Thanks Moon Rabbit for the header, interesting to see how they end up.
Hard to see beyond many of the favourites today.
Elsewhere, I like Broadway Boy in 2.40, but he is drifting quite a bit this morning. Quantock Hills in 4.40 can give a good run and worth EW bet at 18s. Tripoli Flyer another EW in 1.20 at 25/1. Keep coming back to State Man at 11/1, tempted.
Tripoli Flyer has a note from its mother I’m afraid.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
If one reads PB there is plenty of rebuttal.
I've not seen many rebuttals of the judicial decisions allowing foreign criminals to stay.
Er, you were clearly demanding "a better job of rebutting" the "selective" and "duplicitous reporting" and "misrepresenting" of such decisions.
Are you suggesting bondegezou has done that? I would expect detail not just saying someone is wrong.
There has ben plenty of discussion of the selective reporting of judge's decisions by the right wing.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
There would nothing more dangerous than to allow Putin to use the threat of using nuclear weapons to gain territory.
Mind you, I would not be surprised to see the current US administration support the threatened use of nuclear weapons by Russia against European nations.
It is just reality, even Biden did not give Zelensky enough arms to force the Russians out of Ukraine entirely as he knew there was a very high risk Putin would then use a tactical nuclear weapon
That's why Johnson is whining about the Democrats not supporting his partisan bill.
Despite @DOGE’s findings of loony left-wing USAID programs, the Republican spending bill continues to fund the very foreign aid @elonmusk proposes to cut! The bill continues spending at the inflated pandemic levels and will add $2T to the debt this year. Count me as a hell no!.. https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1899113680848961888
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
If I were Ukraine I would reluctantly accept the current situation with security guarantees from Europe plus others, but I wouldn't trust Russia or the US an inch. Sanctions need to remain on Russia even if the US reneges. Putin needs to remain persona non grata, even if Trump offers him a state visit.
I would then build up my military strength - trained soldiers, munitions, aircraft etc over the next couple of years with massive help from Europe. If Russia steps out of line in any way, I would use that as an excuse to attempt to retake the lost territories. It would be a ceasefire, not a settlement.
Thanks Moon Rabbit for the header, interesting to see how they end up.
Hard to see beyond many of the favourites today.
Elsewhere, I like Broadway Boy in 2.40, but he is drifting quite a bit this morning. Quantock Hills in 4.40 can give a good run and worth EW bet at 18s. Tripoli Flyer another EW in 1.20 at 25/1. Keep coming back to State Man at 11/1, tempted.
Tripoli Flyer has a note from its mother I’m afraid.
ta for the tips as Mr Patrick Power has made extracting my balance extremely difficult have put a small proportion of my PP Sipp. Still outperforming my actual pension in % terms particularly in current circs.
Thanks Moon Rabbit for the header, interesting to see how they end up.
Hard to see beyond many of the favourites today.
Elsewhere, I like Broadway Boy in 2.40, but he is drifting quite a bit this morning. Quantock Hills in 4.40 can give a good run and worth EW bet at 18s. Tripoli Flyer another EW in 1.20 at 25/1. Keep coming back to State Man at 11/1, tempted.
Tripoli Flyer has a note from its mother I’m afraid.
Yes thanks, messed up accumulators, should've stuck with Workahead.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Thanks Moon Rabbit for the header, interesting to see how they end up.
Hard to see beyond many of the favourites today.
Elsewhere, I like Broadway Boy in 2.40, but he is drifting quite a bit this morning. Quantock Hills in 4.40 can give a good run and worth EW bet at 18s. Tripoli Flyer another EW in 1.20 at 25/1. Keep coming back to State Man at 11/1, tempted.
Tripoli Flyer has a note from its mother I’m afraid.
Broadway Boy is a very good tip for Ultima. Was pencilled in as a contender by me at one point, and had won here several times in 2023, but not shone at Cheltenham in last 2 visits, otherwise probably would start favourite, so a very nice price for a win. Great tip, Sharky.
A more extreme example of horses for courses, Victtorino has looked good elsewhere, but can’t get it together at this course.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
It would take most of the Tommy Robinson fans from Reform to the new Lowe and Habib party, possibly funded by Musk
That might somewhat mirror previous Farage-Party disintegrations.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Given that a disproportionately large number of low-paying jobs in London are done by foreigners, isn't it inevitable that a disproportionately large number of them will be in social housing?
