Go It Alone United Kingdom!

[indiucky]

I know I am.

Et tu Brutus? Et tu?

 

[T.Lex]

I disagree with this assertion. I believe the Muslim immigration issue is, at it's core, an existential threat to Europe (anyone who's unfamiliar with it - google the term "hijrah"). Just take a look at the threads covering the unrest that the host countries are now suffering as a result. It takes more time than a military conquest, sure, but it's European nations being conquered all the same. To that end, anything the individual nations of Europe can do to regain control of their own borders and immigration policy is going to help them in the long run far more than any free trade agreement inside a large EU edifice whose pillar nations are being slowed eaten away.

Well, I'm struggling to see where the disagreement is. I said:

...the Muslim immigration issue is tricky, but not really an existential threat in a military way.

"In a military way."

What you're talking about is refugee policy. The EU can (and should) adopt controls on refugees for the entirety of the Union. If the issue is individual countries having different refugee policies, then it is up to the EU to normalize the policies.

From another angle (or Angle) the immigration issue is really a smokescreen for the deeper financial issues that have been there for a long time. It is a convenient pretext to use nationalism to justify a decision that really has other motives.

Don't get me wrong - the two are related: the massive numbers of refugees are creating a financial hardship. But, for instance, the Greek financial situation pre-dates the immigration problem.

To Woobie's point, just because the EU may break up doesn't mean NATO is going anywhere, and NATO is the real issue for Russia, not the EU.

That's a fair starting point, but let's roll that forward. NATO countries (old and new members) are suffering financial constraints that will be compounded by a failure of the EU. Trump (an even-money candidate for president) has gone on the record as saying allies will have to pay more for US protection.* I can only assume that includes NATO countries. HRC, the other candidate, is a hapless, unlucky, dove who intimidates no one.

So, if we're sitting in Putin's chair, are we really worried about NATO in a year, 2 years? The fringes of NATO now include about a dozen former Warsaw Pact countries, but the original-member loyalty to these countries is very much in doubt.

NATO could very well "be going somewhere" and that somewhere is down the toilet.

* There's a name for this that currently escapes me.

 

[indiucky]

It's a mrj thing in this case. He's like a bad rash for many Ingoer's.

More like a turkey tick than a bad rash...

Annoying and irritating at first......Then after a couple of days you forget they are there and it just becomes part of the small price you pay for roaming in the hills and river bottoms of southern Indiana.......

 

[printcraft]

More like a turkey tick than a bad rash...

Annoying and irritating at first......Then after a couple of days you forget they are there and it just becomes part of the small price you pay for roaming in the hills and river bottoms of southern Indiana.......

Yeah, but they still suck.

 

[Alamo]

You forgot that both the UK and France are now nuclear powers ... I'm sure it helps keeping other countries in check (both from inside and outside Europe).

Didn't forget anything. The fact they had some nukes did not alter the major components of the situation.

And as for "now"... who really believes that today, 2016, the UK or France either one would launch a nuclear strike against anything, for any reason?

 

[Expat]

Who was it that first breathlessly brought to our attention VOX. He said it was a beacon of objective journalism... the same outfit that now says riots should break out where ever Trump shows up... I don't take that as all that objective.

 

[T.Lex]

And as for "now"... who really believes that today, 2016, the UK or France either one would launch a nuclear strike against anything, for any reason?

I totally think the Brits would. If faced with another bombing campaign (or nuke equivalent), they'd pre-empt that stuff quickly. I've known Britons and they are all polite and stuff at first, but when ticked off, they don't mind taking action.

The French are harder to read, it can be difficult to predict (IMHO) what will make them angry enough to do something like that. I'm sure there's a scenario where they would, but it would likely be in concert with another country or based on a consensus that it is the right thing to do.

For the sake of inclusion, HRC wouldn't and Trump would whenever he felt like it.

