Roadsternut

In most EU and non-EU countries, VAT on food is zero rated or substantially reduced. eg the UK is 0% on food. Similarly in the US, only a few states levy standard sales tax on groceries. For instance, Idaho charges 6% on all food, Mississippi levies 7%. Attempts to denigrate other countries through spreading false rumours about VAT/taxation on food are either evil, or based on profound ignorance of the world around them. So are such people malicious, or stupid?

US to send a 1000 bed hospital ship immediately to Greenland https://www.dw.com/en/trump-says-sending-great-hospital-boat-to-greenland/a-76076414 No reason is given. Possible plague outbreak? A USN sailor was evacuated by Denmark's Joint Arctic Command, and is currently undergoing treatment in a Greenlandic hospital. Greenland has TB rates double that of Denmark, largely due to the close knit nature of the population. Disease can transmit like wildfire if intriduced from an external source, such as a ship visit. Ah, the pandoraviruses and other EIDs being released from the permafrost.

Wife was on a B2 visa, husband on a H-* visa, job didn't turn into a permanent role, so he elected to take retirement, take an extended holiday afterwards, not realising that when you leave the job, you have 60 days or the expiry on your I-797 to leave, whichever comes first. Absolutely no issue leaving the US, it was when he tried to re-enter after the car paperwork issue in the Canadian side, that the Americans had a spasm, lost all common sense and became bolshie. Instead of spending a couple hundred bucks accompanying the couple to an airport for departure at their expense, they elected instead to give the couple $2000, and spend $15,000 (at least) detaining them. Ludicrous way to run an immigration service.

Check yourself into a dementia clinic. You need help. Your short term memory is shot to <deleted>.

Don't underestimate the potential for misunderstandings in a febrile atmosphere. Someone announcing an intent for "limited strikes" just days after a major ally made announcements that they cannot use bases to reduce range requirements, could be interpreted as conceding weakness. It might be the case that depending on extremely long range B52 flights from the US, with mid-refueling, the US can only effect limited strikes, reducing the "threat" and leverage, because the other side will be working out how much is an acceptable. The concern would be the Iranians thinking "is that all they got".

There was a reason not many people brought Russian cars in the West. Yes, they were cheap, but they were crap. Russia could make loads of crappy Ladas, but we aren't competing with them to make crappy Ladas. The theory of comparative advantage demolishes the case for tariffs by showing that trade is not about who is absolutely better at producing everything, but about who is relatively more efficient at particular things. Even if one country is more productive across the board, both countries gain when each specializes in what it sacrifices least to produce and then trades. Tariffs obstruct this natural division of labour, forcing resources into less efficient uses, raising prices for consumers, and shrinking total wealth. In trying to “protect” domestic industry, tariffs simply compel a nation to divert labour and capital away from its areas of greatest relative strength — making the country poorer in order to appear more self-sufficient. Take syringe needles. Essential to healthcare. They have to be cheap to make. American companies make billions of them in factories in China at a price hospitals/patients want to pay for them, and the American company has a viable busines making needles, and can pay returns to shareholders. Not particularly a labour intensive process, but the factory can be built quickly. Since tariffs were imposed, at least one American company has announced it no longer has a viable business in making syringe needles. Even with plants in China, the margins are too tight. The specialist tooling needed meant they can't simply move production to somewhere like Vietnam. Straightaway they sacked 10% of their US workforce, mostly the people who earnt a living warehousing billions of Chinese syringe needles. The company thinks, maybe in 5-10 years, they will be able to establish a US manufacturing capability. Given they essentially don't have a business anymore, and there are plenty of alternative suppliers for syringe needles, few expect they will be around in 5 years time. The US doesn't need t be good at producing 2 cent syringe needles. What it's good at is producing $8 million MRI scanners. It needs its best engineers and scientists to be designing and developing cutting edge medtech, not merely copying essentially 80 year old designs. If you genuinely believe in the superiority of Western democracies over authoritarian communist regimes, you'd have no issue in having faith of the power of individualism influencing innovation. An exception are the car makers, who deserve to go under. For the last 20 years, they have been designing cars worse and worse. The latest wheeze is designing a wet belt engine where the cam belt literally dissolves in the oil its bathed, leading to frequent engine failures at 40-50k miles, reminiscent of how long an engine lasted in the 1950s. If the Chinese cars appear now to be so "good", its because the legacy brands have been taking their customers for a ride, and producing increasingly substandard cars. Now they are crying about it.

Its also worth remembering that for pretty much the entirity of the Cold War there was a West Germany and an East Germany, an East Germany packed full of Soviet troops. Pluton and Hadès were intended as battlefield weapons. NATO had a far more advanced understanding of logistics than the Russians. GW1 was won essentially by fantastic logistics, ensuring vehicles and troops had access to fuel and other supplies. NATO has invested heavily in systems to move equipment extremely quickly, harnessing modern processes used in industry. By contrast, we see, even now, the Russians don't even understand the use of pallets (viz, the destroyed convoys in 2022, with trucks full of hand loaded crates of ammunition and food). NATO strategic use of nuclear weapons wasn't aimed so much at the forward units, but at the supply lines behind them. The Russian assumed that NATO would create an irradiated corridor behind forward units. Those troops would rapidly run out of fuel, and progress halted. BAOR would ensue NATO fuel dumps would be denied to Warsaw Pact forces.

The Mooch, as usual, is good value.

What about the South Americans fighting for Ukraine, comrade? What you are you, Stalinist or Maoist?

You originally stated, or at least a person using your account, that some of the tariffs were illegal. Suggest you change your passwords etc, someone is hacking your account, and posting things you disagree with in your name. If you haven't been the victim of a hacking attempt, then you concede that most of the Americanski government's tariffs were illegal and that you told an untruth. . What in the blazes, Sergei/Ivan/Vladimir/Boris.

