Leaders attending tomorrow’s European emergency meeting on Ukraine hosted by Macron in Paris:
🇫🇷 Macron 🇩🇪 Scholz 🇬🇧 Starmer 🇮🇹 Meloni 🇵🇱 Tusk 🇪🇸 Sánchez 🇳🇱 Schoof 🇩🇰 Frederiksen 🇪🇺 von der Leyen 🇪🇺 Costa NATO's Rutte
Can’t believe they haven’t invited the Taoiseach given the vast amounts valiant Ireland expends on defence
It is a strategic miscalculation. Without the fisheries protection cutters and the presidential band, Europe's defences against the Russian Federation could be fatally undermined.
Ireland probably has more functioning vessels than we have
Not quite. But if all this had happened a few years later we might very well already have scrapped the lot to fund pension payouts.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
Likewise, my dad would have died from malnutrition a couple of decades back, when he was hospitalised. It’s not just that the food was crap: it was also that the staff didn’t really notice if older patients actually ate, or even drank anything.
Our family visited him every day, with food.
Oh, are you not hungry today Mrs X?
Ignoring the fact that Mrs X was either asleep or cannot reach the food.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
The moral colossus and arbiter of martial ardour that is Trump says that we’ve been freeloading for years. We should do it out of shame.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
But the voters.
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
Russia is not going to reach the Rhine through conventional military force.
But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t look at our defence spending. I note several people here strongly support increased defence spending, so maybe there are votes in it.
The problem is, there are always votes in raising spending, but precious few in raising taxes.
I am inclined to think we *may* need to spend a bit more to get A LOT more, but just keep the current system and bung a massive chunk more money at the MOD? Piss off. Tell us precisely what you want the money for.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
It’s about gearing up to destroy The Manhood of Russia with Trans Gay NATOism.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Jeez. Ukraine reduced. NATO cast down. Russia turned into a militarised war economy. What next? Maybe the Poles won't wait to find out?
Leaders attending tomorrow’s European emergency meeting on Ukraine hosted by Macron in Paris:
🇫🇷 Macron 🇩🇪 Scholz 🇬🇧 Starmer 🇮🇹 Meloni 🇵🇱 Tusk 🇪🇸 Sánchez 🇳🇱 Schoof 🇩🇰 Frederiksen 🇪🇺 von der Leyen 🇪🇺 Costa NATO's Rutte
Can’t believe they haven’t invited the Taoiseach given the vast amounts valiant Ireland expends on defence
It is a strategic miscalculation. Without the fisheries protection cutters and the presidential band, Europe's defences against the Russian Federation could be fatally undermined.
Ireland probably has more functioning vessels than we have
Not quite. But if all this had happened a few years later we might very well already have scrapped the lot to fund pension payouts.
I'm partial to the George Bernard Shaw, nice sleek-looking ship.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Because Russia has two separate strands of power projection:
*) Firstly they interfere politically, in a big way. *) If the people reject their interference, they go for a more militaristic approach.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
I think there's decent evidence that bringing in home cooked food speeds recovery
Given there is a danger the patient might eat, and the large amount of evidence that eating food prevents death….
In his ward, there were a several others. Who didn’t get daily visits. Their hospital meals often sat uneaten, next to them. They were all elderly, like my father.
Exactly my experience. Saw several bodies wheeled out over a couple of weeks.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Do you understand that someone reading this 'might' think that you are arguing, perhaps by habit, against the UK's national interest?
1. You support a legal situation that makes manufacturing in the UK cost prohibitive, and that threatens the production of virgin steel, essential for the armaments industry, which is a key industry for us and (up until now) a success story.
2. You suggest that rather than support this vital industry and its development in this country, we give half a percent of our GDP directly to countries 'that have cheaper manufacturing' - I mean why the fuck do you think they have cheap manufacturing in the first place? This actively accelerates our economical decline, and means that if somehow Russia does overrun Europe (which is presumably what you purport to be the danger, we lose those facilities altogether.
3. In the meantime, we antagonise everyone who buys stuff from Russia (which is basically everyone except continental Europe), but we do nothing to restart our own hydrocarbon industry, which would be the only *actual* thing that would make us safe from Russian energy blackmail.
I find your suggestions and thought process quite disturbing.
You half misunderstand (wilfully, of course). The question is how we defend ourselves - and by ourselves I mean Europe - against a fascistic empire that wants to eliminate and subsume Eastern Europe.
The front line states have cheaper weapons manufacturing because they are poorer than us and have lower wages.
You moan that we might inhibit free trade with that fascistic empire and thereby piss off American appeasers. Then you bring it round to your favourite topic, net zero. Because you don’t believe climate change is a threat. And thus the actual gripe is revealed.
We could drill every possible oil or gas well on sea and on land and our manufacturing would still be more expensive than in Ukraine, Moldova or the Baltics.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Well massively increasing conventional defence spending is going to do precisely fuck all to counter that threat so why, exactly, is the UK doing it?
The Army needs to field a fully equipped warfighting division with another in reserve. So it can place a clear continental deterrent and sustain it on the central European plain for 6 months at a time.
I can't see how it does it without regular forces going back up to 105-120k men.
That's not going to be cheap and will probably take 5-7 years to achieve.
We’ve trained 45k Ukrainian recruits since 2022. With our current run down establishment.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
It’s an important point, which is why it makes way more sense arming Eastern European states and letting them do the dirty work for us.
Leaders attending tomorrow’s European emergency meeting on Ukraine hosted by Macron in Paris:
🇫🇷 Macron 🇩🇪 Scholz 🇬🇧 Starmer 🇮🇹 Meloni 🇵🇱 Tusk 🇪🇸 Sánchez 🇳🇱 Schoof 🇩🇰 Frederiksen 🇪🇺 von der Leyen 🇪🇺 Costa NATO's Rutte
Can’t believe they haven’t invited the Taoiseach given the vast amounts valiant Ireland expends on defence
It is a strategic miscalculation. Without the fisheries protection cutters and the presidential band, Europe's defences against the Russian Federation could be fatally undermined.
