1) fellow parliamentarians in the SNP claiming that they didn’t know Forbes views are bollocks. She has been pretty clear on them, in actions and in print over the years.
2) the issue seems to be that some people believe that religious beliefs are a separate kind of belief. Others (such as my self do not). To me, being against gay marriage for religious reasons is identical to being against gay marriage for any other intellectual reason.
One aspect that isn't being explicitly mentioned is the tension between actual beliefs, the beliefs of the religion and public perception.
So you have people who don't believe in the non-progressive bit of their religion, but can't say so.
In Catholicism, it is common to find Catholic who are fine with abortion, gay marriage etc. Publicly expressing such would probably stuff your chances at being made a bishop, but your co-religionists would probably not comment.
Other religions are not so forgiving. Expressing those views would get you marked as an apostate or heretic.
So part of the reason for people believing that religion should be different, is that people have to hide their views.
Interesting how Equal Marriage has gone from highly controversial to simply beyond the Pale to oppose in little over a decade. There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against. Will this become an issue at General Election time?
Seems to be only an issue if running for leader of a leftish political party. It would be interesting to see how it played out if someone like Rees Mogg tried to become Conservative leader (please no).
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
Interesting how Equal Marriage has gone from highly controversial to simply beyond the Pale to oppose in little over a decade. There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against. Will this become an issue at General Election time?
The speed with which this has happened is astonishing.
In the UK, from the end of Section 28 to gay marriage took 11 years. And some countries such as RoI have traversed an even longer path just as quickly.
Everyone under 30 just regards this as perfectly fine -- wtf, shrug of the shoulders, no probs.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
Russia have completely backed off from the nuclear rhetoric in recent months after the Chinese told them to rein it in. A mystery to me why there are those on pb.com still hyping it as a scenario.
I don't think anyone is "hyping" it, actually.
I said it was perhaps a 5 per cent chance. Of course, I hope your reading of the situation is right.
Suits out, jeans in: offices get casual about dress codes
The days of City gents in bowler hats and women in power suits are a thing of the past. An increasing number of companies are getting rid of formal dress codes for their office workers, research has found.
After more than two years spent working remotely in loungewear during the pandemic, suits, shirts and A-line skirts are out as many businesses have switched to a more casual dress culture, according to an analysis by the job search website Adzuna.
Out of 3,663 jobs advertised this month, four in five specified a dress code that took a “relaxed” attitude to what employees could wear to work.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The US is spending a lot of money on munition production ramp up, right now
The stuff we are sending to Ukraine (UK) is as much about manoeuvring to replace worn out and obsolete systems as it is aid. Many of the famous NLAWS were approaching their sell buy date.
The AS90s should have been scrapped long ago. The Challenger tanks should have been replaced equally long ago.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
It is indeed David , very popular in our house as well, also like their one with chilli's.
Delicious. I also recommend Hafod.
I once went to a restaurant in Cambridge and at the end of the meal was served a platter of what was claimed to be 4 Scottish cheeses. One was Hafod (the other 3 were genuinely Scottish).
The manager had to put up with me complaining that they did not the difference between Wales and Scotland for an hour or so.
Any recommendations for Scottish cheese?
That’s nothing. I once ordered an English Muffin in America and it was absolutely clear as soon as it arrived the damn thing had not been anywhere near England. I got into a gunfight with the manager. And don’t get me started on Mr Kipling and his so-called “French” Fancies. I’m banned from Sainsbury’s over that one.
I trust you used .303 for your gunfight, not some ghastly colonial pleb 0.223?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
Russia have completely backed off from the nuclear rhetoric in recent months after the Chinese told them to rein it in. A mystery to me why there are those on pb.com still hyping it as a scenario.
"Look, old chap, threatening to blow up our customers is not really the thing. I'm afraid if you don't tone it down, I will have to speak to the Committee."
At the end of his career just how much higher than Sir Donald Bradman's test average will be Sir Harry Brook's test average?
Interesting that he started off at a grammar school and then was headhunted by Sedburgh.
Is that a thing now in English cricket?
Yup, only private schools have the resources to sustain youth cricket teams.
Mike Atherton did a piece that by 2030 he expects all England age groups to be privately educated.
Which is leading to some people in state education seeing cricket as elitist.
Had a comic one, with someone from the council.
They were objecting to a rowing club charity offering free rowing coaching (as a charity) to state schools locally. Because rowing is elitist. What was amusing was trying to explain that the way to make it less elitist was to broaden the background of the participants entirely went past this person.
Apparently, to them, pulling on an oar makes you a posho. And nothing could change that....
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
I think that's not a totally unreasonable position, though it does leave places like Moldova and Georgia under threat.
It also raises the question - what is the best way to ensure NATO unity in the future?
Ensure that a) it appeals to self interest; b) it recognises obligations to allies; and c) that it has a social license.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
Not at present, no. And we are not at war.
But there are scenarios where we might need to get more involved - and hopefully these won't happen. For instance, a nuclear or serious chemical/biological weapon attack on Ukraine would be one of my red lines, in addition to NATO.
But when you say NATO: what would you think and do if Russia made a grab for Moldova via Transnistria? Ignore it?
