it's a done deal thanks to the left and economic right. Nato without the US is essentially pretty weak. What it comes down to is how realistic you think the threats are to us in terms of our interests and obviously invasion.....even though that's unrealistic for various reasons. Problem is that we have a lot of money pumped into convincing the public that we are in a fight of good v evil so that they can justify their actions. Something they do with just about with anything. But to go back to your original question.....If Britain and wider Europe were being run by less careerists and by those more interested in the long term we would be concentrating on the original Nato mission, which was a strong northern Europe alliance.....US/France/Germany.....I'm adding Germany because for obvious reasons they weren't a part of that equation. Not reducing military budgets to pathetic 2 percent levels and living in this fantasy world where wide scale war never happens again so you don't need traditional militaries. That should have never happened until Russia was a functioning part of Europe....but again, due to several reasons after the Berlin wall fell...in my view, that wasn't the route pursued in good faith. But no one gets held accountable even though they could be....instead we get directed to hiss and boo like it's a simplistic Punch and Judy show...that's because that's all most people are capable of or interested in. But after 91 they decided on Nato expansion and ultimately decided on keeping the friend/enemy distinction with Russia while hiding behind America.....who stick their bases up everybody's arse. We have been a client state since WW2 and there needs to be more honesty about it. The arguments against expansion were made decades ago and lost and frankly we are seeing the consequences of bad decisions down the pipe. As Wilde once said, 'the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.'
And not even hypothetically the ones here and across the pond who would stand up are being jailed, cancelled and put on the watch list
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 07 Sep 23 11.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
And not even hypothetically the ones here and across the pond who would stand up are being jailed, cancelled and put on the watch list Yep, social liberalism is anti nationalism (unless it serves their purpose ie Ukraine) and egaritarian...the latter in my view a noble but very flawed set of principles that mostly don't work and which inevitably result in feminism and thus anti masculinity. Social statistics decline across the board.....but most people become socially acclimatised to decline and just accept the dross they are fed. Unless the mainstream media are screaming about something they don't look up and the MSM are mostly bought and sold and hence essentially only represent their wealthy owner's view.....or in the BBC's case, for example, the views of the near exclusively liberal employees it employs in its own image. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2023 12.10pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Sep 23 4.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Just posing it but do you think the USA needs NATO or the other way around. Is not the right question! They need each other. NATO could not exist without the the USA and would morph into a different organisation. The USA would become increasingly isolated politically and socially. It needs its friends to maintain its leadership of the free world. Groups like NATO need to expand rather than disband. This idea that we should have been making overtures to Russia rather than treating her as an enemy denies the obvious. Before that can be contemplated again, as it was before Putin, trust needs to be built that can be assured and relied upon. There is no evidence at all that there is any interest in Russia trying to do that. They need to sort themselves out before we can offer our hand. They view themselves entirely differently to the way we do.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 08 Sep 23 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Is not the right question! They need each other. NATO could not exist without the the USA and would morph into a different organisation. The USA would become increasingly isolated politically and socially. It needs its friends to maintain its leadership of the free world. Groups like NATO need to expand rather than disband. This idea that we should have been making overtures to Russia rather than treating her as an enemy denies the obvious. Before that can be contemplated again, as it was before Putin, trust needs to be built that can be assured and relied upon. There is no evidence at all that there is any interest in Russia trying to do that. They need to sort themselves out before we can offer our hand. They view themselves entirely differently to the way we do. It’s a yes or no answer !
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 08 Sep 23 3.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Nato is needed while Russia isn't aligned with Europe. I say that as someone very strongly against the Ukraine war and how it happened and contentious Nato expansion as a policy. And I'm strongly against the type of people running Europe and America now...Neo and Social liberals....absolute disastrous but incredibly arrogant people leading us all to ruin. Nevertheless that doesn't mean the concept of Nato is wrong.....No it isn't and is just sensible. But a Nato that is being abused by America mainly for America's interest isn't what it should be. People should think about what America want. They don't want Russia aligned with the rest of Europe because for a lot of reasons....some understandable and some pure self interest. Essentially they don't want Europe rising as a power that doesn't need them....Much like the age old British perspective on rising powers on the continent, first France and then Germany....the perspective is to ally against any rising power to balance them out and hence stay in hegemonic control themselves.....something painfully obvious in this conflict is just how controlled we are. It's not about what's best long term for Europe, it's about what's best for America...Or what the 'Neo Cons' in America think anyway...and then selling that sh1t to you using any means they can. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2023 3.48pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Sep 23 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr he may run as something other than a Democrat due to the Democrat's underhand actions against him. Can't see that benefiting the Democrats really....unless you believe certain things... [Tweet Link]
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Sep 23 3.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Unlike Beck here I'm not going to blame this all on Biden because that would be lying.....even though he's worsened things significantly since taking over. No, what you see here is a reflection of having ruineous neo liberalism in charge of economic policy for decades.....Elites who feather their own nest with little in common with...and indeed in contempt of the working classes. When your elites suffer...and worse, feel no consequence for decline then the social contract that gives them power is broken. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Sep 2023 3.04pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.