It's a fake statistic.
It's "foreign-born" not "foreign", so includes British citizens.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
On @MoonRabbit 's header, how much do I get back if I put £1 on each suggestion?
Just asking ...
I think you would end up not losing the full £28. Probably. ☺️
But have you thought of accumulators?
A win lucky15, I understand is the bet bookies pay out more % times than any other type of bet - 15% pay out versus 10% on every other type of bet at best. 4 horses = 15 bets at once. £1stake is a £15 outlay. If you choose 2 favourites, and 2 at a good price, but heavily tipped, like Broadway Boy Sharky mentioned, and only any 2 of the lucky15 won, that would be a pair of doubles. Add a third winner, it’s the doubles and a triple, I think Coral still pay out the singles too. So you don’t need all 4 to come in, any combination of winner it starts to accumulate very exponentially. So just pick 4 horses from each days card, the 4 you feel best about, in a Lucky15, would be my advice.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
In effect, it must become a Russian satellite like Belarus.
Rubio will endorse those demands, so long as the US can strip-mine whatever is left of Ukraine.
"demilitarise"?
So the Russians can invade further in three years time and get to the Polish border?
Zelensky should tell them to do one.
Don’t be silly. Agee to everything. Implementing agreements is for fools…
Russia - “What about the 250k troops, tanks and the nuclear weapons you have stationed in Ukraine! This breaks the agreement.”
EU - “The don’t exist. You are lying. Plus they are tourists looking at the famous spire of the cathedral.”
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
If one reads PB there is plenty of rebuttal.
I've not seen many rebuttals of the judicial decisions allowing foreign criminals to stay.
Er, you were clearly demanding "a better job of rebutting" the "selective" and "duplicitous reporting" and "misrepresenting" of such decisions.
Are you suggesting bondegezou has done that? I would expect detail not just saying someone is wrong.
There has ben plenty of discussion of the selective reporting of judge's decisions by the right wing.
Its not just the right thought is it? Take the reporting around the scuffle at Manchester. Initially some of the media portrayed it as a simple police brutality case against oppressed minorities. When the full picture came out things were a bit different.
Lots of people, for lots of reasons, distort reporting of events. Using facts is the best way to counter it.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
There are no sensible reasons not to deport foreign criminals.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
As I said, use gunboat diplomacy if necessary, use tariffs, use whatever means necessary as far as blocking their legitimate business from operating within our borders if they choose not to take back their criminals. We need to be much, much more confrontational about it, and if they still choose not to do so, then fly military planes with an escort of fighter jets.
It's very easy to deny a runway by parking trucks on it so I presume the next logical development of your outstanding plan is to chuck the returnees out of the back of an A400M with a parachute. Or maybe without.
It'd be far cheaper just to bribe the necessary Albanians politicians to take them back than, and I can't believe I'm writing this, invade Albania in order to return deportees there.
Put the returnees in Zorb balls. Then drop them at 50 feet while playing the theme from The Dambusters.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
Voluntary repatriation is controversial, but it happens. German federal scheme:
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
For 3 years, Ukraine played nice, obeying US restrictions on what they could and couldn't do to Putin and his delicate sensibilities while Russians murder thousands of Ukrainian men women and children.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
The military, in the West, generally take the view that more *useful* damage can be done with smart weapons than tactical nuclear weapons. With the added advantage of less escalation risk.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
It'd probably be NATO ex the US now though, which somewhat changes the force calculation. Still perhaps sufficient but definitely not as overwhelming
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
Hold on, is there no duty on nations to receive back their own citizens written into international law. Probably not, it's all very keen on rights and obligations of wherever people are going to but that's one obligation that really should be in there. If nation A wishes to deport citizens of country B back to country B, country B should damn well be obliged to take them.
As I understand it, there is generally held to be obligation under international law for a state to accept its own citizens back into the country, even if they have been deported from another country. However, there may be exceptions of national security etc. These may include where someone has committed a serious crime, which leads us back to square one.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
If one reads PB there is plenty of rebuttal.
I've not seen many rebuttals of the judicial decisions allowing foreign criminals to stay.
Er, you were clearly demanding "a better job of rebutting" the "selective" and "duplicitous reporting" and "misrepresenting" of such decisions.
