very good indeed. Well-played, Sir

I disengage, I turn the page.

<iframe =sec

[Tweet Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The number of people in the US who would fight is vastly reduced from say twenty years ago. We can see that in the polls on patriotism.

There really has been a sea change and it's not just for generational reasons. But that's another discussion albeit largely pointless as it's a done deal thanks to the left and economic right.

Nato without the US is essentially pretty weak. What it comes down to is how realistic you think the threats are to us in terms of our interests and obviously invasion.....even though that's unrealistic for various reasons.

Problem is that we have a lot of money pumped into convincing the public that we are in a fight of good v evil so that they can justify their actions.

Something they do with just about with anything.

But to go back to your original question.....If Britain and wider Europe were being run by less careerists and by those more interested in the long term we would be concentrating on the original Nato mission, which was a strong northern Europe alliance.....US/France/Germany.....I'm adding Germany because for obvious reasons they weren't a part of that equation.

Not reducing military budgets to pathetic 2 percent levels and living in this fantasy world where wide scale war never happens again so you don't need traditional militaries. That should have never happened until Russia was a functioning part of Europe....but again, due to several reasons after the Berlin wall fell...in my view, that wasn't the route pursued in good faith.

But no one gets held accountable even though they could be....instead we get directed to hiss and boo like it's a simplistic Punch and Judy show...that's because that's all most people are capable of or interested in.

But after 91 they decided on Nato expansion and ultimately decided on keeping the friend/enemy distinction with Russia while hiding behind America.....who stick their bases up everybody's arse. We have been a client state since WW2 and there needs to be more honesty about it.

The arguments against expansion were made decades ago and lost and frankly we are seeing the consequences of bad decisions down the pipe. As Wilde once said, 'the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.'

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Sep 2023 11.46pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yep, social liberalism is anti nationalism (unless it serves their purpose ie Ukraine) and egaritarian...the latter in my view a noble but very flawed set of principles that mostly don't work and which inevitably result in feminism and thus anti masculinity.

Social statistics decline across the board.....but most people become socially acclimatised to decline and just accept the dross they are fed.

Unless the mainstream media are screaming about something they don't look up and the MSM are mostly bought and sold and hence essentially only represent their wealthy owner's view.....or in the BBC's case, for example, the views of the near exclusively liberal employees it employs in its own image.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2023 12.10pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It’s a yes or no answer !

According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr he may run as something other than a Democrat due to the Democrat's underhand actions against him.

Can't see that benefiting the Democrats really....unless you believe certain things...

[Tweet Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)