Interesting article on Boris of a year ago when the invasion happened. For all his faults, he was right on Ukraine and his actions may have helped prevent Ukraine from being defeated early on.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Might not be too long until the idea of erecting towers to relay mobile phone signals will seem as quaint as Marconi towers.
Almost certainly not. Due to power/signal strength constraints, even when Starship/Super Heavy is online, the costs of terrestrial towers will be less.
The satellite text thing will be a useful fill in and safety aid.
One thing that is changing, rapidly, is backhaul. That is, what the tower connects to. In countries with poor infrastructure, building the cable system to connect the cell towers to the rest of the world is extremely expensive. This is what OneWeb and Starlink are targeting increasingly.
Imagine a cell tower in the middle of nowhere. Batteries and some solar cells provide the power. The tower takes your call and sending it over satellite.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Just saw a copy of the Telegraph - under the main story on Ukraine it has a headline that begins: "Queen joins Dahl debate..."
Two immediate thoughts: 1. The Queen is dead - is this an old paper? 2. What's the debate about (e.g.) lentil-based Indian dishes?
I guess I need more coffee (which, fortunately, is what I was going to fetch at the time).
I've not seen Camilla referred to as 'The Queen' a great deal, so that still doesn't click for me. I'd also forgotten about the Roald Dahl controversy.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
Not at present, no. And we are not at war.
But there are scenarios where we might need to get more involved - and hopefully these won't happen. For instance, a nuclear or serious chemical/biological weapon attack on Ukraine would be one of my red lines, in addition to NATO.
But when you say NATO: what would you think and do if Russia made a grab for Moldova via Transnistria? Ignore it?
Is Moldova a NATO member?
No, as you well know. But it is close to some weak NATO members; and Transnistria is part of Moldova, which is very close to Romania.
So to make to it clear: if Russia went after Transnistria and Moldova, you'd ignore it?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
I think DA has?
Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.
But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
@OnlyLivingBoy was certainly talking about considering it, IIRC.
Interesting article on Boris of a year ago when the invasion happened. For all his faults, he was right on Ukraine and his actions may have helped prevent Ukraine from being defeated early on.
“There was a war in mainland Europe and people were getting questionnaires about parties,” one aide working for Mr Johnson at the time told i. “It was a baffling time, we had those two things going on.”
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
One of my friends who lives on her own is hosting a Ukrainian refugee. I have supported both a Ukrainian student and a Russian academic to get out. I am trying to get my anti-war ex-Russian student out now.
But, nonetheless PB is a rich demographic. The next tub-thumper should consider what he or she is doing to allay the suffering that this stupid war is causing.
And I have zero respect for very wealthy tub-thumpers in California with large doorsteps.
More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and are being offered medical treatment, especially in the US—but some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
One of my friends who lives on her own is hosting a Ukrainian refugee. I have supported both a Ukrainian student and a Russian academic to get out. I am trying to get my anti-war ex-Russian student out now.
But, nonetheless PB is a rich demographic. The next tub-thumper should consider what he or she is doing to allay the suffering that this stupid war is causing.
And I have zero respect for very wealthy tub-thumpers in California with large doorsteps.
A relative of my Russian stepmother is trying to avoid conscription. He is totally pro-war, apart from not wanting to fight in it.
The problem is getting him near to somewhere like Finland so he can cross the border. Which comes down to bribes.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
One of my friends who lives on her own is hosting a Ukrainian refugee. I have supported both a Ukrainian student and a Russian academic to get out. I am trying to get my anti-war ex-Russian student out now.
But, nonetheless PB is a rich demographic. The next tub-thumper should consider what he or she is doing to allay the suffering that this stupid war is causing.
And I have zero respect for very wealthy tub-thumpers in California with large doorsteps.
The suffering that this stupid war is causing only stops when the stupid Russian President who started it and is the only one who has the power to end it takes his troops back to Russia.
Or are you saying I'm not allowed to have that opinion if I don't put up a Ukrainian refugee?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
The PB Toy Soldiers love the strategy, but not the reality, of war.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
I think DA has?
Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.
But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.
"tub-thumpers"?
Many people like to do things, such as give to charities, without publicising it or themselves. Just because I, or others, do not go on here saying how we are helping, does not mean we are not doing anything.
Why should we seueak?
And as an aside, being vocally against the war is also something.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
I think DA has?
Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.
But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.
"tub-thumpers"?
Many people like to do things, such as give to charities, without publicising it or themselves. Just because I, or others, do not go on here saying how we are helping, does not mean we are not doing anything.
Why should we seueak?
And as an aside, being vocally against the war is also something.
And tub thumping for giving away chunks of other peoples countries for peace is a position. What are the moral requirements for that?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
I think DA has?
Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.
But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.
"tub-thumpers"?
Many people like to do things, such as give to charities, without publicising it or themselves. Just because I, or others, do not go on here saying how we are helping, does not mean we are not doing anything.
Why should we seueak?
And as an aside, being vocally against the war is also something.
And tub thumping for giving away chunks of other peoples countries for peace is a position. What are the moral requirements for that?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
The PB Toy Soldiers love the strategy, but not the reality, of war.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
One of my friends who lives on her own is hosting a Ukrainian refugee. I have supported both a Ukrainian student and a Russian academic to get out. I am trying to get my anti-war ex-Russian student out now.
