The US has complete Global Naval Supremacy.
#alternativefacts
I'm pretty sure Britannia rules the waves. There's even a song to prove it.
The EU would be able to blockade the strait and then closely follow any warships entering from the Suez Canal, with land based air power.
Even if more than a tiny percentage of aircreaft were combat deplorable, They won't be flying for long without fuel
Russia isn't about to drive tanks to Paris either
They've no need to, turn off the gas taps and the EU would be on its knees in weeks
fascinating as i find a discussion on apocalyptic war none of us think will happen i got thinking
Will we be returning to discussing reality any time soon?
Tom_W1987 - Member
Why do we need aircraft carriers to protect our borders and littoral waters, again? China has one carrier, that wouldn't stop them from pushing the American Navy out of the South China sea if they really wanted to.American bases should be removed to encourage closer European defense integration, increased defense spending and pro European radicalism. Trumps position should be seen as a chance to further strengthen the EU, dependancy on the US can be used by people like Trump to leverage and undermine the Union. Something that I think you'd like to see Trump do.
Based on this and other posts I think this account has been hijacked by a Russian teenager and this is the start of the Russian cyber campaign in the UK in preparation for the full annexation of the Ukraine as NATO disintegrates
Yuri, would encourage the use of the English spelling of key words if you want to make it more believable 😉
I think people are somewhat missing the fact that wars used to be about capturing territory, so you could enslave the people living there, and collect taxes and goods from them to make you richer.
Back in the days of non intensive farming and industry, and in conjunction with low population density, that made sense, hence all the wars.
In 2017, er, not so much. What do you get for example if you invade France today? about 100m people wanting state support. Not such a glittering prize now is it.
The next global war will be one to attempt to control primary energy or similar resource, not to capture territory!
Will we be returning to discussing reality any time soon?
Keep up will you. It's #altreality now.
To quote Renton, he wasn't far wrong, just got the timing 980 years out.
1,000 years from now there will be no guys and no girls, just ****ers.
It's all a bit 'My Dad's bigger than your Dad!'. Classic diversion tactic, get everyone to turn on each other, they wont notice who's shafting them that way.
Ooh,back from a week off,and the same old attention whores are saying anything they can to get a response.Let them alone,they may stop 😆
The European satirists are really starting to ramp up the piss-taking now 🙂
Check out the German video. When the vid finishes have a quick look at around 9 mins in to see some German insight to how our politicians are thought off over there 😀
Will we be returning to discussing reality any time soon?
Returning?
"In 2017, er, not so much. What do you get for example if you invade France today? about 100m people wanting state support."
Broadly agree with your post but in response to this I think I need to bring up Hitler's Hunger Plan.
I suspect that the phosphates crisis might see Europe fighting Russia for food, and the losing population starving.
BigandDaft, you laugh, but the basic premise of my argument, to increase EU defence spending and forge a closer political and military union is already forging ahead at a quicker pace thanks to Trump. I have lots of European friends who now, thanks to Trump, vocalizing support for an EU nuclear dettereance.
The Europeans should also be considering cancelling all F35 contracts in favour of updated Typhoons and a 6th gen contract competition - to reduce reliance on the American defense industry.
The "fourth reich" comments are enlightening, Brexshitters seem to resent Nato and on the otherhand baulk at a stronger EU.
Would it be possible for a 'genuine' pro Trumper to make a tangible case for Trump. The dismal trolling and incoherent rambling do little but discredit anyone that does support him.
Piemonster,I'd be really impressed if you got a coherent answer to that question.
Sure
You need to see past the propaganda, be it from the democrats (screams of outrage and horror at policies that are actually surprisingly close to the ones they were supporting themselves only a short while ago, see the videos of Bill Clintons state of the union on illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities) the republicans (for many of whom Trump is nowhere near right wing enough) and Trump himself (you lot will [b]never[/b] get this, you just don't understand it, like you never got the £350 million thing was never about the figure, it was the underlying message, look at the phyrric 'victory' that they think they have scored over the travel ban, they just can't see that facing off against the judiciary is a complete no lose scenario for Trump with his voting demographic, in just the same way that they can't see that the only result of rioting to successfully prevent Milo speaking to 300 students at Berkeley is Milo speaking to 3 million on Fox News and jumping to number one on the amazon bestseller list! - in fact in just the way they didn't understand how and why Trump was behind the leaked 'john miller' tapes that they thought would end his candidacy, or the sex tape rumours. The left just can't conceptualise the deliberate disinformation campaign and instead try to fight Trump conventionally, it's not worked, and it won't work)
The thing that you need to realise is that Trump realises that in order to rebuild, first you must destroy - and that is exactly what he has set about doing, turning the establishment against itself.
