ericbj

Maybe you have not heard of the Oreshnik :

Thank you for pointing out the stupidity of U.S. nuclear threats directed at the Russian Federation, as result of a social media post by someone with no effective power to do anything except blabber. Particularly stupid in view of Russia's long-established "Dead Hand" retaliation policy. Sabre-rattling can potentially lead to unintended war, especially where civilian populations have been worked up into a state of accepting or even welcoming it. The pan-European Great War of 1914-18, thought by many to be impossible, nonetheless occurred.

The Donald is at the forefront of the United States' confrontational messaging strategy.

Dastardly chap ! He has stolen a page out of the U.S. State Department's Foreign Policy Book !

Shows a misunderstanding of the balance of power in nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities.

Are British politicians eligible for, and seeking, the EU's Kalergi Prize? Perhaps no longer, unless they can pull the UK back into the Brussel-bureaucrats' prison-camp. (Angela Merkel was awarded it, which might go some way to explain her open-borders policy) Count Kalergi, himself an Austrian-Japanese, favoured a mish-mash world of mixed race, seemingly without national borders or distinct cultural identities. Why? One of the reasons he gave, which his promoters attempt to play down, was that divided loyalties would cause social unrest, giving the elites the excuse to exercise greater control over their populations. In a sense his ideas were at the opposite pole to so-called 'National Socialism' [a wholly misleading term]. This explains Herr Schicklgruber's hatred of him, and allows Kalergi's followers to paint him in a favourable light. In reality the two philosophies have much in common, when regarded in terms of their ultimate aim. An individual within a heterogeneous, amorphous mass of humans is relatively powerless. Within a distinct, finite cultural identity, his views can carry weight. Britain's primary problem is with its unrepresentative politicians. Massive, uncontrolled and uncontested foreign invasion arises from the primary problem which produces mayhem in divers spheres. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-001516_EN.html

Am seeking - in Thailand - a new laptop with French AZERTY (not German AZERTY) keyboard. As a replacement for my existing one which is on the blink due to a graphics problem. Possibly repairable, but if so it can become a stand-by when up-and-running again. (Am thinking of guarantee) Some years ago I brought to Thailand an external USB AZERTY keyboard in the belief that if the computer I had failed it could be replaced with a computer bought in Thailand having the habitual Thai/US keyboard. The circumstance foreseen arose; I purchased a computer in Thailand, and confidently plugged in my AZERTY keyboard. It did not function correctly. Whenever one typed an accented character, or certain symbols, it reverted to a US keyboard and started outputting gibberish. Years later I tried the same computer [a Lenovo Ideapad 320] with another USB AZERTY keyboard, with the same result. Incompatibility caused by differences in computer keyboard processor? My current computer which has started to develop the screen problem is a Lenovo 1i with 15.7" screen [*], and was ordered from amazon.fr in April 2021 in replacement for an ASUS purchased in France only about 18 months earlier but which developed one keyboard failure after another (remedied by use of USB keyboard) before finally packing up altogether. Forcing me to boot into Knoppix via USB to recover some data. Swore never again to buy an ASUS. It does occur to me that one could perhaps purchase a locally available computer, configure it under Windows as having a French keyboard, and then stick on the keys pieces of paper marked with the requisite characters. But not, I suspect, a very durable solution. Wonder if some of my many past hardware problems might have been caused by real live bugs. Such as the almost microscopically small ants that abound in this house especially during the rainy season, and which can sometimes even find their way into screw-top jars. Tend to put equipment into plastic bags with a few mothballs, but tedious repeatedly unplugging and re-plugging everything, so can get a bit neglected. Moreover this house can be extremely damp and subject to mould, since some years ago a nameless clown concreted over the no-longer used irrigation ditch that ran down alongside my plot. In the monsoon it served as a drain for the rainwater than now laps at the foot of my concrete-block walls. However mould ought not to affect equipment in regular use, but only when in storage. In the latter case I endeavour to seal with silica gel. [ * not a bad machine but contrast ratio too low for my liking, as discovered after delivery ]

So no-one cares about you ? Poor wee fella. 🙂

Some of this might be relevant to the thread:

To each according to his ability. I do not think it is the proportions that are the problem, but rather the mAcroscopic overall budget expenditure. Due to money squandered left and right. There is a need to cut the coat according to the cloth available. That way the wealthy can stay wealthy and the poor can be eased out of poverty. Where governments create conflict, both global and local, they do so because they are prodded into it by big rentier-capitalist interests. The country, and everyone else, including the relatively well off, suffer. Overall returns on investment in the US 'defense' [armaments] sector are said to have almost equalled 1,000% over the course of the Afghan War. Did the expenditure of bombs, projectiles, ammunition, and all the rest add to the wealth of the United States and its people? No, of course not. It was a redistribution of wealth from working people of all categories to big-time manipulative speculators. A consortium of loose, informal pressure-groups of overlapping interests, often referred to as the Deep State. Statistics showing the increase in wealth of the richest citizens following each successive crisis is quite convincing proof of this phenomenon. Footnote: When a government creates funny-money out of thin air because its income is insufficient to meet its expenditure, the population may be made to pay in two inter-related ways: 1. A tax called "inflation". This is not a revaluation of goods and services but rather a devaluation of the currency, due to an excess of supply. 2. A debt whose repayment is kicked down the road, perhaps to be met by a future generation. This can be avoided if inflation is high enough that debts can be repaid in a much devalued currency, in effect legally defrauding the creditors. A default in all but name.

Have you forgotten the comment you queried? If so you can consult it. If you do not understand the comment you queried, perhaps you should study it more carefully.

"Do as I say ! Don't do as I do !" I recommend consulting a dictionary if you still do not understand.

They do both. It's called hypocrisy.

Full-scale nuclear war will have unimaginably horrific consequences. Not least "nuclear winter" which should put paid to the "man-made global warming" hypothesis. Think of the summer (that wasn't) of 1816. Industrial agriculture and global trade will collapse. Governments threaten war without usually any intention of launching it. As a means of bullying other governments and coercing, and gaining support from, their own people. But sometimes they overstep the mark. The result is: BOOM ! I suspect that no government in Europe, with the possible exception of Austria-Hungary, sought war in 1914. It had been considered impossible in any case, because of trade between the various nations, royal intermarriage, etc. But conflicting self-interests and sabre-rattling brought about what was thought would be a brief and glorious conflict to settle differences. But look at what resulted ! Brinkmanship has been taking us closer than ever to nuclear war. Treaties intended to reduce the likelihood have been abrogated of late. If nuclear warfare breaks out, whichever the power that kicks off, will, if it has any sense, go whole hog to wipe out every possible means of nuclear riposte available to its adversary. Let that sink in. Nowhere in the world will be safe, because nuclear destruction and fall-out are only the beginning of the problem. However, to get as far away as possible from blast and fall-out, the safest places may be those non-aligned countries that are as remote as possible from the main contenders for power. Let us hope for, and argue for, the abatement of warlike passions. Whatever the probability of nuclear war, there is one thing that is certain and which seems to be approaching at an ever quickening pace. And which shares some of the same challenges. An economic meltdown. To meet this latter eventuality, there is the need to consider sustainability of life over the short, medium, and perhaps longer term. A very complex issue. All the more so because although circumstances will be greatly changed, perhaps in unimaginable ways, it is necessary to try to envisage them. A few ideas: Community Money (gold, silver) Local Currency Barter-able Items & Services Shelter Clothing Water Food stores Food production & processing Energy - for cooking, lighting, space-heating Transport (human-powered, animal-powered, and other) Domestic Animals (for various ends)

The word of the U.S. government is worthless. And it shows.