Because The United Kingdom?

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Mistral said:

And I thought you were against countries being occupiers... 

Please dont ever change!

So what you are saying is, we should have abandoned our former Colonies to Communism because reasons. Yes\No\Other?

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

France didn't "own" Vietnam.  The idea of colonial empires post WW2 was absurd adventurism.  But, for Germany, at least all that nonsense was outside Europe, not inside NATO.  Now, it's inside Europe because NATO has expanded eastwards into a new wild frontier  right on Russia's doorstep.  This is good for Germany...because why?

The original members of NATO in Central and Western Europe were not and are not of the same political character of the new members of Eastern Europe.  NATO today is far less stable than it was to begin with because the alliance has pushed past its point of natural equilibrium, into regions that are more turbulent by nature, (Balkans, Asia Minor, Eastern Europe).  The price of sailing the boat into stormy seas is the bad weather.  

You think the Ukrainians were pouring money into the bank account of an imbecile the likes of Hunter Biden because he's a world class artist and brilliant CEO, do you?

 

 

 

Yes it did, it was a colony. Why do you think Ho Chi Minh was ticked off? So as Mistral here, you think we should have abandoned Malaya to the Communists? It's hypocritical to rail against Imperialism and imply you are happy about them becoming communist colonies.

So what you are saying is, you were wrong about the Netherlands and Denmark dominating NATO? hmm.

NATO was NEVER stable. See the arguments with West Germany over nuclear doctrine, the French kicking NATO out of France, the arguments about ERM, the arguments about what to do about SS20 and the Euromissile dispute. The arguments between UK and the Americans over Star Wars, and the subsequent arguments about a unified Germany in Nato, the Russian withdrawal and the much of Eastern Europe.

If anything, NATO is arguably far more stable today than it was in the 1980s.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Mistral]

50 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So what you are saying is, we should have abandoned our former Colonies to Communism because reasons. Yes\No\Other?

 

So is Algeria French territory now under foreign occupation?  Granted the French lost it when they were weak, but surely you would support them if they decided that they should get it back right?  By force if necessary.

Cyprus was under Communist threat in 1955 -1959?

As I said, never change.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, Mistral said:

So is Algeria French territory now under foreign occupation?  Granted the French lost it when they were weak, but surely you would support them if they decided that they should get it back right?  By force if necessary.

Cyprus was under Communist threat in 1955 -1959?

As I said, never change.

 

All these states, rightly or wrongly, were part of Empires. Having gained independence there is no desire on anyone's part to go back and change it. Equally whilst being parts of Empires, those Empires had a perfect right at the time to try to retain them, in much the same way as America stomped on the Confederates, or India subsequently stomped on the Tamil Tigers.

For example, Eire. It exists, and nobody would dispute it's right to exist. Equally it would be fairly odd to say that the British crown did not have a perfect right at the time to try and retain it post WW1, it being a national territory. I can see both sides of that argument being both British and Irish. 

Glenn says that fighting for Empires post was pure adventurism, apparently of no significance to European security. My response is that is a view wholly in retrospect, and it was not clear to any of the Empires postwar. Besides, even if it was, many of those wars of nation liberation were immediately conflated in wars of Communist subversion, particularly in Africa. If we were not fighting colonial wars, we would have been fighting communist groups in them anyway.

That was at least  part of the reason we were fighting Irgun, we believed, wrongly, that because many of recent migrants were former Soviet citizens, and certainly some of the Jewish leadership were Socialists, they would inevitably go communist. We were wrong, but there was some evidence the Soviets were trying to make it so.

Yes, clearly the picture is far more murky in Cyprus where we were facing a Greek nationalist insurgency. But again, the context for Britain retaining bases can be seen in the context of the Cold War. We retain a listening post on Troodos to this day, and Akrotiri was important to CENTO, because it hosted 2 squadrons of Vulcans, it's sole nuclear capability.

Even Suez, usually portrayed as the last gasp of Empire  can also be seen in the context of keeping the Soviets out and Arab nationalism under control. But also, there was a large airbase the British retained solely for Strategic Air Command B50s to operate out of in war against the USSR. It was quite amusing, the Americans badgering to retain the bases, but also refusing to help us stay. And soon they were hosting Soviet maritime bombers against the US 6th Fleet  anyway.

