45 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Not sure it's a good idea to become a doormat either.

NATO is a defensive treaty. If Trump tore that up, it would get messier than even Iran.

According to this guy, Trump is catering mostly to the blue collar MAGA voting base, whose salaries have stagnated over the past several decades. So the trading policies that benefit these blue collar workers conflict with the optimal "international business" trading policies.

So although Trump may not be doing it for altruistic reasons, he is trying to implement policies to benefit the hard-working blue collar folks.

Although he concludes Carney made the right decision to protect its interests, Canada will take a blow.

Canada may pivot towards China.

But if a Democrat leader takes over after Trump, then things may change again.

Edited August 31Aug 31 by save the frogs

16 hours ago, Yagoda said:

the falkands are a remnant of the brutal imperialist british regime. all so called possessions of the european exploiters should be freed and reparations imposed

Yep,the brutal imperialist way we treated the sheep down there was deplorable .

7 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Your argument is not merely historically shallow; it is morally backwards. You describe the Falkland Islands as a “remnant” of British imperialism and demand that all supposedly European “possessions” be “freed”, as though the world were a children's morality play in which Europeans are permanently guilty, everyone else is permanently innocent, and the wishes of the people actually living in a territory can simply be discarded whenever they interfere with your preferred political narrative.

And this is where you might want to take a history lesson from an American rather more principled than yourself: Ronald Reagan. Reagan did not begin the Falklands crisis by blindly cheering Britain. His administration initially tried intensely to mediate between Britain and Argentina. Reagan personally spoke to both governments, sent Secretary of State Alexander Haig on his extraordinary shuttle diplomacy mission, and sought a peaceful settlement. But Reagan also understood something apparently beyond you: there is a moral difference between having a territorial dispute and settling that dispute through armed aggression. Argentina's military junta invaded the Falklands in April 1982. Reagan's administration immediately called for Argentine forces to withdraw and made clear its opposition to the use of force. And when diplomacy failed, Reagan did not hide behind your fashionable communistic anti-colonial rhetoric. He did not decide that Britain was automatically the villain because Britain was European. He did not decide that Argentina was automatically virtuous because it was Latin American. He looked at what had actually happened.

Argentina had used military force to seize territory whose population overwhelmingly wished to remain British.Reagan recognised that aggression cannot simply be rewarded because the aggressor has wrapped its territorial claim in the language of historical grievance.

By April 30, the Reagan administration had formally tilted toward the British position, suspended military and economic assistance to Argentina and imposed sanctions. The United States subsequently provided Britain with substantial military materiel and other forms of political, diplomatic and military assistance. Reagan himself articulated the principle with remarkable clarity: “armed aggression cannot be allowed to succeed in today's world.” That is what principle looks like.

Notice what Reagan didn't do. He didn't say: “Britain has an empire, therefore anything done against Britain is automatically justified.” He didn't say: “Argentina has a historical grievance, therefore its military junta has a moral blank cheque.” He didn't say: “The inhabitants of the Falklands are merely colonial remnants whose opinions can be ignored.” And he certainly didn't reduce an enormously complicated historical dispute to a cartoon in which one side possesses all the moral agency and the other possesses none. Indeed, Reagan later explicitly reaffirmed that self-determination applied to the people of the Falklands. That distinction matters enormously. But if you claim to care about freedom, you cannot simply erase the people who live there.

And Reagan understood that better than you apparently do.

There is a particularly delicious irony here. The person you, MAGA Commie, would probably expect to dismiss as an old-fashioned right-wing American imperialist actually displayed considerably more intellectual consistency on this question than your supposedly enlightened anti-imperialism does.

Reagan understood that opposition to imperialism does not mean opposition to Britain. He understood that historical grievances do not confer an unlimited right to use force. He understood that a territorial claim does not automatically override the wishes of the population concerned. And he understood that democratic self-determination cannot be treated as a principle that applies only when it produces the politically fashionable result.

That brings us back to your argument. You invoke “European exploiters” as though nationality determines moral legitimacy. It doesn't. If colonialism is wrong, colonialism is wrong. If conquest is wrong, conquest is wrong. If military aggression is wrong, military aggression is wrong. If the wishes of small populations matter, they matter even when those populations happen to have a British identity. You are a hypocrite, in your support for the murder happening in Ukraine.

