Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:


No. On account of the grounds that he hasn't done anything yet

You want a modern example? With plenty of press coverage? How about the protests against Erdogan, also back in November? It attracted a quarter as many people as this one, all of whom practically were Turkish. But then again, I guess protesting someone who isn't white isn't quite as sexy.

Trump has done plenty, his rhetoric has done plenty. It is seen to legitimise nationalism, xenophobia, hatred for Islam. All this in a country that is seen as the hegemonic power of the international system. His speech yesterday has the realists in a tizzy as he threatened to pull the US back to an isolationist stance, creating a vacuum of power in the international stage.
I fully appreciate and support your sentiment that there are plenty of causes that should be campaigned over, but I disagree completely that people should not be denouncing what he has already promised/done. If it is not denounced now, it will legitimize everything that comes. I hate to say it but the USA really is kind of a big deal and what happens there will have ramifications for the whole world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Optio wrote:
My question on Scotland is: What happens when the Highlands or the Lowlands or the Shetland Islands e.t.c decide they want independence?

Why would they? There aren't any political nor cultural reasons to do so.

The Highlands, Lowlands and the Shetlands have never been sovereign nations in all of recorded history and there isn't much in the way of regional differences today, even for former kingdoms like Fife or Strathclyde. Scotland was a fully fledged nation for nearly a millennium before the treaty of union and Scots generally feel like Scots.

There is some sabre rattling from the northern isles about separating from Scotland but it is very low level and to be honest I doubt it would come to much. If it did then I would imagine that there would be further independent referenda.

What happens when London wants independence?

Whispers* I meant it as a (admittedly poor) joke.

 Optio wrote:

Whispers* I meant it as a (admittedly poor) joke.

Certain people have actually asked the same question with apparent sincerity.....

 Optio wrote:

Trump has done plenty, his rhetoric has done plenty. It is seen to legitimise nationalism, xenophobia, hatred for Islam.

You are aware people like him already existed right? This fellow for example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders
He's an elected white Western politician who has said things approximately three times worse than Trump. You really think Trump 'legitimised' nationalism or xenophobia? There's plenty of buggers out there who did it long before him.

I fully appreciate and support your sentiment that there are plenty of causes that should be campaigned over,

That wasn't my sentiment.

but I disagree completely that people should not be denouncing what he has already promised/done. If it is not denounced now, it will legitimize everything that comes. I hate to say it but the USA really is kind of a big deal and what happens there will have ramifications for the whole world.

Denouncing is one thing. Mass rallies in Trafalgar Square are another. One of the two is a ludicrous overreaction.

My sentiment, if it wasn't clear, is that I look at the people sitting in that square, and scorn them as rank hypocrites who clearly only give a damn about holding a protest because it lets them all sit around and congratulate each other on how they're fighting the good fight; as evidenced by the simple fact that none of the buggers can actually be seen at any of the protests against genuinely evil bastards who regularly do things far in excess of what Trump will ever do.

 Ketara wrote:

My sentiment, if it wasn't clear, is that I look at the people sitting in that square, and scorn them as rank hypocrites who clearly only give a damn about holding a protest because it lets them all sit around and congratulate each other on how they're fighting the good fight; as evidenced by the simple fact that none of the buggers can actually be seen at any of the protests against genuinely evil bastards who regularly do things far in excess of what Trump will ever do.

I think you might be being a bit harsh on the protestors. I'm sure that they would quite happily agree about Mugabe/ Edrogan and so on. However there is more than just protesting about one person (he is just the focus that is galvanising people)

It's about displaying solidarity with people in the US that are quite likely to be affected if Trump pushes through his ideas into actions. It could be a massive step backwards for liberalism in that country (suppose he deregulates groping of women as sexual assault because he thinks it is acceptable).

It is displaying a "we are watching and don't forget it mentality"

It is backlash against populism and a type of 'white supremacy' that's creeping back into the US (and elsewhere). In some ways it is a continuing a growing division between those that favour liberalism over authoritarianism.

