MicroB

I think that thinking has always influenced Western kids gloves policy towards Russia; better the devil you know than not. We don't really want Putin's government to collapse. But to think we are worried about a sudden failure of the Russian government is in itself scary. I'd like to think if there was some terrible calamity that befell the US or UK governments that we have the checks and balances in place to ensure Brig. General Jack D. Ripper is just a movie fiction. We probably know that supposed Israeli and South African capabilities remains just a paper capability. We are probably nervous about Pakistan. At the end of the Cold War there was no doubt extensive exchange of notes between Russian and their NATO counterparts. Are we worried about the Russian lack of checks and balances we are prepared to allow a war of conquest to occur because the alternative is much worse. In 1983, the NATO exercise, Able Archer, nearly caused a pre-emptive Soviet attack, except for the bravery of a Russian colonel in refusing an order.

Vance said something almost as bad: The identity is Ulster-Scots. To call a "hillbilly" Irish would be see as a gross insult. Hillbillies was used by Irish catholics to describe members of William's army at the Boyne, who were mostly Scots. Why "Hill Billies". Well, the cvlue is in another term of insult used in Ireland; Planter. Ulster was known as the Ulster Plantation. The Planters were colonists taking over confiscated lands. The story is some got a bit bored and headed off to America for further opportunity. In Ulster, the Planters had a pretty sweet deal compared to the Catholics; fixed rents. All the terms Vance refers to lack insight. Hillbillies at one time described someone with a rabid adherance to Protestantism and the Crown. Red-Necks were Covenanters; hardcore Presbyterians, who refused to accept the primacy of the Church of England, signed their names in blood, and wore red scarves to signify where they stood. White trash? Most sources point to that being a term used by black slaves to describe poor white people; if not Ulster-Scots types, they will have been descendants of those indentured workers (slaves) sent to the tobacco fields of Virginia. And then Vance marries a Hindoo and becomes a Roman Catholic. His ancestors, if Scots, might be thinking was it worth moving to America to establish some god-fearing paradise free of going to hell Catholics for this to happen.

I had a Postie give me stick when he delivered a letter to my Glasgow home address Glasgow, England. The Brits are as bad when we call someone from Alabama a Yank. Could be worse. Some could come on here inviting a metaphorical thick ear, by referring to the "Six Counties" The (Irish) Republican conspiracy theory runs deep. https://hannahmccarthyreports.substack.com/p/jd-vances-catholicism-and-some-pieces

Pad or Egg

The history of Britain is a lot longer than the United Kingdom, which is a few hundred years.

