I don't get this notion that Obama was easy to beat in 2012, Romney was crushed with Obama not being particularly dynamic. Obama put in as much effort as he needed.
The Tea Party purity drive had hobbled the Republican selection process - Obama's voter targeting operation was excellent and he had a monster vote from minorities.
Romney was a dreadful candidate, and he still received 47%. Trump shouldn't have any problem getting at least 47% IMO.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
At some point Bush surely will price his chances in 2020 better than 2015.
Jeb ain't coming back.
Jeb did not want to come forward. His ambition is for his son.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
Sad you missed the quotation marks, but you are busy fellow.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
And now the Soviet empire is returning... time for NATO to bolster.
Gosh it's like living in a society that was more clerical than even Ireland at it's worst. Can these people not make their own minds up without being told by the church what to do?
Mr. Isam, I hope the Twitter report on that (the police fleeing story) are wrong.
We'll see if the media bother to report it. Probably easier to compare wristbands to the Third Reich, though...
Cameron may be making a mistake wanting a referendum this year. By 2017, the situation may be improving. I think the migrant crisis will get much worse this year.
I don't get this notion that Obama was easy to beat in 2012, Romney was crushed with Obama not being particularly dynamic. Obama put in as much effort as he needed.
The Tea Party purity drive had hobbled the Republican selection process - Obama's voter targeting operation was excellent and he had a monster vote from minorities.
Romney was a dreadful candidate, and he still received 47%. Trump shouldn't have any problem getting at least 47% IMO.
I don't think Rick Santorum was any better in 2012!
That said, I think Trump could be a very, very strong candidate, and would certainly wipe the floor with Sanders. I would make him the favourite against Hillary too.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
Sad you missed the quotation marks, but you are busy fellow.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
And now the Soviet empire is returning... time for NATO to bolster.
With oil at $30, Russian power is in rapid decline.
'AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.' Jerry Falwell 'Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.' Jerry Falwell 'If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.' Jerry Falwell 'God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.' 'The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this' Jerry Falwell (on 911) 'He [Tinky Winky] is purple—the gay-pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle—the gay pride symbol.' Jerry Falwell (on the Teletubbies)
I must admit that Jerry Falwell is slightly embarassing himself here. Trump's gods are money, power and women. (The last preferably Slavic.) He said - and I'm slightly paraphrasing here - that Jesus only got to where he was because of the size of his ego.
This reminds me of Rupert Murdoch: Falwell is working out which way the wind is blowing before commanding the skies to blow in the said direction.
He seems to be forgetting the Trump Tower of Babel. And also (according to wiki) re the Tower ''Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston has questioned why Trump used all-concrete construction at a time when steel girder technology prevailed in New York skyscraper technology, and why Trump Tower and other Trump properties used concrete from a firm (HRH Construction) owned by Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family, and "Big Paul" Castellano, head of the Gambino crime family.[5] According to the documentary Trump: What's the Deal, the demolition waste removal was also mob connected.''
Why is it only Hillary is being investigated by the FBI?
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
Sad you missed the quotation marks, but you are busy fellow.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
And now the Soviet empire is returning... time for NATO to bolster.
Mr. Blue, even if the Russians ever manage to complete their expansion/modernisation plans (and that has to be doubtful given their economy is in the shitter) there is no chance that the European countries of NATO would ever re-arm. Even the UK has resorted to accounting tricks in order to pretend that it is spending the NATO minimum on defence. Furthermore there is equally zero chance that the political will exists in the chanceries of Europe to actually use armed force, especially if any significant casualties could be sustained.
O/T Did anyone catch the most recent Comic Strip Presents: Red Top? Seen the first 20 minutes so far and very impressed with it. Harry Enfield is a great comic actor.
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interest there too. All the same, both the reality and the perception was that Britain's strategic border lay on the Elbe and the UK was prepared to sacrifice a very great deal to uphold that.
Whether it's the EU, Nato or anything else, the thinking is the same.
What is most worrying is the how politicized the police are. We can't say it was an immigrant, because that might boost the poll rating of a political party. That should never ever be any consideration to upholding the law and solving crime.
What I am finding really hard to get my head around is that the reports are in Sweden there are huge issues with Moroccan kids turning up unaccompanied. Morocco isn't a war zone. And I wonder how many are really kids or just say they are 15? Why are they not being returned to home?
If a British kid was found wandering alone around Stockholm, do you think he would be sent back?
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interest there too. All the same, both the reality and the perception was that Britain's strategic border lay on the Elbe and the UK was prepared to sacrifice a very great deal to uphold that.
Whether it's the EU, Nato or anything else, the thinking is the same.
And the thinking as ever is the thinking of the last war - no appeasement, draw the line in the sand. it has nothing to do with Greater Europe. The French sat outside NATOs command structure for almost half its existence.
Mr. Urquhart, I think it was in Germany that a TV show akin to Crimewatch refused to identify a suspect as having dark skin, for that sort of reason. And that Swedish police [believe it's them] won't now release ethnic details of suspects/offenders.
As I said, I think it'll be worse this year than last. Merkel's secured her legacy.
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
It's a dark point to make - and I'm hesitant to say so - but it also shows how effective a border can be if defended by lethal force.
I mean how many people escaped from East to West Berlin over the 30 years The Wall was up?