Are you suggesting bondegezou has done that? I would expect detail not just saying someone is wrong.
One can't provide a detailed rebuttal without having a specific case to discuss. You offered no specifics in the first place, so how can you get detail back?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
Hold on, is there no duty on nations to receive back their own citizens written into international law. Probably not, it's all very keen on rights and obligations of wherever people are going to but that's one obligation that really should be in there. If nation A wishes to deport citizens of country B back to country B, country B should damn well be obliged to take them.
As I understand it, there is generally held to be obligation under international law for a state to accept its own citizens back into the country, even if they have been deported from another country. However, there may be exceptions of national security etc. These may include where someone has committed a serious crime, which leads us back to square one.
Shouldn't be a barrier, which leads me rather weirdly to the Kitchens/Farage position but n Begun if we can sort the rest of the system out for keeping her in Strangeways..
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
There are no sensible reasons not to deport foreign criminals.
If someone has lived in the UK for most of their life, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and then commits a minor crime (e.g., speeding), then I do not think it would be sensible to deport them.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
It's not about illegal immigrants. It's about people who look different.
Really? Poles and Romanians don't look different.
Actually I think they do, to an extent. And some older folk find having their towns "over-run" by people mostly speaking foreign languages to be something that they didn't ask for and don't want.
I had a Polish carer for a while; until she spoke she was indistinguishable from any other Essex female of a similar age.
And at one stage in my life I lived in a town with three Czechoslovak (then) emigre doctors. Same applied; indistinguishable until they opened their mouths.
Must have been odd, having all these foreigners hanging about not saying anything.
The GP’s were very popular, although sometimes known as the ‘ Dud Cheque practice’!
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
There are no sensible reasons not to deport foreign criminals.
If someone has lived in the UK for most of their life, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and then commits a minor crime (e.g., speeding), then I do not think it would be sensible to deport them.
So it's the seriousness of the crime that matters?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Which bit of Mutually Assured Destruction do you have trouble with?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
There are no sensible reasons not to deport foreign criminals.
If someone has lived in the UK for most of their life, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and then commits a minor crime (e.g., speeding), then I do not think it would be sensible to deport them.
So it's the seriousness of the crime that matters?
The current law takes account of the seriousness of the crime, how integrated the person is to their current life in the UK, and the problems they may face if returning to another country, as per this infographic:
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Which bit of Mutually Assured Destruction do you have trouble with?
The fact that according to HY's programme of retaliation the "mutually" bit is a bit one sided.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
There are no sensible reasons not to deport foreign criminals.
If someone has lived in the UK for most of their life, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and then commits a minor crime (e.g., speeding), then I do not think it would be sensible to deport them.
So it's the seriousness of the crime that matters?
The current law takes account of the seriousness of the crime, how integrated the person is to their current life in the UK, and the problems they may face if returning to another country, as per this infographic:
That broadly seems sensible to me.
It’s missing a few things. Instant deportation (by trebuchet) for
- pineapple on pizza - Python - Possessing more than 5 grams of pre-flaked Parmesan - ?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Which bit of Mutually Assured Destruction do you have trouble with?
The fact that according to HY's programme of retaliation the "mutually" bit is a bit one sided.
The idea is that once it is certain that Radio 3 is gone forever, *then* we nuke Moscow. Hence the subs.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
Think the argument on this one is that had everyone paid an actuarial rate for the monies they now receive it would be not be a benefit. But as many have not paid enough to cover the current outlay then it can be classed as one. The very fact that pensions are paid out of current taxation rather than sum accumulated fund is simply down to the profligacy of previous administrations.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
There are no sensible reasons not to deport foreign criminals.
If someone has lived in the UK for most of their life, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and then commits a minor crime (e.g., speeding), then I do not think it would be sensible to deport them.
So it's the seriousness of the crime that matters?
The current law takes account of the seriousness of the crime, how integrated the person is to their current life in the UK, and the problems they may face if returning to another country, as per this infographic:
That broadly seems sensible to me.
It’s missing a few things. Instant deportation (by trebuchet) for
- pineapple on pizza - Python - Possessing more than 5 grams of pre-flaked Parmesan - ?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Deterrence relies on a slightly less predictable response than HYUFD. But not too unpredictable. (Like Trump)
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
It'd probably be NATO ex the US now though, which somewhat changes the force calculation. Still perhaps sufficient but definitely not as overwhelming
Maybe not so much Mutually Assured Destruction as MutuallyMakingQuiteAFuckingMessOfYourManor...