Ulster-Scots is the correct term. This is the curious thing; Ulster-Scots is not the same as being Irish. American politicians like to embrace cultural identities for electoral reasons, and the Irish lobby seems particularly powerful. But being a Hick from West Virginia; thats not going to resonate with a Mick from Boston. Few catholic Irish went to the Appaluchians. The people who settled were descendants of people from the Highland clearances, who moved to "Ulster" (which covers a bit more than the current Northern Ireland), and thence to North America in the 17th and early 18th Centuries. At the heart of the Troubles in Northern Ireland is the acceptance of the "Irishness" of Protestant folk. The ethnicities in Northern Ireland are murky; you have Irish catholics, you have Irish protestants who are descendants of converts, you have Presbyterian protestants decended from Scots, you have Anglican/Methodist descendants of English/Welsh people. You also have people who claim to be descended from survivors of the Armada (likely not true. There is a fair sprinking of Irish people of mixed race heritage such as the late Phil Lynott). If the Protestants are descended from people thrown off lands in Scotland, then why are they so pro-British. Well, that's complicated; the first anti-British uprising was in the 18th Century lead by Dublin Protestants, lead by Wolf Tone, who was worried that the British Crown was hatching a plan with the Catholics. The Prods became "Loyalists", but elements will attack the police. Why? Because "Loyalism" is based on Loyalty to Protestantism. As long as the Monarch is true to protestant principles, they will be loyal. The Police are seen as agents of the Crown; if the Police, or Army, do something which is seen as contrary to Protestantism, then there is no such loyalty, cue masked youths lobbing Molotovs on the Ormeau Road. Orange is associated with Tennessee; Go Big Orange is the popular slogan. Officially its the colour of the American Daisy. In reality, Tennesse is the buckle of the protestant bible belt. All those Orange Counties across the US; not named after a fruit, but by residents who at one time offered moral fielty to a Dutchman who came ashore at Carrickfergus. As an Englishman, I lived for 10 years in Northern Ireland. You think, being British, you understood the politics there. Nope. As an Englishman, I was regarded as a neutral; people from both traditions would be at pains to explain their perspectives. Most Protestants were middle of the road; their opposition to unification with Eire was based on the Republic being dirt poor. That feeling certainly softened with EU integration; the economic argument for the UK became less persuasive, and they are pretty pragmatic. The Good Friday Agreement would never have happened post-Brexit. And Brexit has created all sorts of issues people never thought would arise following the GFA. Voting was an experience, with the single transferable vote. I don't recommend it. I felt I was forced to decide which ex-jailbird/cut throat I wanted to be out of prison. A police friend pointed out to me that many terrorist families, particularly from Armagh, would have criminality going back hundreds of years, irrespective of politics. When Mo Robinson was caught with a truck of dead Vietnamese in Essex, he came from a solidly, Red Hand waving Loyalist family, with a boss from a Republican family from Monahagn. When the Queen Mother died, one of her Irish Guard pallbearers was from a Republican family (he used to decorate his bunk with cuttings from the Sein Fein newspaper). He was also the first Irishman and first British soldier, killed entering Iraq in 2003. So the politics are complex and sometimes a mystery. Irish Catholics in the Americas mostly arrived much later, during the Famine, with clusters around the port cities (just like England; my ancestors were dockers from Cork, moved to Liverpool, then London, in the 1850s), and then further West in the new industrial cities.

For the latter, its a combination of the Biden administration's handling of that pull out, plus the previous administration's habit of directly negotiating with terrorists, and leaving out the legitimate Afghan government out of discussions. The Saigon debacle happened under Ford, and he shared blame, but the reasons were due to a previous President embracing a criminal regime. If Putin was a normal, non-criminal leader, he would have viewed Ukraine joining the EU as an economic opportunity, a good news event for the Russian federation, leading to facilitation of greatly increased trading with the EU and the wider world. But you are right, Putin views sovereignty as a threat to Russia. Yes, Russia found it all too easy to seize Crima, but using this as a reason to excuse Russia is a bit like blaming the rape victim for walking home from the pub. You are right, that Russia is a country with a small dick. Look how they shrivelled at Pristina Airport when faced with a guitar waving young Blues and Royal officer in his little Scorpion tank, when he said "No". Chamberlain greenlighted Herr Hitler into invading Poland because of the reaction to Czechoslovakia, but in the end, the blame for WW2 lies with Hitler and his gang. Chamberlain's defence was he wasn't trusting of the Germans, and was buying time. Halfas was genuinely trusting of the Germans, so Obama veers more towards a Halifax position. Everyone seems to think history started in 2014, in terms of the root of this conflict. Not so. You can go back to 2000, when Putin came to power, and relations with Georgi became frosty, but even before then, when the Politburo in Moscow deliberately encouraged and funded counter-nationalist movements, as they saw Communist power slip away. Its true that those diehards viewed the West with disdain and are contemptuous of democracy, in the same way Hitler was. So Obama's inaction in 2014 confirmed to Putin what he saw from President Bush in 2008, over Georgia, where he allowed the Russian Army to seize US property without a protest. Putin is incapable of civilised behaviour. He is an anti-democrat, so he has no understanding or empatthy with Western liberal democracies. He is so imbided with Bolshevik brainwashing, he sees everything as a threat to the Party, even though the Party has long gone. A normal national leader would not see a country joining the EU as some sort of existensial threat. A normal leader sees that as an economic opportunity. Russia is a country with a small penis that easily shrivels. eg. Pristina Airport. Western leaders have made mistakes, but the fault has always been with Putin, and his geopolitical illiteracy. To blame the West for the War is to blame the young girl who was gang raped for walking home, or the young boy abused by a pedophile for joining the Scouts. Hitler caused WW2. Putin caused WW3.