Now, I'm not saying we do that - although I do think Calais may end up needing uniformed auxiliary support from the UK to patrol it armed with water cannon, tasers, mobile arrest vans and perhaps even rubber bullets for a worst case scenario - but it does show how firmly a land border can be enforced if political will is there.
That'd be better than now where thousands think they are benignly storming the gates of the Garden of Eden.
It is a little different though: there were very few crossing points between East Germany and West Germany, there was conscription, and a crippling proportion of GDP was spent on armed services. Furthermore, the security between Poland and East Germany was mostly a couple of guy with Kalashnikovs smoking cheap cigarettes, who waved through trucks and the like. They only had to properly secure one side of their border.
My point is that it is extremely expensive to genuinely secure long land borders with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of potential crossing points. If you take Luxembourg, and assume a pair of guards every hundred meters, and three shifts, you end up with about 20% of the workforce of the country guarding the border.
We need a three part plan:
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
Mr. Urquhart, I think it was in Germany that a TV show akin to Crimewatch refused to identify a suspect as having dark skin, for that sort of reason. And that Swedish police [believe it's them] won't now release ethnic details of suspects/offenders.
As I said, I think it'll be worse this year than last. Merkel's secured her legacy.
Mr. Urquhart, I think it was in Germany that a TV show akin to Crimewatch refused to identify a suspect as having dark skin, for that sort of reason. And that Swedish police [believe it's them] won't now release ethnic details of suspects/offenders.
As I said, I think it'll be worse this year than last. Merkel's secured her legacy.
The amusing thing is that we do know when a suspect is non-white, because it's when the suspect isn't immediately identified as being white.
Mr. Urquhart, most of the migrants are economic. Plenty come from North Africa, as well as the Balkans, and a few from as far as Ghana, Nigeria or Eritrea (the latter do live in Africa's equivalent of North Korea, it must be said).
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
Sad you missed the quotation marks, but you are busy fellow.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
Without NATO and its nuclear umbrella, nations like Russia would be far more aggressive in Eastern Europe, the North Atlantic and Mediterranean would become far more of a free for all, and the Middle East and North Africa (and possibly Turkey) would almost permenantly be governed by nothing other than might is right.
NATO basically now represents armed Western interests.
O/T Did anyone catch the most recent Comic Strip Presents: Red Top? Seen the first 20 minutes so far and very impressed with it. Harry Enfield is a great comic actor.
Comic Strip Presents: Bad News was as an extraordinary bit of comedy. (As was the wonderful one set in the boarding school.)
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
It's a dark point to make - and I'm hesitant to say so - but it also shows how effective a border can be if defended by lethal force.
I mean how many people escaped from East to West Berlin over the 30 years The Wall was up?
Now, I'm not saying we do that - although I do think Calais may end up needing uniformed auxiliary support from the UK to patrol it armed with water cannon, tasers, mobile arrest vans and perhaps even rubber bullets for a worst case scenario - but it does show how firmly a land border can be enforced if political will is there.
That'd be better than now where thousands think they are benignly storming the gates of the Garden of Eden.
It is a little different though: there were very few crossing points between East Germany and West Germany, there was conscription, and a crippling proportion of GDP was spent on armed services. Furthermore, the security between Poland and East Germany was mostly a couple of guy with Kalashnikovs smoking cheap cigarettes, who waved through trucks and the like. They only had to properly secure one side of their border.
My point is that it is extremely expensive to genuinely secure long land borders with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of potential crossing points. If you take Luxembourg, and assume a pair of guards every hundred meters, and three shifts, you end up with about 20% of the workforce of the country guarding the border.
We need a three part plan:
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
Alas, Mr. Robert, you might well be spot on in your analysis but items 1 and 3 will never happen. Human rights cases in the courts will see to that and when, a year or so ago, we deployed the Royal Navy to the Med it was to pick up the asylum seekers and carry them safely to Italy not to take them back to North Africa.
It's a dark point to make - and I'm hesitant to say so - but it also shows how effective a border can be if defended by lethal force.
I mean how many people escaped from East to West Berlin over the 30 years The Wall was up?
Now, I'm not saying we do that - although I do think Calais may end up needing uniformed auxiliary support from the UK to patrol it armed with water cannon, tasers, mobile arrest vans and perhaps even rubber bullets for a worst case scenario - but it does show how firmly a land border can be enforced if political will is there.
That'd be better than now where thousands think they are benignly storming the gates of the Garden of Eden.
It is a little different though: there were very few crossing points between East Germany and West Germany, there was conscription, and a crippling proportion of GDP was spent on armed services. Furthermore, the security between Poland and East Germany was mostly a couple of guy with Kalashnikovs smoking cheap cigarettes, who waved through trucks and the like. They only had to properly secure one side of their border.
My point is that it is extremely expensive to genuinely secure long land borders with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of potential crossing points. If you take Luxembourg, and assume a pair of guards every hundred meters, and three shifts, you end up with about 20% of the workforce of the country guarding the border.
We need a three part plan:
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
I agree with your three points. I was illustrating that it's not impossible; after all, the border between West and East Germany was entirely 'artificial'.
For the UK, although we can't solve the problem on our doorstep, we don't have too many points to secure either. I expect 90%+ of migrants will attempt to enter through Heathrow, Gatwick, Calais, Dunkirk, Le Harve, Cherbourg and The Chunnel.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
Sad you missed the quotation marks, but you are busy fellow.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
And now the Soviet empire is returning... time for NATO to bolster.