The second thing to realise is 'the art of the deal' you delibatetley overreach your offer in order to compromise, you move when the opposition is at their weakest, and you are unafraid to take damage and walk away from something that isn't working out, because one failure and four successes is still four successes.
See what I mean?
and that is exactly what he has set about doing, turning the establishment against itself.
Trump himself is about as establishment as you can get, the idea that he'll help destroy the system that has made him immensely wealthy is laughable
[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbx3ig2IpbWORMODY6ouqpJZzaEHuE4cDOjdVHB21oJGAYV601 [/img]
the idea that he'll help destroy the system that has made him immensely wealthy is laughable
So what has he got to lose?
If he smashes it up, he'll [b]still[/b] be incredibly wealthy.
Been off the web for a while
I see Trump's shambolic travel ban is going well....
He's not rebuilding anything though is he, he's just ****g shit up and now attacking the independence of the judiciary.
Now I can see why that'd appeal to a fascist, but with our sensible hats on we know that is a bad thing, even you Ninfan
It's like the 350 million thing, it is lovely to see the brexiters and Aaron banks so happy that their lie was so successful, but you see it's alienated all those remoaners, who can't let it go, that's why May's pleas for unity fall on deaf ears, it's why those younger voters betrayed by the brexies are not letting it go.
That was 'how' not 'why'
So what has he got to lose?If he smashes it up, he'll still be incredibly wealthy.
I don't see long term strategy behind making enemies of China and the European Union, in favour of short term financial gains by siding with Putin. What I see is someone that is materialistic and ignorant of the lessons taught to us by the last days of the Roman empire.
You really are off you're rocker if you think that Trump is some kind of patriotic saviour of the west.
That was 'how' not 'why'
Two choices:
i) to get back at the establishment that, frankly, ridiculed and rejected him
ii) MAGA
If you look at his older speeches/interviews (i.e. Mid eighties, early nineties) it may well be a bit of both
Edit: @Kimbers - like with Brexit, you're blinded by the short term
MAGA
Lol.
I like this comment in a CNN article :
[i]"The rapid halting of President Donald Trump's immigration order has given him his first exposure to the limits on his presidential power, a sharp awakening for a real estate mogul accustomed to the wide unilateral prerogative of a chief executive".[/i]
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/
Yep, I get the impression that Trump isn't used to having his expressed instructions questioned, by anyone.
It reminds of the scene in Catch 22 :
[i][b]"Take him out and shoot him," General Dreedle demanded.
"S-sir?"
"I said take him out and shoot him. Can't you hear?"
"Yes, sir!" Colonel Cathcart responded smartly, swallowing hard, and turned in a brisk manner to his chauffeur and his meteorologist. "Take Major Danby out and shoot him."
"S-sir?" his chauffeur and meteorologist stammered.
"I said take Major Danby out and and shoot him," Colonel Cathcart snapped. "Can't you hear?"
"I think you'd better wait a minute, Dad," [Colonel Moodus] suggested hesitantly. "I don't think you can shoot him."
General Dreedle was infuriated by his intervention. "Who the hell says I can't?" he thundered pugnaciously in a voice loud enough to rattle the whole building. "Why the hell can't I? You mean I can't shoot anyone I want to? Is that a fact?" he inquired, his rage tamed by curiosity.
"Yes, Dad. I'm afraid it is." [/i][/b]
Trump is General Dreedle
[img] 
[/img]
Massive +1 Ernie.
Some interesting articles emerging from historians about Shock Events.
Strangely, I find myself agreeing with some bits of ninfan's post - don't think anyone's debating what Trump's tactics are (it's pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of media savvy and historical knowledge), but I don't currently see a coherent 'rebuilding' plan in the works after all the deliberate confusion brings down the US political establishment. Nor do I see much evidence of even a desire to rebuild given Bannon's previous statements on his political agenda.
Assuming we all agree that Bannon is pulling most of the strings?
