.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Organic material to acidify soil
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
26
Being black in Thailand
I'm in the "don't mind the term Farang camp". I understand there's thousands of years of history between us and we're very different people. We can meet on our common ground but I have no illusions of being accepted or even accepting them like I do my fellow Farangs. Race is not skin deep either I would argue. It is what is it, they don't mean harm they just see us a single group, which in many ways we are. -
57
A few friends of mine have made the move to Africa...
If you have ancestors who came from ITALY, regardless of melanin content, no, that would not be rayciss. Were there BLack italians? Sure, just ask Netflix 'bout Cleopatra. As for Wakandans, they can claim kinship to Septimius Severus. If you have no ancestors from the country in question, but are granted DEI points for skin color, well, dass rayciss, dawg. -
8
Trump and Elon Musk
The computing system error seems to be the source of the Social Security issue; of course cases of fraud will be found, but no where near on the scale suggested. Defence spending is an issue. The DoD has been told to make 10% cuts every year for the next 4-5 years, which will mean, based on projected GDP for the US, that at the end of Trumpf's term, the US will be spending about 1.5% of GDP (at most, because Trumpf expects his policies to far increase GDP far and above analyst projections) on defence, far below the NATO current target of 2.5%, and far below Trumpf's own stated target of 5% of GDP. But leaving defence spending at about 60% of its current level might be an acknowledgement of the dire asset control in the US military. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/ The DoD can't account for 60% of what it buys. If it can't account for where 60% of its tanks, those tanks might as well not exist. They've been p*ssing money up a wall, possibly resulting in the exageration of capabilities In Europe, the UK MOD is probably the largest defence organisation (even if it doesn't command the largest forces). Recent audits also reveal lost assets https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/machine-guns-ammunition-mod-reveals-list-of-almost-200-stolen-items But its paltry in comparison. So European militaries, organisationally much smaller, are leaner, and probably get more bang for buck. The EU states, which covers NATO, more or less (Cyprus and Ireland are not NATO members), has about 2 million full time troops, with a collective spend of $340 bn. That will round up to about $400bn with the UK, and its not including Norway and Switzerland (plus not including Canada). The US Defence budge is $850bn, so on paper, much bigger, and it is bigger. But 10% of that is maintaining the nuclear stockpile. But once you get past 500 nuclear warheads, who actually cares. I wouldn't like to live in a world where the UK and France have just spunked off the 500+ nuclear weapons they have. But accounting for a disproportionate nuclear arsenal, and assumed wastage rates, (and assuming far lower levels of corruption in European defence procurement), then the effective US defence spend is more like $460bn. Suddenly the defence spend gap is not so wide. Additionally, most European countries don't have anywhere as near non-NATO commitments as the US. If the new Defence Secretary does want to achieve the cuts in his ministry, he probably will want to talk to a few past UK Conservative Defence Secretaries to see how Options for Change worked out. When they entered it, it was all about smarter defence procurement, but that crystal ball gazing proved impossible, eg HMC Ocean. And defence cuts ultimately included firing men and women in uniform; not just the brass with their big pensions, and Captains/Majors who could easily segway into nice roles in the City, but it mean cutting a lot of NCOs; men in their 30s and 40s, sometimes 50s, who don't have skills that necessarily translate to civvie street (no, they don't all pick up gigs as PMCs in dusty parts of the world, many ended up in the manual trades, and frankly struggled until they qualified for pensions). sacking faceless bureaucrats is easy to get a big cheer in the bars of America, But its hard when you start firing people a week earlier you were calling "Brave Warriors", and greeting with the empty phrase "Thank you for your service". When the DoD is asking for 10% cuts, which ships get scrapped or sold off to some 3rd world despot? What Americans will wake up to is the realisation that the Cold War was a close run thing, much closer than they think. It was a contest of budgets, with both sides effectively bankrupting each other. Post Cold War, the European nations adjusted; the levels of spend were unsustainable. The GWO was a very bad thing for defence spending. We ended up with a lot of kit that is basically worthless. All those MRAPs developed for Afghanistan? Worthless. Until the Ukraine War, most were waiting their turn at the scrapyard. In reality, leaving all those armoured lorries in Afghanistan probably saved the US military money (The military estate that was over there was staggering, and the full pull out actually took 10 years). Those MRAPs were better than nothing for the Ukrainians, and certainly a step up from the 20 year old MOT failure L200s and Rangers being brought up on Ebay at the time). The Americans need to approach cuts very carefully, otherwise they might find themselves suddenly without an entire capability that will be hard or impossible to reaquire (eg CBRN, that's a one time only skill set). -
26
Being black in Thailand
I am quite well aware if someone is black, brown, brindle or white. I judge a person on how they interact with me. Treat me with respect, I return it. I have worked with a range of nationalities. The only ethnic group I have an antipathy towards is Arabs, based on my personal experiences with them. -
-
102
Trump
Phew! Thanks for debunking that for me. Silly old me, been thinking that Leticia James literally ran on a "Get Trump" platform, and after 8 years of the entire DOJ persecuting him to the extent of rifling Melanias panty drawers the best they came up with was to resurrect a long expired misdemeanor concerning a loan that was paid back in full over a decade ago and getting a porn start to sign an NDA and writing it down as a legal expense. Of course there were millions of other expired misdemeanors that got resurrected, not just Trump, right? So we know it was all legit?🤣 Jog on.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now