nauseus

Maybe just based upon the level of Trump hatred in your own mind.

Bull. He was trying to get her to answer his questions without the side salad. As we have all seen, that's an impossible task.

I wonder who wrote all this? J. M. Barrie?

Too many events and so-called fact checking here. In simple terms, Trump was the only one to allow the shipment of weapons (importantly Javelin missiles) to the Ukraine, before Putin invaded. Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine. https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD994.pdf

She couldn't argue or answer a single question in that one either. There was no debate. She is the hopeless fool.

Not even close to properly answering even one question. So wound up, not even one cackle. F

Well that has been tried, financially, for decades. Trillions of $ have been lost to corruption while most countries that should have benefitted have actually become poorer post the colonial era. Sad but true.

Not news really. Most of the migrants from Africa access Italy through Lampedusa, and have been for at least 20 years. Let's see if she can arrange to send migrants directly from Lampedusa to Albania before you "assess" Meloni.

Another load of cobras.

Something like this? No comparison so irrelevant. And, as we can see, strong, patriotic leaders can be far more effective than weak and wobbly majorities.

Exactly right. This mythical far right "terrorist" group has been literally dreamt up to divert from the real terror threat in the UK.

Where was this then?

You'll take the high road and I'll take the low road, And I'll be in Scotland afore you.

You don't know what my point was. What is pathetic is your continual ignorance. Congratulate yourself on that.

Point well and completely missed but that's par for your course.

When a "top" military man gets too loud in the political arena, then you know he's no longer "top", and no longer military.

Maybe just a ringer?

Well thank you. It wasn't merely the article so much as the links with it, which were quite detailed in themselves. I honestly can't remember the truth of them all but they basically agree with what I do recall. It was all softly softly detente in those days but the main problem seems to be that rules of NATO expansion after German reunification, or the limits of it, were not clearly defined and agreed in any formal treaty but were rather assumed, after a series verbal promises from Baker etc. Maybe because Yeltsin was hammered all day? Not sure.

3 bucks.

Well I'm not because I just looked back and it's not there.

If you care for facts, then you might remember that the EU did not exist as such when there was a West Germany, And here's some light reading pertinent to your "nonsense" comment above: \ Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?” https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Step ladder from Home Pro. Nice.

You presume to speak for every patriot who served but you are far away from the truth there.

I'll make sure not to miss that! 555

Johnson's approach has nothing to do with this topic. Only very shortly after ceding the Chagos Is. and effectively abandoning the Chagossian people, Starmer has set a precedent in the eyes of Spain and Argentina, so now faces sovereign claims with both, over Gibraltar and The Falklands respectively. Starmer's weakness will cause ever more problems, which will probably be aggravated by the EU (at least in the case of Gib) for its advantage. Both Spain and Argentina would love to see this weakness result in complete wins for both of them. Another useless nitwit at the end of the long list of recent useless PM nitwits.