A genuinely universal principle doesn't suddenly change depending on the flag involved. And since you are American, there is another rather awkward historical question you might want to contemplate before lecturing everyone else about imperialism. The United States itself has an extraordinarily complicated history of territorial expansion, indigenous dispossession, warfare, annexation and overseas power. You are perfectly entitled to criticise Britain—Americans are entitled to criticise anybody—but pretending that American history provides some immaculate moral vantage point from which to condemn the sins of other countries is absurd.

If historical guilt automatically invalidates modern sovereignty, you have just invented a principle capable of producing an absolutely enormous number of territorial claims against the United States itself. So perhaps the real question is whether you actually believe in a principle—or whether you simply enjoy applying historical morality selectively. Because your argument appears to operate according to a remarkably convenient formula:

British = imperialist.

European = exploiter.

Argentine claim = liberation.

Falkland Islanders' wishes = inconvenient.

American historical complications = apparently irrelevant.

That isn't serious anti-imperialism.

That is historical tribalism.

And the demand for “reparations” makes the argument even more intellectually unserious. Reparations are not a magic word that automatically transforms a disputed territorial claim into a moral crusade. Reparations require an identifiable injustice, identifiable victims, identifiable responsibility and a defensible mechanism of remedy.

So who exactly is supposed to receive these reparations?

The Falkland Islanders?

The people you simultaneously propose removing from the sovereignty they overwhelmingly prefer?

Argentina?

On what precise historical and legal basis?

Some other population?

Which one, and why?

Once you get beyond the slogan, the supposedly effortless moral certainty starts looking rather less impressive.

And that is ultimately the problem with your post: you have confused hostility toward Britain with a coherent philosophy of decolonisation.

Those are not the same thing.

You are perfectly entitled to dislike the British Empire. You are perfectly entitled to support Argentina's claim. You are perfectly entitled to believe Britain should negotiate over sovereignty.

But if you are going to invoke the sacred language of freedom, liberation and self-determination, you have to confront the people whose freedom and self-determination you are supposedly defending.

They have spoken.

You simply don't like their answer, MAGA Commie.

And that reveals rather more about your (im)morality than it does about theirs.

If this sort of argument is genuinely representative of contemporary American political discourse, then the troubling question isn't merely what happened to Britain's historical reputation. It is what has happened to American political culture when people can demand the political subordination of an entire population while simultaneously congratulating themselves for defending that population's freedom?

Because Reagan, whatever one's opinion of him on other matters, understood something elementary that seems to have escaped you: Self-determination is not the right to determine what other people should choose.

You invoke “European exploiters” as though nationality determines moral legitimacy. It doesn't.

If colonialism is wrong, colonialism is wrong. If conquest is wrong, conquest is wrong. If military aggression is wrong, military aggression is wrong. If the wishes of small populations matter, they matter even when those populations happen to have a British identity.

A genuinely universal principle doesn't suddenly change depending on the flag involved.

And since you are American, there is another rather awkward historical question you might want to contemplate before lecturing everyone else about imperialism. The United States itself has an extraordinarily complicated history of territorial expansion, indigenous dispossession, warfare, annexation and overseas power. You are perfectly entitled to criticise Britain—Americans are entitled to criticise anybody—but pretending that American history provides some immaculate moral vantage point from which to condemn the sins of other countries is absurd. If historical guilt automatically invalidates modern sovereignty, you have just invented a principle capable of producing an absolutely enormous number of territorial claims against the United States itself.

So perhaps the real question is whether you actually believe in a principle—or whether you simply enjoy applying historical morality selectively like your fellow MAGA Commies. Because your argument appears to operate according to a remarkably convenient formula:

British = imperialist.

European = exploiter.

Argentine claim = liberation.

Falkland Islanders' wishes = inconvenient.

American historical complications = apparently irrelevant.**

That isn't serious anti-imperialisms but effing historical tribalism.

And the demand for “reparations” makes the argument even more intellectually unserious. Reparations are not a magic word that automatically transforms a disputed territorial claim into a moral crusade. Reparations require an identifiable injustice, identifiable victims, identifiable responsibility and a defensible mechanism of remedy.

You have revealed yourself as a MAGA Communist. You are so far to the right, you have reached the left. You are now using the language of the extremist left, the Communists. I bet you hate free trade as well, commie. Reds under the bed. You are the real threat to the United State of America.

