We will have Greenland one way or other
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
A little bluster goes a long way.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2025/03/06/Belgium-EU-leaders-talk-Ukraine-rearming-Europe/7271741253279/
On 7/03/2025 2:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
A little bluster goes a long way.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2025/03/06/Belgium-EU-leaders-talk-Ukraine-rearming-Europe/7271741253279/
Putin's is the kind of bluster that gets actual territorial gains. He
hasn't gained all that much territory, and what he has got have cost him
some 400,000 casualties so far. Plus a few North Koreans.
George W Bush killed fewer Americans, but didn't managed to hang on to
any of Irak's oil.
Greenland is even less attractive. How many of your relatives are you
willing to lose to let Trump grab it?
Bill Sloman, Sydney
We will have Greenland one way or other
In article <[email protected]>,
Archer <[email protected]d> wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
NATO sans USA will defend NATOsU territory.
NATOsU is a nuclear power alliance.
Groetjes Albert
In article <vqci05$31tkb$[email protected]>,
Bill Sloman <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/03/2025 2:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
A little bluster goes a long way.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2025/03/06/Belgium-EU-leaders-talk-Ukraine-rearming-Europe/7271741253279/
Putin's is the kind of bluster that gets actual territorial gains. He >>hasn't gained all that much territory, and what he has got have cost him >>some 400,000 casualties so far. Plus a few North Koreans.
George W Bush killed fewer Americans, but didn't managed to hang on to
any of Irak's oil.
Greenland is even less attractive. How many of your relatives are you >>willing to lose to let Trump grab it?
Trump is a failled business man.
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris.
Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
Jeroen Belleman
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:04:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris.
The game wasn't to win the popular vote. It was to win the White
House.
Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
Obviously.
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
Jeroen Belleman
In about 4 years we can cut over to Vance.
That should be after the next big european war or two.
In about 4 years we can cut over to Vance. That should be after the
next big european war or two.
On 07/03/2025 22:04, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris. Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
Jeroen Belleman
That's the concensus in the UK and (most) of Europe
In article <[email protected]>,
Archer <[email protected]d> wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
NATO sans USA will defend NATOsU territory.
NATOsU is a nuclear power alliance.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 14:58:23 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
In article <vqci05$31tkb$[email protected]>,
Bill Sloman <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/03/2025 2:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2025/03/06/Belgium-EU-leaders-talk-Ukraine-rearming-Europe/7271741253279/
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
A little bluster goes a long way.
Putin's is the kind of bluster that gets actual territorial gains. He
hasn't gained all that much territory, and what he has got have cost him >>> some 400,000 casualties so far. Plus a few North Koreans.
George W Bush killed fewer Americans, but didn't managed to hang on to
any of Irak's oil.
Greenland is even less attractive. How many of your relatives are you
willing to lose to let Trump grab it?
Trump is a failled business man.
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
And he still owns more buildings and golf courses than you do.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:04:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris.
The game wasn't to win the popular vote. It was to win the White
House.
Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
Obviously.
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
In about 4 years we can cut over to Vance. That should be after the
next big european war or two.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 14:55:16 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Archer <[email protected]d> wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
NATO sans USA will defend NATOsU territory.
NATOsU is a nuclear power alliance.
Groetjes Albert
Good quote:
“500 million Europeans [are asking] 300 million Americans to protect
them from 140 million Russians.”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk
Go for it.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:51:12 +0000, TTman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 07/03/2025 22:04, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris. Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
Jeroen Belleman
That's the concensus in the UK and (most) of Europe
They are mad at having to pay for their own wars.
Trump has the mentality of a two-year old.... and the 2 year old was glad to get rid of it.
john larkin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:51:12 +0000, TTman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 07/03/2025 22:04, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure.
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris. Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
Jeroen Belleman
That's the concensus in the UK and (most) of Europe
They are mad at having to pay for their own wars.
Without European customers, the American defence industry will have to
start selling to Russia.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:04:29 +0000, [email protected]d
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:51:12 +0000, TTman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 07/03/2025 22:04, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure. >>>>>>>>
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris. Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
Jeroen Belleman
That's the concensus in the UK and (most) of Europe
They are mad at having to pay for their own wars.