What if you threw a war and nobody came?
BP and Rosneft are in a JV, Nord Stream is expanding to supply Britain's Nat Gas needs, sanctions on Iran are lifted, NATO won't be expanded further east, sponsoring Islamsist terrorism is so 90s that even Graham E Fuller is advocating collaboration with the Russians in Syria, immigrants are swarming Europe from failed states in MENA, Boris Berezovsky hung himself and Donald Trump is front runner for the Republican ticket.
That hysteria you can hear in the media is that of a dying ideology that had its day and failed.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
Sad you missed the quotation marks, but you are busy fellow.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
And now the Soviet empire is returning... time for NATO to bolster.
What if you threw a war and nobody came?
BP and Rosneft are in a JV, Nord Stream is expanding to supply Britain's Nat Gas needs, sanctions on Iran are lifted, NATO won't be expanded further east, sponsoring Islamsist terrorism is so 90s that even Graham E Fuller is advocating collaboration with the Russians in Syria, immigrants are swarming Europe from failed states in MENA, Boris Berezovsky hung himself and Donald Trump is front runner for the Republican ticket.
That hysteria you can hear in the media is that of a dying ideology that had its day and failed.
O/T Did anyone catch the most recent Comic Strip Presents: Red Top? Seen the first 20 minutes so far and very impressed with it. Harry Enfield is a great comic actor.
Comic Strip Presents: Bad News was as an extraordinary bit of comedy. (As was the wonderful one set in the boarding school.)
The latest one is about the phone hacking scandal.
Yuuge. Evangelicals could not care less that Trump isn't a devout and active Christian. They have been lied to and misled by politicians who claim to be, Trump is strong on other issues and is honest about himself.
Got to be a worth a point or two in Iowa and could swing it.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interest there too. All the same, both the reality and the perception was that Britain's strategic border lay on the Elbe and the UK was prepared to sacrifice a very great deal to uphold that.
Whether it's the EU, Nato or anything else, the thinking is the same.
And the thinking as ever is the thinking of the last war - no appeasement, draw the line in the sand. it has nothing to do with Greater Europe. The French sat outside NATOs command structure for almost half its existence.
Do you honestly not think that a little bit more co-operation in both policy and execution might have helped with the migrant issue, for example?
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
It's a dark point to make - and I'm hesitant to say so - but it also shows how effective a border can be if defended by lethal force.
I mean how many people escaped from East to West Berlin over the 30 years The Wall was up?
Now, I'm not saying we do that - although I do think Calais may end up needing uniformed auxiliary support from the UK to patrol it armed with water cannon, tasers, mobile arrest vans and perhaps even rubber bullets for a worst case scenario - but it does show how firmly a land border can be enforced if political will is there.
That'd be better than now where thousands think they are benignly storming the gates of the Garden of Eden.
It is a little different though: there were very few crossing points between East Germany and West Germany, there was conscription, and a crippling proportion of GDP was spent on armed services. Furthermore, the security between Poland and East Germany was mostly a couple of guy with Kalashnikovs smoking cheap cigarettes, who waved through trucks and the like. They only had to properly secure one side of their border.
My point is that it is extremely expensive to genuinely secure long land borders with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of potential crossing points. If you take Luxembourg, and assume a pair of guards every hundred meters, and three shifts, you end up with about 20% of the workforce of the country guarding the border.
We need a three part plan:
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
Alas, Mr. Robert, you might well be spot on in your analysis but items 1 and 3 will never happen. Human rights cases in the courts will see to that and when, a year or so ago, we deployed the Royal Navy to the Med it was to pick up the asylum seekers and carry them safely to Italy not to take them back to North Africa.
Quite so. We deploy a large portion of the naval resources of the EU in the Med in response to a migration crisis and use them to aid them in their journey by ferrying them *to* their destination of choice.
I mean in terms of securing an external border.. WTF?
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
It is possible more Indians died fighting the....er.....Japanese 'project' in Burma than the European project in WW2??
Didn't most of them die (in WW1) fighting the Ottoman's six hundred year old project?
Question:
How many would now be classed as Bangladeshi, Indian, Nepalese, Pakistani or - maybe - Burmese? Do not correlate the past with the present: To do a Dr Prasannan would undermine the good of the many (and cheer-on the supporters of SS Tiger Division).
Do you honestly not think that a little bit more co-operation in both policy and execution might have helped with the migrant issue, for example?
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
The intention seems rather to build a great and beautiful wall between Macedonia and Greece and to leave Greece the wrong side of it, given its complete failure either to patrol its own borders or to get assistance doing so.
BP and Rosneft are in a JV, Nord Stream is expanding to supply Britain's Nat Gas needs, sanctions on Iran are lifted, NATO won't be expanded further east, sponsoring Islamsist terrorism is so 90s that even Graham E Fuller is advocating collaboration with the Russians in Syria, immigrants are swarming Europe from failed states in MENA, Boris Berezovsky hung himself and Donald Trump is front runner for the Republican ticket.
That hysteria you can hear in the media is that of a dying ideology that had its day and failed.
We don't currently get any gas from Nord Stream, and I very much doubt that will change in the near term. The gas pipelines between Germany and the Netherlands currently bring Dutch gas from the Groenigen field into Germany, so it's not even clear how Nord Stream gas could get the UK.