Complaining about your own people.

Is it?

https://aseannow.com/topic/1351963-president-jd-vance/#findComment-19824449 And its not "Democratic Union Party" but "Democratic Unionist Party". You make them out to be a friendly sort of bunch, not the bible tumping Holy Joes they actually are. And its Northern Ireland, not "north of Ireland". North of Ireland is Dundalk. I'm going with the theory that a great great great grannie slave was banged by the Master. Or he's a Cockney Vance. Either way, increasingly likely , he's a Plastic Hillbilly.

He's beyond being a billionaire. People profit from wars. People profit from other people being sick. People profit from other people being hungry. People profit from other people not being able to afford a house/new car/telly etc. Big Pharma lost out on revenue in Russia. Medicines in Russia are largely imported, mostly from Germany and US. 80% of medicines, and 90% of medical equipment. These are not sanctioned. The major players are still on the Russian market, invoicing in Rubles and taking a massive hit on profitability, as they defend market share (the expectation is that Russia will return to normality one day) The Pharma industry is MASSIVE compared to Defence. You moan about the alleged influence of defence companies (in my experience, they are not the Pied Piper in defence spending, Eisenhower was wrong). 2023 was considered a really good year for Defence M&A; a measure of the inward investment into an industry. There was $38bn in M&A. Sound like a big number. That's dwarfed by Pharma M&A of $191bn. R&D; Abbvie spends more on R&D than the 3 top defence companies combined. So Captains of Industry don't really want war. Eisenhower's MIC premise was based on the huge number of defence companies wanting a slice of the federal pie. In 2025, the industry has massively consolidated into a handful of prime contractors; thats what governments want, because between wars, defence companies go out of business or switch to doing non-defence stuff, which is more profitable, easier to export, easier to staff. That means far less voices into the ears of politicians, much less influence compared to other industries. Consolidation in US defence Ironically, Russia has seen a huge number of defence companies spring up, mostly producing crap, as a result of former state employees effectively stealing factories (this is how most of the oligarchs became rich. Men who took advantage of a crumbling USSR to essentially steal assets). Putin started the war to satisy his old man desire for a legacy (a Peter the Great masturbatory fantasy), and men making lots of money, were happy to go along with that. Originally, when this started, I had this thinking (flawed), that an increasingly professional Russian military would restrain Putin. I misinterpreted the non-involvement of the Russian Air Force as evidence of schisms in the military, of professionals wanting to protect their carefully curated empires. Indeed, early on, we saw among the Russian POWs, quiet professional officers, excuding an elitism that you hoped would be seen further up the chain. People like Col. Astakhov Mikhailovich; he was a OMON officer (a sort of gendarmarie), captured early on. Came over as a quiet professional, doing his job as a copper, and not a naive man. I thought there would be many more like him (Putin has literally broken Russian domestic law). Later on, a captured navy pilot based in Crimea (married a local lady, spoke Crimean), came over as an arrogant prick, but nevertheless, a professional. But the realisation is that the Russians promoted are incompetant syochophants, all to happy to sacrifice their men if it means lining their own pockets (eg, Russian soldiers getting donkeys instead of trucks is not because Russia lacks trucks. Its because some scumbag officer has sold the trucks). The Russian arms industry are the true profiteers, and they don't want the war to end, because so far they are getting away with it; receiving vast amounts of cash, in another grand theft of the Russian people, delivering very little. Russian tank factory. Yeah, they are refurbishing WW2 era T34s and SU100s.

So explain the Mutually Assured Destruction Paradox. I know what it is. Its usually a theory that comes from the Extreme Left and their Disarmament lackies.

Putin's making money on this. He's a thief. That's his MO.