Without European customers, the American defence industry will have to
start selling to Russia.
The europeans can keep using US weapons. They'll just have to pay for
them with their own tax money.
But we may as well sell to both/all sides.
We will have Greenland one way or other
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
Better Trump than Xi.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:04:29 +0000, [email protected]d
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:51:12 +0000, TTman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 07/03/2025 22:04, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 3/7/25 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:34:52 -0600, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 3/7/25 09:47, john larkin wrote:
Less than 50% of the popular vote is not a "landslide"
Being elected President in a near landslide is hardly failure. >>>>>>>>
312 to 226 is pretty convincing.
After gerrymandering, of course. The popular vote accorded
him only 1.5% more than Harris. Even so, given his antics at
the end of his previous mandate, this is flabbergasting. Do
you, Americans, really want *this* as your supreme leader?
I just watched some interviews he gave these last few hours.
What a farce! It would be funny if it wasn't so important.
I'm astonished and aghast that the US can't seem to come up
with someone serious to lead them. Trump has the mentality of
a two-year old. Capricious, egotistic, fickle, stupid. He is
dangerous, both to the US and the world at large.
Wake up! Get rid of him!
Jeroen Belleman
That's the concensus in the UK and (most) of Europe
They are mad at having to pay for their own wars.
Without European customers, the American defence industry will have to
start selling to Russia.
The europeans can keep using US weapons. They'll just have to pay for
them with their own tax money.
But we may as well sell to both/all sides.
Consider this - how much of the US weaponry is controlled by electronics that DEPEND on a connection to the US supplier? Think John Deere turning off all their equipment remotely and ask yourself if you were going to buy weapons who
would you trust?
The new US administration has now proven itself untrustworthy, so why would anyone buy advanced US weapons? The Felon and his cohorts appear to be Russian
stooges so how can you be sure that the stuff would work if Putin tells the The
Felon to turn their toys off?
Might as well develop them at home like Ukraine is doing...
On 3/9/2025 12:23 AM, John Robertson wrote:
Consider this - how much of the US weaponry is controlled by electronics that
DEPEND on a connection to the US supplier? Think John Deere turning off all >> their equipment remotely and ask yourself if you were going to buy weapons >> who would you trust?
The new US administration has now proven itself untrustworthy, so why would >> anyone buy advanced US weapons? The Felon and his cohorts appear to be
Russian stooges so how can you be sure that the stuff would work if Putin
tells the The Felon to turn their toys off?
Might as well develop them at home like Ukraine is doing...
Note the recent boost in valuations of european defense contractors.
The US looses lots of leverage as "allies" look to support their own
defense industries.
Imagine an *export* tariff levied on goods sold to the US with
the funds being earmarked to bolster defense spending at home:
"The American people are DIRECTLY paying for our defense!"
(but isn't that what you WANTED??)
Really bad optics, that!
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:53:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/03/2025 9:36 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
Better Trump than Xi.
Neither is particularly attractive. Xi does seem to be more competent,
and correspondingly less likely to wreck the world by getting stuff wrong. >>
Both mishandled the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Xi by not taking
it seriously enough when it first got under way, and Trump by not taking
it seriously enough after it had got to America.
Trumps sino-phobia meant that it didn't get to America directly from
China, but he didn't understand that getting infected by visiting
Europeans was just as bad for the country.
Indeed? And how would YOU know the virus's infection vectors? To
meaningfully opine on such matters you would have to first have a clue
as to where the virus originated.
the BBC now admits it - the virus was created at the Wuhan lab where
they were working on gain of function research on behalf of Fauci.
But *you* have consistently dismissed this as "fatuous conspiracy theory" like the good little Common Purpose operative you are.
Shame on you,
Bill.SHAME ON YOU.
On 9/03/2025 9:36 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
Better Trump than Xi.
Neither is particularly attractive. Xi does seem to be more competent,
and correspondingly less likely to wreck the world by getting stuff wrong.
Both mishandled the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Xi by not taking
it seriously enough when it first got under way, and Trump by not taking
it seriously enough after it had got to America.