 

[printcraft]

Who was it that first breathlessly brought to our attention VOX. He said it was a beacon of objective journalism... the same outfit that now says riots should break out where ever Trump shows up... I don't take that as all that objective.

That's why I only trust Al Jazeera for my news.

 

[Twangbanger]

... (At the risk of running afoul of the angst directed at mrj, I didn't start a thread about this because I just didn't think people would be interested.)...

.


(It's official, Kirk...you've incited at least two cases of Thread Envy).

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Well, I'm struggling to see where the disagreement is. I said:


"In a military way."

What you're talking about is refugee policy. The EU can (and should) adopt controls on refugees for the entirety of the Union. If the issue is individual countries having different refugee policies, then it is up to the EU to normalize the policies.

From another angle (or Angle) the immigration issue is really a smokescreen for the deeper financial issues that have been there for a long time. It is a convenient pretext to use nationalism to justify a decision that really has other motives.

Don't get me wrong - the two are related: the massive numbers of refugees are creating a financial hardship. But, for instance, the Greek financial situation pre-dates the immigration problem.



That's a fair starting point, but let's roll that forward. NATO countries (old and new members) are suffering financial constraints that will be compounded by a failure of the EU. Trump (an even-money candidate for president) has gone on the record as saying allies will have to pay more for US protection.* I can only assume that includes NATO countries. HRC, the other candidate, is a hapless, unlucky, dove who intimidates no one.

So, if we're sitting in Putin's chair, are we really worried about NATO in a year, 2 years? The fringes of NATO now include about a dozen former Warsaw Pact countries, but the original-member loyalty to these countries is very much in doubt.

NATO could very well "be going somewhere" and that somewhere is down the toilet.

* There's a name for this that currently escapes me.

It may very well be an existential threat in a military way. Look at the makeup of the current hejira: mostly, vastly, overwhelmingly young men of military age, with very different upbringing and values than the European countries they are invading. And, far from attempting to assimilate into those countries, they're demanding that the countries they're invading kowtow to their wants and "needs" and resorting to violence when they don't get it.

How about this for a scenario: Russia is very content to watch the European Union deteriorate as its borders are breached and probably is subtly encouraging such disorder while simultaneously encouraging violent backlash against both the intruders and the various governments. A classic communist insurgency tactic (and Putin is a classic communist) is to create discontent between the government and the governed and to create conditions whereby the citizenry long longer trusts the government to keep order. By (take your pick) carefully watching and/or abetting the current deterioration, Russia is then in a position to do the same things they did during and after WWII - step in to "stop the chaos" and "protect Russian interests" in the same way they have done in the Ukraine.

 

[Woobie]

Yeah, but they still suck.

Well played, sir.

 

[Woobie]

Well, I'm struggling to see where the disagreement is. I said:


"In a military way."

What you're talking about is refugee policy. The EU can (and should) adopt controls on refugees for the entirety of the Union. If the issue is individual countries having different refugee policies, then it is up to the EU to normalize the policies.

From another angle (or Angle) the immigration issue is really a smokescreen for the deeper financial issues that have been there for a long time. It is a convenient pretext to use nationalism to justify a decision that really has other motives.

Don't get me wrong - the two are related: the massive numbers of refugees are creating a financial hardship. But, for instance, the Greek financial situation pre-dates the immigration problem.



That's a fair starting point, but let's roll that forward. NATO countries (old and new members) are suffering financial constraints that will be compounded by a failure of the EU. Trump (an even-money candidate for president) has gone on the record as saying allies will have to pay more for US protection.* I can only assume that includes NATO countries. HRC, the other candidate, is a hapless, unlucky, dove who intimidates no one.

So, if we're sitting in Putin's chair, are we really worried about NATO in a year, 2 years? The fringes of NATO now include about a dozen former Warsaw Pact countries, but the original-member loyalty to these countries is very much in doubt.

NATO could very well "be going somewhere" and that somewhere is down the toilet.

* There's a name for this that currently escapes me.