I think the cost of this plane will be fairly limited; to whatever the monthly storage fees are. Its going to stand around for months, years, while they "figure" out what to do with it. At some point, they'll realise the 2 brand new AF1s will get finished before they can even start taking out the gold plated khazis from this one. And so it will sit, getting all dusty, and bleached looking, with dried out hydraulics, flat tyres. And come 2029, its scrap only. Not even worth anything in spare parts, as by then, even the freighter fleet of 747s will be on the decline. In 2020, a Qatari King realised a 8 year old 747 was too expensive to fly. In 2029 a pensioned off President is really going to have the moolah to gas up a 17 year old 747? Maybe it will make a great bar, souvenir shop. Someone needs to tell him if he recertifies Concorde, he will have the coolest looking plane on the apron. One of the Concordes is with the Smithsonian, which means its basically his, because the Smithsonian will have to give it to him, or their budget gets cut again.

I wouldn't bother debating with the Brit who is pretending to be a Russian.

You have it the wrong way round. Putin runs a Kleptocratic State. He and his mob of thieving oligarchs have systematically robbed Russia, resulting in a country of 150 million having an economy now smalle When Putin came to power, he could have done good things for the Russian people. Instead, he did good things for himself. The war gave him the perfect opportunity for further grift, through switching to a so-called war economy, further centralising money into the hands of his mates. Object to a factory being stripped of employees for the SMO or to go build tanks? Unpatrotic, lock him up. One of the 17% of Russian businesses going under? Good, more workers happy to earn a few kopeks screwing together non-existant 60 year old build tanks. 40% of Russian government spending is now in the defence sector. Its not going into the pockets of the squaddies; headline eye watering bonuses are not getting paid. That money, going straight to the oligarchs. They don't really care, as many of the squaddies are either minorities, and therefore undermenschen in the eyes of many Russian slavs, or stupid gopniks who deserve to go into the grinder. I worked in the defence sector. We spent an awful lot of time looking to diversify into non-defence industries. Not because the board was a bunch of peaceniks. No, the reality is, if your two main customers are the DoD and UK MoD, they cut your margins to the bone, on the basis that if they buy from us, then surely all these other countries will follow suit, and we can add markups to the price on them (we did). Much of the equipment supplied to Ukraine was already in service. That was defence money spent 20, 30 years ago. Getting rid of these systems reduces in service support, so saves the various defence departments money. Now it has to be replaced, or so the service chiefs hope. It doesn't always. There are new rounds of bids, programme funding etc. If there is war profiteering going on, its on the Russian side. The Putin supporters here, if they are really Russian (I don't think they are), are just too stupid to understand their country is getting raped up the sphincter my men who have done this all their lives, laughing all the way to a Cayman Islands bank, with their Maltese passports. I hope Russians will wake up to this, and end Putin. Don't really care if he gets a fair trial or not.

Some sort of Freudian slip.

A film well known for its one liners. Colour Sergeant Bourne in the movie is played by a middle aged Nigel Greene, as a rather fatherly character. In reality, Bourne was 24 years old. Astonishing.

Echobelly, Dark Therapy. An under rated band 30 years ago

Fun Lovin' Criminals. I'm not in Love The late great Chris Cornell's genius mash up of U2 and Metallica. Captain James Blunt, Where is My Mind Puddles Pity Part, The Sounds of Silence

35 years since this was Number 1.