Trumps sino-phobia meant that it didn't get to America directly from
China, but he didn't understand that getting infected by visiting
Europeans was just as bad for the country.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:40:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/03/2025 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:53:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/03/2025 9:36 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
Better Trump than Xi.
Neither is particularly attractive. Xi does seem to be more competent, >>>> and correspondingly less likely to wreck the world by getting stuff wrong. >>>>
Both mishandled the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Xi by not taking >>>> it seriously enough when it first got under way, and Trump by not taking >>>> it seriously enough after it had got to America.
Trumps sino-phobia meant that it didn't get to America directly from
China, but he didn't understand that getting infected by visiting
Europeans was just as bad for the country.
Indeed? And how would YOU know the virus's infection vectors? To
meaningfully opine on such matters you would have to first have a clue
as to where the virus originated.
There's no doubt that it originated in China - that's where the first
infections were reported and Chinsese researchers were the first to
sequence it's genome and publish the results.
The rest of the world knows - even
the BBC now admits it - the virus was created at the Wuhan lab where
they were working on gain of function research on behalf of Fauci.
They don't know anything of the sort. It's a plausible hypothesis for
people who don't know anything about the precautions taken when working
on dangerous viruses, much less so for people who know even a little
about the subject.
Okay, so now you're the very last person in the world to deny the
virus's true origin.
And before you post a lot of spurious nonsense to
support your untenable position, I should warn you that I'm not going
to get sucked into another of your endless pissing contests. John
Larkin would quite rightly step in to remind me there's no point in
trying to reason with you.
So I shall save him from having to make
that intervention.
But *you* have consistently dismissed this as "fatuous conspiracy theory" >>> like the good little Common Purpose operative you are.
I'm sure that you see it that way. You do like your demented fatuities
to be thoroughly fatuous.
Shame on you,
Bill.SHAME ON YOU.
Coming from Cursitor Doom that's an honourable mention.
If you really wanted to embarrass me you'd agree with something I said.
If you ever posted anything on-topic, Bill, the chances of that
happening would be orders of magnitude greater.
On 9/03/2025 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:53:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/03/2025 9:36 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
Better Trump than Xi.
Neither is particularly attractive. Xi does seem to be more competent,
and correspondingly less likely to wreck the world by getting stuff wrong. >>>
Both mishandled the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Xi by not taking
it seriously enough when it first got under way, and Trump by not taking >>> it seriously enough after it had got to America.
Trumps sino-phobia meant that it didn't get to America directly from
China, but he didn't understand that getting infected by visiting
Europeans was just as bad for the country.
Indeed? And how would YOU know the virus's infection vectors? To
meaningfully opine on such matters you would have to first have a clue
as to where the virus originated.
There's no doubt that it originated in China - that's where the first >infections were reported and Chinsese researchers were the first to
sequence it's genome and publish the results.
The rest of the world knows - even
the BBC now admits it - the virus was created at the Wuhan lab where
they were working on gain of function research on behalf of Fauci.
They don't know anything of the sort. It's a plausible hypothesis for
people who don't know anything about the precautions taken when working
on dangerous viruses, much less so for people who know even a little
about the subject.
But *you* have consistently dismissed this as "fatuous conspiracy theory"
like the good little Common Purpose operative you are.
I'm sure that you see it that way. You do like your demented fatuities
to be thoroughly fatuous.
Shame on you,
Bill.SHAME ON YOU.
Coming from Cursitor Doom that's an honourable mention.
If you really wanted to embarrass me you'd agree with something I said.
On 10/03/2025 12:45 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:40:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/03/2025 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:53:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/03/2025 9:36 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d>
wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
Better Trump than Xi.
Neither is particularly attractive. Xi does seem to be more competent, >>>>> and correspondingly less likely to wreck the world by getting stuff wrong.
Both mishandled the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Xi by not taking >>>>> it seriously enough when it first got under way, and Trump by not taking >>>>> it seriously enough after it had got to America.
Trumps sino-phobia meant that it didn't get to America directly from >>>>> China, but he didn't understand that getting infected by visiting
Europeans was just as bad for the country.