It is because the US is still a democracy (lets hope Trump doesn't change that!) and that protesting can make a difference, inspire others to join the argument and that people should not be afraid to speak out.

It's a statement against buying out of elections by another state (which has a vested interest in removing sanctions for shooting down civilians planes, bombing hospitals/civilians deliberately and so on).

Trump perhaps now has the greatest power at his disposal and if he treats the rest of the world and people like he has companies that have had the misfortune to deal with the Trump organisation then the world is in for 4 years of rough waters.
Yes there are far worse people in the world individually but the potential damage that Trump can do far outweighs what these other individuals are capable of (except Putin).

If you work on the principle that you can only protest for/against someone if you have protested against the worst people then for all intents and purposes all marches/protest votes etc are hypocritical. Without demonstrations and so then there would never have been the black equality movement, universal suffrage and so on.

 Whirlwind wrote:

If you work on the principle that you can only protest for/against someone if you have protested against the worst people then for all intents and purposes all marches/protest votes etc are hypocritical. Without demonstrations and so then there would never have been the black equality movement, universal suffrage and so on.

I'm not saying that. You're making the same mistake the other fellow is. I'm not saying 'Well, you didn't protest for everything else wrong in the world, therefore you cannot protest anything'. I am saying that there are far worse occurrences of the things that they are supposedly fearful this chap will do, that he supposedly represents, occurring all the time and that if they were genuinely concerned about those things, they would be far more proactive generally in protests relating to that. But they are not. And therefore clearly, they can't really care that much, or their attention and zeal would be more focused on the (very, very obviously) more serious cases of the issue.

To use an analogy, it's as if the Government fired a thousand doctors, and only twenty people show up at the protest, but when they hear the local branch is thinking about cutting my local doctor's days from five to four, there's rioting in the streets and ten thousand in Leicester Square!

He doesn't belong to this country. He hasn't done anything yet. Anything that he could do is likely relating to human rights is not likely to be even a fifth as bad as what many truly evil living state heads have done. And yet which protests do they bother to turn out for? What terrible stirring issue gets them out of bed? The first one.

That's a sadder indictment of their supposed dedication to their social values than anything I could ever say.

 Ketara wrote:

 Optio wrote:

Trump has done plenty, his rhetoric has done plenty. It is seen to legitimise nationalism, xenophobia, hatred for Islam.

You are aware people like him already existed right? This fellow for example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

I am well aware of the existence of Geert Wilders, having discussed him several times over the course of my degree so far! He has attracted rather large rallies against himself, not just in the Netherlands but also all across the EU, including in the UK. To take another case of far-right leaders and groups being protested against, Britain First found themselves being chased out of Dover people were so fed up with the rhetoric. All these people and groups have one crucial difference though in comparison to Trump, none of them are leaders of arguably the most powerful state, which is so interlinked with the rest of the world that Trump literally has the power to effect most lives on this planet in one form or another.
Trump has not given Liberal supporters much to be hopeful for, and yet he holds their destiny in their hands. I somewhat doubt people are rallying because as a vanity complex to feel good. I imagine fear plays a good part. Fear of the unknown, and fear of what has been promised to fill that unknown. If people want to denounce what he has promised, how else should they go about? Protests have a historical habit of getting a lot of attention.

 Optio wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Optio wrote:

Trump has done plenty, his rhetoric has done plenty. It is seen to legitimise nationalism, xenophobia, hatred for Islam.

You are aware people like him already existed right? This fellow for example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

I am well aware of the existence of Geert Wilders, having discussed him several times over the course of my degree so far! He has attracted rather large rallies against himself, not just in the Netherlands but also all across the EU, including in the UK. To take another case of far-right leaders and groups being protested against, Britain First found themselves being chased out of Dover people were so fed up with the rhetoric. All these people and groups have one crucial difference though in comparison to Trump, none of them are leaders of arguably the most powerful state, which is so interlinked with the rest of the world that Trump literally has the power to effect most lives on this planet in one form or another.
Trump has not given Liberal supporters much to be hopeful for, and yet he holds their destiny in their hands. I somewhat doubt people are rallying because as a vanity complex to feel good. I imagine fear plays a good part. Fear of the unknown, and fear of what has been promised to fill that unknown. If people want to denounce what he has promised, how else should they go about? Protests have a historical habit of getting a lot of attention.