A South African complaining about BBC coverage, irrespective of the issue, does not constitute backlash in the way I understand the ter,. Generally, backlash is taken to mean a groundswell of public opprobrium against an organisation or individual. The BBC might be receiving complaints from a private South African citizen about its coverage of current events in his country, but in the UK, I am not sensing any sort of "backlash". His correct recourse is to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, which is responsible for the conduct of correspondants working for foreign news organisation in South Africa. Of course he is not some random South African businessman. He is one of the Hersovs; a prominant business family in South Africa for the last 3 generations. His father made an utter fortune in mining and arms during the Apartheid years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglovaal Why is a British South African dual national worried about how a British news organisation covers news relating to the United States? He is the former chair of BIPA; the British Internet Publishers Association, a trade body, and has been a long term critic. So really, his latest is nothing new. He's had a beef with the BBC probably his entire life. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/dec/09/internetnews.business1 https://variety.com/2000/digital/news/a-battle-for-supremacy-1117788816/ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmcumeds/161/1013114.htm And I get an idea about his bio here; https://www.ny-forum-africa.com/en/speakers/2014/ So he has a portfolio of board positions that include the media. He call to dismantle the BBC is based on commercial concerns. He's always been opposed to the BBC on principle. Maybe Gary Lineker said hurtey things about him. Notably, he made no such complaints about Channel4, ITV nor Skynews, who have lead with basically the same stance as the BBC. Nothing will come of his complaint, nothing. But its just theatre. Here he is joking with fellow South Africans that there is no white genocide going on.There is complex ZA domestic policies at play: Its all about who can invest in a Star Link South Africa subsidiary. As its in telecommunications, the South African government says it must have 30% investment from a historically disadvantaged group. It can't have investment from one of Hersov's media companies, because, as the son of Basil Hersov, he's never been disadvantaged. As soon as that is sorted out, I expect any American issue with South Africa to evaporate, and the refugees being politely told they are no longer refugees, and need to regularise their presence before ICE comes a knocking. And here is the change https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/52712-3218-Comms-Policy-Direction-ICASA-BEE-2025-05May-23-1.pdf Musk's own tweets expose the lie about "white genocide". If white genocide is actually happening, why does he want to invest in that country? He knows its <deleted>.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_vacations HTH 49 - 12

1948 I guess. The Crisis didn't start in October 2023; things weren't all rose they day before. Some in the Israeli political scene have accused Netanyahu of facilitating the rise of Hamas. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ Netanyahu had previously indicated opposition to withdrawal from the Gaza settlements. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/08/israel As Prime Minister, he elevated recognition of Hamas, an organisation he had warned about, as some sort of counterweight to the West Bank government. He disregarded attacks on Israeli settlements in the south, I suspect because they weren't the people who'd vote for him anyhow. Cynicism or appalling judgement lead him to this point. Lord Carrington offered his resignation in the wake of the Falklands invasion. Netanyahu should have done the same. He's not a naive man.

Technically incorrect on two points. The Hamas action was an incursion not an invasion. Invasion involves seizing of territory. All accounts suggested Hamas terrorists went in to cause mayhem, and then left as fast as possible with hostages. There is no evidence that the IDF successfully caused them to withdraw. Russia, rather than Russians, invaded Ukraine, at the direction of their government. It was an official act. The terrorists who went into Israel were certainly acting on the direction of their political leadership, Hamas. Hamas is a political organisation that governs Gaza, but it does not govern Palestine. It has de facto control of the Gaza Strip. The Palestine National Authority is the body that is recognised as the legitimate sovereign power. There is no evidence that the PNA conspired with Hamas, so present your evidence. Ukraine is doing a valiant effort effort resisting a nuclear armed enemy, and is out numbered by 3 to 1. Israel enjoys a numerical advantage of 5 to 1 over the population of Gaza. Its been making a meal of it, largely through tactical incompetance, with enormous wastage of munitions, largely driven by a fear of casualties on its own side. More tonnage of bombs has been dropped on Gaza than Berlin during the whole of WW2., suggesting the IDF is either not very adept at using the weapons systems gifted to them, or their intelligence gathering is poor. I see this the result of the politicization of the IDF, compared to previous years, which is also why they were so blindsided by the Hamas attacks, a sort of thing that would never have happened in the past. This is an issue that is in discussion in Israel https://en.idi.org.il/articles/58356https://en.idi.org.il/articles/58356 https://www.inss.org.il/publication/idf-politics/ Its generally regarded that the appointment of Major General Eyal Zamir as head of the IDF at the insistance of the Mafdal–RZ Party is an intensely political and ideological decision.