Ireland probably has more functioning vessels than we have
Eight ships and an establishment around 1000 vs over sixty and 32000 active personal says otherwise. Far cry from the era(s) when Britain really did rule the waves.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
But the voters.
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
Russia is not going to reach the Rhine through conventional military force.
But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t look at our defence spending. I note several people here strongly support increased defence spending, so maybe there are votes in it.
Putin doesn't want go to the Rhine. He wants to absorb the Baltics, and subvert most of E Europe including Poland and poss the Scandis. He's an old man in a hurry with a war economy facing a demogrsphic cliff edge. With the US out of the picture very serious stuff could very likely happen.
He wont succeed with Poland or the Scandinavian countries, but the Baltics are so small he could easily be tempted to conquer them and dare us to do something about it. The man is obviously trying to reassemble the Soviet Union, either by annexation or the establishment of secure client regimes.
The Baltic has now got strategic depth with Sweden now in NATO and with the extremely capable armies of Finland and Poland on each flank. If Russia makes a move then K'grad is liberated in a few days and St Petersburg and Murmansk under immediate direct attack. A Russian attack could be defeated pretty quickly. The consequences for Putin could quite literally be fatal.
You could have told us you wrote a whole SONG expressing your passionate views. And produced by ex-PBer @eadric?!
Leaders attending tomorrow’s European emergency meeting on Ukraine hosted by Macron in Paris:
🇫🇷 Macron 🇩🇪 Scholz 🇬🇧 Starmer 🇮🇹 Meloni 🇵🇱 Tusk 🇪🇸 Sánchez 🇳🇱 Schoof 🇩🇰 Frederiksen 🇪🇺 von der Leyen 🇪🇺 Costa NATO's Rutte
Can’t believe they haven’t invited the Taoiseach given the vast amounts valiant Ireland expends on defence
It is a strategic miscalculation. Without the fisheries protection cutters and the presidential band, Europe's defences against the Russian Federation could be fatally undermined.
Ireland probably has more functioning vessels than we have
Not quite. But if all this had happened a few years later we might very well already have scrapped the lot to fund pension payouts.
I'm partial to the George Bernard Shaw, nice sleek-looking ship.
The original anti-vaxer. Described it as 'witchcraft'.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Well massively increasing conventional defence spending is going to do exactly fuck all to counter that threat so why, exactly, is the UK doing it?
Because if the sh*t does hit the fan, we're in a better situation than if we had not done it. Insurance.
Those trained troops can start training the raw recruits; those welders welding armour can train other welders.
Why are you so defeatist? Why are you sol willing to give in to a Russia whose language you know...
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
NB I’ve checked and there is dispute here. Some people claim the Economist Building IS brutalist. But this is surely wrong
“Brutalism” comes from the French phrase "béton brut," meaning "raw concrete." This refers to the unfinished, exposed concrete that is a hallmark of the style. The National Theatre IS brutalist. You can still see the impressions of the wooden cases that enclosed the raw concrete. A deliberate choice by Denys Lasdun
The Economist Building has a concrete frame but it is clad in Portland Stone. Concrete plays little part in its expression. It is not “brutalist”. It is quite banal “international style” modernism
Any views on Jonathan Meades - an exponent of brutalism? Always enjoyed his telly shows on architecture. Apparently lives in a Le Corbusier structure in Marseilles. His latest novel - Empty Wigs - is quite a bruiser, not for the faint- hearted.
I think he's brilliant, I've watched nearly all of his TV shows. Available here.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
That depends on the hospital, and on your definition of "really appetising".
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
That's not how it works. To take one of the most high-profile examples, they didn't get Schroeder elected by manipulating German public opinion.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Well massively increasing conventional defence spending is going to do exactly fuck all to counter that threat so why, exactly, is the UK doing it?
Because if the sh*t does hit the fan, we're in a better situation than if we had not done it. Insurance.
With insurance one balances the cost of premium against the likelihood and consequences of the risk. The risk of the UK being in a shooting war with Russia is as close to zero as makes no difference. And if it did happen and it didn't go nuclear they would be overwhelmed in days. Unless they are sandbagging metaphorically as well as literally in their Novorossiya exploits.
Leaders attending tomorrow’s European emergency meeting on Ukraine hosted by Macron in Paris:
🇫🇷 Macron 🇩🇪 Scholz 🇬🇧 Starmer 🇮🇹 Meloni 🇵🇱 Tusk 🇪🇸 Sánchez 🇳🇱 Schoof 🇩🇰 Frederiksen 🇪🇺 von der Leyen 🇪🇺 Costa NATO's Rutte
Can’t believe they haven’t invited the Taoiseach given the vast amounts valiant Ireland expends on defence
It is a strategic miscalculation. Without the fisheries protection cutters and the presidential band, Europe's defences against the Russian Federation could be fatally undermined.
Ireland probably has more functioning vessels than we have
Eight ships and an establishment around 1000 vs over sixty and 32000 active personal says otherwise. Far cry from the era(s) when Britain really did rule the waves.
According to my calculations (which are sometimes correct), we have the following large vessels:
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
Half-agree, half-disagree.
He's consistently against us and our allies, consistently in favour of our enemies.
Russia wants land, it can invade and take it.
Israel is attacked? It has no right to take land even when attacked first.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
No one here can explain why, evidently, but quite a number of them are still all for it ...
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
But the voters.
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
All the main parties support increased defence spending though, including Reform, as does Merz, likely next German Chancellor
In theory. Where is the money going to come from in practice?
We'll know they're serious only when they are prepared to upset voters to do it.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
There have been a few 'celebrity chefs' down the years trying to highlight the poor quality of food in hospitals (and schools). Nothing much seems to have resulted from it though. I remember being quite nauseated watching someone microwaving an insipid frozen omelette to serve up to their 'eager' custodians.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
I think there's decent evidence that bringing in home cooked food speeds recovery
Given there is a danger the patient might eat, and the large amount of evidence that eating food prevents death….
In his ward, there were a several others. Who didn’t get daily visits. Their hospital meals often sat uneaten, next to them. They were all elderly, like my father.