Having missed most of the British winter (and the racing), I'm probably at a disadvantage but my day one selections as follows:
Supreme Novices Hurdle: ROMEO COOLIO (each way) Arkle Novices Chase: L'EAU DU SUD Mares Hurdle: LOSSIEMOUTH Champion Hurdle: STATE MAN (each way)
Thoughts? Mullins had a 1/8 shot turned over at Plumpton yesterday but then he had four at Naas on Sunday so I don't know. There are fools, damn fools and people who bet odds on in novice chases, I was once told, so I can't have MAJBOROUGH at 1/2.
The ground will be quick enough despite the watering and they'll go a decent gallop in the Supreme so I'm happy to oppose KOPEK DES BORDES at 4/5 and ROMEO COOLIO has Grade 1 winning form on good ground.
The Mares looks a penalty kick for LOSSIEMOUTH who many think should be in the Champion. I think two and a half is her trip now and you won't get rich at 4/6 but put one up against her on form...
As for the Champion, I don't know - BRIGHTERDAYSAHEAD was superb at Christmas but can she repeat this on quicker ground? I can't believe last year's winner is 12/1 - take out the Christmas defeat and his form is pretty strong - yes, CONSTITUTION HILL saw him off easily two years ago but as a wise man once said, that was than and this is now. I'm not sure he's the machine he was but he may still be good enough and if STATE MAN follows him home and you're on each way you'll still be ahead at the price.
I'd advise a point each way on both ROMEO COOLIO and STATE MAN, two point win on L'EAU DU SUD and three point win LOSSIEMOUTH.
(A point is whatever your stake is - whether it be £10, £1000 or higher).
What a second race!
MAJBOROUGH does look very good. Do believe the hype. But one bad jump, and nearly recovered.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
I would tend to agree with this. Let's see if the Gulf talks can get anywhere.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Which is why you General Power in charge if your nuclear weapons. For those whose don’t know, Curtis Le May thought Power was a bit too enthusiastic about war.
I doubt this gesture will help Tesla sales here in Germany (down 76% last month). But plenty of people will be making their own gestures...
The attacks on Tesla dealerships are reminiscent of the left wing terror that swept Germany in the 1970s. Executives at the Berlin factory should be upgrading their security.
In message that was deleted and reposted, Trump said he will: - "permanently" shut Canadian car industry by raising tariffs substantially -declare a national emergency on energy -raise tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada to 50%
So the London market has held up, despite the falls in Asia, and Tesla is holding up so far, but the wider US market is plunging again since its open less than an hour back.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
Threatened by whom?
Didn't Biden message something along those lines ?
The whole article is informative, and the US 'learning by doing' approach to deterrence perhaps goes some way to explain the very slow escalation of US support for Ukraine under the last administration.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
There are no sensible reasons not to deport foreign criminals.
If someone has lived in the UK for most of their life, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and then commits a minor crime (e.g., speeding), then I do not think it would be sensible to deport them.
So it's the seriousness of the crime that matters?
The current law takes account of the seriousness of the crime, how integrated the person is to their current life in the UK, and the problems they may face if returning to another country, as per this infographic:
That broadly seems sensible to me.
It’s missing a few things. Instant deportation (by trebuchet) for
- pineapple on pizza - Python - Possessing more than 5 grams of pre-flaked Parmesan - ?
We can use trebuchet to deal with the speeders mentioned above, or set up a ski jump at the top of the white cliffs.
By either route, we use ducking stool determination ... if you die you are innocent.
The pension is a benefit and it’s about time the triple lock be scrapped and pensioners made to suffer for the absolute pisstaking they’ve performed.
Away and bile your heid you halfwitted imbecilic moron. Get out and make your own money and stop whining about the miserable pittance pensioners get.
Fuck off.
HorseBat, you need to go back to the School of Diplomacy and ask for your money back.
What about the argument not all pensioners are in a great place, many struggling to heat and eat in recent years. So rather than being so dismissive of all pensioners benefiting from Triple Lock, how to find savings where the payout is not needed, without hitting the poorest?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
Threatened by whom?
