General News Thread

[st albans fox]

I think intervention in Iran is perhaps next on his agenda 

 

a lot of assets being moved into the area 

 

I think maybe the Israelis are going to try and use the current unrest in Iran as an opportunity to get rid of the mullahs. whether the Americans are with them or just hanging around to help if necessary. 

[Sampson]

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Poor Ukraine, indeed. What has the UK, the EU or the UN achieved since the war started? Pretty much zilch.

 

I find this anti-US reflex quite tedious, it's a bizarre love-hate relationship. For some, they're seemingly the root of all evil – can't do nothing right. If they act swiftly and directly, they're the bogeyman. If they don't come and help others, they're the bogeyman, too.

What a pathetic attitude.

 

Ever since WWII, Europe has failed to display unity and strength. The EU is just a bureaucracy molokh par excellence, heavy, slow, over-saturated.

How about we strengthen our own position? This dependency on the US can't go on forever, it makes one sloppy.

I think almost everyone in the uk, apart from some of those Tommy Robinson types, realise that the UK and Europe really need to build up their military and ween themselves off the US and create a much stronger and formal military alliance right now, probably seperate from NATO.

Edited 4 January by Sampson

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

I think almost everyone in the uk, apart from some of those Tommy Robinson types, realise that the UK and Europe really need to build up their military and ween themselves off the US and create a much stronger and formal military alliance right now, probably seperate from NATO.

Its a very challenging situation, as I suspect what the US really wants is Europe to put a lot more money in, but not to develop a truly independent capability.  NATO really only works with US technology / command and control, which is how they wanted it.  Now they want us to pay but will they give us true autonomy?  Or do we have time to build it ourselves?

[Trav Le Bleu]

5 hours ago, Will1981 said:

My sister-in-law is Venezuelan and has a lot of family still in Venezuela and the vast majority are over the moon that Maduro is gone, he was voted out recently but fixed the election results. Venezuela has the biggest oil reserve in the world and should be one of the richest countries in the world but years of corruption has led to most of the people living in poverty.

The average Venezuelan won't see any of the oil money.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The average Venezuelan won't see any of the oil money.

While it may not be the most equitable place in the world, the average Venezuelan was much better off when the oil was flowing.

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The average Venezuelan won't see any of the oil money.

The average Venezuelan lives in extreme poverty, and has done so for decades.

https://pluralia.com/en/news/venezuela-51-9-of-population-lives-in-extreme-poverty/

 

There is the hope that the situation will stabilize and that the average income as well as the standard of living will finally increase, after several dictators in charge.

[MC Prussian]

The seething leftists and their logic:

 

"nO kInGs"

"hOw DaRe ThE uS cApTuRe An InTeRnAtIoNaL cRiMiNaL aNd DiCtAtOr, WhO sUpPoRtS tErRoRiSm AnD wHo HaS sToLeN tHe ElEcTiOn."

 

On a sidenote, we're in the eighth or ninth day of protests in Iran:

https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-nuclear-us-what-to-know-explainer-845b3ac10c37727add7118ec9c2f6e46

 

[MC Prussian]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its a very challenging situation, as I suspect what the US really wants is Europe to put a lot more money in, but not to develop a truly independent capability.  NATO really only works with US technology / command and control, which is how they wanted it.  Now they want us to pay but will they give us true autonomy?  Or do we have time to build it ourselves?

NATO has had about 70+ years to go fully European. The US support was only meant as a kickstart. Over the years and decades, you'll find many shaking heads in Washington over the European hesitancy (which also stems from the experiences with WWI and WW2 in particular).

But hey, as long as Europe continues to finance their military industrial complex, their companies won't complain.

[Jon the Hat]

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

NATO has had about 70+ years to go fully European. The US support was only meant as a kickstart. Over the years and decades, you'll find many shaking heads in Washington over the European hesitancy (which also stems from the experiences with WWI and WW2 in particular).

But hey, as long as Europe continues to finance their military industrial complex, their companies won't complain.

I think the US wanted to be the big boys, and they got what they wanted.  They wanted NATO to be reliant on them to the extent that it is also impossible to fight without their direct support.  They could have made these noises decades ago.

[Sly]

I guess everyone is trying to 2nd guess what will happen next currently.

 

For me, it has set a dangerous precedent and is a violation of the UN charter and international law. 

 

I guess what happens next with Venezuela will largely depend on the longer term plan.
 

If the idea is just to get the natural resources flowing (oil) and they’ve removed the blocker, as long as they stabilise the government and allow the people of Venezuela to live a better standard of life, then it will be seen as a success.

 

However if it descends into utter chaos, then it’s going to just like Afghanistan isn’t it? At what point does Trump become Hitler mark II if he starts rolling into countries? 