But, nonetheless PB is a rich demographic. The next tub-thumper should consider what he or she is doing to allay the suffering that this stupid war is causing.
And I have zero respect for very wealthy tub-thumpers in California with large doorsteps.
The suffering that this stupid war is causing only stops when the stupid Russian President who started it and is the only one who has the power to end it takes his troops back to Russia.
Or are you saying I'm not allowed to have that opinion if I don't put up a Ukrainian refugee?
Who is disallowing you from having that opinion or expressing it? Whoever they are they seem to be making a crap job of it.
Rule of 2023, everyone on the internet is one post away from claiming they’re being silenced.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
One of my friends who lives on her own is hosting a Ukrainian refugee. I have supported both a Ukrainian student and a Russian academic to get out. I am trying to get my anti-war ex-Russian student out now.
But, nonetheless PB is a rich demographic. The next tub-thumper should consider what he or she is doing to allay the suffering that this stupid war is causing.
And I have zero respect for very wealthy tub-thumpers in California with large doorsteps.
The suffering that this stupid war is causing only stops when the stupid Russian President who started it and is the only one who has the power to end it takes his troops back to Russia.
Or are you saying I'm not allowed to have that opinion if I don't put up a Ukrainian refugee?
I don't know your personal circumstances so I really can't comment.
However, pb.com often descends into bragging_about_sex_and_shopping_and_secondhomes.com.
So, we know there are bellicose PB-ers with second homes ....
Not really suitable, and we are thinking of selling, blah, blah.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
OK so you agree with the principle that it is sometimes worth risking nuclear war to face down nuclear blackmail. It's just a question of where you draw the line.
GBS: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds? Actress: My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it. GBS: Would you sleep with me for a pound? Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?! GBS: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Might not be too long until the idea of erecting towers to relay mobile phone signals will seem as quaint as Marconi towers.
The point of Non-Terrestrial Networks is to fill in gaps where masts cannot be deployed, and that primarily means at-sea, in remote areas, and in rare circumstances such as emergencies. They are not intended to form the backbone of a cellular network, they are intended to fill in some gaps by providing a low-capacity additional service.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
Trying to remember, but I think that one PB-er actually did purchase a second property which is occupied by Ukrainian refugees.
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
One of my friends who lives on her own is hosting a Ukrainian refugee. I have supported both a Ukrainian student and a Russian academic to get out. I am trying to get my anti-war ex-Russian student out now.
But, nonetheless PB is a rich demographic. The next tub-thumper should consider what he or she is doing to allay the suffering that this stupid war is causing.
And I have zero respect for very wealthy tub-thumpers in California with large doorsteps.
The suffering that this stupid war is causing only stops when the stupid Russian President who started it and is the only one who has the power to end it takes his troops back to Russia.
Or are you saying I'm not allowed to have that opinion if I don't put up a Ukrainian refugee?
Who is disallowing you from having that opinion or expressing it? Whoever they are they seem to be making a crap job of it.
Rule of 2023, everyone on the internet is one post away from claiming they’re being silenced.
Seems to be the logical conclusion of the argument being put forward by our resident Welsh poet.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
The PB Toy Soldiers love the strategy, but not the reality, of war.
And the PB peaceniks don't care how many furrin innocents die just so they can appear morally superior. "Look, I want peace! (At least, peace for a couple of years until Russia does it all again...) Aren't I superior!"
See, we can all do it...
Why not just admit that almost all of us are trying to find the 'best' way out of an incredibly difficult and precarious situation, and one which the bad actors actively react to our actions? We're also trying to *understand* the situation as it evolves.
I think that's where most posters are coming from, even if I disagree with them.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
Not at present, no. And we are not at war.
But there are scenarios where we might need to get more involved - and hopefully these won't happen. For instance, a nuclear or serious chemical/biological weapon attack on Ukraine would be one of my red lines, in addition to NATO.
But when you say NATO: what would you think and do if Russia made a grab for Moldova via Transnistria? Ignore it?
Is Moldova a NATO member?
No, as you well know. But it is close to some weak NATO members; and Transnistria is part of Moldova, which is very close to Romania.
So to make to it clear: if Russia went after Transnistria and Moldova, you'd ignore it?
I would employ my swarm of highly trained killer bees to head off the T-80s.
It is bizarre how you seem to enjoy making up these "what if" scenarios to try, presumably, to comfort yourself that in your mind you are second to no one in opposing the Russian actions.
Go and knock yourself out. Ask me inch by inch what I would do if the Fifteenth Shock Army marches towards West Cambourne.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
I think DA has?
Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.
But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.
Mrs DA deserves any credit that's going. She's the one doing most of the hard emotional labour of dealing with two traumatised teenagers. And fixing their teeth.
I do enjoy having them around though and do my limited best to help them.
And the PB peaceniks don't care how many furrin innocents die just so they can appear morally superior. "Look, I want peace! (At least, peace for a couple of years until Russia does it all again...) Aren't I superior!"
See, we can all do it...
Why not just admit that almost all of us are trying to find the 'best' way out of an incredibly difficult and precarious situation, and one which the bad actors actively react to our actions? We're also trying to *understand* the situation as it evolves.
I think that's where most posters are coming from, even if I disagree with them.