Indeed? And how would YOU know the virus's infection vectors? To
meaningfully opine on such matters you would have to first have a clue >>>> as to where the virus originated.
There's no doubt that it originated in China - that's where the first
infections were reported and Chinsese researchers were the first to
sequence it's genome and publish the results.
The rest of the world knows - even
the BBC now admits it - the virus was created at the Wuhan lab where
they were working on gain of function research on behalf of Fauci.
They don't know anything of the sort. It's a plausible hypothesis for
people who don't know anything about the precautions taken when working
on dangerous viruses, much less so for people who know even a little
about the subject.
Okay, so now you're the very last person in the world to deny the
virus's true origin.
Twaddle.
And before you post a lot of spurious nonsense to
support your untenable position, I should warn you that I'm not going
to get sucked into another of your endless pissing contests. John
Larkin would quite rightly step in to remind me there's no point in
trying to reason with you.
You don't know any more about "reasoning" than John Larkin does. You
can't follow it when you are exposed to it, and label it as spurious >clap-trap because that's the best response you can come up with.
So I shall save him from having to make
that intervention.
Posture all you like. You a still a gullible half-wit. When it comes to >climate change you and John are both risibly wrong, but you do find
different nonsense to be wrong about.
But *you* have consistently dismissed this as "fatuous conspiracy theory" >>>> like the good little Common Purpose operative you are.
I'm sure that you see it that way. You do like your demented fatuities
to be thoroughly fatuous.
Shame on you,
Bill.SHAME ON YOU.
Coming from Cursitor Doom that's an honourable mention.
If you really wanted to embarrass me you'd agree with something I said.
If you ever posted anything on-topic, Bill, the chances of that
happening would be orders of magnitude greater.
The stuff about low distortion oscillators probably is a good deal
closer to being on topic than anything you've ever posted,but it doesn't >interest you so you haven't got a clue about it.
On 3/7/2025 6:55 AM, [email protected] wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Archer <[email protected]d> wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
NATO sans USA will defend NATOsU territory.
As it should, shouldn't it? (I prefer to call it EUTO)
Independence comes with added responsibilities (and costs)
BUT affords independence of thought and action!
NATOsU is a nuclear power alliance.
And there is nothing to stop each "member state" from developing
their own nuclear (cyber, conventional, etc.) arsenals.
This will be The Pasty One's worst possible nightmare -- a
bunch of nation-states on his doorstep any of which can decide to
flex their muscle at his expense -- while his response could
potentially be countered by MANY of said states.
Nationalism is a quick path to conflict ("They are not *us*"!)
On 3/7/25 19:55, Don Y wrote:
On 3/7/2025 6:55 AM, [email protected] wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Archer <[email protected]d> wrote:
We will have Greenland one way or other
NATO sans USA will defend NATOsU territory.
As it should, shouldn't it? (I prefer to call it EUTO)
Independence comes with added responsibilities (and costs)
BUT affords independence of thought and action!
NATOsU is a nuclear power alliance.
And there is nothing to stop each "member state" from developing
their own nuclear (cyber, conventional, etc.) arsenals.
This will be The Pasty One's worst possible nightmare -- a
Pasty one! I like that.. ever see the photo of him in the dark, super
high collar coat? Reminds me of Dracula!
On 3/9/2025 12:23 AM, John Robertson wrote:
Consider this - how much of the US weaponry is controlled by
electronics that DEPEND on a connection to the US supplier? Think John
Deere turning off all their equipment remotely and ask yourself if you
were going to buy weapons who would you trust?
The new US administration has now proven itself untrustworthy, so why
would anyone buy advanced US weapons? The Felon and his cohorts appear
to be Russian stooges so how can you be sure that the stuff would work
if Putin tells the The Felon to turn their toys off?
Might as well develop them at home like Ukraine is doing...
Note the recent boost in valuations of european defense contractors.
The US looses lots of leverage as "allies" look to support their own
defense industries.
Imagine an *export* tariff levied on goods sold to the US with
the funds being earmarked to bolster defense spending at home:
"The American people are DIRECTLY paying for our defense!"