Exactly my experience. Saw several bodies wheeled out over a couple of weeks.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
That depends on the hospital, and on your definition of "really appetising".
Put it in the contracts of all senior consultants and managers, that they have to eat at least 2 meals a day in the hospital. From the hospital kitchens, standard menu, provided free.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
No one here can explain why, evidently, but quite a number of them are still all for it ...
I can see the justification for more investment in intelligence, psy-ops and cyber to counter asymmetric/grey threats but all the rest of is just the pb.com General Staff enjoying the sound of their boot heels on parquet floors.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
define 'opposed'? Gone on the streets to willy-wave about preventing? None.
Opposed in theory - which is all we Internet warriors can do? Many. I mean, I've spoken about the Rohingya's on here in the past, and the cause of the Kurds (and that is *complex*). And the Armenians. If you were a real warrior against war, you would be apoplectic about Sudan and Ethiopia. Or Somalia. Or Yemen. Or many others.
I even wrote a threader about the potential conflict between Venezuela and Guyana.
I know those are not trendy for you, and trendy wars are all you care about. Or the Jews.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
Half-agree, half-disagree.
He's consistently against us and our allies, consistently in favour of our enemies.
Russia wants land, it can invade and take it.
Israel is attacked? It has no right to take land even when attacked first.
I opposed Putins invasion but Trump says the main reason was provocation from Ukraine wanting to join NATO. If you regard the US as our ally you are a baddie like Zelensky
Israel took land in 1948 So attacked first is total bollocks. Palestine has a right in international law to fight the occupiers Israel doesn't have a right to commit genocide.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Well massively increasing conventional defence spending is going to do exactly fuck all to counter that threat so why, exactly, is the UK doing it?
Because if the sh*t does hit the fan, we're in a better situation than if we had not done it. Insurance.
With insurance one balances the cost of premium against the likelihood and consequences of the risk. The risk of the UK being in a shooting war with Russia is as close to zero as makes no difference. And if it did happen and it didn't go nuclear they would be overwhelmed in days. Unless they are sandbagging metaphorically as well as literally in their Novorossiya exploits.
You miss the political interference Russia has been attempting - successfully in some cases.
It doesn't have to be a 'shooting war'. I'm curious about why someone as intelligent as yourself ignores the way Russia operates.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
Half-agree, half-disagree.
He's consistently against us and our allies, consistently in favour of our enemies.
Russia wants land, it can invade and take it.
Israel is attacked? It has no right to take land even when attacked first.
I opposed Putins invasion but Trump says the main reason was provocation from Ukraine wanting to join NATO. If you regard the US as our ally you are a baddie like Zelensky
Israel took land in 1948 So attacked first is total bollocks. Palestine has a right in international law to fight the occupiers Israel doesn't have a right to commit genocide.
Whom did Israel take land from in 1948?
In 1948 Israel accepted the partition of land, but it was rejected by Transjordan and Egypt who invaded and attempted to wipe out Israel and annexed Palestine.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
Half-agree, half-disagree.
He's consistently against us and our allies, consistently in favour of our enemies.
Russia wants land, it can invade and take it.
Israel is attacked? It has no right to take land even when attacked first.
I opposed Putins invasion but Trump says the main reason was provocation from Ukraine wanting to join NATO
Isn't it up to Ukraine whether or not they join NATO?
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
So why do you support a war monger who's invaded and occupied parts of both Georgia AND Ukraine?
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
Half-agree, half-disagree.
He's consistently against us and our allies, consistently in favour of our enemies.
Russia wants land, it can invade and take it.
Israel is attacked? It has no right to take land even when attacked first.
I opposed Putins invasion but Trump says the main reason was provocation from Ukraine wanting to join NATO. If you regard the US as our ally you are a baddie like Zelensky
Israel took land in 1948 So attacked first is total bollocks. Palestine has a right in international law to fight the occupiers Israel doesn't have a right to commit genocide.
"I opposed Putins invasion but Trump says the main reason was provocation from Ukraine wanting to join NATO."
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
define 'opposed'? Gone on the streets to willy-wave about preventing? None.
Opposed in theory - which is all we Internet warriors can do? Many. I mean, I've spoken about the Rohingya's on here in the past, and the cause of the Kurds (and that is *complex*). And the Armenians. If you were a real warrior against war, you would be apoplectic about Sudan and Ethiopia. Or Somalia. Or Yemen. Or many others.
I even wrote a threader about the potential conflict between Venezuela and Guyana.
I know those are not trendy for you, and trendy wars are all you care about. Or the Jews.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
That depends on the hospital, and on your definition of "really appetising".
Put it in the contracts of all senior consultants and managers, that they have to eat at least 2 meals a day in the hospital. From the hospital kitchens, standard menu, provided free.
It’s some years since I worked in a hospital, or indeed worked at all, but it wasn’t unusual for senior staff to eat in the canteen.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
Half-agree, half-disagree.
He's consistently against us and our allies, consistently in favour of our enemies.
Russia wants land, it can invade and take it.
Israel is attacked? It has no right to take land even when attacked first.
I opposed Putins invasion but Trump says the main reason was provocation from Ukraine wanting to join NATO. If you regard the US as our ally you are a baddie like Zelensky
Israel took land in 1948 So attacked first is total bollocks. Palestine has a right in international law to fight the occupiers Israel doesn't have a right to commit genocide.
"I opposed Putins invasion but Trump says the main reason was provocation from Ukraine wanting to join NATO."
So you believe what Trump says?
How the extreme left and extreme right meet...
Trump and Corbyn are very different people.
One pretends to be on the side of workers while taking large sums of money from fat cats, promotes cronies to key positions they're totally unequal to, claims to have actually won an election he lost and will sell out to the Russians in a heartbeat.
The other actually won an election and is - unfortunately - now President of the United States.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
define 'opposed'? Gone on the streets to willy-wave about preventing? None.
Opposed in theory - which is all we Internet warriors can do? Many. I mean, I've spoken about the Rohingya's on here in the past, and the cause of the Kurds (and that is *complex*). And the Armenians. If you were a real warrior against war, you would be apoplectic about Sudan and Ethiopia. Or Somalia. Or Yemen. Or many others.