Didn't Biden message something along those lines ?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Which is why you General Power in charge if your nuclear weapons. For those whose don’t know, Curtis Le May thought Power was a bit too enthusiastic about war.
Deterrence theory has moved on a bit since the days of Walter Matthau.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
Threatened by whom?
Didn't Biden message something along those lines ?
I doubt this gesture will help Tesla sales here in Germany (down 76% last month). But plenty of people will be making their own gestures...
Elon is spamming X with a shedload of new accounts claiming to stand up to liberal violence by purchasing a new Tesla.
So I'm guessing sales still aren't great.
He should be more creative with the bots. People sticking it to the globalists by installing a Tesla Solar Roof, standing up against net zero lunacy by installing multiple Tesla Powerwalls, etc.
I doubt this gesture will help Tesla sales here in Germany (down 76% last month). But plenty of people will be making their own gestures...
Elon is spamming X with a shedload of new accounts claiming to stand up to liberal violence by purchasing a new Tesla.
So I'm guessing sales still aren't great.
The stock is crashing faster than a SpaceX rocket
I’m glad I’m not American. Given the way Musk sued companies who wouldn’t advertise on Twitter due to problematic ad placement he’s going to sue all Americans who don’t own a Tesla
Trump had added another 25% tariff on steel imports from Canada
I take it some states don’t want electricity
Has Mr Chump explained why charging 50% tariffs on Canadian steel imported to use in USA made cars, whilst having a tariff exemption for cars made in North America with 75% North American content will close down the CANADIAN car industry?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
Threatened by whom?
Didn't Biden message something along those lines ?
"Severe consequences" isn't a guarantee of a "massive conventional retaliation".
From what's known of the US escalation ladder, it certainly includes that (and was understood as such by commentators at the time). The uncertainty over what it definitely meant is part of how the US does (did) deterrence.
Russia is a bit different, explicitly threatening all manner of stuff, in response to particular situations, that it doesn't necessarily follow through on.
In reality, there isn't a huge practical difference between the two styles.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Which is why you General Power in charge if your nuclear weapons. For those whose don’t know, Curtis Le May thought Power was a bit too enthusiastic about war.
Deterrence theory has moved on a bit since the days of Walter Matthau.
FAIL-SAFE (1963): excerpt "The First Strike Argument" (2 mins), with Walter Matthau as the hawkish civilian Pentagon advisor, Prof. Groeteschele
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
The classic response to a nuke on Ukraine would be to nuke one or more of the Russian rail depots supporting the front line.
Or massive conventional retaliation by NATO forces, as was threatened back when Putin was last sounding off on tactical nukes.
Threatened by whom?
Didn't Biden message something along those lines ?
I doubt this gesture will help Tesla sales here in Germany (down 76% last month). But plenty of people will be making their own gestures...
The attacks on Tesla dealerships are reminiscent of the left wing terror that swept Germany in the 1970s. Executives at the Berlin factory should be upgrading their security.
and Williamglenn is reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels.
btw attacks on Tesla dealerships are happening in the US, so I'm not sure why the Tesla executives in Berlin should be especially careful.
The pension is a benefit and it’s about time the triple lock be scrapped and pensioners made to suffer for the absolute pisstaking they’ve performed.
Away and bile your heid you halfwitted imbecilic moron. Get out and make your own money and stop whining about the miserable pittance pensioners get.
Fuck off.
No need to use bad language. I've been on here for 15 years and never used it.
If someone calls another poster a halfwitted imbecilic moron, then it seems fuck off is not an unreasonable response. Just because you don't swear doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow, free speech and all that jazz.