Another example, the Belgian Congo, particularly the breakaway province of Katanga. Portrayed as solely a struggle of Belgian Imperialism, then African Nationalism. It was also about Cold War superpower control of what was then the world's largest Uranium mine. Vitally important to the Americans, it provides the Uranium for the Manhattan project.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkolobwe#:~:text=Shinkolobwe%2C or Kasolo%2C or Chinkolobew%2C or Shainkolobwe%2C is,Manhattan Project. It was officially closed in 2004.

Clearly then, what Glenn and the US state department wanted to see as purely wars of national liberation were increasingly being conflated in the wider cold war, and clearly of interest to NATO members, even those that didn't have any Empires. 

But don't take my word for it, listen to this podcast. Some of the players in the African national struggles were by turns working for the British Special Branch, the CIA, the KGB, whilst also being African nationalists. 

 

 

[Mistral]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, clearly the picture is far more murky in Cyprus where we were facing a Greek nationalist insurgency. But again, the context for Britain retaining bases can be seen in the context of the Cold War. We retain a listening post on Troodos to this day, and Akrotiri was important to CENTO, because it hosted 2 squadrons of Vulcans, it's sole nuclear capability.

So the insurgency was not Communist, was fighting to unite Cyprus with Greece, a NATO member, and the British were fighting it because they wanted to strengthen NATO???

Get off your high horse, you might fall and get injured.

[sunday]

14 minutes ago, Mistral said:

So the insurgency was not Communist, was fighting to unite Cyprus with Greece, a NATO member, and the British were fighting it because they wanted to strengthen NATO???

Get off your high horse, you might fall and get injured.

Then there is Gibraltar...

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Mistral said:

So the insurgency was not Communist, was fighting to unite Cyprus with Greece, a NATO member, and the British were fighting it because they wanted to strengthen NATO???

Get off your high horse, you might fall and get injured.

 I'm saying you want a binary answer and life is complicated. We fought these wars for many reasons, not just the selfish excuse of imperialism as you insist. Yes, there was some of that too, but also fear of losing influence. There were other concerns. See 'Fighting WW3 from the Middle East' by Michael J Cohen. As he highlights,there were fears of a Soviet invasion of the Middle east, and Britain felt it had to remain to deter it. Cyprus was a key part of that policy. As said, part of CENTO, but I seem to recall they also planned to use its ports to compensate for the loss of  Port Said. 

Besides, having finally got reunited with Greece, Greece then became a military dictatorship. Cypriots then subsequently lost half the Island to Turkey, and the resulting border is guarded by UN troops, mostly provided by Britain to this day. I'm sure that's just imperialism on our part too.

Why don't you open a book or listen to a podcast? You might look at the world differently.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So what you are saying is, we should have abandoned our former Colonies to Communism because reasons. Yes\No\Other?

What was it you were saying about Hong Kong? Pretty sure you abandoned your former colony and citizens/subjects to communism. If your own citizens are not a hill to die on, why is Kiev? 

Edited January 26, 2022 by rmgill

[Mistral]

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

What was it you were saying about Hong Kong? Pretty sure you abandoned your former colony and citizens/subjects to communism. If your own citizens are not a hill to die on, why is Kiev? 

Well, consistency in opinions in not one of his strong points😂

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

What was it you were saying about Hong Kong? Pretty sure you abandoned your former colony and citizens/subjects to communism. If your own citizens are not a hill to die on, why is Kiev? 

Pretty sure we touched on that one ad nauseum, but if you insist on digging up a corpse.

1 We could only have held onto half of the city, the half without any of the water treatment facilities. We were obligated by treaty to hand that over. Do a basic search on wikipedia, you will find all the information on that in 5 minutes, if of course you have a mind to, which I get the impression you dont. You dont have to be a fan of sim city to know what a city without water rapidly turns into.

2 China was a major ally at the time. Of us, and of the United States. You remember im sure your Richard Nixon going to China? 

3 I dont recall anyone in the United States saying we SHOULD hold onto it, being they were an important ally. In fact, go and find a comment by that ardent anticommunist Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher that we shouldnt hand it over. Do you have one to hand?

4 I wait the answer how a garrison of several thousand men was going to hold off a nation of over a billion people without the support of our major ally, the United States, if we had decided to be good imperialists and given them the finger. And it would be without them. If you won't stand heel to heel with the Taiwanese, I dont see your state department lining up alongside the Redcoats.

 

And yes, though you choose to pretend otherwise, America were major allies of the PRC. In the early 1980's as we were negotiating the hand over of the Colony to the PRC, Ronald Reagan was making this visit to the PRC.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/reagan-visits-china

First lady Nancy Reagan accompanied her husband to China, along with approximately 600 journalists, a slew of Secret Service agents and, according to BBC reports, officials who guard the codes for launching nuclear missiles. The Reagans toured historical and cultural sites in Beijing and attended a dinner in their honor hosted by Xiannian.

Reagan’s trip highlighted his administration’s desire to improve diplomacy with China in light of the growing economic relationship between the two nations. Other topics of discussion between the two leaders over the course of the six-day trip included the development of commercial nuclear power in China and China’s displeasure with continuing U.S. support for nationalists in Taiwan.

Oh look, there he is shaking hands with Premier Zhao.

 

And here he is on the Great Wall of China. Bless me, he really did get on well with them.

 

 

And despite your assertion, the people of Hong Kong were not abandoned. We have enhanced the ability of Hong Kong citizens to settle in the UK, a point you completely ignored. 3 Million of them. I bet your mate Nigel Farage was really pleased about that.

https://en.mercopress.com/2020/07/02/britain-will-allow-three-million-hong-kong-citizens-to-move-to-the-uk

 

Right back at you sweets. So why did you abandon Vietnam to the Communists? And how can you take a stance on being butch about defending Kiev, when you pull out of Afghanistan with such unsightly haste?

 

3 hours ago, Mistral said:

Well, consistency in opinions in not one of his strong points😂

Relying on a big brother to try to win your arguments for you, that IS very consistent.

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

Are the 3 Million residents of HK able to leave? Would China allow it?

 

Is Ukraine more easily defended than HK? Are the military size differences any less unbalanced?

And I guess the UK should be taking its marching orders from Biden. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by rmgill

[futon]

Zhao really was a reformer type. For that time, in the 80s, it was worth having Reagan give it a go with Zhao. After Tianemein Square massacre and nationwide crack down, Zhao was put into house arrest. There was no obvious reformer type again in such high position. But despite that, China got the WTO permit in year 2000. Zhao was still in house arrest.. and remined there until his death in 2005.

[glenn239]

20 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So what you are saying is, you were wrong about the Netherlands and Denmark dominating NATO? hmm.

Never said Denmark dominated NATO.  I said that original NATO had quiet, stable, non-dramatic members like Denmark.  Now, it's expanded itself into a world of endless drama, in the Balkans and Eastern Europe where the grudges go back centuries.

[glenn239]

18 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Glenn says that fighting for Empires post was pure adventurism, apparently of no significance to European security.

Bismarck once pointed at a map and said, 'Here's France, here's Russia, and there's Germany right in the middle.  That's my map of Africa".

[bd1]

On 1/26/2022 at 3:03 AM, glenn239 said:

  Worse, many of them are more corrupt and more than willing to throw illicit money around for influence, and the Western political system itself has probably become more corrupt and susceptible to cash for policy deals. 

quite a claim here. could you show some examples where corrupt new members have thrown money in nato?

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, bd1 said:

quite a claim here. could you show some examples where corrupt new members have thrown money in nato?

An example would be Hunter Biden's relationship with Ukrainian firms such as Burisma.  I doubt the Ukrainians were throwing money at him because he was an asset to the board.

Edited January 27, 2022 by glenn239

[DKTanker]

7 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

An example would be Hunter Biden's relationship with Ukrainian firms such as Burisma.  I doubt the Ukrainians were throwing money at him because he was an asset to the board.

What you say may be true however, with regard to Ukraine, not a member of NATO and essentially thrown under the bus by the Big Guy.

[bd1]

38 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

An example would be Hunter Biden's relationship with Ukrainian firms such as Burisma.  I doubt the Ukrainians were throwing money at him because he was an asset to the board.

what DK said, are you even  aware that ukraine is not a new member of nato /eu

[Stuart Galbraith]

45 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

An example would be Hunter Biden's relationship with Ukrainian firms such as Burisma.  I doubt the Ukrainians were throwing money at him because he was an asset to the board.

 

What Hunter Biden did may well be corruption. Alright, let's be generous to the Americans here, it is corruption. But answer me this. If that money was to get Ukraine in Nato, then why is it not in Nato? More to the point, can you point to them giving money to the other 29 nations they would require to agree for them to join? No. In actual fact it's the other way. We are giving them weapons  Trudeau was giving them money. 

You know, I do this not to be pedantic, or be annoying.I do it because Tanknet was once a place where people didn't pull made up facts out their ass and pretend it's reality. I realise it's only the FFZ, but please Glenn, never go full Siebel Ferry.

 

Meanwhile, back in reality, or  what passes for it these days.

 

 

 

 

 

[glenn239]

40 minutes ago, bd1 said:

what DK said, are you even  aware that ukraine is not a new member of nato /eu

If you're asking for specific examples of corruption in NATO countries, just google Hunter Biden with the country in question.  IFor example, I tried Hunter Biden Romania first and this popped up,

 Romanian tycoon hired Hunter Biden, ex-FBI chief to avoid jail: emails (nypost.com)

In terms of overall corruption levels, here,

 Corruption Rank by Country (tradingeconomics.com)

Is the rank by nation.   Original Nato averages about 26th spot, and if we ignore the most corrupt 3, (Italy, Greece, Turkey,), the core group averages an impressive 15th spot.  The post-Soviet NATO expansion list averages about 58th spot.  Of course, that's slightly skewed because East Germany was absorbed into West Germany, so figure probably a bit higher.  The overall NATO rank drops to 40th with the expansion.

You will notice that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will be the most corrupt member of NATO.

Edited January 27, 2022 by glenn239

[glenn239]

29 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 More to the point, can you point to them giving money to the other 29 nations they would require to agree for them to join? No. In actual fact it's the other way. We are giving them weapons  Trudeau was giving them money. 

There's been rumors swirling for decades about former PM Brian Mulroney and Air Bus.   Here, it's a google page,

  Airbus affair - Wikipedia

With NATO, the armaments contracts are a huge boon to Western arms manufacturers, shutting out non-Western competitors.  With Ukraine, when they upgrade their air force that will be a lucrative contract and if Ukraine is in NATO, Lockheed would have the edge.  But if Ukraine is in the Russian sphere, then Sukoi probably gets the nod.   NATO means pretty much a lock on military contracts.

Edited January 27, 2022 by glenn239

[bd1]

glenn , you really are drinking Fiebel Sherry.

a corrupt REAL ESTATE businessman , not goverments as you hinted. 

and, by your logic, estonia, with place 17. , raised NATO collective rating quite bit.....

you have 8300 posts here. their quality is such that..... do you understand how much e-pollution you do? 🙂

think of the polar bears

[glenn239]

20 minutes ago, bd1 said:

glenn , you really are drinking Fiebel Sherry.

a corrupt REAL ESTATE businessman , not goverments as you hinted. 

and, by your logic, estonia, with place 17. , raised NATO collective rating quite bit.....<snip>...

 

The reason why it's called a 'corruption perception index'  is because tracking actual corruption, bribes, favors, etc, is virtually impossible to do.  But sure, tell me more how adding Rumania in 69th place has done wonders to make NATO less corrupt.

No, Estonia could not raise the NATO bar because with Estonia came Latvia at 42nd place and Lithuania at 35th place.  Still, the Baltic States are not bad.  Ukraine, OTOH,  is the most corrupt member ever even discussed in theory for NATO, with the exception of Russia, (which was never a serious consideration on either side).   (Georgia has also been discussed as a member in the past, and it's at 45th place, slightly worse than the NATO average now).

Edited January 27, 2022 by glenn239