If you're correct, that's still not a compliment to them. It means what really drags them out of their beds to protest is fear as to what he means for their lives, not any kind of real dedication to their own social values. It's pure selfishness. They don't care what all those different coloured people do to each other in other parts of the world, but if there's a slight chance they might be indirectly affected in a slightly negative fashion? Then they bother to show up.

Whether I'm right and it's a self-righteous circlejerk, or you're right and it's just self-interest, or a mix of the two? Real celebration and defence of social values that is.

Isn't every action self interest in some form or another? I remember there being quotes about that.

A saying comes to mind about what ensues when you don't bother to speak up when certain people come for certain other people, and you say nothing until it finally affects you personally...

Regardless, either way, I find it morally self-serving. That'll be my last word about it now though, as I'm sure you're all sick of hearing me harp on about it.

My, my. Ketara losing his temper? This is a rare occasion. I don't think I've ever seen you so discombobulated. You're usually so...zen.

I do agree with the sentiment though. The West in general, whether Left or Right, does tend to practice double standards quite often.

Yeah.. it's only the West that does it.



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/no-10-covered-up-trident-missile-fiasco-hch3shsrn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708823

The Ministry of Defence says it has "absolute confidence" in the UK's nuclear weapons system despite reports of a malfunction during a test.
The Sunday Times says an unarmed Trident missile fired from submarine HMS Vengeance near the Florida coast in June veered off course towards the US.
The paper says the incident took place weeks before a crucial Commons vote on the future of Trident.
The MoD did not give details of the test process but said it was a success.
In July, MPs backed the renewal of Trident by 472 votes to 117, approving the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.
According to the Sunday Times, it is expected that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon will be called to the Commons to answer questions from MPs.
Vengeance, one of the UK's four Vanguard-class submarines, returned to sea for trials in December 2015 after a £350m refit, which included the installation of new missile launch equipment and upgraded computer systems.
The Sunday Times says the cause of the test firing failure remains top secret but quotes a senior naval source as saying the missile suffered an in-flight malfunction after launching out of the water.

The Trident II D5 missile, adds the paper, was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa.
'Come clean'
BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said while the MoD has described the test as a success for the crew and the boat, it has not denied the report that the missile itself might have veered off course.
In the past the MoD has issued a press release and video of successful tests but its silence on this occasion has raised questions as to whether any fault was deliberately kept quiet ahead of the key vote, our correspondent added.

Labour former defence minister Kevan Jones has demanded an inquiry into the claims, telling the Sunday Times: "The UK's independent nuclear deterrent is a vital cornerstone for the nation's defence.
"Ministers should come clean if there are problems and there should be an urgent inquiry into what happened."
Labour's official policy is to support renewing the Trident system, but leader Jeremy Corbyn - a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons - wants to change the party's position and has launched a defence review to examine the issue.
A statement issued by both Downing St and the MoD says: "The capability and effectiveness of the Trident missile, should we ever need to employ it, is unquestionable.
"In June the Royal Navy conducted a routine unarmed Trident missile test launch from HMS Vengeance, as part of an operation which is designed to certify the submarine and its crew.
"Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and certified, allowing Vengeance to return into service. We have absolute confidence in our independent nuclear deterrent.
"We do not provide further details on submarine operations for obvious national security reasons."

Pleased to read the missile was unarmed, not quite sure I'm ready to live in a world in which we accidentally nuked part of the USA.

... that would've probably been a factor in the election eh ?



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/21/northern-irelands-eu-exit-will-destroy-peace-deal-says-gerry-adams

Taking Northern Ireland out of the EU will destroy the Good Friday agreement, Gerry Adams has said.

He said fundamental human rights enshrined in the 1998 deal to end violence could be undermined, though the top legal adviser to Stormont ministers has said not a word of the agreement will be affected.