An erotic gay novel about Donald Trump and a bellboy from Michigan he meets in Hong Kong, has become an unexpected hit on Amazon.
Written in four hours by comedian Elijah Daniel, after he mooted the idea on Twitter (“I’m going to get drunk tonight and write an entire donald trump sex novel like 50 shades of grey & put it on amazon tomorrow i swear to god”), Trump Temptation: The Billionaire and the Bellboy was published last week after Daniel was deluged with comments urging him to go ahead. It is currently No 1 in Amazon.com’s gay erotica chart, No 1 in its humorous erotica chart, and fourth in its Kindle erotica chart.
Other gems include a vision of how “his ass flapped behind him like a mouth-watering stack of pancakes. And my hunger for pancakes had never been stronger.” And how “the door creaked open and there he was, handsome as ever, like a giant melting fat carrot with fake hair”, and: “He stood there in front of me, like a tall stallion. With his oily orange skin glistening in the sunlight as if he were a soggy cheeto, his hair unkempt and messy, like a gorgeous rat’s nest.
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
Do the Jordanians get a say in this?
We bribe them. Finding 25bn Euros across the whole of continental Europe (and I'm sure the Norwegians and the Swiss would contribute) should be perfectly possible.
That - by the way - is the same level as Jordan's entire GDP.
Yuuge. Evangelicals could not care less that Trump isn't a devout and active Christian. They have been lied to and misled by politicians who claim to be, Trump is strong on other issues and is honest about himself.
Got to be a worth a point or two in Iowa and could swing it.
He's a Trumpet (see what I did there?) for all of worried America to loudhail their insecurities to the entire political establishment and the world.
Yuuge. Evangelicals could not care less that Trump isn't a devout and active Christian. They have been lied to and misled by politicians who claim to be, Trump is strong on other issues and is honest about himself.
Got to be a worth a point or two in Iowa and could swing it.
As it happens, I agree with your analysis.
However, I think they are likely to be sadly disappointed. Trump is a New York liberal who'll throw a few populist bones to the people. There is literally no chance that he'll persuade the Mexicans to pay for his wall, ban all Muslims from entering the US, and get Apple to move iPhone manufacturing to the US. He's just as big a liar as traditional politicians.
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
Do the Jordanians get a say in this?
We bribe them. Finding 25bn Euros across the whole of continental Europe (and I'm sure the Norwegians and the Swiss would contribute) should be perfectly possible.
That - by the way - is the same level as Jordan's entire GDP.
Yes, that has to be the way forward.
The PM was completely right when he said that the UK should only accept people from the camps, what needs stopping is the trafficking of people across the Med and through Europe towards Germany and the UK.
The more people that end up in the richest of Western nations, the more will be encouraged to try and make the trip by whatever means. Word would soon get around if anyone arriving in the UK got herded onto a plane and dropped back in Damascus.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
I don't think it's substantially different from the UK, though the manner in which people or communities are willing to make sacrifices varies. It might have been a stupid policy but the support for Merkel's immigration decision implied a significant willingness on the part of Germans to make sacrifices to allow them in.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
If the EU didn't exist there would have been six closed borders to pass so the initial Syrians wouldn't have got to Germany in large numbers to encourage the rest.
I'm not sure that's true. Borders have been basically open in western Europe since the second world war, and post communism, I'm sure eastern Europe would have been the same
It's a dark point to make - and I'm hesitant to say so - but it also shows how effective a border can be if defended by lethal force.
I mean how many people escaped from East to West Berlin over the 30 years The Wall was up?
Now, I'm not saying we do that - although I do think Calais may end up needing uniformed auxiliary support from the UK to patrol it armed with water cannon, tasers, mobile arrest vans and perhaps even rubber bullets for a worst case scenario - but it does show how firmly a land border can be enforced if political will is there.
That'd be better than now where thousands think they are benignly storming the gates of the Garden of Eden.
Has Alanbrooke issued a quote for the business? Would rather Ulster-Jocks than my Kerry-folk relatives running the show...!
I don't get this notion that Obama was easy to beat in 2012, Romney was crushed with Obama not being particularly dynamic. Obama put in as much effort as he needed.
The Tea Party purity drive had hobbled the Republican selection process - Obama's voter targeting operation was excellent and he had a monster vote from minorities.
Romney was a dreadful candidate, and he still received 47%. Trump shouldn't have any problem getting at least 47% IMO.
I don't think Rick Santorum was any better in 2012!
That said, I think Trump could be a very, very strong candidate, and would certainly wipe the floor with Sanders. I would make him the favourite against Hillary too.
Sanders actually leads Trump in most polls at the moment, though I agree Trump would likely beat him in the end. Trump v Clinton would in my view most closely resemble the 1968 election between Nixon and Humphrey with Clinton as Nixon and Trump as Humphrey, that race went to the wire and Nixon won by less than 1%
Mr. Sandpit, won't happen, though. Polling was posted earlier which indicated Merkel's party still doing very well, and the German electorate adopting the boiled frog technique.
If Germany still takes migrants by the million, its media imposing self-censorship and mass groping/rape provoking a wall of silence for a week and playing the race card after that, the problem for all Europe remains.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
If they're so worried, give us a good deal to present to the UK electorate!