So who exactly is supposed to receive these reparations? The Falkland Islanders? The people you simultaneously propose removing from the sovereignty they overwhelmingly prefer? Argentina? On what precise historical and legal basis? Some other population? Which one, and why? Once you get beyond the slogan, the supposedly effortless moral certainty starts looking rather less impressive. And that is ultimately the problem with your post: you have confused hostility toward Britain with a coherent philosophy of decolonisation. Those are not the same thing. You are perfectly entitled to dislike the British Empire and be repeatedly supportive of Z-Russia and their ilk. You are perfectly entitled to support Argentina's claim. You are perfectly entitled to believe Britain should negotiate over sovereignty. Pity you don't apply the same <deleted> standards to your mates in Russia as they rape and murder their way across Ukraine. When are you joining their Holy War?

But if you are going to invoke the sacred language of freedom, liberation and self-determination, you have to confront the people whose freedom and self-determination you are supposedly defending. They have spoken. You simply don't like their answer.

And that reveals rather more about your morality than it does about theirs. If this sort of argument is genuinely representative of contemporary American political discourse, then the troubling question isn't merely what happened to Britain's historical reputation. It is what has happened to American political culture when people can demand the political subordination of an entire population while simultaneously congratulating themselves for defending that population's freedom? Because Reagan, whatever one's opinion of him on other matters, understood something elementary that seems to have escaped you: Self-determination is not the right to determine what other people should choose. It is their right to choose.

And if you cannot accept that distinction, perhaps the problem isn't that the Falkland Islanders haven't been liberated. Perhaps the problem is that you haven't got a scoobie what liberation means. Not surprising for a Ruscist.

Nice AI dumb. Same Reagan paragraph twice. Same “universal principle” block twice. Slogan-lists and a pile of childish insults.

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

That was purely a parental decision. I practised filial piety, as a good son should.

Sat your ass and let someone else go in your place.

It kind of explains your attachment to the draft dodger in chief.

16 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Maybe you're right actually.

Maybe Carney doesn't trust Trump at all.

Let's see how this plays out.

Carney making deals with China or the US bombing Canada.

Trump has less than ten weeks left of doing as he pleases.

The saving grace to all this is it very few people take this goon seriously anymore. You can only cry wolf a few 100 times and then people just start ignoring you, and calling you ignorant, ridiculous, moronic, a low IQ freak, and a combative snowflake warmonger, with a very fragile ego.

16 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Petard is a bomb......the word hoisted was used to convey the notion you would be blown upwards.

But I guess you knew all that.

I'm sure he does, he is after all, by his own admission a "published academic"; unwilling though to confirm what, when and by which institution he was published - apparently I am likely to "dox" him, whatever that may mean!

A"petard" was a late medieval concept, a barrel of gunpowder. The general idea was to run up to the gate of a besieged castle or town, place the barrel of gunpowder at the gate, light a short fuse, and run off. Not only was the running up to and away from a gatehouse an inherently risky act in itself, but the available "fuse technology" was somewhat dodgy. There was the risk of being blown up yourself - or, as you so succinctly explained, "hoist by your own petard"!

Edited August 31Aug 31 by JAG

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Trump is pulling away from NATO anyway.

But I really don't know to what extent it's hot air or what the probabilities are.

It's above my pay grade.

It's all hot air for Putin's benefit The US will be back in NATO in two years. After Trump is gone, the Russian compromat will be useless.

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

According to this guy, Trump is catering mostly to the blue collar MAGA voting base, whose salaries have stagnated over the past several decades. So the trading policies that benefit these blue collar workers conflict with the optimal "international business" trading policies.

So although Trump may not be doing it for altruistic reasons, he is trying to implement policies to benefit the hard-working blue collar folks.

Although he concludes Carney made the right decision to protect its interests, Canada will take a blow.

Advertisement

Canada may pivot towards China.

But if a Democrat leader takes over after Trump, then things may change again.

There is nothing altruistic about Trump. He is a greedy self serving thief. Nothing more.

2 hours ago, FinChin67 said:

What Trump is doing is simple. If you want American diplomatic cover then spend like an ally.

NATO target is 5%. Britain is crawling toward 2.7% and calling it a plan. UK is a freeloader but they seem to have unlimited funds to house and feed illegals. If I were british I would offload the illegals and use that money to pay NATO. Would be less stabby walks around neighborhood too.

Washington is saying the Falklands recognition is not a free gift while London cheapskates on defence and that is not a threat to invade Stanley. It is burden-sharing with consequences. About time.

UK should stop crying poor on NATO while finding endless money for hotels and meals for people who arrived(arrives) illegally. Cut that bill, fund the 5%, and the streets get quieter (and less stabby) too.

Maybe if America stopped getting itself into wars it seems unable to win, it could spend less itself.