Adams, the Sinn Féin president, said Northern Ireland should enjoy special status within the European Union after Brexit, and said this would not affect the constitutional settlement that secures its status as part of the UK.

“The British government’s intention to take the north out of the EU, despite the wish of the people there to remain, is a hostile action. Not just because of the implications of a hard border on this island but also because of its negative impact on the Good Friday agreement,” he said a conference in Dublin on a united Ireland.
The British prime minister repeated her intention to bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European court. Along with her commitment to remove Britain from the European convention on human rights, this stand threatens to undermine the fundamental human rights elements of the Good Friday agreement.”

He claimed ending partition between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic had taken on a new importance. “As the dire economic implications of Brexit take shape there is an opportunity to promote a new agreed Ireland,” he said.

“The dangers of a hard Brexit are now more obvious than before. The north needs a special designated status within the EU. The Irish government needs to adopt this as a strategic objective in its negotiations within the EU27 as they negotiate with the British prime minister.”

He said there was no strategic plan from Dublin ministers.
The Irish government has convened an all-Ireland forum on Brexit and agreed with the prime minister that there should be no return to the borders of the past. Its priorities remain economic and trade arrangements, the peace process, border issues and the common travel area.

Adams said: “The British position also fails to take account of the fact that citizens in the north, under the agreement, have a right to Irish citizenship and therefore EU citizenship.”

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU referendum by a majority of 56% to 44%.

Good times.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Optio wrote:
My question on Scotland is: What happens when the Highlands or the Lowlands or the Shetland Islands e.t.c decide they want independence?

Why would they? There aren't any political nor cultural reasons to do so.

The Highlands, Lowlands and the Shetlands have never been sovereign nations in all of recorded history and there isn't much in the way of regional differences today, even for former kingdoms like Fife or Strathclyde. Scotland was a fully fledged nation for nearly a millennium before the treaty of union and Scots generally feel like Scots.

There is some sabre rattling from the northern isles about separating from Scotland but it is very low level and to be honest I doubt it would come to much. If it did then I would imagine that there would be further independent referenda.

What happens when London wants independence?

Shetland (not The Shetlands) was an independent until it became an autonomous earldom of Norway until the 13th century. It effectively self governed until the 15th century when it was given as security against a dowry which was never paid. They have just as much history as an independent nation as Scotland do from England. Shetland has a distinct culture and there is an underlying want for independence and distrust of the Scottish government. Many people in the islands would rather be governed London than Edinburgh, or by Oslo. I would expect this to become much more apparent if there was another referendum. The feeling in Shetland on the first one was "it will never happen".

 Steve steveson wrote:

Shetland (not The Shetlands) was an independent until it became an autonomous earldom of Norway until the 13th century.

There is more than one island hence Shetlands but ok. It was never a sovereign nation though, it was held under the overlordship of Norway, just like Caithness and the outer and inner Hebrides were.

The Northern isles are part of Scotland as it was at the signing of the treaty of union so one referendum at a time

To be honest, the question of whether a region can split off and become independent relies not on ancient history but on the capacity of the populace to win independence and the determination of the ruling power to prevent independence by force if necessary.

 Ketara wrote:

To use an analogy, it's as if the Government fired a thousand doctors, and only twenty people show up at the protest, but when they hear the local branch is thinking about cutting my local doctor's days from five to four, there's rioting in the streets and ten thousand in Leicester Square!

That's not really an apt comparison as it is the wrong way round. Trump now has more power in his little finger than many of these other dictators have. Trump is the person that can fire a thousand doctors, compared to, for example Mugabe, who can fire the one.

He doesn't belong to this country. He hasn't done anything yet. Anything that he could do is likely relating to human rights is not likely to be even a fifth as bad as what many truly evil living state heads have done. And yet which protests do they bother to turn out for? What terrible stirring issue gets them out of bed? The first one.

