.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
1
BBC Rachel Reeves CV Investigation frequent exaggeration
Disgusting bag of blood and bone -
16
BREAKING NEWS Munich Car Ramming: 24 Year old Afghan Isylum Seeker. 28 Injured Some Critical
Note how the OP story never actually mentions the word "Islam". Most western countries run these stories as if the Religion of Peace did not exist. -
55
In Case You Missed it, the Tattoo Fad is Over
One of the best threads I've ever read on AN.👍 Thank you for your research and opinion.🤗 ( when I posted something similar about tattoos a year ago I received a lot of negative reactions. Maybe times are changing fast) ❤️ -
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
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
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