 

I mean, they could have done this with Putin and sorted Ukraine quicker ……..

 

I don’t think they can control Iran either. It’s just too remote. That is surely to support Israel? 

 

Another point, I don’t think taking Cuba makes a lot of sense at this point, unless they want to fully Americanise it. The same could be said for Mexico, which would drive a massive refugee movement if they started a ground movement there. 
 

Then we have Greenland, which would be a direct attack on a NATO ally. Realistically it’s too far to defend easily and would fall quite quickly I’d imagine. The outcome of that would be all out civil war amongst NATO countries and it likely being very, very messy.

 

I’m guessing they’ve war mapped most of this. 

The concern is, with Trump, nothing is off the table currently, as he’s a little unpredictable.

[Jon the Hat]

Iran looks to be doing quite well on its own.  If it is not this round of protests it will come.  The Ayatollah is 86.

 

For Venezuela the removal of their dictator is not a bad thing and it looks like it was done with the agreement of the VP and no doubt other key figures.  The question is do we now have a puppet regime, and if so what does that look like?

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Sly said:

I guess everyone is trying to 2nd guess what will happen next currently.

 

For me, it has set a dangerous precedent and is a violation of the UN charter and international law. 

 

I guess what happens next with Venezuela will largely depend on the longer term plan.
 

If the idea is just to get the natural resources flowing (oil) and they’ve removed the blocker, as long as they stabilise the government and allow the people of Venezuela to live a better standard of life, then it will be seen as a success.

 

However if it descends into utter chaos, then it’s going to just like Afghanistan isn’t it? At what point does Trump become Hitler mark II if he starts rolling into countries? 

 

I mean, they could have done this with Putin and sorted Ukraine quicker ……..

 

I don’t think they can control Iran either. It’s just too remote. That is surely to support Israel? 

 

Another point, I don’t think taking Cuba makes a lot of sense at this point, unless they want to fully Americanise it. The same could be said for Mexico, which would drive a massive refugee movement if they started a ground movement there. 
 

Then we have Greenland, which would be a direct attack on a NATO ally. Realistically it’s too far to defend easily and would fall quite quickly I’d imagine. The outcome of that would be all out civil war amongst NATO countries and it likely being very, very messy.

 

I’m guessing they’ve war mapped most of this. 

The concern is, with Trump, nothing is off the table currently, as he’s a little unpredictable.

He's predictable in terms of only serving his own self interest, but other than that small point, this is a good analysis imo. 

Edited 5 January by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

And @MC Prussian, as much as it is good to see you posting in Gen News again (perhaps we might see you again over on the sci or climate threads too), it's not immediately clear what the point you're trying to make here is with the recent posts. 

 

Is it that the US is some kind of misunderstood benevolent power, actually being altruistic under this administration? 

 

Is it that they're acting no worse now than they have done in the past?

 

Is it that they're simply playing by rules of realpolitik that for some ludicrously perverse reason "everyone" apparently has to follow?

 

Is it something else entirely?

 

Some more additional clarity would be welcomed, if and when possible. 

Edited 5 January by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

The above being said, the UK forming some kind of bloc with Canada, the Antipodean nations and most of Europe would be useful right now.

 

All three of the biggest global powers seem bound and determined to think it's still the Gilded Age where their "spheres of influence" still apply and are wishing to divide the world between themselves. 

[Sly]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

He's predictable in terms of only serving his own self interest, but other than that small point, this is a good analysis imo. 

Yes, apologies, that’s how I should have worded that. You are correct. 

[leicsmac]

Oh, and this is all providing a wonderful distraction from whatever the latest Epstein reveals might be, too. 

[Jon the Hat]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, and this is all providing a wonderful distraction from whatever the latest Epstein reveals might be, too. 

Shhhhh!  Look over there! BOOOM!

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The average Venezuelan lives in extreme poverty, and has done so for decades.

https://pluralia.com/en/news/venezuela-51-9-of-population-lives-in-extreme-poverty/

 

There is the hope that the situation will stabilize and that the average income as well as the standard of living will finally increase, after several dictators in charge.

Honestly? You think Don's going to invest "America's" oil in Venezuela?

[danny.]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The seething leftists and their logic:

 

"nO kInGs"

"hOw DaRe ThE uS cApTuRe An InTeRnAtIoNaL cRiMiNaL aNd DiCtAtOr, WhO sUpPoRtS tErRoRiSm AnD wHo HaS sToLeN tHe ElEcTiOn."

 

On a sidenote, we're in the eighth or ninth day of protests in Iran:

https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-nuclear-us-what-to-know-explainer-845b3ac10c37727add7118ec9c2f6e46

 

This made me chuckle 

 

[danny.]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

I guess everyone is trying to 2nd guess what will happen next currently.