The rapid halting of President Donald Trump's immigration order"
Has created a face off between Trump and the old order establishment, that he [b]cannot[/b] lose - either it goes to court and he wins, which makes him into a winner, or he loses, in which case it's him fighting for the security of the American people against the establishment who want to let in the dangerous immigrants from terrorist countries.
[b]full of win[/b]
Given the state of Bannon, I give him a year till he has a heart attack.
Not all Americans are as stupid as you assume ninfan.
ninfan - Member
[b]full of (perceived) win[/b]
FTFY
Not all Americans are as stupid as you assume ninfan.
No, but as long as 46.1% are...
Just like this country then ?
@Kimbers - like with Brexit, you're blinded by the short term
Nah long term the brexies voters well be dead and the younger remoaners will be looking at their naff blue disunited kingdom passports and wishing they were part of something bigger and a bit less shitty.
No, but as long as 46.1% are..
That assumes that 46.1% of voters are islamophobic misogynist bigots who approve of mocking the disabled, bullying, and the boasting of sexually assaulting women.
While that might certainly be the case for some there is powerful evidence that many voters voted for Trump [u]despite[/u] the fact that he is a islamophobic misogynist bigot who mocks the disabled, bullies, and the boasts of sexually assaulting women.
Why? For many reasons, including because they didn't want the Clinton/Obama legacy continued in the White House, they see him as a businessman who will make them prosperous again, with Clinton you didn't know exactly what she thought, they want to believe in the American Dream again, Trumps perceived support for the underdog, less unemployment, better wages, no more costly foreign wars, etc.
Plus they never believed that he would actually implement his more outrageous promises.
lol..."no more costly wars"....what they actually got...was the ****ing Joker from Batman...
Both these shifts would be damaging enough, but the combination is a true menace. It’s not just that Trump’s proposed EU envoy actively looks forward to the unravelling of the EU, hoping it goes the way of the Soviet Union. It’s that Trump sees multilateral cooperation as a limp-wristed strategy for losers, preferring to make bilateral deals that work for him. That triggers a Darwinian scramble, in which every nation looks out only for itself – and damn the arrangements that previously held the world together.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/04/white-house-agenda-collapse-global-order-war
This is probably pretty much how Bannon/Trumps first meeting with their military heads went..
I can't fathom why Ninfan thinks that this type of aggressive politics, is somehow good for the world...
ninfan - MemberHas created a face off between Trump and the old order establishment, that he cannot lose - either it goes to court and he wins, which makes him into a winner, or he loses, in which case it's him fighting for the security of the American people against the establishment who want to let in the dangerous immigrants from terrorist countries.
full of win
...that would be true if it weren't that Trump's team are already rowing back from the initial ban. First it was an outright ban, then you could come if you had a green card, then if you had military connections, probably next it will be if you paid off the right people.
And the judge noted that the countries banned hadn't been the source of any actual real terrorist attacks on US soil.
So the whole thing looks like a half-baked shambles.
I'm going to be over there next week, and I shall ask my Arizona-based, gun-toting right-wing survivalist source what he thinks.
But I suspect that people will view him as incompetent.
Lol. No more wars.
I can't fathom why Ninfan thinks that this type of aggressive politics, is somehow good for the world...
Where in the last 175 pages have you got the impression ninfan gives a shit about the 'good of the world'?
Tom_W1987 - Memberlol..."no more costly wars"....what they actually got...was the **** Joker from Batman...
The fact that they might not have, unsurprisingly, got exactly what they thought they were voting for, doesn't preclude the reasons why they might have voted for Trump.
No one is claiming that voting for Trump was a clever move for American voters. At least I'm not.
**** knows.
The basic lack of agreeableness is beyond comprehension for me. I'm even more angry about Trump and Brexit than I have been in a while, the fact that the world is now seriously considering a US-China war is beyond ****ing insane. Not to mention how scary it is for my family (eg my niece who is half Chinese/half British) and friends, many of whom are Asian and would likely get caught up in the Daily Mail inspired backlash over here, if it kicked off in the South Pacific.
@Ernie, I know you don't. I'm in complete agreement with your posts, I'm just incredulous myself at what is coming out of the administration. I knew that it was going to be bonkers, but just not this bat shit mental.
On the bright side, maybe if there is a large war in the Pacific, loads of spams will get killed - which is always a bonus, the American Navy might get decimated and the spams will spend the next 50 years doing a good bit of introspection like Germany did.
