.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
2
The Times has obtained the complete transcript of a Labour Party WhatsApp group chat
The British government would better be entrusted to apes -
2
Snoopy Takes Flight: Pattaya's Kite Festival Soars in 2025
I thought the recent issue of too many people flying a kite on the beach had proven negative? -
106
BBC with a brutal takedown of Ukrainian hopes
What will happen if China "beats" the US (presumably over Taiwan)? The US wants to onshore chip production anyhow. Its about to probably slap huge tariffs on Taiwan anyhow. So sad of course for the Taiwanese, but life will go on. re NATO Aritcle 5 as of yesterday, given what the Fox announcer said to other defence leaders, is over. The North Atlantic Charter is consigned to the dustbin of history. It cuts both ways. Article 5 refers to operations north of the Tropic of Cancer. NATO members have no obligation it seems to return requests to help the US in its conflict with China over a country that makes lots of bicycles. In 2001, NATO members answered US calls for help. There was a NATO mission in Afghanistan. Some US troops were part of that, most were not. There are incidents of NATO troops being killed because those US troops outside of the NATO mission refused to help as they were spending all their time trying to find a Yemeni who was in Pakistan all along. That dichotomy reveals the issue about the US defence budget. Of course, European countries should spend a bit more, but for the last 80 years, the US has made sure that European countries couldn't arm themselves appropriately. Germany wasn't allowed to become a nuclear power. Maybe it should now. The US dictated NATO defence standards and interoperability, which really did reduce the capacity of the European defence industry. And then with NATO members buy US equipment at above market rates, the quality is sometimes shoddy, eg the fairly useless Naval version of the F35, which has caused enormous equipment delays. The unfriendly language used by the US leadership, directly threatening unprovoked military action against two NATO allies, suggesting it will allow Russia to attack other members, isn't really winning friends in defence procurement. The US is now seen as an unreliable ally, never to be trusted. So, European and Korean defence industries will benefit. US defence industry will lose, losing jobs in mostly red states Afghanistan illustrated the issue with US defence spending vis a vie NATO. Most NATO countries spend their defence budget in a collective European defence. France and the UK have a much reduced non-European role (the reason why NATO did not help the UK against the Argentinian right wing junta in 1982 was because the Falklands are a long way south of the Trpoic of Cancer). The US defence budget consists of giving away vast amounts of materiel to some pretty shonky countries, and then you lose much of it (Afghanistan, but you did much the same in Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Vietnam). You spend vaqst amounts of cash chasing mad mullahs around some desert. You have thousands of troops stationed for inexplicable reasons in Japan. You have lots sitting in South Korea, as you are pooing your pants over North Korea. You have troops who regularly pop up in Liberia, presumably because of the collective guilt you feel as a nation for exiling some of your former slaves to that disease riddled hellhole. There is a lot of activity by the US miitary that has nothing to do with Europe, and which artificially elevates the US defence spending, which is double the level, as a % of GDP of both the British and Roman empires at their peak. The US is very lucky, by an accident of geography, that it hasn't seen an invasion by a foreign power for 200 years. When the two greatest leaders of the 20th Century, Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, met on the USS Augusta, in 1941, they both agreed to these noble principles; Both countries agreed not to seek territorial expansion; to seek the liberalization of international trade; to establish freedom of the seas, to set international labour, economic, and welfare standards. a committment to supporting the restoration of self-governments for all countries that had been occupied during the war allowing all peoples to choose their own form of government 84 years on, the Germanic dunce in the Whitehouse has taken an enormous dump on that first principle, and the next, and the next. As for the fourth, he'd quite happily seem Americans consigned to sweatshops making $ t-shirts that are American made. He's selling Ukraine down the river, just like Chamberlain did -
1
Pattaya Cheers Potential Easing of Alcohol Sales Restrictions
So this campaign is to develop a culture of drinking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year? There are only about 3 dry religious holidays a year, and there doesn't seem to be a problem getting a drink between 2-5pm. Hasn't the 4am change yielded enough economic growth and prosperity....? -
201
Road Safety in Thailand – a summary of Perceptions and Reality
What makes others a drunk fortune teller and those who collect data right? What I, and others here have been saying, is that we haven't seen five bad drivers in a day but many. Do you remember when I said I counted 37 infractions in a 30 kilo drive, in the country, on the way to the nearest big city? 37 infractions that any cop in America would have pulled his ticket book out for. NO ONE'S said the whole population suffers from incompetency in driving. We have said many do, many more than we've seen in our own countries. This is what you seem to miss. Stats have shown this is a dangerous country to drive in, and we've known this for decades, and nothing's changed. You're calling others small minded when it's you that suffers from that malady. It is the driver first that is responsible for how they drive. Tests are given, roads are maintained, weather fluctuates, police don't enforce like they should. It still boils down to who's responsible first for accidents, and that's the driver. The attitude here, which you seem to dismiss, is that they think they can drive anyway they want because what will happen, will happen anyway. No thinking of taking precautions, just letting it fly. I think you need to leave your house once in awhile, because you can't see the forest for the trees. -
106
BBC with a brutal takedown of Ukrainian hopes
Does Trump have unlimited power?
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts