Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Kisin makes a good points. 


 

 

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
10 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Kisin makes a good points. 


 

 

99hijx.jpg

Posted
11 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I'm pretty sure no one (relevant) would have blamed her for not doing it, it was her choice to do so. Why did she do it? Likely because she THOUGHT it would be a popular move.

No doubt the same reason for divesting Germany from nuclear power.

Posted
Just now, DKTanker said:

No doubt the same reason for divesting Germany from nuclear power.

Yes, totally coincidentally after Fukushima. 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

No doubt the same reason for divesting Germany from nuclear power.

Indeed, a disaster for Germany and Europe, on top of the double disaster for Japan. Many politicians (and media) at the time went on the anti-nuclear bandwagon.

As for Trump, besides tariffs he also seems to be hostile to the EU in general. Not only does he place it at the same (rival) level as China in some speeches/tweets, he encouraged the Brexit and Nigel Farage was involved in his campaign. Given that he also seems to be hostile to NATO and has invited - or threatened to invite - Putin to invade more European states, he seems to be hostile to Europe in general.

He says lots of things and actual policy may be different, but he seems very transactional in practice so if Putin's proposals interest him and/or the other businessmen around him more than what the EU does, he may throw Europe under the bus in practice.

In that case, Europe will probably have to improve relations with China, though they would first try to stay on speaking terms with Trump.

Edited by Wouter2
Posted

A lot of Europeans fail to understand the Trump phenomenon. Perhaps something in the water...

Posted

Perhaps a correlation could be established between the ability of enjoying Clarkson, May, and Hammond in Top Gear and the immunity to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Posted

I personally don't think there will be that much of a difference trade wise. Lower or eliminate money going to the Ukraine as this is Europe's tarbaby and Europe has the capability to do this.   

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Rick said:

I personally don't think there will be that much of a difference trade wise. Lower or eliminate money going to the Ukraine as this is Europe's tarbaby and Europe has the capability to do this.   

Not Europe, but the UK. Boris Johnson was not the President of the EU, but the PM of the UK.

Let Stuart fix the consequences of his war.

Edited by sunday
Posted
2 minutes ago, sunday said:

Not Europe, but the UK. Boris Johnson was not the President of the EU, but the PM of the UK.

Let Stuart fix the consequences of his war.

Yes, Boris Johnson was absolutely instrumental in Ukraine rejecting what would essentially have been vassalization, right after they handed Russian northern group's asses back to them.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, sunday said:

Perhaps a correlation could be established between the ability of enjoying Clarkson, May, and Hammond in Top Gear and the immunity to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Hmmm.....

🤔

That has some merit...

Posted
4 hours ago, rmgill said:

Hmmm.....

🤔

That has some merit...

If only :(

Based on my circle, which is clearly a perfect sample and fit to make global extrapolations from. Even setting aside Trump as personally divisive, I'd have to say the set of people who like HM&C includes most conservatives, but the set of people who are not conservative contains many people who like HM&C. 

I wouldn't like to put numbers to it, but I'd guess the correlation with politics is at best a second order function.   

Posted

So increased likelihood or propensity? 

Posted
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So you're saying Europeans expect Trump to prioritize Ukraine higher, and that he sabotaged plans for a European army?

 

No, 3rd as in low on priority. Several Republicans and including Trump have bluntly stated to end the war in the Ukraine quickly with the nuance of making a deal with Putin, which means Russia making big gains.

In the other side of the US (some Democrats, other Republicans, "deep state") as well as much of Europe want to continue the war Why.. one of or both of two reasons. One, to grind at Russia as much as possible and let Ukraine get in a better position before entering negotiation. The other is the "forever war" that benefits the defense indusdry in their investors. 

So the Europeans that want to continue supporting Ukraine are primarily for that first reason. So that conflicts with Trump.

Now what Trump and other Republicans in Trump's sub-camp within the party said has been during campaign season. And it's been Trump's style to setup up the lead way to negotiations with that kind of ball squeezing rhetoric. But if a deal is done, then things are quite smooth sailing. And the deal may not necessarily be so lopsided. I think many Europeans don't work with this style well and as mentioned before, some Europeans don't seem to understand Trumphism and why it came about. They are still charmed by Obama's style I guesd, so way behind the times.

 

For "European Army", it hasn't entered any serious kind of planning but more as an idea the European side stated as mostly part of the back and fourth rhetoric between Europe and Trump.

Posted

So far:

Tariffs on Europe.

NATO opposition rhetoric.

Euro-army opposition.

Anti-EU sentiment.

Transactionalism could favor Putin.

Asked Putin to invade European nations.

Ukraine low priority for Trump.

Trump favors deal with Russia. Europeans favor war of attrition.

Trumpy diplomacy doesn't translate well in Europe.

 

 

 

Posted
9 hours ago, sunday said:

Not Europe, but the UK. Boris Johnson was not the President of the EU, but the PM of the UK.

Let Stuart fix the consequences of his war.

No, its your war.

Because people like you were extolling not arming Ukraine, not doing anything to deter Putin, when it was clear Putin was rearming for war.

Why dont you take credit, you got what you wanted, an aggressive Russia that everyone is too scared to face up to. Nice one, your utterly unsound policies really paid off.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So far:

Tariffs on Europe.

NATO opposition rhetoric.

Euro-army opposition.

Anti-EU sentiment.

Transactionalism could favor Putin.

Asked Putin to invade European nations.

Ukraine low priority for Trump.

Trump favors deal with Russia. Europeans favor war of attrition.

Trumpy diplomacy doesn't translate well in Europe.

On this list, can anyone try to rank each from 1-10 based on how serious this issue is to you?

Posted
10 hours ago, Rick said:

I personally don't think there will be that much of a difference trade wise. Lower or eliminate money going to the Ukraine as this is Europe's tarbaby and Europe has the capability to do this.   

Why? Why it Europes tarbaby anymore than Poland was Europes tarbaby? Or for that matter, why is it that you dont want any share of our tarbaby, when Eruope spent 20 years fumbling with yours in Afghanistan? You folks say Europe doesnt carry its weight, maybe you should cast an eye on the Afghan casualty lists one day. That is of course if that kind of thing interests you at all.

For 25 years ive had on this grate site Americans pointing to Neville Chamberlain and Britains role in starting WW2. Very well, Ill take that on the chin. So whats bailing your country out from its responsiblity of sitting on its hands when Ukraine could have been saved? Why are you above the fray, what makes you country so special that you can allow Democracies to go under the wheel with zero fucks given? Why exactly are you so precious about sending military equipment that, another 5-20 years from now is going to be fodder for the scrapman or parked outside a VA center? What exactly, we Europeans want to know, is the exact sodding problem here? Pride, or cynicism dressed up as wisdom?

For a Christian Rick, I suggest you go back and read the section in the bible about the Good Samaritan.  if you wouldnt stand idly by when you see a man lying in the gutter after being mugged, or a woman getting gang raped, why do you suddenly think its ok when its a nation of 40 million people you are abandoning? What precisely  makes Ukraine less worthy of saving than Israel, which you have stood behind in every fray with an unlimited line of credit?

And that is why I dont get involved in these kind of discussions on the FFZ anymore. Because im truly tired of trying to talk sense into people that really are old enough and wise enough to know better than reguritate this 'fuck you jack, im alright' bullshit. 

I truly cannot work out what the fuck is the matter with you people. You remind me of the French before WW2, and we all remember how well THAT turned out.

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Euro-army opposition.

This is not a Trump position, but a US position.

Europe must pay to have a US general in charge of its armed forces and to act as a sepoy of US interests worldwide. This is the US understanding of NATO, which is why they get all worked out about Europe not doing its part when only US interests are involved and why they forget NATO involvement in Afghanistan.

Posted
4 hours ago, Argus said:

If only :(

Based on my circle, which is clearly a perfect sample and fit to make global extrapolations from. Even setting aside Trump as personally divisive, I'd have to say the set of people who like HM&C includes most conservatives, but the set of people who are not conservative contains many people who like HM&C. 

I wouldn't like to put numbers to it, but I'd guess the correlation with politics is at best a second order function.   

I mean, one could honestly disagree with Trump policies without falling in that irrational, personal hate characteristic of TDS.

Posted

I have posted the casualty lists time and again about Afghanistan. This doesnt even include the wounded. Britain alone took 7000 wounded, a combination of battle and non battle injuries. No matter how many times, they keep reposting 'Europe isnt carrying its weight, screw Europe'. Well, here they are again. And next time an American calls a European for not doing enough, reflect how many Americans are not in a VA hospital and crippled for life, because Europeans were dumb enough to jump on board the GWOT. This is stupid according to Trumps understanding of the word. Losers would be another one I would guess. Heroes would be my choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png USA: 2,461*
23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png UK: 457
23px-Flag_of_Canada_%28Pantone%29.svg.pn Canada: 159*
23px-Flag_of_France.svg.png France: 90
23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany: 62
23px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png Italy: 53
23px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png Poland: 44[2]
20px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png Denmark: 43
23px-Flag_of_Australia_%28converted%29.s Australia: 41
23px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png Spain: 35*
23px-Flag_of_Georgia.svg.png Georgia: 32
23px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png Romania: 27
23px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png Netherlands: 25
23px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png Turkey: 15
23px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png Czech Republic: 14
23px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png New Zealand: 10
21px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png Norway: 10
23px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png Estonia: 9
23px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png Hungary: 7
23px-Flag_of_Sweden.svg.png Sweden: 5
23px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png Latvia: 4
23px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png Slovakia: 3
23px-Flag_of_Finland.svg.png Finland: 2
23px-Flag_of_Jordan.svg.png Jordan: 2
23px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png Portugal: 2
23px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png South Korea: 2
21px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png Albania: 2
23px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png Belgium: 1

23px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png Bulgaria: 1
23px-Flag_of_Croatia.svg.png Croatia: 1
23px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png Lithuania: 1
23px-Flag_of_Montenegro.svg.png Montenegro: 1

TOTAL: 3,621

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

None of this means America has to repay its debt. But It does follow that America's problems are Europes problems too. Is it really that much imagination to see the reverse? Israel hasnt fought on America's side since 1948, yet every time America will always jump to its aid, every damn time. Unlimited line of credit, never a moments debate about that. How many times has Europe been America's loyal deputy since 45? And what exactly are we getting out of the deal here, other than being written off as suckers of the hind tit?

Would it help if I posted up the casualty lists for the Korean war and Desert Storm, Iraq? Would it make any difference? Of course not. Because these arguments are articles of faith, not of reality. Dragging reality into a Trump argument is a surefire way to start a dumpster fire.

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Israel hasnt fought on America's side since 1948

That's just false on so many levels.

Between 1948-1991, Israel was probably the overall most active front of the cold war. Even decades before it received an ounce of American support, it was fending off Arab armies under Soviet influence.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Israel was a top contributor in the GWOT, and today it's pretty much standing alone against one of the Axis powers - Iran.

You're ignoring the fact that between 1948 and 2024 there have been 76 years, and in those years Israel has fought more wars than any other country - all in line with US interests.

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Unlimited line of credit, never a moments debate about that.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/harris-says-she-backs-bidens-withholding-of-2000-pound-bombs-from-israel/

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...