Well strictly speaking he has done a lot already in his lifetime; just not as the President. People are highlighting their disgust against some that feels it is alright to assault women, make a mockery of a disabled person, willingly allows his company to not pay other companies so they force them into debt, screw over people that are trying to earn an education (and rather than let it go to court just pay off what he can get away with) and so on. He's spent his life exploiting people around him for his own benefit and there's no real evidence that he wants to change that just by looking at the people he has surrounded himself with. Therefore people are rightly to be concerned and more so in the US. Do people have to wait until something bad happens to express their concern.

That's a sadder indictment of their supposed dedication to their social values than anything I could ever say.

That they are willing to go out on a cold January morning to express their concern shows more about their social values than anything; as well as empathy with those people likely to be more directly affected in the US.

And it has had some effect. Trump has noted the media coverage on the protests that appear to have rallied more people than his inauguration. Yet in typical Trump fashion rather than consider what might be going on his response has been to issue veiled threats against the press.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Regardless, either way, I find it morally self-serving. That'll be my last word about it now though, as I'm sure you're all sick of hearing me harp on about it.

We are all self-serving. If we weren't people wouldn't get out of bed in the morning to earn a living. We'd all be working for charities and so on. The idea that people shouldn't protests against what they think is a growing sickness in society is always slef-serving because the people on the other side are also doing the same on the other side.

I suppose what's more worrying that the Government appear to be taking a damn in private but toadying up at all costs to the new administration regardless.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the question of whether a region can split off and become independent relies not on ancient history but on the capacity of the populace to win independence and the determination of the ruling power to prevent independence by force if necessary.

Obviously, although exactly what constitutes a 'region' is of course heavily influenced by ancient history. Independence movements need to have a sense of otherness to whatever they are attempting to break away from, in political terms that is usually based on history

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Optio wrote:

Whispers* I meant it as a (admittedly poor) joke.

Certain people have actually asked the same question with apparent sincerity.....

It's part of why devolution was such a big deal. Whilst we're not quite at the same level of Switzerland, the 32 councils do as I understand it have both a bit more autonomy and a bit more authority than our southern neighbors.

On top of that, given our current economic situation (and in practical terms, distribution of arable land) It's likely that Scotland as it stands is the smallest unit of Scotlandishness that's (barely) economically sustainable.

 Antario wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I still maintain that we will never have a better chance to forge a new relationship with Europe. They can do what they want, free of Britain constantly sniping from the sidelines, and we can do what we want, without the spectre of a United States of Europe clouding our thinking.

A more mature, respectful, close relationship can emerge from this.

Better a good neighbour than a surly lodger.

That would be a win-win scenario. That will depend partly on whether the tabloids and news corp are going to stop, or are even able to stop, spreading their poison on the EU.

They can't blame the EU if we're no longer in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...@whirlwind and r_squared.

You can join us in Scotland, you'd be more than welcome, but qualification includes an in depth knowledge of Taggart and the ability to recognise and identify at least 300 different tartans

Right, OK, Bruce, Campbell, Blair, McDonald, McDoogal, Krankie, Nesbitt, err... Glasgae?

I'm quite fond of battered food and buckie, does that help?

Guess I'll have to rely on my Irish passport to get me out of trouble then.

Nobody knows how this is going to play out. Maybe Brexit will work?

I'm prepared to give it a chance. Let's see what happens.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can't blame the EU if we're no longer in it.

Oh ye of little faith!

 Optio wrote:
My question on Scotland is: What happens when the Highlands or the Lowlands or the Shetland Islands e.t.c decide they want independence?

We covered this during the referendum. If the Shetlands want to go, I wish them well. I won't stop them.

From a legal perspective, opponents of Scottish Independence often claimed that the Shetlands would get the oil, but from what I've heard, they'd be technically an enclave, and thus, their territorial waters would be less than if they were part of Scotland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can't blame the EU if we're no longer in it.

Oh ye of little faith!

Yeah, you're right, I forgot about the Daily Express


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

@whirlwind and r_squared.

You can join us in Scotland, you'd be more than welcome, but qualification includes an in depth knowledge of Taggart and the ability to recognise and identify at least 300 different tartans

Is that pre or post Mark McManus or both?

Both


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe you should make a protest against protesters who disgust you.