Besides that, it's really not remotely complicated. The people of Ukraine wish to fight to liberate their country from Russian occupation. We should support that. If the same people wish to settle with Russia, we can support them in that as well. But it's their choice, not ours, all they are asking for is help, which we should give.
By Mr Meeks's high standards this is desultory, thin, tin eared and wrong.
Two standouts: On the whole evangelicals do not try to impose their views on others any more than other interest groups, and much less than, say, Stonewall or trans lobbies.
A personal vote for X (for example against abortion, or gay marriage) which is obviously a personal conscience matter makes no difference to being a leader as long as you are a democrat. Otherwise it would be impossible for most Roman Catholics and Muslims to be in high office.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
OK so you agree with the principle that it is sometimes worth risking nuclear war to face down nuclear blackmail. It's just a question of where you draw the line.
GBS: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds? Actress: My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it. GBS: Would you sleep with me for a pound? Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?! GBS: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Absurd analogy. If someone tries to break into your house, frankly I wish you all the best but I am going to do nothing about it. If someone tries to break into my house I will take more direct action.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
Not at present, no. And we are not at war.
But there are scenarios where we might need to get more involved - and hopefully these won't happen. For instance, a nuclear or serious chemical/biological weapon attack on Ukraine would be one of my red lines, in addition to NATO.
But when you say NATO: what would you think and do if Russia made a grab for Moldova via Transnistria? Ignore it?
Is Moldova a NATO member?
No, as you well know. But it is close to some weak NATO members; and Transnistria is part of Moldova, which is very close to Romania.
So to make to it clear: if Russia went after Transnistria and Moldova, you'd ignore it?
I would employ my swarm of highly trained killer bees to head off the T-80s.
It is bizarre how you seem to enjoy making up these "what if" scenarios to try, presumably, to comfort yourself that in your mind you are second to no one in opposing the Russian actions.
Go and knock yourself out. Ask me inch by inch what I would do if the Fifteenth Shock Army marches towards West Cambourne.
Oh lordy. Yes, I think a lot of "what if?" scenarios; usually ones that are realistic. Why? Because they're USEFUL; because they INFORM my judgement (*). I don't think the scenarios I give are particularly stupid.
Short to the point and definitely correct. If your personal views trump the requirements of the job you aren't suitable for the job (of First Minister).
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
The PB Toy Soldiers love the strategy, but not the reality, of war.
Just like the PB Toy Appeasers?
Do I qualify as a PB Toy non-Appeaser if I shout the odds and bang on about various bits of military kit using all the right terminology and declare on an internet chatroom about how I will never rest until Putin is kicked back to 2014 borders?
Although he may not be in as small a minority when it comes to tattoos and children on airplanes….
I really dislike tattoos, and always have. I don't find them attractive in the least. But I see my dislike as my problem, not that of the person with tattoos.
As an aside, I vaguely know a lady who has some wonderful tattoos. A few years ago she had cancer, and she has a small tattoo put on her arm on the anniversary of her all-clear.
And the PB peaceniks don't care how many furrin innocents die just so they can appear morally superior. "Look, I want peace! (At least, peace for a couple of years until Russia does it all again...) Aren't I superior!"
See, we can all do it...
Why not just admit that almost all of us are trying to find the 'best' way out of an incredibly difficult and precarious situation, and one which the bad actors actively react to our actions? We're also trying to *understand* the situation as it evolves.
I think that's where most posters are coming from, even if I disagree with them.
Besides that, it's really not remotely complicated. The people of Ukraine wish to fight to liberate their country from Russian occupation. We should support that. If the same people wish to settle with Russia, we can support them in that as well. But it's their choice, not ours, all they are asking for is help, which we should give.
Indeed so. Though it does call to mind what Sir Humphrey said about foreign affairs: "All the press, the people and their leaders want to know is who are the goodies and baddies." And in this case, it's blindingly obvious.
It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.
My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.
It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.
My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
So they can do what they want in the rest of the world then?
And why are we getting the nuclear rhetoric now? There is zero possibility of the west starting a nuclear war with Russia. The chances of the opposite are harder to assess but Russia has done nothing to prepare its nuclear arsenal since last year. Fairly obvious that no-one will tolerate it and so it would only be an option as revenge for total defeat. Is the Kremlin suicidal? I doubt it. And we deal with the nuclear risk from, say, North Korea all the time.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
The PB Toy Soldiers love the strategy, but not the reality, of war.
Just like the PB Toy Appeasers?
Do I qualify as a PB Toy non-Appeaser if I shout the odds and bang on about various bits of military kit using all the right terminology and declare on an internet chatroom about how I will never rest until Putin is kicked back to 2014 borders?
Maybe just reduce the level of abuse, generally?
It's all "Toy" stuff on here.
Mind you, there was that drone project I wrote some code for - well, actually reviewed code.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
If Ukraine had fallen carousing to the original Russian plan - complete takeover and carve up, I think it is quite certain that the Baltics would have been next up.
As a number of the anti-war types were saying, here.
Their point was either that accepting the Baltics into NATO was a terrible idea, since they couldn't be defended, or that we should concentrate on defending them.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
The PB Toy Soldiers love the strategy, but not the reality, of war.