I even wrote a threader about the potential conflict between Venezuela and Guyana.
I know those are not trendy for you, and trendy wars are all you care about. Or the Jews.
You mix up Zionists and Jews again.
You really should get some anti semitism training
And a lot of anti-Semites hide behind being anti-Zionist.
What issue do you have with my stated views on the situation in Israel/Palestine? I stated them just the other day...
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
So why do you support a war monger who's invaded and occupied parts of both Georgia AND Ukraine?
I don't
I think you are mixing me up with Tony Blair and Peter Mandleson.
The Messiah that is Jeremy Corbyn has been the most consistently critical politician of Putin.
Pity you chose to support those who backed Putin when it was trendy to do so.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Israel are the ones defending themselves, which they have every damned right to do. They were defending themselves in 1948, 1967, 2023 and still are.
If Hamas lay down their arms, the war would be over. If Israel lay down their arms, every Jew "from the river to the sea" would be murdered.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
So why do you support a war monger who's invaded and occupied parts of both Georgia AND Ukraine?
I don't
I think you are mixing me up with Tony Blair and Peter Mandleson.
Why are you supporting someone who's CURRENTLY occupying parts of both Georgia AND Ukraine?
“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution; it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said in an interview with a Beirut-based TV channel last August. “We might be in for years and years of war in Ukraine.”
He added: “What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.
“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
That depends on the hospital, and on your definition of "really appetising".
Put it in the contracts of all senior consultants and managers, that they have to eat at least 2 meals a day in the hospital. From the hospital kitchens, standard menu, provided free.
It’s some years since I worked in a hospital, or indeed worked at all, but it wasn’t unusual for senior staff to eat in the canteen.
It is, of course, quite possible that the food served in the staff canteen is better than what makes it to the wards, but I can't say more than that. Your remark triggers distant memories of my having had some meals in a hospital canteen many years ago, under circumstances I can no longer recall but are probably related to the employment of a long since retired relative there. I thought the canteen pretty decent, but what offerings were presented to the patients I don't know - save for the fact that this also triggers a distinct memory of my grandmother having once been presented with a smoked lentil sandwich for lunch, whilst residing in the same hospital as a patient. She thought it revolting. It certainly sounded revolting.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Well massively increasing conventional defence spending is going to do exactly fuck all to counter that threat so why, exactly, is the UK doing it?
Because if the sh*t does hit the fan, we're in a better situation than if we had not done it. Insurance.
With insurance one balances the cost of premium against the likelihood and consequences of the risk. The risk of the UK being in a shooting war with Russia is as close to zero as makes no difference. And if it did happen and it didn't go nuclear they would be overwhelmed in days. Unless they are sandbagging metaphorically as well as literally in their Novorossiya exploits.
You miss the political interference Russia has been attempting - successfully in some cases.
It doesn't have to be a 'shooting war'. I'm curious about why someone as intelligent as yourself ignores the way Russia operates.
Once again, increasing conventional defence spending, which is the subject under discussion does NOTHING to address the political interference and similar threats. One has to consider why you are hell-bent on directing resources away from the real threats and toward illusory ones to the great detriment of the country's security. I have my suspicions.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
It’s an important point, which is why it makes way more sense arming Eastern European states and letting them do the dirty work for us.
If Russia doesn't threaten us militarily, why is it 'our work' to contain it?
They are clearly not a nice regime. Being their neighbour must be hell. Living there must be very disagreeable. But why 'them' especially, not Xi, not Erdogan, not the Saudis, not Al Shabab in Mozambique? The reason is because Russia has been the USA's number one foe, regardless of Republican or Democrat, for the past 15 years or so. The others, regardless of their evil, their brutality, their invasions, their scant regard for peoples' freedoms, have not. That is why Putin is public enemy No. 1, not just another gargoyle in a whole unpleasant gallery of them.
If the USA vs. Russia situation changes, as it looks like it might, it's quite awkward for Europe's leaders, because it's no longer a competition to declare how dangerous Putin is (despite his failure to conquer Ukraine) because now the US doesn't give a shit. Just like it has never given a shit about the Saudis chopping people up, so you don't hear a peep about that from anyone.
In the long run, if it sticks, we will all care about Russia a lot less, and move on to hating whoever is at the top of America's shitlist next. And Jessop will be haranguing us all to declare war on whoever that is.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Well massively increasing conventional defence spending is going to do exactly fuck all to counter that threat so why, exactly, is the UK doing it?
Because if the sh*t does hit the fan, we're in a better situation than if we had not done it. Insurance.
With insurance one balances the cost of premium against the likelihood and consequences of the risk. The risk of the UK being in a shooting war with Russia is as close to zero as makes no difference. And if it did happen and it didn't go nuclear they would be overwhelmed in days. Unless they are sandbagging metaphorically as well as literally in their Novorossiya exploits.
You miss the political interference Russia has been attempting - successfully in some cases.
It doesn't have to be a 'shooting war'. I'm curious about why someone as intelligent as yourself ignores the way Russia operates.
Once again, increasing conventional defence spending, which is the subject under discussion does NOTHING to address the political interference and similar threats. One has to consider why you are hell-bent on directing resources away from the real threats and toward illusory ones to the great detriment of the country's security. I have my suspicions.
Let's take one example which disproves your point.
I'd argue that the British government cutting German cables in 1914 was a major factor in us winning the war four years later. One of the first things we did on the outbreak of hostilities. If you want I could go into detail.
We have seen Russian and (perhaps) China go after power and comms cables in the Baltic, and examine them in the North Sea.
There is still a need for a strong navy, particularly for an island nation. i would have expected you, with your alleged 'background', to see that.
WW1 actually shows the issue well: what wins the war is not obvious at the beginning. You need both strength and flexibility if the war lasts more than six months,
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
define 'opposed'? Gone on the streets to willy-wave about preventing? None.