18 hours ago, Yagoda said:

the falkands are a remnant of the brutal imperialist british regime. all so called possessions of the european exploiters should be freed and reparations imposed

Now what about Donald wanting to take over Greenland, Cuba, Venezuela ,and last but not least

Canada , so he is trying to be a modern day Imperialist and you agree with him because you are in

the cult and he is your dear leader.....what a hypocrite ...

regards worgeordie

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Maybe if America stopped getting itself into wars it seems unable to win, it could spend less itself.

Nice try. America spending less on its wars does not mean everyone else gets to spend less on theirs. That is not strategy.

That is still freeloading with extra steps.

15 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

It's all hot air for Putin's benefit The US will be back in NATO in two years. After Trump is gone, the Russian compromat will be useless.

The biggest Russian compromat has been the democratic party. The best useful idiots for China and Russia. Now Canada is joining that commie gang too.

15 hours ago, Cameroni said:

What Carney is doing certainly does not make economic sense. Job losses, a falling Dollar, recession, this is what he is gifting Canadians. It's bizarre. But then he did not do wonders for the UK either when was at the Bank of England. Maybe he's just incompetent and out of his depth.

Meanwhile Trump already secured the biggest oil deal in history with Venezuela and is already substituting Canada.

It won't stop his fan boys, who swoon when they hear Goldman Sachs, Harvard and Oxford, proclaiming Carney is a genius. Time will tell, lol. I rather doubt it.

"Meanwhile Trump already secured the biggest oil deal in history with Venezuela and is already substituting Canada."

Yeah, about that.....🤣

Edited August 31Aug 31 by BLMFem

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Carney is driving Canada into a recession, massive job losses and a falling Canadian Dollar.

You sure about that?

42 minutes ago, FinChin67 said:

The biggest Russian compromat has been the democratic party. The best useful idiots for China and Russia. Now Canada is joining that commie gang too.

Thanks for that insight Vlad.

6 minutes ago, gargamon said:

You sure about that?

Oh quite sure. Canada was in recession and lost over 100,000 jobs, there's a small rebound now, but the real pain is still coming.

Canada could lose 90,000 jobs to Trump’s 50% tariffs.

https://thehub.ca/2026/08/20/whats-at-stake-in-the-canada-u-s-trade-deal-how-looming-tariffs-could-cost-canada-90000-jobs/

3 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Thanks for that insight Vlad.

To refresh your memory here's some. Nothing unusual from a party who can't even describe what a woman is....

Uranium One-linked Clinton Foundation donations ~$4 million from remaining investors during/near deal window (bulk of larger $145M figure was earlier Canadian donor money) during/near deal window (bulk of larger $145M figure was earlier Canadian donor money)

Bill Clinton Moscow speech fee (Renaissance Capital) $500,000

Tony Podesta / Podesta Group lobbying for Sberbank ~$170,000

Clinton Foundation donations tied to Skolkovo participants from low hundreds of thousands (e.g., Vekselberg/Renova range $50k–$100k+; other partners varied)

Hunter Biden-linked entity payment from Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina about $3.5 million (to Rosemont Seneca entity; disputed whether Hunter personally received it)

Steele dossier / Fusion GPS funding (Clinton campaign + DNC) for opposition research paid via law firm (exact total not a single public “Russian payment”; FEC civil penalties ~$113,000 for reporting issues)

Joule Unlimited / Rusnano investment (John Podesta board role) little amount of.. $35 million Russian state-linked investment into the company

Other minor Clinton Foundation donations from Russian-linked figures (e.g., Skolkovo-related)

12 minutes ago, FinChin67 said:

To refresh your memory here's some. Nothing unusual from a party who can't even describe what a woman is....

Uranium One-linked Clinton Foundation donations ~$4 million from remaining investors during/near deal window (bulk of larger $145M figure was earlier Canadian donor money) during/near deal window (bulk of larger $145M figure was earlier Canadian donor money)

Bill Clinton Moscow speech fee (Renaissance Capital) $500,000

Tony Podesta / Podesta Group lobbying for Sberbank ~$170,000

Clinton Foundation donations tied to Skolkovo participants from low hundreds of thousands (e.g., Vekselberg/Renova range $50k–$100k+; other partners varied)

Hunter Biden-linked entity payment from Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina about $3.5 million (to Rosemont Seneca entity; disputed whether Hunter personally received it)

Steele dossier / Fusion GPS funding (Clinton campaign + DNC) for opposition research paid via law firm (exact total not a single public “Russian payment”; FEC civil penalties ~$113,000 for reporting issues)

Joule Unlimited / Rusnano investment (John Podesta board role) little amount of.. $35 million Russian state-linked investment into the company

Other minor Clinton Foundation donations from Russian-linked figures (e.g., Skolkovo-related)

How about this? This isn't about some small money .