I might as well, it would achieve as much as protesting the result of a democratic election in a Western country that isn't even your country.

We'd be getting into Brass Eye territory if that happened

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...Nobody knows how this is going to play out. Maybe Brexit will work?

I'm prepared to give it a chance. Let's see what happens.

Obviously there's a chance that it won't be terrible, but so far that appears to be the best we can hope for. I'm not predicting a meltdown, more a demoralising lowering of standards and personal and social wealth until we settle into our new strata in the western world.

Or, we could feth it up hugely and get dry humped by one nation after another. Who knows?

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...Nobody knows how this is going to play out. Maybe Brexit will work?

I'm prepared to give it a chance. Let's see what happens.

Obviously there's a chance that it won't be terrible, but so far that appears to be the best we can hope for. I'm not predicting a meltdown, more a demoralising lowering of standards and personal and social wealth until we settle into our new strata in the western world.

Or, we could feth it up hugely and get dry humped by one nation after another. Who knows?

Exports of Talc to the EU may go up.

 Optio wrote:

Trump has done plenty, his rhetoric has done plenty. It is seen to legitimise nationalism, xenophobia, hatred for Islam. All this in a country that is seen as the hegemonic power of the international system. His speech yesterday has the realists in a tizzy as he threatened to pull the US back to an isolationist stance, creating a vacuum of power in the international stage.
I fully appreciate and support your sentiment that there are plenty of causes that should be campaigned over, but I disagree completely that people should not be denouncing what he has already promised/done. If it is not denounced now, it will legitimize everything that comes. I hate to say it but the USA really is kind of a big deal and what happens there will have ramifications for the whole world.

"Isolationism" is a buzzword-turned-historical fact used by globalists every since the early 20th Century, under false pretenses. The United States, every since it's inception, has never been, and never will be, and isolationist nation. The correct term is "non-interventionist". In other words, unless it was in our own backyard and we weren't attacked directly in some manner, we were basically an over sized Switzerland.


When you say "nationalism", are you referring to the correct dictionary definition of nationalism? Or the European definition (i.e. anything not left wing or pro-globalist is "fascism" or "neo-nazi"). Because I'm a nationalist. I believe in the primacy of the nation-state, believe in putting my nation and it's citizens first, believe in sovereign borders and their defense, and have pride in my homeland despite it's warts. Under the Euro definition of "nationalism",that would make me a hard-right, quasi-fascist thug (at least according to criminal Antifa punks, politicians, Europhiles, and leftist/center-left/center-right media outlets).


The United States has always been welcoming to people wanting to come here for a better life. The problem that so-called "xenophobes" like me have is when it's not done in accordance to our laws and sovereignty. But that ties in with "nationalism" and "sovereignty" becoming dirty words in some circles. And it's become a political weapon in U.S. politics to smear the opposition. Doubly so close to election cycles.

Are there real xenophobes in the States? Sure. But anything not toeing the leftist/neoconservative narrative is painted with the same brush as true xenophobia. Which, of course, is absolute bull

"Islamophobia" is yet another contrived buzzword, attempting to equate any dislike/distrust for the ideology of Islam (Islam is far more than simple religion and has been since it's inception) with racism (a cardinal sin in the modern West) and tying it into to race itself. Those of us who don't rely on the "mainstream media" cartels exclusively for information, weren't educated under the current American educational system, and have long memories, all have good reason to be wary of Islam in all shapes and forms. Sure, there are good individuals who identify as "muslim". But as a group and an ideology, Islam bears close watching on the international stage, and measures need to be taken to ensure that only those aforementioned good individuals, with good intentions, can come here to start over, while thinning the supply of Jihadi pricks attempting to enter the United States. We didn't learn in the past, with the long history of terrorist activity after World War II. And considering that the last two Administrations have used it as an excuse for more foreign adventurism, and the spin doctors are working overtime to spin their "not true Islam" and "not all muslims" narratives, we still haven't learned a damned thing.