Opposed in theory - which is all we Internet warriors can do? Many. I mean, I've spoken about the Rohingya's on here in the past, and the cause of the Kurds (and that is *complex*). And the Armenians. If you were a real warrior against war, you would be apoplectic about Sudan and Ethiopia. Or Somalia. Or Yemen. Or many others.
I even wrote a threader about the potential conflict between Venezuela and Guyana.
I know those are not trendy for you, and trendy wars are all you care about. Or the Jews.
You mix up Zionists and Jews again.
You really should get some anti semitism training
And a lot of anti-Semites hide behind being anti-Zionist.
What issue do you have with my stated views on the situation in Israel/Palestine? I stated them just the other day...
I didn't see your post I don't visit as frequently as I used to.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Those sneaky Russkies will take advantage of the Trump truce to rearm with shiny new kit, whereas Britain will be halfway through the first Badenoch premiership before the MOD committees have finalised our order for new boots.
“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution; it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said in an interview with a Beirut-based TV channel last August. “We might be in for years and years of war in Ukraine.”
He added: “What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.
“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
WW1 actually shows the issue well: what wins the war is not obvious at the beginning. You need both strength and flexibility if the war lasts more than six months,
Do you understand that we, despite your best efforts, are not actually at war with Russia are very unlikely to be so?
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Many Jews felt they were safe in Europe in the early twentieth century, given the way they were being cleansed from the Middle East.
How do you think that ended up for them?
('Zionism' and ethnic cleansing is an interesting relationship. You should perhaps consider that.)
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
WW1 actually shows the issue well: what wins the war is not obvious at the beginning. You need both strength and flexibility if the war lasts more than six months,
Do you understand that we, despite your best efforts, are not actually at war with Russia are very unlikely to be so?
We are at 'war' with Russia; if you call 'war' a cold war.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
And vice versa?
No, not vice-versa.
Israel are the victim of the aggression, not the aggressor. They were attacked in 48, they were attacked again in 67, they tried to negotiate a peace agreement with Arafat who walked away. Time and time again they have opted for peace only to have it spurned.
The other side should lay down their arms, or they should be defeated.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
It’s an important point, which is why it makes way more sense arming Eastern European states and letting them do the dirty work for us.
If Russia doesn't threaten us militarily, why is it 'our work' to contain it?
They are clearly not a nice regime. Being their neighbour must be hell. Living there must be very disagreeable. But why 'them' especially, not Xi, not Erdogan, not the Saudis, not Al Shabab in Mozambique? The reason is because Russia has been the USA's number one foe, regardless of Republican or Democrat, for the past 15 years or so. The others, regardless of their evil, their brutality, their invasions, their scant regard for peoples' freedoms, have not. That is why Putin is public enemy No. 1, not just another gargoyle in a whole unpleasant gallery of them.
If the USA vs. Russia situation changes, as it looks like it might, it's quite awkward for Europe's leaders, because it's no longer a competition to declare how dangerous Putin is (despite his failure to conquer Ukraine) because now the US doesn't give a shit. Just like it has never given a shit about the Saudis chopping people up, so you don't hear a peep about that from anyone.
In the long run, if it sticks, we will all care about Russia a lot less, and move on to hating whoever is at the top of America's shitlist next. And Jessop will be haranguing us all to declare war on whoever that is.
He us in the majority. War mongers love getting their knobs out and spending taxpayers money even when at the same time rotating there is no money for anything else.
“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution; it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said in an interview with a Beirut-based TV channel last August. “We might be in for years and years of war in Ukraine.”
He added: “What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.
“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
Just in case anyone thought Corbyn was actually anti-Putin.
Funny how "much more effort put into peace" requires no effort be put into telling Russia to get the hell out of Ukraine.
That would secure peace.
Only one person can stop the Ukraine war.
Putin.
If Zelensky was to give in, there would be a Maquis-style resistance. And rightly so. In February 2022 I said on here that Ukraine would be independent within a few decades - because the people obviously did not want to be Russian.
If Putin was to give in... peace. Including for him, who would find an eternal peace from a fortieth-storey window suddenly materialise in his underground bunker.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
And vice versa?
No, not vice-versa.
Israel are the victim of the aggression, not the aggressor. They were attacked in 48, they were attacked again in 67, they tried to negotiate a peace agreement with Arafat who walked away. Time and time again they have opted for peace only to have it spurned.
The other side should lay down their arms, or they should be defeated.
See that's your problem you can't see what's right in front of your eyes. Look at the death statistics that makes it clear who the aggressor and land stealing illegal occupier is.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
It’s an important point, which is why it makes way more sense arming Eastern European states and letting them do the dirty work for us.
If Russia doesn't threaten us militarily, why is it 'our work' to contain it?
They are clearly not a nice regime. Being their neighbour must be hell. Living there must be very disagreeable. But why 'them' especially, not Xi, not Erdogan, not the Saudis, not Al Shabab in Mozambique? The reason is because Russia has been the USA's number one foe, regardless of Republican or Democrat, for the past 15 years or so. The others, regardless of their evil, their brutality, their invasions, their scant regard for peoples' freedoms, have not. That is why Putin is public enemy No. 1, not just another gargoyle in a whole unpleasant gallery of them.
If the USA vs. Russia situation changes, as it looks like it might, it's quite awkward for Europe's leaders, because it's no longer a competition to declare how dangerous Putin is (despite his failure to conquer Ukraine) because now the US doesn't give a shit. Just like it has never given a shit about the Saudis chopping people up, so you don't hear a peep about that from anyone.
In the long run, if it sticks, we will all care about Russia a lot less, and move on to hating whoever is at the top of America's shitlist next. And Jessop will be haranguing us all to declare war on whoever that is.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
But the voters.
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
Russia is not going to reach the Rhine through conventional military force.
But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t look at our defence spending. I note several people here strongly support increased defence spending, so maybe there are votes in it.
Putin doesn't want go to the Rhine. He wants to absorb the Baltics, and subvert most of E Europe including Poland and poss the Scandis. He's an old man in a hurry with a war economy facing a demogrsphic cliff edge. With the US out of the picture very serious stuff could very likely happen.