I don't think Deutsche Bank has that kind of power! (Not to mention the fact that the DB investment bank is pretty much all in London; it's the old Morgan Grenfell)
The merit of Trump is that he seems to think he'll be President. In my view, and it's one that is increasingly mainstream (especially in the US), successive Presidents have been firmly in the hands of corporate and military-industrial interests, and they have known it. By the time the selection is whittled down to two, it's all over bar rhetoric. Hillary exemplifies this. Trump is a political outsider who has made his own money (albeit with a great deal of parental help), and operates independently of the machinery/patronage inherent in US politics. That alone is cause for celebration.
Great link from David earlier and am surprised that didn't get more response. Stopping the Eurozone ganging up on non-Euro states is above immigration importance. Thatll be bit of the negotiation I'm most interested in.
Cruz's plea is bullshit - Trump won't be unstoppable even if he wins both Iowa & New Hampshire. Ted Cruz could, however, be unrecoverable.
If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire even Reagan's resurrected corpse will not stop him being nominee he will have such momentum he will steamroller through South Carolina and Super Tuesday before the establishment knows what has hit it
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interestis the same.
And the thinking as ever is the thinking of the last war - no appeasement, draw the line in the sand. it has nothing to do with Greater Europe. The French sat outside NATOs command structure for almost half its existence.
Do you honestly not think that a little bit more co-operation in both policy and execution might have helped with the migrant issue, for example?
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
I have no problem with cooperation, but this crisis was caused by Merkel inviting the world to Germany and then welching on the offer when they took her literally. Merkel now thinks cooperation and solidarity means everyone lse bailing her out of a problem shes infleiced on them.
Cameron's approach on dealing with the people at source has been shown to be the much better option.
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
If Trump is nominee and loses Cruz will almost certainly be GOP nominee in 2020
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interestis the same.
And the thinking as ever is the thinking of the last war - no appeasement, draw the line in the sand. it has nothing to do with Greater Europe. The French sat outside NATOs command structure for almost half its existence.
Do you honestly not think that a little bit more co-operation in both policy and execution might have helped with the migrant issue, for example?
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
I have no problem with cooperation, but this crisis was caused by Merkel inviting the world to Germany and then welching on the offer when they took her literally. Merkel now thinks cooperation and solidarity means everyone lse bailing her out of a problem shes infleiced on them.
Cameron's approach on dealing with the people at source has been shown to be the much better option.
It has been an excellent policy, and one which I think we owe to the forthcoming referendum.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interestis the same.
And the thinking as ever is the thinking of the last war - no appeasement, draw the line in the sand. it has nothing to do with Greater Europe. The French sat outside NATOs command structure for almost half its existence.
Do you honestly not think that a little bit more co-operation in both policy and execution might have helped with the migrant issue, for example?
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
I have no problem with cooperation, but this crisis was caused by Merkel inviting the world to Germany and then welching on the offer when they took her literally. Merkel now thinks cooperation and solidarity means everyone lse bailing her out of a problem shes infleiced on them.
Cameron's approach on dealing with the people at source has been shown to be the much better option.
It has been an excellent policy, and one which I think we owe to the forthcoming referendum.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interestis the same.
And the thinking as ever is the thinking of the last war - no appeasement, draw the line in the sand. it has nothing to do with Greater Europe. The French sat outside NATOs command structure for almost half its existence.
Do you honestly not think that a little bit more co-operation in both policy and execution might have helped with the migrant issue, for example?
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
I have no problem with cooperation, but this crisis was caused by Merkel inviting the world to Germany and then welching on the offer when they took her literally. Merkel now thinks cooperation and solidarity means everyone lse bailing her out of a problem shes infleiced on them.
Cameron's approach on dealing with the people at source has been shown to be the much better option.
It has been an excellent policy, and one which I think we owe to the forthcoming referendum.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
The merit of Trump is that he seems to think he'll be President. In my view, and it's one that is increasingly mainstream (especially in the US), successive Presidents have been firmly in the hands of corporate and military-industrial interests, and they have known it. By the time the selection is whittled down to two, it's all over bar rhetoric. Hillary exemplifies this. Trump is a political outsider who has made his own money (albeit with a great deal of parental help), and operates independently of the machinery/patronage inherent in US politics. That alone is cause for celebration.
I fear Trump as POTUS, but you could be right about "independence". The other phrase is "loose cannon" of course.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
Maybe he meant the ones fighting in the SS were fighting for Europe.
Picked up an interesting Danish commentary (from the Times-like Berlingske Tidende) on the Syrian negotiations which I don't think have been widely reported here. They've been postponed from Monday to Friday, because the Russians have suggested that the Kurds (who are an important group in the north of Syria, and the main impediment to ISIS there on the ground) and a very mild opposition group (who don't insist on Assad's immediate resignation) are both allowed to take part. Turkey said hell no to the Kurds and the strongly anti-Assad groups said hell no to the second.
The problem for the West is that we like the Kurds too and work closely with them, but we also don't want to annoy Turkey. And it's a bit tricky to exclude an opposition group for not being sufficiently extreme. So we've said uh, hang on, let's have a think for a few days. The overt Russian motivate is to avoid it coming down to a clear Assad vs. pro-Western groups choice. Turkey also speculates that Russia would quite fancy having another airbase in the Kurdish area, right on the Turkish border.