The one thing Trump has missed in his first 2 weeks is making America great again .
He , and his followers , think he has made America safe with the travel ban and the wall .
But not a lot on creating jobs and wealth for Americans .
Whether his ego or the reality of the job got the better of him, he is doing the opposite of what he said , reducing US intervention abroad .
I think by reducing intervention, what they meant was humanitarian intervention and nation building - imperialistic wars were always on the cards if you listened to what Bannon was saying. The American public just didn't make that distinction.
, you laugh, but the basic premise of my argument, to increase EU defence spending and forge a closer political and military union is already forging ahead at a quicker pace thanks to Trump. I have lots of European friends who now, thanks to Trump, vocalizing support for an EU nuclear dettereance.
But only the French have a capability and no ability to produce new fissile material. European military union just means more headquarters and less bayonets and tanks, AH, FGA, AD, etc etc. Your European friends are deluded.
The Europeans should also be considering cancelling all F35 contracts in favour of updated Typhoons and a 6th gen contract competition - to reduce reliance on the American defense industry.
What will we fly off the carrier's? How long do you think it will take to get an alternative?
The "fourth reich" comments are enlightening, Brexshitters seem to resent Nato and on the otherhand baulk at a stronger EU.
The EU army was the most anti NATO developmentout there, the whole aim was to reduce the influence of NATO to give power to Luxembourg town mayor's. Most of the leave campaigners were pro NATO
To be honest your world view is so disfunctional I still think you are Yuri
The one thing Trump has missed in his first 2 weeks is making America great again .
He's got to get that swamp drained first. You know, to make room for his own crocodiles.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/sweden-criticises-us-climate-stance-as-it-reveals-ambitious-carbon-emissions-law ]Meanwhile is Sweden[/url] steps are taken on climate law.
[img] http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/0305a0115fba4aa66eb54c548e5c379bdb8a0d26.jp g" target="_blank">http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/0305a0115fba4aa66eb54c548e5c379bdb8a0d26.jp g"/> [/img]
But only the French have a capability and no ability to produce new fissile material. European military union just means more headquarters and less bayonets and tanks, AH, FGA, AD, etc etc. Your European friends are deluded.
This statement is only true is so for that the EU is incapable in the same way that Japan has no technical ability to produce nuclear weapons either, however Japan is considered a de facto nuclear state by many as they are considered about 1 year away at any time, from being a nuclear armed state - they even have 35 tonnes of Fissile material stored in Europe, so to say that Europe doesn't have the capability is a bit laughable really.
What will we fly off the carrier's? How long do you think it will take to get an alternative?
I'm arguing from the point of view of the EU, not bexshitting Britain. Why should the EU give a **** if our F35's end up costing double?
[quote=cchris2lou ]The one thing Trump has missed in his first 2 weeks is making America great again .
You must have missed the so-called president tweeting earlier:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827885966509604865
OK Yuri
Also
The EU army was the most anti NATO developmentout there, the whole aim was to reduce the influence of NATO to give power to Luxembourg town mayor's. Most of the leave campaigners were pro NATO
So you're opposed to the European Union developing autonomy, because it would reduce the influence of British and American neo-imperialism on the continent?
Nice.
So ****ing what, if they are anti-Nato? They have good reason to be, America cannot be relied upon. Again, you're just outing the Brexshitters as the racist, stuck in the past imperialists that they are.
So you're opposed to the European Union developing autonomy, because it would reduce the influence of British and American neo-imperialism on the continent?
LOL, the British gave up neo imperialism on the continent when they gave up Calais, the Americans have been drawing down for ages
So **** what, if they are anti-Nato? They have good reason to be, America cannot be relied upon. Again, you're just outing the Brexshitters as the racist, stuck in the past imperialists that they are.
Time for bed Yuri, too much vodka 😉
Tom. One question... when the EU gets their own Nuclear Weapons, who is going to have firing authority?
I'm sure they can work that out, Trump is hardening European attitudes in terms of close political integration, he is going to have the opposite effect that Farage et al intends. What is with this utter derision of Europeans, are they not capable of deciding these things for themselves?
They could also run a dead mans hand system.
Besides, aren't British sub commanders given firing authority independent of Downing Street authorisation?