AI Overview

Trump Tower Moscow was a proposed skyscraper project that never got built. [1]

The Project

• Donald Trump’s company tried to build a tower in Moscow starting as early as the 1990s.

• Plans included luxury condos, a hotel, and a spa.

• Talks picked up again in 2015 while Trump was running for president.

• His lawyer, Michael Cohen, signed a non-binding letter of intent with a Russian developer.

• The plans even floated a $50 million penthouse for Russian President Vladimir Putin to help market the building. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3 hours ago, Keeenok Powell said:

Yep,the brutal imperialist way we treated the sheep down there was deplorable .

And penguins, don't forget the penguins! The Falklands are full of them, and trump has already shown that he's more than happy to imposed tariffs on these insidious creatures.

Both the UK and Canada need to be on high alert. According to the US president the US military is fed so well they grow extra fingers!🤣

40 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

How about this? This isn't about some small money .

AI Overview

Trump Tower Moscow was a proposed skyscraper project that never got built. [1]

The Project

• Donald Trump’s company tried to build a tower in Moscow starting as early as the 1990s.

• Plans included luxury condos, a hotel, and a spa.

• Talks picked up again in 2015 while Trump was running for president.

• His lawyer, Michael Cohen, signed a non-binding letter of intent with a Russian developer.

• The plans even floated a $50 million penthouse for Russian President Vladimir Putin to help market the building. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Trump has been in the pocket of Russia for decades, laundering money for oligarchs. Eric said they were well financed through Russia. Trump bending over for Putin is blatant, Ukraine, Syria and revoking sanctions.

6 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Trump has been in the pocket of Russia for decades, laundering money for oligarchs.

Lol, try breaking the pills in half next time.

Are these people for real???

Are you seriously suggesting Trump is a Russian asset and has been laundering money for Abramovich?

Have you lost your mind?

16 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Both the UK and Canada need to be on high alert. According to the US president the US military is fed so well they grow extra fingers!

Good catch with the AI, but US military do probably eat better than most others.

2 hours ago, FinChin67 said:

Nice try. America spending less on its wars does not mean everyone else gets to spend less on theirs. That is not strategy.

That is still freeloading with extra steps.

Why does America need wars at all? Two oceans protecting it east and west, friendly ( or were friendly before Trump ) nations north and south. It's probably the safest place on the planet to be, in terms of invasion risk.

19 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Lol, obviously he could have negotiated better.

Carney is incompetent.

Trump is competent? One of your more ridiculous posts.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Why does America need wars at all?

Because the US still needs resources from around the world it cannot produce itself.

Apparently, Trump wants to make the Western hemisphere 100% self-sufficient, in which case the US will no longer need to be involved in any wars.

He's off to a bad start, fighting with Canada ...

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Trump is competent? One of your more ridiculous posts.

Well, Trump's country is not going down an abyss of recession, falling Canadian Dollar and mass layoffs any time soon.

Carney's is.

17 hours ago, Cameroni said:

What Carney is doing certainly does not make economic sense. Job losses, a falling Dollar, recession, this is what he is gifting Canadians. It's bizarre. But then he did not do wonders for the UK either when was at the Bank of England. Maybe he's just incompetent and out of his depth.

Meanwhile Trump already secured the biggest oil deal in history with Venezuela and is already substituting Canada.

It won't stop his fan boys, who swoon when they hear Goldman Sachs, Harvard and Oxford, proclaiming Carney is a genius. Time will tell, lol. I rather doubt it.

The oil deal with Venezuala will take years to implement, if it ever gets off the ground. The country's oil infrastucture is decrepit, and the oil majors that have the ability to get things up to speed are not going to be putting shareholder capital at risk of another nationalisation.

Edited August 31Aug 31 by Lacessit

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The oil deal with Venezuala will take years to implement, if it ever gets off the ground. The country's oil infrastucture is decrepit, and the oil majors that have the ability to get things up to speed are not going to be putting shareholder capital at risk of another nationalisation.

When it does, the US will have 65 billion barrels. It only imports 1.5 billion barrels from Canada each year.

Trump is showing Carney how it's done. Once US money and expertise gets those oil fields going, the US won't need Canadian oil. At all.

And how is Canada's drive to secure an alternative market for 70% of its exports going?

But yah, Carney, Harvard, Oxford, Goldman Sachs, me have man crush on Carney...lol...