RayC

Perhaps an American can explain why the US would want a war with China and Russia, but from a European perspective why would we want a war with either? What advantage has it for Europe? And why risk it given that there is no guarantee that we would be successful?

How is Zelensky a puppet of the EU? What do the EU gained by providing €132bn (and counting) in aid to Ukraine?

Are these examples of the freedom afforded to those who oppose Putin, Frank? Let me hazard a guess at your reply: It's MSM propaganda https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/11/21/political-persecution-in-russia-by-the-numbers https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/jailed-russian-dissidents-call-mass-prisoner-release-part-peace-deal-with-2025-07-03/ https://www.voanews.com/a/russian-repression-of-dissidents-civil-society-reaches-unprecedented-levels/7279656.html

I have made no comment about yesterday's court ruling and have no wish to learn anything more about it. Agreed. (see my reply to Nauseus) Fine and dandy Not according to Google AI they aren't: "A judicial review is a specific type of legal challenge ..." i.e. the latter is a subset of the former You seem to be obsessed with making a distinction between the phrases. If you provide a legal definition of both phrases from a reputable source then that can be used in future although, as I said at the outset, I have no comment to make about yesterday's ruling Memory loss? Happens to all sometimes

Agreed. GCHQ does not determine law but, as you say, it is a government agency and therefore, by definition, is acting on the government's behalf. For whatever reason, the judiciary determined that it broke the law.

A completely separate and different issue to the one which we were discussing. In any event, here are two examples where the UK judiciary have ruled against GCHQ (I have assumed that GCHQ was acting on the UK government's behalf). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/15/government-security-gchq-decisions-can-be-challenged-in-court-judges-rule https://www.channel4.com/news/gchq-nsa-broke-law-surveillance-prism-snowdown Nice to be able to agree on something: Apparently Google and me do know better😉

Somewhat pedantic but replace 'countless' with 'numerous' if you wish. Russia. Btw who founded Louisiana? The New England States, etc?

Interesting analogy. However, one could substitute 'The USA', 'Italy' or countless other existing countries for 'The Confederacy'.

It might have been for the Romanovs, but it wasn't for the vast majority of ordinary Russians.

If James Baker did utter those words then it was not reflective of the US (and European) strategy at the time https://on.ft.com/3ZgBehl

Zelensky won a free and fair election, so how exactly is he, "an illegitimate puppet of the West"? Moreover, given that Zelensky's opponent in the final ballot, Poroshenko, was the incumbent president and was pro-EU and pro-NATO in his outlook, why would the West want to replace him with an unknown quantity?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the current conflict in Eastern Europe.

I read the article a couple of times and still do not understand what is his point. Most (all?) current European nation-states are relatively modern artificial constructs (post-18th century) and are an amalgam of the lands of various ancient tribes. Should we doubt their legitimacy? The question in your final sentence is much easier to understand and answer, and that answer is 'No'.

Over two decades experience of what? Getting angry when someone has the nerve to disagree with one of your pronouncements? Misplaced, self-important arrogance doesn't cut it with me. Maybe you should take your own advice re deep breaths and posting.

Not not that either. And you?

No. Are you?

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Imo Trump is ill-advised and/or ill-informed on this matter.

Where did that one come from? And what has it got to do with anything? I've never mentioned anything about the sources of your income. Semantics. Once again, you cannot possibly know that for a fact. It's good. You're right. It's speculation.

No but you appear to be. As I explained the location is irrelevant to my questions. No. I invented questions, not excuses, which you are unable and/or unwilling to answer. It is hypothetical by definition. Your proposed solution is not currently operational. Meanwhile, my questions about your proposed solution go unanswered. Because you wish something to be true does not make it true.

Are you are a lawyer specialising in constitutional or 'security' law? If so, then your replies might carry a bit more weight than the opinions of a layman like myself. However, even if that is the case, you cannot possibly know that any legal challenge is doomed to fail. As I said, it is pure speculation.

The location of the camps is totally irrelevant to my questions Your solution is a hypothetical so, of course, my questions about it are hypothetical.

I have no doubt that some more money will be spent but I very much doubt whether that will equate to 5% of GDP for each and every NATO member, although I suppose an accounting sleight of hand might make it appear so.

That is pure speculation. You cannot possibly know for a fact.

Even if the National Security Act were to be invoked that does not solve the problem. My issues are with your solution concerning the setting up of camps on the south coast. I have posed questions to you about this potential solution throughout this thread and they remain unanswered. How about addressing my unanswered questions contained throughout this thread before I address any more of yours?

I have neither the time nor inclination to read the National Security Act in its' original form but working on the assumption that AI has produced a good summation of it, I remain unconvinced that it would be the correct mechanism to enact your solution. At the very least, I'd imagine that its' use in this context would be the subject of a legal challenge. I didn't miss that statement i.e. "To protect the UK's democracy, economy, and values from foreign interference", I think that using this clause in the context of 'stopping the boats' would also be subject to a legal challenge. I assume that my other questions posted throughout this thread will remain unanswered?