DHS has decided to buy its own suits for the Secret Service, rather than reimburse agents for suits from George. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/20/politics/secret-service-suits-kristi-noem A MiB thing I suppose. Secret Service shopping for a federal suit; Possible suppliers Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR) Hugo Boss Propper International Government Suppliers & Associates, Inc. Aspetto

Change of shift, right? Handover notes lacking? Ask the boss what's the blazes is going on. Dmitri is making you look bad.

It has been determined that a small number of tariffs are allowed to stand, about 25% of the tariffs imposed. eg Steel and aluminium tariffs were allowed to stay. The response, a blanket 150 day 10% tariff indicates that the intent is a taxation by the back door, because no American corporation will plan strategy based on a 150 day horizon. It is likely that the US government will be forced to reimburse corporations ($200bn?) monies that were never escrowed. Here is where the plot thickens. If you wanted to enrich corporate supporters, then you could pass tariffs that you know wouldn't make it through a conservative-dominated court (traditionally, its the left who are in favour of protectionism, and its the right who are in favour of tariff elimination). Companies would get a reimbursement, with no requirement for them to refund their customers. Easier than passing corporate tax cuts. Moreover, the money collected has already been spent, providing a cover to enact further budgetry cuts to programmes that some members of the present government have a dogmatic opposition to, notably public healthcare, education, social security, veterans administration spend. They can blame the judges.

An indication that you are not a native English speaker. For native English speakers, it is commonly understood that "some" generally does not mean "most". Someone who's first language was nt English would understandably fail to understand that nuance. It is widely reported that most of the tariffs imposed by the American government were through IEEPA, at about 75% of all tariffs. Its these tariffs that have been declared as illegal. Thus most, not some of the tariffs were declared illegal.

I thought Iran's nuclear programme had been successfully wiped out.

The Global 10% tariff has a 150 day sunset. It has no leverage because it will disappear in 150 days. More particularly, there is not a single board room in the US that will take major capital investment decisions based on a 150 day horizon. Instead, the discussions would be about cost mitigations, eg layoffs.

Its never been the case that America's Allies "automatically" follow the US into war. Its allies might consider the evidence and come to the same conclusion as the US. re, the controversy during the Yugoslavian War, regarding US actions, NATO leadership and so forth. Not just about the Brits. I don't think anything has really changed that much, with respect of allies supporting the US. No one has left NATO or any other treaty alliance with the United States, or even threatened to. Allies might disagree with US policy, as they have always done. Still Allies. The range of opinions regarding US/Iran in 2026 is pretty much the same as in 2013, with a very different President who was in a similar situation. International Law hasn't changed. If America was attacked or suffered some catastrophe, I think, just like in 2001, there will be friends lining up with offers of help and support.

Bulldog Tools shut its doors today https://www.wigantoday.net/business/tragic-news-as-wigans-oldest-employer-bulldog-tools-announces-its-closure-after-246-years-5605678 Idealspaten, made in China. What "crafted" mean is that the Germans stick on a nice handle, and charge more. https://www.hahn-kolb.cn/IDEALSPATEN-steel-bow-support-shovel-without-handle/56761045.sku/en/US/CNY/

It shows the Russian government is worried about public support. Russia has no shortage of people. Putin created a law, in the wake of the failure of the first Chechen War, that banned conscripts from combat, except when defending Russia itself. The reasoning wasn't to spare the Russian squaddie. It was a reflection that conscripts proved to be bloody useless. The second Chechen was was fought by contractors, supposedly professionals. Roll on to the Ukraine. Putin has the power to change Russian law to bring in conscripts, which would overwhelm Ukrainian defences, albeit at even higher cost.. But he's preferring substandard North Koreans, Ugandans, South Africans, Kenyans, Somalis and pressganged Indians/Bangladeshis. It can't be to save money. In Afghanistan, a collapse in support for the Soviet invasion resulted in the collapse of a country. There are no reliable polls being published on the beliefs of ordinary Russians, but I think its virtually a certainty that the Kremlin is monitoring the attitudes among the public.

Given casualty rates of about 800-1000 a day, its fair to assume that those Kenyans are, essentially, no more. What's curious is that Africa is probably full of 1000's of experienced Dogs of War, well experienced in warfare. But they are not rocking up in Russia. Instead, its people like Stephen the Plumber spinning some yarn about being duped, and not knowing his arse from his elbow. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/26/african-men-tricked-into-fighting-ukraine-for-russia Maybe Russia is cheap.

Its not the first time. The UK blocked use of bases in 2012 and 2013 as well. Then, as now, isn't about personality politics, but points of law. Notably, the UK, at least openly, didn't follow the US into Vietnam. And in 1982, the US government hesitated over whether it would back a democratic NATO ally over a viscious military dictatorship, It took a then young opposition senator to speak some sense. People like Jeane Kirkpatrick were urging Reagan to back the Argies. Astonishing. But friends can disagree from time to time.

Starmer might go, but I can't see the Labour majority being overturned before 2029. You would need 168 Labour by-elections, with Labour losing all of them. Even then, Labour will still be the largest party in parliament, and likely would enter into a pact with a minority party to avoid a confidence vote.

He's posting fasehoods about the United Kingdom, because he hates it so much, typical of a communist. They walked among us, pretending to be something else, until smoked out.

But that's not the reason for aircraft carriers in the Gulf.

More ignorance from the Moscow stooge. Article 51 of the UN Charter. That provision allows a state that has been attacked to defend itself and to request assistance from other states. The UK has consistently framed its support as assistance given at the request of Ukraine in the exercise of its lawful right of self-defence against aggression by Russia.