I'm sure they can work that out,
Come on, it's your plan, you must have thought through the practicalities, how does it work? You've had decades since Kissinger asked "Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” - who gets command authority?
No, letter of last resort is signed by the PMBesides, aren't British sub commanders given firing authority independent of Downing Street authorisation?
And back on topic - Trump has set a new record - the lowest approval ratings of an incoming president ever.
Probably why he is firing off tweets as a distraction...
the lowest approval ratings of an incoming president ever.
Wow, that's terrible, shocking - so does that mean he won't still be president tomorrow, and the day after, then?
No, letter of last resort is signed by the PM
Still, firing authority rests with the commander alone and the letter can indicate the commander to use his discretion.
The same could be done for any EU nuclear force - for the commanders to use their discretion in the event of a nuclear attack - with no direct authorisation from an elected official.
I bet you brexshitters would love that, an Anglophobic nuclear armed superstate on your doorstep.
ninfan - Member
Wow, that's terrible, shocking - so does that mean he won't still be president tomorrow, and the day after, then?
[img]
[/img]
Of course it doesn't. Still, makes you think.
Come on, it's your plan, you must have thought through the practicalities, how does it work? You've had decades since Kissinger asked "Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” - who gets command authority?
This is just ****ing hilarious/rich coming from you.
Anyway, why not just give the authority to the European President?
I'd have no issue with that.
ninfan - MemberWow, that's terrible, shocking - so does that mean he won't still be president tomorrow, and the day after, then?
If he doesn't sort his act out, it will mean the biggest outpouring of schadenfreude since the word was invented.
The same could be done for any EU nuclear force - for the commanders to use their discretion in the event of a nuclear attack - with no direct authorisation from an elected officia
which commanders?
So far you appear to have taken the EU from a democratic union of independent states into a militaristic superstate with, uniquely, nuclear weapons under the direct and sole authority of an unknown and unelected military junta
And you wonder why the Brexiteers wanted out 😆
Edit: ah, you've come up with an answer:
Anyway, why not just give the authority to the European President?
president of the European council, president of the European Parliament, or president of the European Commission?
(There is no president of the European Union btw)
Good to see the tough questions getting allowed/asked.
Wow, the old long-debunked Kissinger phone call thing....didn't think I'd ever see that again.
'Reginald Dale of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington (and before that of The Financial Times) has written to me to say:'
“Kissinger never made the famous remark about Europe’s telephone number. According to the late Peter Rodman, who knew him well, the saying is apocryphal, and in fact Kissinger’s concern was the precise opposite – he was fed up with having to deal with a Dane whom he regarded as incompetent and ineffective, who was trying to represent the whole of the EU as President of the Council.
Kissinger himself has disowned the remark, and it seems that he was actually seeking to [b]divide and rule in Europe[/b], rather than be restricted to a single voice on the telephone.”
I’m amazed people don’t have more faith in the political opinions of a nine inch nails fan.
The same could be done for any EU nuclear force - for the commanders to use their discretion in the event of a nuclear attack - with no direct authorisation from an elected official.
Anyway, why not just give the authority to the European President?
Who is that? The role doesn't exist. Come on Yuri, your knowledge of western European institutions is letting you down
I bet you brexshitters would love that, an Anglophobic nuclear armed superstate on your doorstep.
The French have had nuclear weapons for a while now
which commanders?So far you appear to have taken the EU from a democratic union of independent states into a militaristic superstate with, uniquely, nuclear weapons under the direct and sole authority of an unknown and unelected military junta
And you wonder why the Brexiteers wanted out
Brexiteers like yourself wanted to see the Union dismantle, I would just find it utterly utterly hilarious if that backfired on them.
http://www.politico.eu/article/why-europe-is-secretly-rooting-for-donald-trump-us-election-2016/
If Europeans want to have an indirectly elected Council President with Nuclear authorisation, that is up to them - not you, not the United States and not the UK. They could of course, very well decide to directly elect persons to that position, if they were to give the post holder that power.
Who is that? The role doesn't exist. Come on Yuri, your knowledge of western European institutions is letting you down
Oh I'm sorry, I meant the councils president.
So according to Der Spiegel, European nuclear deterrence is already being talked about in hushed tones amongst diplomats....informal ideas being thrown around.