Sadly, it's not obvious that any of the countries and factions involved are actually primarily focused on getting a peaceful settlement or fighting ISIS or having peaceful elections. It's all about who's on top.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Sure, and there was self-interest there too. All the same, both the reality and the perception was that Britain's strategic border lay on the Elbe and the UK was prepared to sacrifice a very great deal to uphold that.
Whether it's the EU, Nato or anything else, the thinking is the same.
And the thinking as ever is the thinking of the last war - no appeasement, draw the line in the sand. it has nothing to do with Greater Europe. The French sat outside NATOs command structure for almost half its existence.
Do you honestly not think that a little bit more co-operation in both policy and execution might have helped with the migrant issue, for example?
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
Co-operation yes, if front line countries are prepared to co-operate to turn back migrants.
The merit of Trump is that he seems to think he'll be President. In my view, and it's one that is increasingly mainstream (especially in the US), successive Presidents have been firmly in the hands of corporate and military-industrial interests, and they have known it. By the time the selection is whittled down to two, it's all over bar rhetoric. Hillary exemplifies this. Trump is a political outsider who has made his own money (albeit with a great deal of parental help), and operates independently of the machinery/patronage inherent in US politics. That alone is cause for celebration.
I fear Trump as POTUS, but you could be right about "independence". The other phrase is "loose cannon" of course.
Bush Jnr gave a very good impression of being simple. Compared to him, Trump is Metternich. I quite like a loose cannon - they're less convincing liars. Look at Erdogan in Syria - the man shoots his mouth off every time he opens it. As a result you can see Turkey's agenda a mile off.
Simon Danczuk's son "only stayed with him once" - despite the MP claiming expenses for him for 4 years on the basis of 'routinely' living with him and being cared for in London
I see we are back to dissembling again...when Europhiles talk about 'cooperation' what they actually mean is more centralised EU decision making and less decision making at the UK level. Oh and 'pooled sovereignty'...
Simon Danczuk's son "only stayed with him once" - despite the MP claiming expenses for him for 4 years on the basis of 'routinely' living with him and being cared for in London
Meanwhile
Simon Danczuk @SimonDanczuk 4h4 hours ago I'm supporting @WomensAid campaign to protect children from unsafe contact arrangements
Every time I log-in to Betfair there's another splodge of cash that some persons have placed down trying to back Jeb at 9/1 (or 10.0 ) - I took almost half of it yesterday, and there's over £200 available now.
Picked up an interesting Danish commentary (from the Times-like Berlingske Tidende) on the Syrian negotiations which I don't think have been widely reported here. They've been postponed from Monday to Friday, because the Russians have suggested that the Kurds (who are an important group in the north of Syria, and the main impediment to ISIS there on the ground) and a very mild opposition group (who don't insist on Assad's immediate resignation) are both allowed to take part. Turkey said hell no to the Kurds and the strongly anti-Assad groups said hell no to the second.
The problem for the West is that we like the Kurds too and work closely with them, but we also don't want to annoy Turkey. And it's a bit tricky to exclude an opposition group for not being sufficiently extreme. So we've said uh, hang on, let's have a think for a few days. The overt Russian motivate is to avoid it coming down to a clear Assad vs. pro-Western groups choice. Turkey also speculates that Russia would quite fancy having another airbase in the Kurdish area, right on the Turkish border.
Sadly, it's not obvious that any of the countries and factions involved are actually primarily focused on getting a peaceful settlement or fighting ISIS or having peaceful elections. It's all about who's on top.
Thanks for this Nick. As shown in this regularly updated battlemap (I don't speak for the content/social media updates), the Kurds practically have a strip all across the top of Syria. There is a thin rebel slither, and a thicker ISIS slither, separating the two Kurdish controlled territories. http://syria.liveuamap.com
Picked up an interesting Danish commentary (from the Times-like Berlingske Tidende) on the Syrian negotiations which I don't think have been widely reported here. They've been postponed from Monday to Friday, because the Russians have suggested that the Kurds (who are an important group in the north of Syria, and the main impediment to ISIS there on the ground) and a very mild opposition group (who don't insist on Assad's immediate resignation) are both allowed to take part. Turkey said hell no to the Kurds and the strongly anti-Assad groups said hell no to the second.
The problem for the West is that we like the Kurds too and work closely with them, but we also don't want to annoy Turkey. And it's a bit tricky to exclude an opposition group for not being sufficiently extreme. So we've said uh, hang on, let's have a think for a few days. The overt Russian motivate is to avoid it coming down to a clear Assad vs. pro-Western groups choice. Turkey also speculates that Russia would quite fancy having another airbase in the Kurdish area, right on the Turkish border.
Sadly, it's not obvious that any of the countries and factions involved are actually primarily focused on getting a peaceful settlement or fighting ISIS or having peaceful elections. It's all about who's on top.
First you win on the battlefield, then at the peace talks. Syria and Russia are "playing along" with the peace talks meme for the purpose of demonstrating the futility of such an approach. That will work and the real business will keep on being done on the battlefield.
The Saudis and Turks still cannot accept that their policies have failed. The hardline salafist groups want a theocratic state and insist Assad stand down, which are non starters. The Turks also can't stomach that the Kurds will get a form of autonomy in NE Syria, the Kremlin and Damascus have clearly agreed this already.