In message that was deleted and reposted, Trump said he will: - "permanently" shut Canadian car industry by raising tariffs substantially -declare a national emergency on energy -raise tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada to 50%
Based on Ontario, Canada, placing a 25% Tariff on "Electricity" coming into the United States, I have instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an ADDITIONAL 25% Tariff, to 50%, on all STEEL and ALUMINUM COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, ONE OF THE HIGHEST TARIFFING NATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. This will go into effect TOMORROW MORNING, March 12th. Also, Canada must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products, which has long been considered outrageous. I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area. This will allow the U.S to quickly do what has to be done to alleviate this abusive threat from Canada. If other egregious, long time Tariffs are not likewise dropped by Canada, I will substantially increase, on April 2nd, the Tariffs on Cars coming into the U.S. which will, essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada. Those cars can easily be made in the USA! Also, Canada pays very little for National Security, relying on the United States for military protection. We are subsidizing Canada to the tune of more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. WHY??? This cannot continue. The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear. Canadians' taxes will be very substantially reduced, they will be more secure, militarily and otherwise, than ever before, there would no longer be a Northern Border problem, and the greatest and most powerful nation in the World will be bigger, better and stronger than ever — And Canada will be a big part of that. The artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear, and we will have the safest and most beautiful Nation anywhere in the World — And your brilliant anthem, "O Canada," will continue to play, but now representing a GREAT and POWERFUL STATE within the greatest Nation that the World has ever seen!
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Little more sanctions than he already has and Russia has more nuclear missiles than any other nation on earth
The consequences would ultimately be nuclear strikes on Moscow. Might take a while, but that’s the end game. Now, we’d all be fried too but Putin is not a nihilist or mad.
Not if just tactical nukes used in Ukraine, Moscow would only be nuked if London, Paris or New York or DC or LA were nuked
So Putin can nuke his way to just short of Alsace and he'll be exempt from any nuclear retaliatory action?
I highly doubt France, the UK or US would actually when it came down to it nuke Russia unless they themselves had been nuked by Putin.
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
Nuclear proliferation was a bit rubbish then. If we can only use our nukes when London and Paris have been reduced to rubble it wasn't much of a deterrent.
Which is why you General Power in charge if your nuclear weapons. For those whose don’t know, Curtis Le May thought Power was a bit too enthusiastic about war.
Deterrence theory has moved on a bit since the days of Walter Matthau.
FAIL-SAFE (1963): excerpt "The First Strike Argument" (2 mins), with Walter Matthau as the hawkish civilian Pentagon advisor, Prof. Groeteschele
The old days, just on the cusp of the nuclear triad / assured second strike regime.
I think they hand painted the electronic situation display for the movie ?
Comments
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W20593/2025-03-11/detailed#allox_id=1
I would then build up my military strength - trained soldiers, munitions, aircraft etc over the next couple of years with massive help from Europe. If Russia steps out of line in any way, I would use that as an excuse to attempt to retake the lost territories. It would be a ceasefire, not a settlement.
Still outperforming my actual pension in % terms particularly in current circs.
Just asking ...
A more extreme example of horses for courses, Victtorino has looked good elsewhere, but can’t get it together at this course.
Accumulator was just short of 60k to 1.
It's "foreign-born" not "foreign", so includes British citizens.
Anyway, I must be off. Good day, everyone.
But have you thought of accumulators?
A win lucky15, I understand is the bet bookies pay out more % times than any other type of bet - 15% pay out versus 10% on every other type of bet at best. 4 horses = 15 bets at once. £1stake is a £15 outlay. If you choose 2 favourites, and 2 at a good price, but heavily tipped, like Broadway Boy Sharky mentioned, and only any 2 of the lucky15 won, that would be a pair of doubles. Add a third winner, it’s the doubles and a triple, I think Coral still pay out the singles too. So you don’t need all 4 to come in, any combination of winner it starts to accumulate very exponentially. So just pick 4 horses from each days card, the 4 you feel best about, in a Lucky15, would be my advice.
Russia - “What about the 250k troops, tanks and the nuclear weapons you have stationed in Ukraine! This breaks the agreement.”
EU - “The don’t exist. You are lying. Plus they are tourists looking at the famous spire of the cathedral.”
Lots of people, for lots of reasons, distort reporting of events. Using facts is the best way to counter it.
https://youtu.be/tYClSGINHyU?si=v2ZFmPqj6gc4r-L3
You can get help to return to your home country if you do not have permission to remain in the UK. This is known as ‘voluntary return’.
If you are eligible, the voluntary returns service can:
explain your options for returning home
help you get travel documents, such as a passport
pay for travel tickets, if you are unable to
You may also be eligible to apply for financial support of up to £3,000. You can use this support to find somewhere to live, find a job or start a business in your home country.
https://www.gov.uk/return-home-voluntarily#:~:text=You can get help to,your options for returning home
It looks like it has been in place since 2014, but I'm sure on the payment:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141122192910/https://www.gov.uk/return-home-voluntarily
LLG 48 RefCon 45
SPLORG 54 LabCon 46
Con:Ref ratio 0.957 (comfortably far from replacement risk for the Tories)
For 3 years, Ukraine played nice, obeying US restrictions on what they could and couldn't do to Putin and his delicate sensibilities while Russians murder thousands of Ukrainian men women and children.