(but isn't that what you WANTED??)
Really bad optics, that!
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 01:06:45 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 10/03/2025 12:45 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:40:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/03/2025 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:53:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 9/03/2025 9:36 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:10:45 +0530, Archer <[email protected]d> >>>>>>> wrote:
The stuff about low distortion oscillators probably is a good deal
closer to being on topic than anything you've ever posted,but it doesn't
interest you so you haven't got a clue about it.
In actual fact, *that* thread arose out of a post I made here which
was taken up at great length by Edward and augmented by haughty,
sniping comments by your good self, Bill.
The bald fact is, were it not for me posting thought-provoking
metaphysical conundrums here, this group would have gone extinct
*years* ago - and you know it.
So long as Putin's puppet is in power the USA will have to be treated
just like any other untrustworthy dysfunctional rogue state.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
So long as Putin's puppet is in power the USA will have to be treated
just like any other untrustworthy dysfunctional rogue state.
How long is it going to take for this to get through to the UK
politicians and media?
A British general was interviwed on BBC Radio 4 a few days ago, after listening impatiently to his excellent summary of the current situation,
the interviewer said something to the effect of "But surely our
politicians are trying to avert anything that might lead to war?". The general's reply was "Good Luck to them!".
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it:
For Trump and Putin read 'Hitler'.
For Dombas read 'Sudatenland'.
For the Rest of Europe read 'The Rest of Europe'.
There is a theory that Chamberlain's efforts to appease Hitler were a delaying tactic to give us some breathing space to start building up our defence capability to match the German re-armament. Russia is already weakened, so we only need to appease Trump for as long as it takes to
get enough military capability up and running to hold Russia off
(assuming the U.S. doesn't come into the war on Russia's side, which is
not beyond the bounds of possibility with Trump in power), so the sooner
we rebuild the European arms industry, the better.
On 09/03/2025 08:33, Don Y wrote:
On 3/9/2025 12:23 AM, John Robertson wrote:
Consider this - how much of the US weaponry is controlled by electronics >>> that DEPEND on a connection to the US supplier? Think John Deere turning off
all their equipment remotely and ask yourself if you were going to buy
weapons who would you trust?
UK's entire strategic nuclear arsenal can probably be disabled or discontinued
if the USA wanted. We pay good money for it too.
Only the French nuclear deterrent is truly independent.
The new US administration has now proven itself untrustworthy, so why would >>> anyone buy advanced US weapons? The Felon and his cohorts appear to be
Russian stooges so how can you be sure that the stuff would work if Putin >>> tells the The Felon to turn their toys off?
Might as well develop them at home like Ukraine is doing...
Note the recent boost in valuations of european defense contractors.
The US looses lots of leverage as "allies" look to support their own
defense industries.
They are likely to lose a lot more than that.
So long as Putin's puppet is in power the USA will have to be treated just like
any other untrustworthy dysfunctional rogue state. When the USA is voting the same way as Russia and North Korea at the UN then there is something very seriously wrong with your "democracy"!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7435pnle0go
The Trump administration seems to be modelled on an unholy mixture of The Godfather and James Bond's nemesis, Spectre based on its behaviour so far. "Nice country you've got there Mr Zelensky - be a shame if anything happened to
it! Now you just give us all the minerals and let nice Mr Putin have all your land and you can keep whatever is left".
Imagine an *export* tariff levied on goods sold to the US with
the funds being earmarked to bolster defense spending at home:
"The American people are DIRECTLY paying for our defense!"
(but isn't that what you WANTED??)
Really bad optics, that!
Trump cannot be trusted. Nor can the USA with him in power.
Elon Musk is probably a more dangerous evil genius though. His ideal future dystopia is a mixture of Total Recall, Mad Max and Bladerunner. All that is missing is the long haired white cat (and a base on Mars) to complete his nearly perfect Bond villain persona.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
So long as Putin's puppet is in power the USA will have to be treated
just like any other untrustworthy dysfunctional rogue state.
How long is it going to take for this to get through to the UK
politicians and media?