Picked up an interesting Danish commentary (from the Times-like Berlingske Tidende) on the Syrian negotiations which I don't think have been widely reported here. They've been postponed from Monday to Friday, because the Russians have suggested that the Kurds (who are an important group in the north of Syria, and the main impediment to ISIS there on the ground) and a very mild opposition group (who don't insist on Assad's immediate resignation) are both allowed to take part. Turkey said hell no to the Kurds and the strongly anti-Assad groups said hell no to the second.
The problem for the West is that we like the Kurds too and work closely with them, but we also don't want to annoy Turkey. And it's a bit tricky to exclude an opposition group for not being sufficiently extreme. So we've said uh, hang on, let's have a think for a few days. The overt Russian motivate is to avoid it coming down to a clear Assad vs. pro-Western groups choice. Turkey also speculates that Russia would quite fancy having another airbase in the Kurdish area, right on the Turkish border.
Sadly, it's not obvious that any of the countries and factions involved are actually primarily focused on getting a peaceful settlement or fighting ISIS or having peaceful elections. It's all about who's on top.
Congratulations Captain Obvious.
The problem is what took you so long to find out that the third world is mostly about who's on top.
The merit of Trump is that he seems to think he'll be President. In my view, and it's one that is increasingly mainstream (especially in the US), successive Presidents have been firmly in the hands of corporate and military-industrial interests, and they have known it. By the time the selection is whittled down to two, it's all over bar rhetoric. Hillary exemplifies this. Trump is a political outsider who has made his own money (albeit with a great deal of parental help), and operates independently of the machinery/patronage inherent in US politics. That alone is cause for celebration.
Here is a fun interview with Trump political advisor Roger Stone.
I read that this was after a car accident. Ironic that his most famous song "Wonderful Life" was written about the year when several bad things happened including a car accident. Still a great song.
Picked up an interesting Danish commentary (from the Times-like Berlingske Tidende) on the Syrian negotiations which I don't think have been widely reported here. They've been postponed from Monday to Friday, because the Russians have suggested that the Kurds (who are an important group in the north of Syria, and the main impediment to ISIS there on the ground) and a very mild opposition group (who don't insist on Assad's immediate resignation) are both allowed to take part. Turkey said hell no to the Kurds and the strongly anti-Assad groups said hell no to the second.
The problem for the West is that we like the Kurds too and work closely with them, but we also don't want to annoy Turkey. And it's a bit tricky to exclude an opposition group for not being sufficiently extreme. So we've said uh, hang on, let's have a think for a few days. The overt Russian motivate is to avoid it coming down to a clear Assad vs. pro-Western groups choice. Turkey also speculates that Russia would quite fancy having another airbase in the Kurdish area, right on the Turkish border.
Sadly, it's not obvious that any of the countries and factions involved are actually primarily focused on getting a peaceful settlement or fighting ISIS or having peaceful elections. It's all about who's on top.
Thanks for this Nick. As shown in this regularly updated battlemap (I don't speak for the content/social media updates), the Kurds practically have a strip all across the top of Syria. There is a thin rebel slither, and a thicker ISIS slither, separating the two Kurdish controlled territories. http://syria.liveuamap.com
That map and livefeed is as impressive as it is deeply depressing.
It's a brilliant, funny movie about The Kredit Krunch.
Miles better than Revenant. Recommended. Heartily.
I thought the Revenant was quite good if a little long and it will likely sweep the board at the Oscars and is already topping the box office but will try and see The Big Short this weekend, it has had excellent reviews. Dad's Army comes out the subsequent week, will be interesting to see how they handled it!
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3417669/Police-flee-lives-Swedish-migrant-camp-surrounded-screaming-mob-try-relocate-ten-year-old-boy-raped-multiple-times.html
Mr. Isam, I hope the Twitter report on that (the police fleeing story) are wrong.
We'll see if the media bother to report it. Probably easier to compare wristbands to the Third Reich, though...
Cameron may be making a mistake wanting a referendum this year. By 2017, the situation may be improving. I think the migrant crisis will get much worse this year.
That said, I think Trump could be a very, very strong candidate, and would certainly wipe the floor with Sanders. I would make him the favourite against Hillary too.
And also (according to wiki) re the Tower
''Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston has questioned why Trump used all-concrete construction at a time when steel girder technology prevailed in New York skyscraper technology, and why Trump Tower and other Trump properties used concrete from a firm (HRH Construction) owned by Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family, and "Big Paul" Castellano, head of the Gambino crime family.[5] According to the documentary Trump: What's the Deal, the demolition waste removal was also mob connected.''
Why is it only Hillary is being investigated by the FBI?
Seen the first 20 minutes so far and very impressed with it.
Harry Enfield is a great comic actor.
Whether it's the EU, Nato or anything else, the thinking is the same.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-cant-the-swedish-authorities-be-honest-about-crime-and-immigration/
What is most worrying is the how politicized the police are. We can't say it was an immigrant, because that might boost the poll rating of a political party. That should never ever be any consideration to upholding the law and solving crime.
What I am finding really hard to get my head around is that the reports are in Sweden there are huge issues with Moroccan kids turning up unaccompanied. Morocco isn't a war zone. And I wonder how many are really kids or just say they are 15? Why are they not being returned to home?
If a British kid was found wandering alone around Stockholm, do you think he would be sent back?
As I said, I think it'll be worse this year than last. Merkel's secured her legacy.