But with the US joining Russia, that's over
Moscow. In flames
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1899386180803711445
The nuclear missile umbrella for all non US and non UK NATO nations Macron is talking about is principally just to make Putin think they might if he invaded or nuked a NATO nation which didn't have nuclear missiles
That broadly seems sensible to me.
- pineapple on pizza
- Python
- Possessing more than 5 grams of pre-flaked Parmesan
- ?
Like the Waspi women, every has been misled.
I'm off to get a tin hat now.
https://www.facebook.com/ukcomedyfans/videos/yes-prime-minister-nuclear-deterrent/1784300631870797/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YR6WICIAI
But not too unpredictable. (Like Trump)
Q. The definition of bordering on insanity?
A. Canada and Mexico.
MAJBOROUGH does look very good. Do believe the hype. But one bad jump, and nearly recovered.
I doubt this gesture will help Tesla sales here in Germany (down 76% last month). But plenty of people will be making their own gestures...
In message that was deleted and reposted, Trump said he will:
- "permanently" shut Canadian car industry by raising tariffs substantially
-declare a national emergency on energy
-raise tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada to 50%
https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1899462852659863638
https://sais.jhu.edu/kissinger/programs-and-projects/kissinger-center-papers/escalation-management-ukraine-response-russias-manipulation-risk
...Biden established a final parameter when he warned Russia explicitly against any use of nuclear weapons. “Any use of nuclear weapons on any scale would be completely unacceptable to the United States as well as to the rest of the world and would entail severe consequences.”..
The whole article is informative, and the US 'learning by doing' approach to deterrence perhaps goes some way to explain the very slow escalation of US support for Ukraine under the last administration.
I've no idea what the current nutter would do.
By either route, we use ducking stool determination ... if you die you are innocent.
https://youtu.be/NMpAE4L7n2Y?t=210
Progressive ... moi?
So I'm guessing sales still aren't great.
What about the argument not all pensioners are in a great place, many struggling to heat and eat in recent years. So rather than being so dismissive of all pensioners benefiting from Triple Lock, how to find savings where the payout is not needed, without hitting the poorest?
I take it some states don’t want electricity
Cancelling Putin’s Tinder account?
Just asking
* innocent face*
Russia is a bit different, explicitly threatening all manner of stuff, in response to particular situations, that it doesn't necessarily follow through on.
In reality, there isn't a huge practical difference between the two styles.
btw attacks on Tesla dealerships are happening in the US, so I'm not sure why the Tesla executives in Berlin should be especially careful.
This is the first time Trump has come up against someone equally pugnacious.
Based on Ontario, Canada, placing a 25% Tariff on "Electricity" coming into the United States, I have instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an ADDITIONAL 25% Tariff, to 50%, on all STEEL and ALUMINUM COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, ONE OF THE HIGHEST TARIFFING NATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. This will go into effect TOMORROW MORNING, March 12th. Also, Canada must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products, which has long been considered outrageous. I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area. This will allow the U.S to quickly do what has to be done to alleviate this abusive threat from Canada. If other egregious, long time Tariffs are not likewise dropped by Canada, I will substantially increase, on April 2nd, the Tariffs on Cars coming into the U.S. which will, essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada. Those cars can easily be made in the USA! Also, Canada pays very little for National Security, relying on the United States for military protection. We are subsidizing Canada to the tune of more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. WHY??? This cannot continue. The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear. Canadians' taxes will be very substantially reduced, they will be more secure, militarily and otherwise, than ever before, there would no longer be a Northern Border problem, and the greatest and most powerful nation in the World will be bigger, better and stronger than ever — And Canada will be a big part of that. The artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear, and we will have the safest and most beautiful Nation anywhere in the World — And your brilliant anthem, "O Canada," will continue to play, but now representing a GREAT and POWERFUL STATE within the greatest Nation that the World has ever seen!
I think they hand painted the electronic situation display for the movie ?