Unqualified support for Britain's role in this conflict no matter what the cost is one of the shibboleths of PBdom. It's one of those things like I mentioned yesterday where we don't make the connection (this time for politeness' sake) between cause and effect, the cause being the war, the effect that we are being bled dry and grannies are freezing. Whilst someone at the NATO press office wanks themselves to a stump about being Harry Potter.
Thanks for that; interesting. I think that if one goes back to before the Mongols what we now know as Ukraine was the civilising influence on the relatively barbarous tribes to the North and East!
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
The War is actively benefitting the US economically.
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
I think DA has?
Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.
But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.
I'm struggling to think who these people are. I know Sandpit has a second home, but since that is in Ukraine it can't be who you're thinking of.
I wasn't aware of any of the other strong supporters of Ukraine having second homes, excepting one.
It will be interesting to see how an openly right wing, socially conservative, SNP get on.
I am not sure that Forbes is "openly right wing". She was the Finance Minister in Nicola's Socialist republic after all. I suspect that she will continue with things like the baby box and the "free" nonsense but there is little doubt that her government would not be activist in progressive social policy in the way this one has been. Which is why Nicola has mobilised her troops to destroy her, of course. Her promise to stay neutral in the contest lasted less than a week, which in fairness is quite a long time for one of Nicola's promises.
I think Forbes' political interests are the economy and social justice. Despite all the nonsense about discrimination against practising Christians I don't think she is particularly interested in cultural issues either way.
She's pretty much the SNPs version of Gordon brown.
SNP leadership nominations to close Ash Regan is joining the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon today. Assuming no one else decides to jump in before nominations close at midday, she will be facing Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf, who are also running for the party’s leadership.
The Edinburgh Eastern MSP has the support of about 7% of SNP voters as the race starts, according to a poll released on Friday. As she launches her campaign, she gas intimated she wants to let groups who worked for the wider Yes movement in the run-up to 2014 take the lead on independence, while the Scottish government focuses on running the country.
She has accused her colleagues in the SNP of failing to listen to such groups.
SNP leadership nominations to close Ash Regan is joining the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon today. Assuming no one else decides to jump in before nominations close at midday, she will be facing Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf, who are also running for the party’s leadership.
The Edinburgh Eastern MSP has the support of about 7% of SNP voters as the race starts, according to a poll released on Friday. As she launches her campaign, she gas intimated she wants to let groups who worked for the wider Yes movement in the run-up to 2014 take the lead on independence, while the Scottish government focuses on running the country.
She has accused her colleagues in the SNP of failing to listen to such groups.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
At the end of his career just how much higher than Sir Donald Bradman's test average will be Sir Harry Brook's test average?
I’d be very surprised if it is. Though delighted. Note Bradman was only fifth on the list of runs scored in first nine test innings (now sixth). Continuing to score at that level throughout a modern test career, though not impossible, is improbable.
It will be interesting to see how an openly right wing, socially conservative, SNP get on.
I am not sure that Forbes is "openly right wing". She was the Finance Minister in Nicola's Socialist republic after all. I suspect that she will continue with things like the baby box and the "free" nonsense but there is little doubt that her government would not be activist in progressive social policy in the way this one has been. Which is why Nicola has mobilised her troops to destroy her, of course. Her promise to stay neutral in the contest lasted less than a week, which in fairness is quite a long time for one of Nicola's promises.
I think Forbes' political interests are the economy and social justice. Despite all the nonsense about discrimination against practising Christians I don't think she is particularly interested in cultural issues either way.
She's pretty much the SNPs version of Gordon brown.
But with much better presentational skills.
I agree she’s not interested in the cultural stuff - if she got in the deal with the Greens would go and GRR would get punted into the long grass to come up with a solution that meets the needs of all interested parties, not just one group. I suspect the Deposit scheme would also be “reviewed”. Forbes seems to see demonstrating competent government which focuses on voters priorities as a key step to independence
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
SNP leadership nominations to close Ash Regan is joining the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon today. Assuming no one else decides to jump in before nominations close at midday, she will be facing Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf, who are also running for the party’s leadership.
The Edinburgh Eastern MSP has the support of about 7% of SNP voters as the race starts, according to a poll released on Friday. As she launches her campaign, she gas intimated she wants to let groups who worked for the wider Yes movement in the run-up to 2014 take the lead on independence, while the Scottish government focuses on running the country.
She has accused her colleagues in the SNP of failing to listen to such groups.
SNP leadership nominations to close Ash Regan is joining the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon today. Assuming no one else decides to jump in before nominations close at midday, she will be facing Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf, who are also running for the party’s leadership.
The Edinburgh Eastern MSP has the support of about 7% of SNP voters as the race starts, according to a poll released on Friday. As she launches her campaign, she gas intimated she wants to let groups who worked for the wider Yes movement in the run-up to 2014 take the lead on independence, while the Scottish government focuses on running the country.
She has accused her colleagues in the SNP of failing to listen to such groups.
Finally tried ChatGPT. In the least surprising news of the day, the PB Myth fails to live up to the reality.
I tried some pretty basic stuff. Decent quality of copyrighting but absolutely chockablock full of huge factual errors.
Would be impossible to use without serious human input although could be useful for structuring pieces at speed for those who struggle to write well.
It is rather like having a naive, inexperienced assistant who is very good at copy and paste.