I don't think NATO is going anywhere. Trump says stuff, we know this. But the U.S. likes having allies on Russia's doorstep in case Putin gets too frisky, and Trump's posturing isn't going to change that.

 

[T.Lex]

It may very well be an existential threat in a military way. Look at the makeup of the current hejira: mostly, vastly, overwhelmingly young men of military age, with very different upbringing and values than the European countries they are invading. And, far from attempting to assimilate into those countries, they're demanding that the countries they're invading kowtow to their wants and "needs" and resorting to violence when they don't get it.

First, given the numbers involved, the vast majority are not violent and probably do assimilate.

Second, if this were some sort of covert military infiltration as has been suggested, it is damn ineffective. The Muslim mayor of London is 45 years old and was born in England to Pakistani parents.

That is one long-term strategy.

How about this for a scenario: Russia is very content to watch the European Union deteriorate as its borders are breached and probably is subtly encouraging such disorder while simultaneously encouraging violent backlash against both the intruders and the various governments.

Again. Not sure where we disagree.

Russia is certainly no fan of Muslim immigration. But it is easy to imagine they would use available resources to foment a backlash against it.

A classic communist insurgency tactic (and Putin is a classic communist) is to create discontent between the government and the governed and to create conditions whereby the citizenry long longer trusts the government to keep order. By (take your pick) carefully watching and/or abetting the current deterioration, Russia is then in a position to do the same things they did during and after WWII - step in to "stop the chaos" and "protect Russian interests" in the same way they have done in the Ukraine.

I totally disagree... that we have any disagreement between us.

I don't think NATO is going anywhere. Trump says stuff, we know this. But the U.S. likes having allies on Russia's doorstep in case Putin gets too frisky, and Trump's posturing isn't going to change that.

Part of the problem is that many people - in the US and outside it - don't know when he is posturing and when he is serious. That's kinda the problem with posturing, unless you have a track record and relationships. Trump has a track record of posturing without any consistency of action behind it. So, it is difficult for friends and enemies to gauge what he is capable of.

That doubt does not sow fear; it is an absence of leadership. In that vacuum, someone will step in and lead.

 

[Woobie]

Part of the problem is that many people - in the US and outside it - don't know when he is posturing and when he is serious. That's kinda the problem with posturing, unless you have a track record and relationships. Trump has a track record of posturing without any consistency of action behind it. So, it is difficult for friends and enemies to gauge what he is capable of.

That doubt does not sow fear; it is an absence of leadership. In that vacuum, someone will step in and lead.

I am not disagreeing with any of that. What I am saying is that he won't do anything that costs us those Eastern European footholds. NATO isn't at risk of what the U.S. will do. We will coninue to prop it up for our own interests. Trump or no Trump.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I just woke up...is the UK still in the EU?....did the vote happen?...who are the penguins?....what?...Russia hates Muslims but are pulling for them?....Trump is posturing but doesn't know why?...

 

[jamil]

I disagree with everything, including this post.

 

[T.Lex]

I just woke up...is the UK still in the EU?....did the vote happen?...who are the penguins?....what?...Russia hates Muslims but are pulling for them?....Trump is posturing but doesn't know why?...

Yes.

Not until June 23.

Pittsburgh hockey team and probably Stanley Cup winners.

Yes and sorta.

Well, he knows why.

 

[Hohn]

Since this is supposedly a major discussion topic at Bilderberg this year-- and those elites are doing EVERYTHING they can do prevent BREXIT, it seems to me that the exit of the UK from the EU might be the best thing to happen to the cause of liberty and freedom in a a loooooong time.

JMO

 

[indiucky]

That's why I only trust Al Jazeera for my news.

Wasn't Al Jazeera point guard for the Kentucky Colonels back in the 70's????

 

[HoughMade]

Wasn't Al Jazeera point guard for the Kentucky Colonels back in the 70's????

I remember when his name was still Graham Wellington.