In my view, NATO is a Cold War relic and has outlived it's usefulness. That's one reason to pull out of it. Another is that the U.S. foots most of the bill when it comes to meeting it's financial commitments to the alliance. The last, most recent stats that I saw regarding that little issue, is that out of all NATO members besides the U.S, only the United Kingdom, Greece, and Poland has met/exceeded the 2% minimum required under the North Atlantic Treaty. If Greece, a country many consider bankrupt, can meet it's requirement,then there is no excuse for countries with more robust economies to do the same (such as Germany and Canada). Many Euros (and Canadians) talk trash about the United States and it's bloated defense budget/large military, and brag how their countries don't prioritize defense spending beyond the absolute minimum needed, all the while living under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella from the Big Bad Bear and Czar Putin.


Europeans want NATO? Fine. Show Washington that your're as committed as the British, the Greeks, and the Poles. If not, then it's high time that we pulled out of that dusty relic known as NATO, and seek separate security agreements with individual nations (much like the agreements we already have with the U.K., Canada, and Australia outside of NATO).


I'm not fond of the United Nations either. But that is largely an irrelevant organization that serves as a money sink, and a platform for Third World dictators to trash-talk the West, all the while living off of the Western foreign aid spigot. It's no big deal, and wouldn't be missed.


You may think that we are a big deal on the international level. Perhaps we are. But it's a "can't win for losing" kinda deal. American blood, treasure, and resources are being expended under botched foreign policy agendas disguised as "playing globocop". The funny thing is that the States gets slammed by foreign powers (allied or not) for playing this whole "global hegemonic" game (often rightly so), but when somebody comes along who actually agrees with the critics, and wants to cut back on the BS overseas and concentrate on the homeland first, people freak the hell out, thinking it means that we are going to completely forsake the rest of the world. Which is nonsense.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

I believe in the primacy of the nation-state......anything not toeing the leftist/neoconservative narrative is painted with the same brush as true xenophobia...,.. "Islamophobia" is yet another contrived buzzword........Those of us who don't rely on the "mainstream media" cartels exclusively for information, weren't educated under the current American educational system, and have long memories, all have good reason to be wary of Islam in all shapes and forms..........thinning the supply of Jihadi pricks attempting to enter the United States.....American blood, treasure, and resources are being expended under botched foreign policy agendas disguised as "playing globocop".

Blimey. Anyone else want this one?

Content aside, the stylistic and tonal differences between Americans and Brits in debating politics is really quite striking sometimes.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
My, my. Ketara losing his temper? This is a rare occasion. I don't think I've ever seen you so discombobulated. You're usually so...zen.
.

Not so much losing my temper as expressing a deeply held belief about trendy liberalism (as opposed to just being a liberal) combined with a mild bitterness. Nobody in this country gave a damn when the likes of my family had to pack our suitcases and run for fear of getting shot/strung up by a mob in one country; yet somebody says a few sexist things in another and it's like the antichrist just rolled into town. It really highlights the levels of hypocrisy and first world problems for you.

To get back to UK politics, I see a report on the BBC shows that WTO rules are not as generous as we might have thought in terms of forming trading pacts between nations/regions. This may prove an obstacle to the kind of trade deal May wants to do with the EU. However, there are some grounds ot hope that problems may not arise.

 Ketara wrote:

Blimey. Anyone else want this one?

Not a chance

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Blimey. Anyone else want this one?

Not a chance

I think it is in the interest of the whole off topic forum that I refuse

Ditto.

@ oldravenman3025

I wouldn't have put it that bluntly but I know where you're coming from.

For once, the British Politics thread is unanimous: not with a ten foot barge pole.

Back on topic, I find it interesting May is essentially pushing the education system back twenty years; she's prioritising new polytechnics essentially.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38710617

I can't say I disagree with this move necessarily; for too long now have most ex-polytechnics effectively been shunted into being third to fifth tier universities. Opening up higher education to the masses was a great thing (one of the best Blair ever did), but it went way too far in the wrong direction and de-legitimised vocational and technical education. A re-balancing could be a good thing. The logical corollary though, is that many new universities will either have to shuffle into being this new type of institute, or face bankruptcy as the student numbers shift away from them. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.