In programming, it can generate volumes of bad code - sometimes works, but needs serious testing. For boilerplate converters etc, powerful, but dangerous. Because that is where you want accuracy.
Interesting how Equal Marriage has gone from highly controversial to simply beyond the Pale to oppose in little over a decade. There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against. Will this become an issue at General Election time?
The speed with which this has happened is astonishing.
In the UK, from the end of Section 28 to gay marriage took 11 years. And some countries such as RoI have traversed an even longer path just as quickly.
Everyone under 30 just regards this as perfectly fine -- wtf, shrug of the shoulders, no probs.
It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.
My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.
Yes, good article, Alanbrooke.
Agreed. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of Alanbrooke's recent articles even where I have not entirely agreed with every aspect of them. A very welcome addition to the contributors.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
A number of PB posters were saying in the run up to the war that if Russia conquered Ukraine, it would expose the Baltics to Russian pressure, and that since they couldn't be defended, letting them into NATO was a mistake.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
It would be equally fair to characterise your stance as “we must give Putin Ukraine in order to prevent nuclear war”.
You rightly note Robert was engaging in moral rhetoric, but you’re doing much the same yourself. You’re not addressing the logical arguments he was making alongside that rhetoric.
At the end of his career just how much higher than Sir Donald Bradman's test average will be Sir Harry Brook's test average?
I’d be very surprised if it is. Though delighted. Note Bradman was only fifth on the list of runs scored in first nine test innings (now sixth). Continuing to score at that level throughout a modern test career, though not impossible, is improbable.
Improbable quite an understatement! Of those still active with more than 25 innings only Kane Williamson is within half of Bradman's average. No player with more than 25 innings, past or present is within two thirds of his average.
At the end of his career just how much higher than Sir Donald Bradman's test average will be Sir Harry Brook's test average?
I’d be very surprised if it is. Though delighted. Note Bradman was only fifth on the list of runs scored in first nine test innings (now sixth). Continuing to score at that level throughout a modern test career, though not impossible, is improbable.
Worth noting that for almost two-thirds of his Test career Bradman's average was lower than his final career average. That feels like an unusual profile to a career, but, who knows?
Finally tried ChatGPT. In the least surprising news of the day, the PB Myth fails to live up to the reality.
I tried some pretty basic stuff. Decent quality of copyrighting but absolutely chockablock full of huge factual errors.
Would be impossible to use without serious human input although could be useful for structuring pieces at speed for those who struggle to write well.
It is rather like having a naive, inexperienced assistant who is very good at copy and paste.
In programming, it can generate volumes of bad code - sometimes works, but needs serious testing. For boilerplate converters etc, powerful, but dangerous. Because that is where you want accuracy.
I wonder how good it is at outputting assembler? My guess would be terrible for anything of any consequence.
It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.
My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.
The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
It would be equally fair to characterise your stance as “we must give Putin Ukraine in order to prevent nuclear war”.
You rightly note Robert was engaging in moral rhetoric, but you’re doing much the same yourself. You’re not addressing the logical arguments he was making alongside that rhetoric.
Thank you for characterising my stance. You have not done so without error of omission, though. Because that is the UK's stance also. And the US's. And NATO's.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
Says the poster who thinks others want to die in a nuclear apocalypse.
Interesting how Equal Marriage has gone from highly controversial to simply beyond the Pale to oppose in little over a decade. There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against. Will this become an issue at General Election time?
The speed with which this has happened is astonishing.
In the UK, from the end of Section 28 to gay marriage took 11 years. And some countries such as RoI have traversed an even longer path just as quickly.
Everyone under 30 just regards this as perfectly fine -- wtf, shrug of the shoulders, no probs.
One of the children…. 14 year-olds….. in one of my granddaughter’s classes apparently felt ‘he’ was a girl, wore makeup etc. The girls tolerated ‘him’, the boys apparently ignored him.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
Finally tried ChatGPT. In the least surprising news of the day, the PB Myth fails to live up to the reality.
I tried some pretty basic stuff. Decent quality of copyrighting but absolutely chockablock full of huge factual errors.
Would be impossible to use without serious human input although could be useful for structuring pieces at speed for those who struggle to write well.
That's because it's trained on the entirety of the internet, which is (repeat after me, class) not perfect as a source of flawless information.
But it highlights the risks and benefits of copying something from the pile of stuff that's already been written or drawn. If my living depended on making up new stuff, the sheer amount of old stuff that can be instantly accessed and remixed, I'd be worried.
But a large chunk of that problem has been there for a while- remember that company that did out-of-copyright classic literature for a pound?
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
Says the poster who thinks others want to die in a nuclear apocalypse.
LOL
Other posters on here do want to die in a nuclear apocalypse. I had a lengthy discussion with one such not so long ago who wanted their family and themselves to die in a nuclear apocalypse who received, IIRC, not a few "likes" for their posts.
It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.
My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.
The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
What are you less far fetched scenarios ?
What, less far fetched than had Ukraine fallen, Moldova been invaded, Europe re-armed, and Trump won the last presidential election or seized it by insurrection?
We are a betting site and deal in numbers all the time. What do you suppose the probability of that sequence of events should be.
A less far-fetched scenario would me being eaten by a shark in my bath this evening.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.
Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
Says the poster who thinks others want to die in a nuclear apocalypse.