He wont succeed with Poland or the Scandinavian countries, but the Baltics are so small he could easily be tempted to conquer them and dare us to do something about it. The man is obviously trying to reassemble the Soviet Union, either by annexation or the establishment of secure client regimes.
The Baltic has now got strategic depth with Sweden now in NATO and with the extremely capable armies of Finland and Poland on each flank. If Russia makes a move then K'grad is liberated in a few days and St Petersburg and Murmansk under immediate direct attack. A Russian attack could be defeated pretty quickly. The consequences for Putin could quite literally be fatal.
Absolutely agree that between Finland, Sweden and Poland they would smash an attack I don’t think they would actually attack St P and Murmansk. We suffer the “decency” problem where we are trying to tell ordinary Russians we aren’t a threat and aren’t aggressors - European troops invading Russia, regardless of provocation, is counterproductive.
On top of that the logistics yet alone the military reality of attacking St P an other places are very problematic - naval invasion? Land invasion? None are remotely easy or palatable.
And if Kaliningrad is full of Russian nationals, is it really a liberation or an invasion? It’s a boil on Europe’s shoulder but what if they actually don’t want to be “liberated”?
I would of course love it if it was no longer under Russian control btw.
Russia has to be defeated, so the counter threat to Russia has be at least credible. The defeat of Putinism may need us to be able to occupy the major naval bases that could launch against us.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
And vice versa?
No, not vice-versa.
Israel are the victim of the aggression, not the aggressor. They were attacked in 48, they were attacked again in 67, they tried to negotiate a peace agreement with Arafat who walked away. Time and time again they have opted for peace only to have it spurned.
The other side should lay down their arms, or they should be defeated.
See that's your problem you can't see what's right in front of your eyes. Look at the death statistics that makes it clear who the aggressor and land stealing illegal occupier is.
The statistics just show who is stronger, it says jack shit about the aggressor.
Whom did Israel "steal" land from? Egypt? Jordan? They don't want it back.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
And vice versa?
How far back into history do you want to go?
However far back we go we can see time and again Israel offering to make peace with her neighbours and that being spurned by the Arabs.
There is only one reason there is no Palestinian state and that is not Israel, it is Arab leadership down the years.
The second Israel lays down their arms, they'd be wiped out. The second the other side does, the war would be over.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
But the voters.
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
Russia is not going to reach the Rhine through conventional military force.
But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t look at our defence spending. I note several people here strongly support increased defence spending, so maybe there are votes in it.
I note that a lot of the pb tories/fukkers are starting from the conclusion that there is no need for an EU force and working back from there to the conclusion that NATO minus US will be fine. This is understandable for reasons of, what Iggy Pop called, 'psychic self-defence'.
However, NATO as constituted is a finely calibrated instrument for advancing American hegemony and supporting its strategic interests. It's CinC (ironically called SACEUR) is always an American 4* and never rotates among other nations. So NATO minus US would need a lot of reconfiguration and probably new treaties and would end up looking a lot like the EU's PESCO plus some mutual defence obligations. At that point the EU will quite forcefully position PESCO as the heir to NATO with some justification.
Agreed. As far as European front line defence (ie Ukraine) is concerned, NATO is nullified for the next four years.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Why do you think Ukraine is even in a position to make incursions into the Kursk Oblast rather than, say, having collapsed in 2022?
Russia facing challenges in repelling cross-border raids does not mean its conventional military is incapable, either now or in the near future, of threatening either Ukraine or NATO countries. Your argument downplays the broader strategic threat by conflating localised border skirmishes with overall military capability. Military power isn’t just about immediate territorial control but also long-range strike capabilities, cyber warfare, and nuclear deterrence.
Russia's leader has stated that the fall of the USSR is the greatest tragedy to ever befall it he wishes to reverse it. Russia under his leadership has demonstrated a willingness to use hybrid warfare, including cyber attacks, economic coercion, and political subversion. Its missile forces, air power, and naval assets can project power far beyond its immediate borders. It regularly tests our airspace, surveys (in some cases cutting) our communication cables and those of our allies, and sails task forces regularly into our territorial waters. It is developing hypersonic weapons to which we have no known defence. It probes for weakness and then exploits it.
Your argument suggests we maintain that weakness and assumes that struggles in Ukraine reflect an inherent lack of capability. Russia is facing a determined, Western-armed and funded adversary fighting on its home turf in established front lines. That doesn’t mean it's been easy holding it there, for now, nor that Russia wouldn’t be formidable in other scenarios, especially if it chose to arm and escalate against NATO nations in the face of US withdrawal.
Britain isn’t proposing to rearm on a whim. NATO military planners assess threats based on capabilities and intentions, past, present and future. A weakened, underfunded defence would invite risk ongoing Russian militarisation and aggression that could embolden further action, putting more countries at risk.
Britain’s rearmament - particularly in the face of a partial US strategic withdrawal, without which Ukraine would have fallen long ago - is a necessary response to a shifting security landscape, where hybrid warfare, strategic intimidation, and potential escalations into conventional warfare all justify a stronger defence posture that's deployable, credible and sustainable.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
And vice versa?
How far back into history do you want to go?
However far back we go we can see time and again Israel offering to make peace with her neighbours and that being spurned by the Arabs.
There is only one reason there is no Palestinian state and that is not Israel, it is Arab leadership down the years.
The second Israel lays down their arms, they'd be wiped out. The second the other side does, the war would be over.
This issue is explored in the bitter-sweet ending to Fiddler on the Roof. After a routine early 20th century pogrom somewhere out east the survivors decide to pack their bags and leave. Some head all the way to America. Others decide Poland is far enough. A fatal error, I'm sure we can all agree.
Does anybody have a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance to explain why, if the armed forces of the Russian Federation can't even secure their own territorial integrity by kicking the Mazepists out of Kursk, they are such a conventional threat to Britain that we need to embark on a massive, ruinously expensive and socially destructive re-armament program?
What specific threat are we gunning up to counter? Amphibious invasion of Norfolk?
Spot on.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
You are in favour of the warmongers in Russia and the warmongers of Hamas.
