Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why are you so interested in another country's politics?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post


    Plenty of Europeans here go on about how the US deliberately discouraged Western Europe's desire to fund her own defense -- yet Macron's recent proposal to inaugurate an EU military force, and the silent response to it -- should render such claims laughable. Need I go on, or are you getting the point yet?
    Macron's intentions not being well known, most say he's in the rut of cheap pandering to the ideologues of both extremes to curry more vote/favors/etc. This said, the idea of an EU Army is not a new one. It gets trotted out from time to time with no real date projection or plan on how to get it started. However, the constant stammering that foreign observers often hear of certain elected officials in the US is that other nations must do more......then when those other nations propose just that thing, those same US elected US officials go on some unhinged rant about how this undermines NATO or whatever.

    Such a response only confirms to the foreign nations that NATO is really only a tool to serve US foreign policy. So what exactly does the US want - other nations to take more responsibility, let the US dictate other nation's foreign policies so that it conforms to those of America?

    It seems the US says one things, then when others basically say "ok, we'll do it", the US screams and whines?

    You'll live, only the best get killed.

    -General Charles de Gaulle

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by asterix View Post

      Macron's intentions not being well known, most say he's in the rut of cheap pandering to the ideologues of both extremes to curry more vote/favors/etc.
      The hell you say . . . .

      Originally posted by asterix View Post
      This said, the idea of an EU Army is not a new one. It gets trotted out from time to time with no real date projection or plan on how to get it started. However, the constant stammering that foreign observers often hear of certain elected officials in the US is that other nations must do more......then when those other nations propose just that thing, those same US elected US officials go on some unhinged rant about how this undermines NATO or whatever.
      For all of NATO's faults -- which are real -- I'm still a fan. Pres Trump, however, would seem to not be a fan of NATO. I suspect that he's not too worried about undermining NATO.

      Originally posted by asterix View Post
      Such a response only confirms to the foreign nations that NATO is really only a tool to serve US foreign policy. So what exactly does the US want - other nations to take more responsibility, let the US dictate other nation's foreign policies so that it conforms to those of America?
      Yes!

      Originally posted by asterix View Post
      It seems the US says one things, then when others basically say "ok, we'll do it", the US screams and whines?
      Yeah, so . . . . What's your point?



      I mean, you are familiar with how politics, and politicians, work, aren't you? You don't still believe that bullsh*t you learned in school, do you? "Schoolhouse Rock" my a$$.
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #48
        Yeah, so . . . . What's your point?



        My question to you.

        Point seems to be that US influence continues to slip until one day US opinion well no long be give consideration
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

          Perhaps my map reading skills have deteriorated with age, but aren't the British Isles just a wee bit closer to the European continent than they are to the US?
          While you are perfectly correct, you've missed out a couple of factors, close to the hearts of a certain sect of the UK population, and their Media;

          a) "The Continent," is full of foreigners who don't speak a civilised language (this view has become much stronger in the pro-Brexit camp). It's therefore not really that important in the great scheme of things.

          b) The Right want to BE the USA, while the Left can't believe what that bunch of nutters have come up with this time. Neither can forget that the USA has a pretty strong influence on global events, due to its sheer size.
          Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

          Comment


          • #50
            Sorry for taking so long to get back to you mate. Surely you're more deserving of a timely response than for of the other fellows around here . . . .

            Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
            Seriously, I think its the way [Pres Trump] behaves. We're used to American politicians saying one thing and doing another.
            Not that I'm being defensive or anything, but I have a hard time believing that political mendacity is unique to Washington DC. I mean, you've had four straight prmi ministers who either couldn't tell the truth at gunpoint, or couldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit them in the nose. The track record of the UK recent political personalities is not exactly a source of pride.

            Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
            Now, there's one who actually seems to be trying to do what he promised in the election. Now God knows I'm not clever enough or knowledgeable enough to figure out if he's right to be trying to do any of it. But even if he doesn't manage to accomplish anything he's probably changed the world a lot more than most of his predecessors, apart from Ronald Reagan, simply by opening his mouth. There was a nice little stable status quo. Now there isn't. Could this be a bad thing? Definitely.
            Could it be a good thing? Just as definitely.
            On that subject I'm torn. Yes, it's high time that we had a major political leader who spoke plainly. On the other hand, The Donald has struggled with basic facts most of his adult life, and whatever yarn he spins, its gist is always predicated on how he thinks he'll come off. Plain speaking can open up a plethora of opportunities for doing good, but since Trump's driving motive has never been the doing of good, I'm compelled to conclude that plain speech from him will result in little good, and to be honest, I don't think that he's speaking as plainly as his supporters like to claim. Rather he's speaking loudly, and pandering to his base's baser instincts. Again, I can't foresee much good arising from that.

            Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
            God knows he seems to behave a little randomly and to be honest he comes across as a bit of a dick and the sort of guy who if you walked into a tunnel with him he would come out wearing your shoes.
            More likely your hairpiece. Rimshot

            Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
            Things are going to be different though.
            I'd same that the same will be greatly magnified. Electorates are going to demand more cheap pandering, not less. To be frank, democracy's greatest weakness has always been its constituency. Themistocles proved that clearly enough nearly 2,500 years ago. Citizens often require as much restraint as they do encouragement and enlightenment and liberty. Democracy's one redeeming trait is that through the agency of the citizenry it can restrain leaders who grow otherwise out of control. Demcracy's failing, however, is when it elevates fools and petty tyrants to positions of leadership; Cleon and Alcibiades come to mind. Or if a British paradigm suites you better, Winston Churchill can be your Themistocles, George Hamilton can be your Cleon, and Tony Blair can be your Alcibiades. A "no confidence" vote rid you of the Earl of Aberdeen, but you're still stuck with Blair's insidious presence: he sticks around longer than a dose of antibiotic-resistant clap. When viewed like that, whatever difference Trump may or may not represent, I must confess that I view it with sincere apprehension.

            But then again, given that the BUF is in the midst of something of a resurrection, I'd think that you blokes have more than enough in your local news department to arouse your apprehension as it is, without turning a strangely envious eye towards this side of the Ocean Blue. Being informed is one thing, but the current level of coverage still strikes me as over the top.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              Sorry for taking so long to get back to you mate. Surely you're more deserving of a timely response than for of the other fellows around here . . . .



              Not that I'm being defensive or anything, but I have a hard time believing that political mendacity is unique to Washington DC. I mean, you've had four straight prmi ministers who either couldn't tell the truth at gunpoint, or couldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit them in the nose. The track record of the UK recent political personalities is not exactly a source of pride.



              On that subject I'm torn. Yes, it's high time that we had a major political leader who spoke plainly. On the other hand, The Donald has struggled with basic facts most of his adult life, and whatever yarn he spins, its gist is always predicated on how he thinks he'll come off. Plain speaking can open up a plethora of opportunities for doing good, but since Trump's driving motive has never been the doing of good, I'm compelled to conclude that plain speech from him will result in little good, and to be honest, I don't think that he's speaking as plainly as his supporters like to claim. Rather he's speaking loudly, and pandering to his base's baser instincts. Again, I can't foresee much good arising from that.



              .
              I'm reminded of the Aga Khan the hereditary spiritual leader of the Nizari Ismāʿīli Shias, not the current one but a generation or so ago. He had a liking for the odd glass of booze, when one of his shocked followers observed this and remonstrated the Aga Khan made following remark "I am so holy that it turns to water the moment it touches my lips". I suspect that DT has the same attitude to his utterings - they become the truth the moment they pass his lips and it is impious for mere mortal journalists to question them
              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                Sorry for taking so long to get back to you mate. Surely you're more deserving of a timely response than for of the other fellows around here . . . .