LOL
Other posters on here do want to die in a nuclear apocalypse. I had a lengthy discussion with one such not so long ago who wanted their family and themselves to die in a nuclear apocalypse who received, IIRC, not a few "likes" for their posts.
Takes me back to my youth; better dead than red. Personally I took the opposite view.
In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?
We would be rapidly arming ourselves to the teeth, in anticipation of an attack on the Baltic states.
Putin's Western fanboys would be urging us to throw him the Baltic states.
An attack on the Baltic states would cross a red line for Poland, who would send soldiers into Kaliningrad, regardless of what the rest of NATO did.
The world would be a much more frightening place than it is right now.
I think the Chinese 12 point peace plan could be a useful framework and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It would require rigour on point 1 on sovereignty with the other points fudged for face saving. It might seem a sick joke for Russia to claim "legitimate security concerns" given what it has done to Ukraine, but if it brings an earlier end to this horrible war while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty, it could be worth playing along.
It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.
My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.
The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).
But then what?
Korean border style thing? We could hope....
It's the best hope I can think of, and to be hoped for on that basis, but that doesn't make it good.
Comments
1) fellow parliamentarians in the SNP claiming that they didn’t know Forbes views are bollocks. She has been pretty clear on them, in actions and in print over the years.
2) the issue seems to be that some people believe that religious beliefs are a separate kind of belief. Others (such as my self do not). To me, being against gay marriage for religious reasons is identical to being against gay marriage for any other intellectual reason.
One aspect that isn't being explicitly mentioned is the tension between actual beliefs, the beliefs of the religion and public perception.
So you have people who don't believe in the non-progressive bit of their religion, but can't say so.
In Catholicism, it is common to find Catholic who are fine with abortion, gay marriage etc. Publicly expressing such would probably stuff your chances at being made a bishop, but your co-religionists would probably not comment.
Other religions are not so forgiving. Expressing those views would get you marked as an apostate or heretic.
So part of the reason for people believing that religion should be different, is that people have to hide their views.
https://unherd.com/2022/02/kyiv-will-rise-again/
The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.
Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.
Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.
In the UK, from the end of Section 28 to gay marriage took 11 years. And some countries such as RoI have traversed an even longer path just as quickly.
Everyone under 30 just regards this as perfectly fine -- wtf, shrug of the shoulders, no probs.
I said it was perhaps a 5 per cent chance. Of course, I hope your reading of the situation is right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgShcXoqHcU
The stuff we are sending to Ukraine (UK) is as much about manoeuvring to replace worn out and obsolete systems as it is aid. Many of the famous NLAWS were approaching their sell buy date.
The AS90s should have been scrapped long ago. The Challenger tanks should have been replaced equally long ago.
Not sure about that beigey brown suit, shirt & tie combo tbh.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/24/new-mobile-puck-will-allow-smartphones-to-send-texts-via-satellite
Might not be too long until the idea of erecting towers to relay mobile phone signals will seem as quaint as Marconi towers.
Had a comic one, with someone from the council.
They were objecting to a rowing club charity offering free rowing coaching (as a charity) to state schools locally. Because rowing is elitist. What was amusing was trying to explain that the way to make it less elitist was to broaden the background of the participants entirely went past this person.
Apparently, to them, pulling on an oar makes you a posho. And nothing could change that....
https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-war-room-russia-ukraine-putin-2170253
It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.
Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.
Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.
I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1629006531827040258?s=20
The satellite text thing will be a useful fill in and safety aid.
One thing that is changing, rapidly, is backhaul. That is, what the tower connects to. In countries with poor infrastructure, building the cable system to connect the cell towers to the rest of the world is extremely expensive. This is what OneWeb and Starlink are targeting increasingly.
Imagine a cell tower in the middle of nowhere. Batteries and some solar cells provide the power. The tower takes your call and sending it over satellite.
You could deploy such systems very, very rapidly.
Two immediate thoughts:
1. The Queen is dead - is this an old paper?
2. What's the debate about (e.g.) lentil-based Indian dishes?
I guess I need more coffee (which, fortunately, is what I was going to fetch at the time).
I've not seen Camilla referred to as 'The Queen' a great deal, so that still doesn't click for me. I'd also forgotten about the Roald Dahl controversy.
So to make to it clear: if Russia went after Transnistria and Moldova, you'd ignore it?
I physically don't own any extra bedrooms, but I contribute to a scheme where Ukrainian refugee children are getting free education at my daughters private school. The school is paying for a number of places itself, and some parents are chipping in for more.
But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.
More on this on pages 2,3,4,7,8 & 9.
“There was a war in mainland Europe and people were getting questionnaires about parties,” one aide working for Mr Johnson at the time told i. “It was a baffling time, we had those two things going on.”
But, nonetheless PB is a rich demographic. The next tub-thumper should consider what he or she is doing to allay the suffering that this stupid war is causing.
And I have zero respect for very wealthy tub-thumpers in California with large doorsteps.
https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382
The problem is getting him near to somewhere like Finland so he can cross the border. Which comes down to bribes.
Or are you saying I'm not allowed to have that opinion if I don't put up a Ukrainian refugee?
Many people like to do things, such as give to charities, without publicising it or themselves. Just because I, or others, do not go on here saying how we are helping, does not mean we are not doing anything.