Well done Trump and the Brexshitters, you've finally convinced Europe to spend more on defence - just not quite in the way that you wanted.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-revocable-trust-business-empire-money-conflicts-of-interest-trump-organisation-don-eric-a7563391.html ]Donald Trump maintains direct ties to business empire, documents show[/url]
I'm starting to wonder whether Trump actually wants to be impeached. Certainly impeachment would be an attractive proposition for Trump as it would cast him as a victim of "the establishment", and a martyr in the eyes of his more adoring fans.
The alternative of screwing up for 4 years because he simply can't hack the very demanding job of US President and then losing an election would be deeply humiliating for Trump.
And I have no doubt at all that Trump's primary motivation is his overinflated precious ego.
You know, I'm actually starting to think the US really will go to war with China. Folks were saying, like now "war would be too expensive! We're too globalized!" right up to the eve of World War I. History tends to rhyme and we're long overdue for a large scale travesty/murder party.
You know, I'm actually starting to think the US really will go to war with China. Folks were saying, like now "war would be too expensive! We're too globalized!" right up to the eve of World War I. History tends to rhyme and we're long overdue for a large scale travesty/murder party.
Why would trump bomb the factories that make his products?
Is it vodka or anti freeze you are drinking Yuri?
I think that he and Bannon have read the RAND report, that shows that the USA may come out economically on top of a country that they view as a competitor.....
Why wouldn't they start a war, considering Bannon has stated that he wants one - and Trump wants a trade war?
If he goes to war with China neither country will have much left with which to be competitive.
Are you going to keep up with this constant reference to "Yuri" big_n_daft? It's not actually funny.
I don't think that Trump or Bannon believe that though, slowoldman. Something tells me, that in their hypermasculine, competitive, win at any costs world - they see a war with China as a necessity of business and their egos think that they could pull it off.
anyway can we leave the planning for WW3 for a bit
Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?
9,315 replies 4,558 retweets 20,283 likes
Reply 9.3K Retweet 4.6K
Like 20K
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
More
Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
31,137 replies 14,280 retweets 59,194 likes
Reply 31K Retweet 14K
Like 59K
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago
More
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?
43,824 replies 18,191 retweets 74,784 likes
Reply 44K Retweet 18K
Like 75K
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
More
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
46,110 replies 50,939 retweets 189,873 likes
Reply 46K Retweet 51K
Like 190K
and yes he is retweeting himself
President Trump Retweeted
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 39m39 minutes ago
More
Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?
I for one think their should be no pudding in the white house this evening...
The replies to the tweets tell you a lot, mostly the offensive racist idiots are pro trump and those that can form sentences against
[quote=ernie_lynch ]I'm starting to wonder whether Trump actually wants to be impeached.
It does appear to be one possibility - though in reality I suspect he just thinks they wouldn't dare and that he can do whatever he likes.
Just to join in with the crazy speculation, was the plan all along of the right to get Pence in by the back door?
Are you going to keep up with this constant reference to "Yuri" big_n_daft? It's not actually funny.
Does it have to be funny?
Pointing out the tripe he's coming out with is similar to a what would be expected of Russian #fakenews twitter site is arguably a public service.
Is this rational?
On the bright side, maybe if there is a large war in the Pacific, loads of spams will get killed - which is always a bonus, the American Navy might get decimated and the spams will spend the next 50 years doing a good bit of introspection like Germany did.
The American attitude towards the EU is disgusting, and personally I do think that it is about time the Union responded in a robust way with hard ppwer.
Or a teenager (Yuri?) ****ing off?
So according to Der Spiegel, European nuclear deterrence is already being talked about in hushed tones amongst diplomats....informal ideas being thrown around.
So you think that starting another nuclear arms race is a good thing?
On the bright side, maybe if there is a large war in the Pacific, loads of spams will get killed - which is always a bonus, the American Navy might get decimated and the spams will spend the next 50 years doing a good bit of introspection like Germany did.
That's a pretty nasty statement.
The American attitude towards the EU is disgusting, and personally I do think that it is about time the Union responded in a robust way with hard ppwer.
You do realise there would be no EU without American hard power?
The only time that Continental Europe has ever raised armies to fight a common enemy was that business on the Eastern Front in the 40's. Didn't go well then either.
Why wouldn't they start a war, considering Bannon has stated that he wants one - and Trump wants a trade war?
You do know that a trade war is slightly different from a war.
Bannon doesn't have any power, influence maybe, power no.