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
No I am not.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
Is Putin a war monger?
Yes
Next
Are Hamas war mongers?
Not so much more defenders against an illegal occupation but that still didnt give them the right to do what they did in Oct 2023
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
Where, in your view, would Jews feel safe to live given the past 1,000 years of history? In which state would you have them living, or where would you have them having a state?
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
Anywhere they wish AFAIAC
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
Because the Arabs attacked.
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
And vice versa?
How far back into history do you want to go?
However far back we go we can see time and again Israel offering to make peace with her neighbours and that being spurned by the Arabs.
There is only one reason there is no Palestinian state and that is not Israel, it is Arab leadership down the years.
(Snip)
I quibble with that.
I am a firm believer that the Kurds deserve (and deserved...) their own state. As the Armenians got,
The reason they did not get such a state was line drawn on a map, many miles away. Palestinians, and Jews, could have got such states.
But that is not to say that, as with Armenia, everything would have been rosy and peaceful if they had got individual states.
Quite the opposite. Lines drawn on a map are easily erased.
Comments
Ignoring the fact that Mrs X was either asleep or cannot reach the food.
Hospital is the worst place to be ill.
Breaking: Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to let him to fire the head of the agency that protects government whistleblowers.
https://x.com/bpolitics/status/1891222832987636207
*) Firstly they interfere politically, in a big way.
*) If the people reject their interference, they go for a more militaristic approach.
Those who concentrate on an 'amphibious invasion of Norfolk' are being silly. Russia are much more likely to try to get a pet politician and party into power, using Internet trolls to back them up.
Saw several bodies wheeled out over a couple of weeks.
I hope things have improved since.
The front line states have cheaper weapons manufacturing because they are poorer than us and have lower wages.
You moan that we might inhibit free trade with that fascistic empire and thereby piss off American appeasers. Then you bring it round to your favourite topic, net zero. Because you don’t believe climate change is a threat. And thus the actual gripe is revealed.
We could drill every possible oil or gas well on sea and on land and our manufacturing would still be more expensive than in Ukraine, Moldova or the Baltics.
50% cut to military expenditure.
I wouldn't have voted for him but his Corbynite stance on military and wars is really impressive.
With our current run down establishment.
Far cry from the era(s) when Britain really did rule the waves.
https://www.udio.com/songs/jFyU2EzeZ9c3SSxyKVzYWG
It’s not just pressing a button, @cicero can REALLY sing and play guitar, and he’s got a real raw story to tell
I often tease him but this time, no. Bravo
Those trained troops can start training the raw recruits; those welders welding armour can train other welders.
Why are you so defeatist? Why are you sol willing to give in to a Russia whose language you know...
Oh.
War mongers of the world unite to defend us against f**k all
US That depends on the hospital, and on your definition of "really appetising".
You have no consistency on war and peace; only a nasty political viewpoint that leads to more deaths.
6 "Nucular" attack subs
4 "Nucular" Ballistic subs
2 Aircraft carriers
2 Assault ships
6 Destroyers
9 Frigates
8 large patrol vessels
Total 37
Trumpistan has by contrast:
51 "Nucular" attack subs
18 "Nucular" ballistic subs
11 Aircraft carriers
9 Helicopter carriers
22 Assault ships
9 Cruisers
76 Destroyers
25 Frigates
37 Patrol/Littoral vessels
Total 258
He's consistently against us and our allies, consistently in favour of our enemies.
Russia wants land, it can invade and take it.
Israel is attacked? It has no right to take land even when attacked first.
We'll know they're serious only when they are prepared to upset voters to do it.
Or it's the top 10 European NATO members by defence budget, with Sweden and Norway missing.
How many times do I have to post I oppose them both but I also oppose the war mongers of the West and its "allies" before you
can get it into your skull?
Which war have you ever opposed?
or (60+10)(60-10)
Next
Opposed in theory - which is all we Internet warriors can do? Many. I mean, I've spoken about the Rohingya's on here in the past, and the cause of the Kurds (and that is *complex*). And the Armenians. If you were a real warrior against war, you would be apoplectic about Sudan and Ethiopia. Or Somalia. Or Yemen. Or many others.
I even wrote a threader about the potential conflict between Venezuela and Guyana.
I know those are not trendy for you, and trendy wars are all you care about. Or the Jews.
Israel took land in 1948 So attacked first is total bollocks. Palestine has a right in international law to fight the occupiers Israel doesn't have a right to commit genocide.
It doesn't have to be a 'shooting war'. I'm curious about why someone as intelligent as yourself ignores the way Russia operates.
In 1948 Israel accepted the partition of land, but it was rejected by Transjordan and Egypt who invaded and attempted to wipe out Israel and annexed Palestine.
Unfortunately for them, they lost the war.
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-putin-call-ukraine-war-peace-talks-moscow-zelenskyy-kremlin-live-sky-news-latest-12541713?postid=9119574#liveblog-body
Is Bibi a warmonger or are you happy shooting thousands of unarmed children in the head
Why are you totally
So you believe what Trump says?
How the extreme left and extreme right meet...
You really should get some anti semitism training
One pretends to be on the side of workers while taking large sums of money from fat cats, promotes cronies to key positions they're totally unequal to, claims to have actually won an election he lost and will sell out to the Russians in a heartbeat.
The other actually won an election and is - unfortunately - now President of the United States.
What issue do you have with my stated views on the situation in Israel/Palestine? I stated them just the other day...
Anti-Semitism has a long and sad history, well outside Palestine.
(And the answer is not 'Madagascar'...)
I think you are mixing me up with Tony Blair and Peter Mandleson.
The Messiah that is Jeremy Corbyn has been the most consistently critical politician of Putin.
Pity you chose to support those who backed Putin when it was trendy to do so.
Next
If Hamas lay down their arms, the war would be over.
If Israel lay down their arms, every Jew "from the river to the sea" would be murdered.
He added: “What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.
“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/26/labour-left-breaks-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-sending-weapons-to-ukraine
Just in case anyone thought Corbyn was actually anti-Putin.