Why should we seueak?
And as an aside, being vocally against the war is also something.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1629044661581905921
Rule of 2023, everyone on the internet is one post away from claiming they’re being silenced.
However, pb.com often descends into bragging_about_sex_and_shopping_and_secondhomes.com.
So, we know there are bellicose PB-ers with second homes ....
Not really suitable, and we are thinking of selling, blah, blah.
GBS: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Actress: My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it.
GBS: Would you sleep with me for a pound?
Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
GBS: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
See, we can all do it...
Why not just admit that almost all of us are trying to find the 'best' way out of an incredibly difficult and precarious situation, and one which the bad actors actively react to our actions? We're also trying to *understand* the situation as it evolves.
I think that's where most posters are coming from, even if I disagree with them.
It is bizarre how you seem to enjoy making up these "what if" scenarios to try, presumably, to comfort yourself that in your mind you are second to no one in opposing the Russian actions.
Go and knock yourself out. Ask me inch by inch what I would do if the Fifteenth Shock Army marches towards West Cambourne.
I do enjoy having them around though and do my limited best to help them.
Two standouts: On the whole evangelicals do not try to impose their views on others any more than other interest groups, and much less than, say, Stonewall or trans lobbies.
A personal vote for X (for example against abortion, or gay marriage) which is obviously a personal conscience matter makes no difference to being a leader as long as you are a democrat. Otherwise it would be impossible for most Roman Catholics and Muslims to be in high office.
(*) Or what passes for judgement.
Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.
As an aside, I vaguely know a lady who has some wonderful tattoos. A few years ago she had cancer, and she has a small tattoo put on her arm on the anniversary of her all-clear.
My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3308633/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
And why are we getting the nuclear rhetoric now? There is zero possibility of the west starting a nuclear war with Russia. The chances of the opposite are harder to assess but Russia has done nothing to prepare its nuclear arsenal since last year. Fairly obvious that no-one will tolerate it and so it would only be an option as revenge for total defeat. Is the Kremlin suicidal? I doubt it. And we deal with the nuclear risk from, say, North Korea all the time.
It's all "Toy" stuff on here.
Mind you, there was that drone project I wrote some code for - well, actually reviewed code.
As a number of the anti-war types were saying, here.
Their point was either that accepting the Baltics into NATO was a terrible idea, since they couldn't be defended, or that we should concentrate on defending them.
I wasn't aware of any of the other strong supporters of Ukraine having second homes, excepting one.
She's pretty much the SNPs version of Gordon brown.
SNP leadership nominations to close
Ash Regan is joining the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon today. Assuming no one else decides to jump in before nominations close at midday, she will be facing Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf, who are also running for the party’s leadership.
The Edinburgh Eastern MSP has the support of about 7% of SNP voters as the race starts, according to a poll released on Friday. As she launches her campaign, she gas intimated she wants to let groups who worked for the wider Yes movement in the run-up to 2014 take the lead on independence, while the Scottish government focuses on running the country.
She has accused her colleagues in the SNP of failing to listen to such groups.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/feb/24/snp-leadership-scotland-labour-tories-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-63f88f798f08305414a36ce3#block-63f88f798f08305414a36ce3
Note Bradman was only fifth on the list of runs scored in first nine test innings (now sixth). Continuing to score at that level throughout a modern test career, though not impossible, is improbable.
I agree she’s not interested in the cultural stuff - if she got in the deal with the Greens would go and GRR would get punted into the long grass to come up with a solution that meets the needs of all interested parties, not just one group. I suspect the Deposit scheme would also be “reviewed”. Forbes seems to see demonstrating competent government which focuses on voters priorities as a key step to independence
I tried some pretty basic stuff. Decent quality of copyrighting but absolutely chockablock full of huge factual errors.
Would be impossible to use without serious human input although could be useful for structuring pieces at speed for those who struggle to write well.
Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.
I'd like to watch it.
In programming, it can generate volumes of bad code - sometimes works, but needs serious testing. For boilerplate converters etc, powerful, but dangerous. Because that is where you want accuracy.
14% of 18 to 24s still oppose homosexual marriage (likely the most religious ones) and about 16% of voters overall oppose it, 20% of Conservative voters and 22% of Leave voters oppose homosexual marriage still too
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-marriage-of-same-sex-couple?crossBreak=ivotedtoleave
It's not far fetched, when it actually happened.
You rightly note Robert was engaging in moral rhetoric, but you’re doing much the same yourself. You’re not addressing the logical arguments he was making alongside that rhetoric.
But then what?
Is it yours?
LOL
But it highlights the risks and benefits of copying something from the pile of stuff that's already been written or drawn. If my living depended on making up new stuff, the sheer amount of old stuff that can be instantly accessed and remixed, I'd be worried.
But a large chunk of that problem has been there for a while- remember that company that did out-of-copyright classic literature for a pound?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64754523
We are a betting site and deal in numbers all the time. What do you suppose the probability of that sequence of events should be.
A less far-fetched scenario would me being eaten by a shark in my bath this evening.
Putin's Western fanboys would be urging us to throw him the Baltic states.
An attack on the Baltic states would cross a red line for Poland, who would send soldiers into Kaliningrad, regardless of what the rest of NATO did.
The world would be a much more frightening place than it is right now.
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html