A British general was interviwed on BBC Radio 4 a few days ago, after listening impatiently to his excellent summary of the current situation,
the interviewer said something to the effect of "But surely our
politicians are trying to avert anything that might lead to war?". The general's reply was "Good Luck to them!".
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it:
For Trump and Putin read 'Hitler'.
For Dombas read 'Sudatenland'.
For the Rest of Europe read 'The Rest of Europe'.
There is a theory that Chamberlain's efforts to appease Hitler were a delaying tactic to give us some breathing space to start building up our defence capability to match the German re-armament. Russia is already weakened, so we only need to appease Trump for as long as it takes to
get enough military capability up and running to hold Russia off
(assuming the U.S. doesn't come into the war on Russia's side, which is
not beyond the bounds of possibility with Trump in power), so the sooner
we rebuild the European arms industry, the better.
Only the French nuclear deterrent is truly independent.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
Only the French nuclear deterrent is truly independent.
Does it have an independent means of delivery? Will it still arrive on target when Trump orders all the navigation satellites to be switched
off?
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
Only the French nuclear deterrent is truly independent.
Does it have an independent means of delivery? Will it still arrive on >target when Trump orders all the navigation satellites to be switched
off?
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
Only the French nuclear deterrent is truly independent.
Does it have an independent means of delivery? Will it still arrive on target when Trump orders all the navigation satellites to be switched
off?
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
Only the French nuclear deterrent is truly independent.
Does it have an independent means of delivery? Will it still arrive on target when Trump orders all the navigation satellites to be switched
off?
On 3/10/2025 3:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/03/2025 08:33, Don Y wrote:
On 3/9/2025 12:23 AM, John Robertson wrote:
Consider this - how much of the US weaponry is controlled by
electronics that DEPEND on a connection to the US supplier? Think
John Deere turning off all their equipment remotely and ask yourself
if you were going to buy weapons who would you trust?
UK's entire strategic nuclear arsenal can probably be disabled or
discontinued if the USA wanted. We pay good money for it too.
Only the French nuclear deterrent is truly independent.
But, that could change as The Parties realize that it is in all of their interests to have more capabilities NOT controled by any single party.
"EUTO" should likely adopt a policy that any N (e.g., ~3?) members
can oust a member to guard against the Orban's having *any* say
in such an organization. And, the fear that one could end up
"on the outside -- UNPROTECTED" could act as leverage to keep
folks in the fold.
Trump cannot be trusted. Nor can the USA with him in power.
The US has never been "trustworthy". Recall Bush's insistence
(and "proof" of) WMD's? With complete control of the entire country,
he STILL couldn't find them?
OTOH, identify some country that acts entirely altruistically
and isn't also watching out for their own interests...
Elon Musk is probably a more dangerous evil genius though. His ideal
future dystopia is a mixture of Total Recall, Mad Max and Bladerunner.
All that is missing is the long haired white cat (and a base on Mars)
to complete his nearly perfect Bond villain persona.
As he seems so intent on "Mars", I think we need a popular movement
to draft him to be the *first* Martian!
Trump cannot be trusted. Nor can the USA with him in power.
The US has never been "trustworthy". Recall Bush's insistence
(and "proof" of) WMD's? With complete control of the entire country,
he STILL couldn't find them?
The USA used to be generally a good ally to the UK.
We host a lot of US sigint
gear at the likes of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill for example. Our servicemen went into Iraq side by side with our American allies.
OTOH, identify some country that acts entirely altruistically
and isn't also watching out for their own interests...
All countries are expected to look after their own interests first but civilised countries also have ethical standards of how to behave.
Elon Musk is probably a more dangerous evil genius though. His ideal future >>> dystopia is a mixture of Total Recall, Mad Max and Bladerunner. All that is >>> missing is the long haired white cat (and a base on Mars) to complete his >>> nearly perfect Bond villain persona.
As he seems so intent on "Mars", I think we need a popular movement
to draft him to be the *first* Martian!
"The Martian" was one of Ridley Scott's most successful movies.
I preferred the original Alien and Bladerunner though.
(sequels never as good - Terminator 2 being a notable exception).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 144:01:13 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,483 |