Once again, increasing conventional defence spending, which is the subject under discussion does NOTHING to address the political interference and similar threats. One has to consider why you are hell-bent on directing resources away from the real threats and toward illusory ones to the great detriment of the country's security. I have my suspicions.
They are clearly not a nice regime. Being their neighbour must be hell. Living there must be very disagreeable. But why 'them' especially, not Xi, not Erdogan, not the Saudis, not Al Shabab in Mozambique? The reason is because Russia has been the USA's number one foe, regardless of Republican or Democrat, for the past 15 years or so. The others, regardless of their evil, their brutality, their invasions, their scant regard for peoples' freedoms, have not. That is why Putin is public enemy No. 1, not just another gargoyle in a whole unpleasant gallery of them.
If the USA vs. Russia situation changes, as it looks like it might, it's quite awkward for Europe's leaders, because it's no longer a competition to declare how dangerous Putin is (despite his failure to conquer Ukraine) because now the US doesn't give a shit. Just like it has never given a shit about the Saudis chopping people up, so you don't hear a peep about that from anyone.
In the long run, if it sticks, we will all care about Russia a lot less, and move on to hating whoever is at the top of America's shitlist next. And Jessop will be haranguing us all to declare war on whoever that is.
London, New York Europe for example many Jewish people seem perfectly happy living there.The world is literally their oyster
Zionists don't seem capable of coexisting in harmony with Arabs in the middle East since Zionism took hold though.
I'd argue that the British government cutting German cables in 1914 was a major factor in us winning the war four years later. One of the first things we did on the outbreak of hostilities. If you want I could go into detail.
We have seen Russian and (perhaps) China go after power and comms cables in the Baltic, and examine them in the North Sea.
There is still a need for a strong navy, particularly for an island nation. i would have expected you, with your alleged 'background', to see that.
WW1 actually shows the issue well: what wins the war is not obvious at the beginning. You need both strength and flexibility if the war lasts more than six months,
The reason there's no Palestinian state is the Arab states rejected it, annexed the land and attempted to wipe out Israel. Then tried again decades later, losing again.
Israelis have every right to defend themselves against Arab aggression.
That would secure peace.
How do you think that ended up for them?
('Zionism' and ethnic cleansing is an interesting relationship. You should perhaps consider that.)
How else would you explain Litvinenko? Salisbury?
Friendly acts?
Israel are the victim of the aggression, not the aggressor. They were attacked in 48, they were attacked again in 67, they tried to negotiate a peace agreement with Arafat who walked away. Time and time again they have opted for peace only to have it spurned.
The other side should lay down their arms, or they should be defeated.
British defence sources have accused Zelensky’s troops of wasting expensive weapons and equipment
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/16/nato-ukraine-soviet-battlefield-tactics-squandered-weapons/ (£££)
Or try this gift URL but I've no idea how long it works, maybe only once.
https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/62e94c77ca76f982
Completely out of the blue. Completely without precedent.
Completely because their false god idol has told them Canada is next.
Putin.
If Zelensky was to give in, there would be a Maquis-style resistance. And rightly so. In February 2022 I said on here that Ukraine would be independent within a few decades - because the people obviously did not want to be Russian.
If Putin was to give in... peace. Including for him, who would find an eternal peace from a fortieth-storey window suddenly materialise in his underground bunker.
And that, IMO, is the problem.
My father-in-law is a self-professed "high elevation Williams" (hillbilly) from Alberta who was until recently a bit of a Trump fan.
He's only just discovered that Trump is certifiably insane and detests him now.
Whom did Israel "steal" land from? Egypt? Jordan? They don't want it back.
Israel never attacked a country called Palestine.
There is only one reason there is no Palestinian state and that is not Israel, it is Arab leadership down the years.
The second Israel lays down their arms, they'd be wiped out. The second the other side does, the war would be over.
As far as European front line defence (ie Ukraine) is concerned, NATO is nullified for the next four years.
Article 5 is about being attacked, not attacking. Hence we couldn't invoke it to get allies to join us in attacking Iraq.
Russia facing challenges in repelling cross-border raids does not mean its conventional military is incapable, either now or in the near future, of threatening either Ukraine or NATO countries. Your argument downplays the broader strategic threat by conflating localised border skirmishes with overall military capability. Military power isn’t just about immediate territorial control but also long-range strike capabilities, cyber warfare, and nuclear deterrence.
Russia's leader has stated that the fall of the USSR is the greatest tragedy to ever befall it he wishes to reverse it. Russia under his leadership has demonstrated a willingness to use hybrid warfare, including cyber attacks, economic coercion, and political subversion. Its missile forces, air power, and naval assets can project power far beyond its immediate borders. It regularly tests our airspace, surveys (in some cases cutting) our communication cables and those of our allies, and sails task forces regularly into our territorial waters. It is developing hypersonic weapons to which we have no known defence. It probes for weakness and then exploits it.
Your argument suggests we maintain that weakness and assumes that struggles in Ukraine reflect an inherent lack of capability. Russia is facing a determined, Western-armed and funded adversary fighting on its home turf in established front lines. That doesn’t mean it's been easy holding it there, for now, nor that Russia wouldn’t be formidable in other scenarios, especially if it chose to arm and escalate against NATO nations in the face of US withdrawal.
Britain isn’t proposing to rearm on a whim. NATO military planners assess threats based on capabilities and intentions, past, present and future. A weakened, underfunded defence would invite risk ongoing Russian militarisation and aggression that could embolden further action, putting more countries at risk.
Britain’s rearmament - particularly in the face of a partial US strategic withdrawal, without which Ukraine would have fallen long ago - is a necessary response to a shifting security landscape, where hybrid warfare, strategic intimidation, and potential escalations into conventional warfare all justify a stronger defence posture that's deployable, credible and sustainable.
I am a firm believer that the Kurds deserve (and deserved...) their own state. As the Armenians got,
The reason they did not get such a state was line drawn on a map, many miles away. Palestinians, and Jews, could have got such states.
But that is not to say that, as with Armenia, everything would have been rosy and peaceful if they had got individual states.
Quite the opposite. Lines drawn on a map are easily erased.