                Not that I'm being defensive or anything, but I have a hard time believing that political mendacity is unique to Washington DC. I mean, you've had four straight prmi ministers who either couldn't tell the truth at gunpoint, or couldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit them in the nose. The track record of the UK recent political personalities is not exactly a source of pride.



                On that subject I'm torn. Yes, it's high time that we had a major political leader who spoke plainly. On the other hand, The Donald has struggled with basic facts most of his adult life, and whatever yarn he spins, its gist is always predicated on how he thinks he'll come off. Plain speaking can open up a plethora of opportunities for doing good, but since Trump's driving motive has never been the doing of good, I'm compelled to conclude that plain speech from him will result in little good, and to be honest, I don't think that he's speaking as plainly as his supporters like to claim. Rather he's speaking loudly, and pandering to his base's baser instincts. Again, I can't foresee much good arising from that.



                More likely your hairpiece. Rimshot



                I'd same that the same will be greatly magnified. Electorates are going to demand more cheap pandering, not less. To be frank, democracy's greatest weakness has always been its constituency. Themistocles proved that clearly enough nearly 2,500 years ago. Citizens often require as much restraint as they do encouragement and enlightenment and liberty. Democracy's one redeeming trait is that through the agency of the citizenry it can restrain leaders who grow otherwise out of control. Demcracy's failing, however, is when it elevates fools and petty tyrants to positions of leadership; Cleon and Alcibiades come to mind. Or if a British paradigm suites you better, Winston Churchill can be your Themistocles, George Hamilton can be your Cleon, and Tony Blair can be your Alcibiades. A "no confidence" vote rid you of the Earl of Aberdeen, but you're still stuck with Blair's insidious presence: he sticks around longer than a dose of antibiotic-resistant clap. When viewed like that, whatever difference Trump may or may not represent, I must confess that I view it with sincere apprehension.

                But then again, given that the BUF is in the midst of something of a resurrection, I'd think that you blokes have more than enough in your local news department to arouse your apprehension as it is, without turning a strangely envious eye towards this side of the Ocean Blue. Being informed is one thing, but the current level of coverage still strikes me as over the top.
                Don't worry about taking your time. It was a bit of a rambling one.

                Firstly, if I gave the impression I thought our retards were any less retarded than your retards, then I apologise. With the question being about interests in US politics I sort of concentrated on that side.
                ​​​​​​

                When it comes to British politics I actually found myself in the rare position of agreeing with something in the guardian.

                https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ion-no-deal-eu

                Right now, there's what might be called a clash of the non entities and to me it feels like the political middle ground is pretty much turning into a tight rope as both the left and right try and prove how right or left they are.
                It's pretty entertaining to be honest.
                Any day now I'm expecting a section of the Conservative party to turn up in SS uniforms. A section of the Labour Party to turn up dressed as the Red Army and they stage a reenactment of the battle of Stalingrad on the floor of the house.

                The reality is that Brexit even with a deal is going to be pretty grim. I knew that when I voted for it, but its for most of the population have actually been looking at our political system and ts been a bit like lifting a rock and seeing all the creepy crawlies moving about and the little darlings are getting worse and more ridiculous the closer the final date gets.

                I still want us out. The idea of a European Army pretty much confirmed it for me. I don't fancy seeing my sons in a battlegroup because someone I didn't vote for fancies invading Russia again, or anywhere else for that matter. With NATO you at least knew that we'd probably be responding to aggression rather than starting it. I have no faith in the EU not deciding that to bring us closer together what we really need is a high body count.

                I get the ancient Greek analogy, but at the moment I think that the Keystone Cops would be a better match.


                I honestly think that in the long run Donald Trump will be good for the US Now admittedly that might be by providing an example of how not to do it and how bad an elected official can be.
                ​​​​​​
                We are living in interesting times.




                Last edited by DARKPLACE; 21 Nov 18, 15:14.
                "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

                Comment


                • #53
                  NATO as a creation of US is much likely to get involved in a war with Russia or somebody else. EU is much more pragmatic than US regarding his policies.
                  There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X