 

For me, it has set a dangerous precedent and is a violation of the UN charter and international law. 

 

I guess what happens next with Venezuela will largely depend on the longer term plan.
 

If the idea is just to get the natural resources flowing (oil) and they’ve removed the blocker, as long as they stabilise the government and allow the people of Venezuela to live a better standard of life, then it will be seen as a success.

 

However if it descends into utter chaos, then it’s going to just like Afghanistan isn’t it? At what point does Trump become Hitler mark II if he starts rolling into countries? 

 

I mean, they could have done this with Putin and sorted Ukraine quicker ……..

 

I don’t think they can control Iran either. It’s just too remote. That is surely to support Israel? 

 

Another point, I don’t think taking Cuba makes a lot of sense at this point, unless they want to fully Americanise it. The same could be said for Mexico, which would drive a massive refugee movement if they started a ground movement there. 
 

Then we have Greenland, which would be a direct attack on a NATO ally. Realistically it’s too far to defend easily and would fall quite quickly I’d imagine. The outcome of that would be all out civil war amongst NATO countries and it likely being very, very messy.

 

I’m guessing they’ve war mapped most of this. 

The concern is, with Trump, nothing is off the table currently, as he’s a little unpredictable.

Comparing Russia with Venezuela is wild 

[danny.]

11 hours ago, Lionator said:

They don’t need to invade Greenland, they can make Denmark an offer they literally can’t refuse. 

Ok then? What would be the issue with that?

 

 

10 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Poor Ukraine, indeed. What has the UK, the EU or the UN achieved since the war started? Pretty much zilch.

 

I find this anti-US reflex quite tedious, it's a bizarre love-hate relationship. For some, they're seemingly the root of all evil – can't do nothing right. If they act swiftly and directly, they're the bogeyman. If they don't come and help others, they're the bogeyman, too.

What a pathetic attitude.

 

Ever since WWII, Europe has failed to display unity and strength. The EU is just a bureaucracy molokh par excellence, heavy, slow, over-saturated.

How about we strengthen our own position? This dependency on the US can't go on forever, it makes one sloppy.

it’s not anti US it’s any any republican president and especially Trump.

 

 

11 hours ago, Will1981 said:

My sister-in-law is Venezuelan and has a lot of family still in Venezuela and the vast majority are over the moon that Maduro is gone, he was voted out recently but fixed the election results. Venezuela has the biggest oil reserve in the world and should be one of the richest countries in the world but years of corruption has led to most of the people living in poverty.

I’ve seen broadly the same, so it seems like a positive thing for the country? Although I note the left seems to be swapping Palestinian flags for Venezuelan flags and protesting against Maduro’s removal now. 

[MC Prussian]

10 hours ago, danny. said:

it’s not anti US it’s any any republican president and especially Trump.

Generally speaking, that is true.

 

If it were a Democrat, they‘d all be either showering him with praise or be looking the other way.

 

UK and (Western) European media is on the whole rather left-leaning, and they are naive to think the Democrats are their „allies“ and/or any better than the Republicans.

 

Just look at crooks such as Nancy Pelosi or Tim Walz. Or why Ilhan Omar‘s wealth/net worth suddenly skyrocketed within one single year.

Not much coverage on that.

Edited 5 January by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Honestly? You think Don's going to invest "America's" oil in Venezuela?

We‘ll have to wait and see.

Did you know Venezuela‘s oil has been going to China for most part in recent years?

Also, hardly anybody talks about China‘s investments in Africa or South America.

[danny.]

22 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Generally speaking, that is true.

 

If it were a Democrat, they‘d all be either showering him with praise or be looking the other way.

 

UK and (Western) European media is on the whole rather left-leaning, and they are naive to think the Democrats are their „allies“ and/or any better than the Republicans.

 

Just look at crooks such as Nancy Pelosi or Tim Waltz. Or why Ilhan Omar‘s wealth suddenly skyrocketed within one single year.

Not much coverage on that.

Couldn’t resist

 

[Tommy G]

14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Wouldn't that be the day...

 

And thus we arrive at the conundrum. If Starmer won't tell Trump that he's acting like a shite, then what leader will?

 

Neither Badenoch nor Farage will - they simp over him more than Starmer does. I think the same is true for anyone in their parties, come to that. 

 

Another one for Burnham, maybe?

 

I've long since stopped thinking practically anything those people say and do is tongue in cheek, given what real and genuiney negative events they've wrought so far. Treat what they say seriously until absolutely proven otherwise, I think. 

Last time I checked neither Badenoch or Farage were our PM? I stated our PM lacks leadership - nothing to do with the other two.