My point is that it is extremely expensive to genuinely secure long land borders with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of potential crossing points. If you take Luxembourg, and assume a pair of guards every hundred meters, and three shifts, you end up with about 20% of the workforce of the country guarding the border.
We need a three part plan:
1. We need to rapidly deport people to safe camps near their point of embarkment. Once people find themselves being transported back in Syria, the incentive to come here is much diminished.
2. We needs to spend money on camps in Jordan etc. It's simply cheaper for us to deal with the problem near source. (And safe camps with ample food in Jordan will deter people making the journey) particularly if...
3. We make a much more active attempt to discourage people crossing the Med. A cross national force that tows people back to the shore they came from could dramatically lower the numbers, and make it much more expensive to get to Europe.
NATO basically now represents armed Western interests.
A miniscule number served in the Indian Legion (3,000) and the INA, over in Burma (43,000).
Compared with 2.5 MILLION serving in the British Indian Army in WW2!
For the UK, although we can't solve the problem on our doorstep, we don't have too many points to secure either. I expect 90%+ of migrants will attempt to enter through Heathrow, Gatwick, Calais, Dunkirk, Le Harve, Cherbourg and The Chunnel.
BP and Rosneft are in a JV, Nord Stream is expanding to supply Britain's Nat Gas needs, sanctions on Iran are lifted, NATO won't be expanded further east, sponsoring Islamsist terrorism is so 90s that even Graham E Fuller is advocating collaboration with the Russians in Syria, immigrants are swarming Europe from failed states in MENA, Boris Berezovsky hung himself and Donald Trump is front runner for the Republican ticket.
That hysteria you can hear in the media is that of a dying ideology that had its day and failed.
Got to be a worth a point or two in Iowa and could swing it.
Europe's border now lies in the Med and the Aegean just as much as Nato's lay on the Elbe. And in the same way that Nato troops were stationed in Germany, so a European 'border force' - or whatever you want to call it - now needs stationing on Lesbos and the like.
I mean in terms of securing an external border.. WTF?
How many would now be classed as Bangladeshi, Indian, Nepalese, Pakistani or - maybe - Burmese? Do not correlate the past with the present: To do a Dr Prasannan would undermine the good of the many (and cheer-on the supporters of SS Tiger Division).
And we are all better than that, aren't we...?
That - by the way - is the same level as Jordan's entire GDP.
Which is why I think he'll win.
However, I think they are likely to be sadly disappointed. Trump is a New York liberal who'll throw a few populist bones to the people. There is literally no chance that he'll persuade the Mexicans to pay for his wall, ban all Muslims from entering the US, and get Apple to move iPhone manufacturing to the US. He's just as big a liar as traditional politicians.
The PM was completely right when he said that the UK should only accept people from the camps, what needs stopping is the trafficking of people across the Med and through Europe towards Germany and the UK.
The more people that end up in the richest of Western nations, the more will be encouraged to try and make the trip by whatever means. Word would soon get around if anyone arriving in the UK got herded onto a plane and dropped back in Damascus.
:awaits-moderation:
If Germany still takes migrants by the million, its media imposing self-censorship and mass groping/rape provoking a wall of silence for a week and playing the race card after that, the problem for all Europe remains.
"Matt Frei — The Mad World of Donald Trump":
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-mad-world-of-donald-trump
And after all der Sunil is German for "backstabbing bastard who'd sell his mother for a train photo" so we;ve only got your word for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kE3my5h74I
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2K_1qvIsFo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army
"2,500,000 in WW2"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion
"3,000 maximum"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army
"43,000 (approximate)"
Cameron's approach on dealing with the people at source has been shown to be the much better option.
Lammy is a cretin
I read on the internet that you're a PhD, I mean as if .....
TURNIP (Trumps Unelectable Rhetorc Never Incumbent President)
But with my track record of EICIPM back Trump!!
Pull the other one!
The problem for the West is that we like the Kurds too and work closely with them, but we also don't want to annoy Turkey. And it's a bit tricky to exclude an opposition group for not being sufficiently extreme. So we've said uh, hang on, let's have a think for a few days. The overt Russian motivate is to avoid it coming down to a clear Assad vs. pro-Western groups choice. Turkey also speculates that Russia would quite fancy having another airbase in the Kurdish area, right on the Turkish border.
Sadly, it's not obvious that any of the countries and factions involved are actually primarily focused on getting a peaceful settlement or fighting ISIS or having peaceful elections. It's all about who's on top.
Simon Danczuk @SimonDanczuk 4h4 hours ago
I'm supporting @WomensAid campaign to protect children from unsafe contact arrangements
I simply can't mop any more of it up.
The Saudis and Turks still cannot accept that their policies have failed. The hardline salafist groups want a theocratic state and insist Assad stand down, which are non starters. The Turks also can't stomach that the Kurds will get a form of autonomy in NE Syria, the Kremlin and Damascus have clearly agreed this already.
There are no meaningful 'pro Western groups'.
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2016/01/15/seymour-hersch-us-militaers-haben-respekt-vor-leistung-der-russen-in-syrien/
The problem is what took you so long to find out that the third world is mostly about who's on top.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FVsS2sDkpE
Which country has the longest land borders in the world?
Ironic that his most famous song "Wonderful Life" was written about the year when several bad things happened including a car accident. Still a great song.