Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[palo5]

Originally Posted by G-Type

In this particular case, I need to contradict

The European Army is not intended to make NATO obsolete - it is merely a military project/alliance to intervene (locally) where a NATO-mandate could not be set up.

Two different things that have nothing to do with each other
.

Clearly we have a different take on it

I don't think they want to make Nato obsolete, which they couldn't do anyway. But I do think some nations want a European alliance with zero US involvement

Try to figure out how a country like your own could serve both interests

[G-Type]

Originally Posted by palo5

But I do think some nations want a European alliance with zero US involvement

I can´t think of any...at least from the earlier Warsaw Pact

Originally Posted by palo5

Try to figure out how a country like your own could serve both interests

There is no conflict as this and the other military alliance have different approaches.

However -and thus not to be taken cynically- supplying 2 military alliances instead of 1 with technology, engineering and arms is certainly not a neglectable fact.

And no conflict, either
.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by G-Type

I can´t think of any...at least from the earlier Warsaw Pact

If you mean the Poles and Baltic countries, they're being idiotic. I think they're paranoid, and they're misusing you. You know this, of course, and want to be misused, because then you can move your forces further east. This is not clever

However -and thus not to be taken cynically- supplying 2 military alliances instead of 1 with technology, engineering and arms is certainly not a neglectable fact...

If you mean it's more profit for weapons manufacturers, you're right. Great news for them

But politically & logistically it is a problem, if you have two alliances to serve. Diplomatic interpreters will have a hilarious time

[G-Type]

Originally Posted by palo5

If you mean the Poles and Baltic countries, they're being idiotic. I think they're paranoid, and they're misusing you. You know this, of course, and want to be misused, because then you can move your forces further east. This is not clever

Time will tell whether this is clever or not.

The countries you refer to have deliberately chosen to be under the NATO-hood...I guess they have had valid reasons for this given their past in which they have been suppressed by the "Big Brother" in the East

And unfortunately, the Krim-Manoeuvre has also not added to build up trust towards the Russian side.

I -for my part- can not recall that NATO (or western Superpower) has gone for annecting parts of a souvereign state.

As stated above - time will tell

***************

Any news on Brexit?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

If you mean the Poles and Baltic countries, they're being idiotic. I think they're paranoid, and they're misusing you. You know this, of course, and want to be misused, because then you can move your forces further east. This is not clever

Given the history of the world between 17 September 1939 and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 I hardly think it is paranoia. Look at Georgia and Ukraine today and you will see what happens to countries who are in the power of Russia. The only reason why the Baltic States and Poland are not in the same position as Ukraine and Georgia is that they belong to NATO and cannot safely be bullied, and Mr Putin knows the consequences if he resorts to direct military action against NATO members. Far from being idiotic, their action of joining NATO in the window before Russia became strong enough to forbid it has proven to be extremely smart for them.

You might be right that it was not so smart for the rest of NATO to commit to protecting them. That is a big risk for us. But do not doubt that we will stand by them should Russia ever pull a Ukraine on them. Oh yes we will. If we do not, NATO ceases to exist from that moment on and our collective security ceases to exist, so there is a very strong reason for us to fight in such a situation.

Just saying.

[Roubignol]

It's interesting that a majority of the English voters do not want the Americanization of their country.
Isn't it like the father who revolts against his spiritual son?

[G-Type]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

It's interesting that a majority of the English voters do not want the Americanization of their country.

I guess that majority you talk of is very high and without knowing the exact figures, I would guess and scale it towards 100%.

Suavely so
.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by G-Type

I guess that majority you talk of is very high and without knowing the exact figures, I would guess and scale it towards 100%.

Suavely so
.

Born in one of the most democratic country in the world, I can tell you: 50,1% is the majority... even if I don't share the opinion of my fellow citizen.
That's what don't like EU politicians about Switzerland. After the results of a Swiss referendum about military aircrafts, I remember having listened at the TV a Belgian Eurodeputee telling: "There are things that we don't have to let thinking to the commun people." That's funny, because he was spoken like a totalistarist.
That's what happened in France with Sarkozy or Hollande.

Our "elites" brought us on consumerism during 70 years and now we probably dammaged the environment of the future generations for... centuries.

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

It's interesting that a majority of the English voters do not want the Americanization of their country.
Isn't it like the father who revolts against his spiritual son?

So they say - but the UK (like the rest of the "western" world) is fairly Americanised already.

Besides, who is to say that America is not collaterally anglicised?

Many, if not most, of its traditions, standards and outlook derive from the spirit abroad in England in the early 19th century. It's just that we lost our power, influence and money in the 20th century whereas the states did not.

After all, the main tenets of the US constitution were laid down by John Lilburne - leader of the Levellers and very much an Englishman.

[scoundrel]

The truth is that we inhabit a global culture, but of course all countries interpret and adapt it their own way and are distinctive. Most British people rather like America and deeply appreciate the alliance and the past history. In WW2 the entry of America into the war absolutely saved us; it was like hearing the 7th Cavalry bugles blowing. We have a strong folk memory and we certainly do remember who our friends are (and aren't).

But of course the world has moved on and in some ways America has failed to move with it. All relationships evolve. Britain is extremely resistant to being pushed around or to being made to conform with the expectations of outsiders; as no doubt all countries are. If we like what we see of American culture we cannibalise it to ourselves. Hollywood is of course a major conduit of American dreams. The things we don't like, such as the childish and irresponsible, onanistic obsession with guns; the utterly cavalier disregard for social duty and responsibility of the American mainstream political thought, incredibly right wing when seen through a British lens; the attitude of so many American people to their environment, their drinking water, their future generation; the very air they breathe; those things we simply reject. But the friendship we do not reject.