| What does he say here that you disagree with on 17:41 - Jan 16 with 2021 views | BorisOrTrevor |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:25 - Jan 16 by sparks |
What do I disagree with? Where does one start?
I disagree with the following:
That Nato is “obsolete” or that it is sensible for a president elect to say such a thing.
That Merkel made a “catastrophic mistake” helping refugees.
That there is any logic or reason behind the complaint about german cars, given that BMW and Mercedes are clearly more desirable to most Europeans than Chevrolets, and better in most ways.
That it is remotely appropriate to talk about trust of Merkel and Putin in the same breath.
That it is sensible to trust Putin.
That it is appropriate to even talk about reneging on a deal with Iran, given that it would simply demonstrate that the West cannot be trusted and don’t keep to their own claimed standards of keeping their words and being fair.
That the US could and should have drawn a “line in the sand” in Syria. Or that this is consistent with anything else he says on that subject, or on relations with Russia.
That we didn’t let people do what they were tasked to do in Afghanistan
That it is appropriate to appoint a brother in law as a peace envoy of some sort in the most difficult part of the world.
That the man in question has any chance of securing an “Israel deal”.
That Obama’s decision to abstain on the votes by the UN to prevent Israel from continuing to expand its territory at the expense of Palestinians was “terrible”.
His comments on Jewish friends which appear to make the erroneous assumption that anyone Jewish ought to support Israel’s settlement policy.
That he might continue using Twitter as president
That he is covered dishonestly by the press. |
NATO is obsolete and has been for two decades. The reason it was invented no longer exists, its expansion was a mistake and the fact it has hit a bulwark in its expansion plans now means it has helped to create the problem for which it is now deemed to be the solution for.
Anyone n their right mind can see that the immigration issue with Germany is a powder keg waiting to happen and is detrimental for all. Apart from all that lovely cheap labour to keep the globalisers happy.
Global trade is designed to make the 1% ever richer, the profits are becoming ever more distant and wealth is being stolen. BMW are no worse than all the others, fair trade no longer exists. The major trade pacts that Obama was entering such as TPP will lead to further inequality.
Not bothered by your presumptions based on media skew. Who knows is probably the answer to this. I would say that Putins era has led to an undeniable increasing standard of living in Russia with renewed vigour and pride in many areas including position on he world stage, the way Merkel is going she is going to be leaving a broken and divided Germany as her main legacy.
You don't know Putin from Adam.
On the one hand you criticise Putin, then the other you side with Iran. They are bedfellows ying and yang. The Iran deal was a poor one and is symptomatic of failed US foreign policy.
The US, or Obama, did draw a line in the sand. The use of Chemical weapons. I for one think he did the right thing in squirming out of it as the evidence was wafer thin, but he should have never made the pledge in the first place. Failure to follow through made him and US look weak and was yet another failure in the last incumbents foreign policy.
Towards the end you move on to Israel which seems to be the real bent of your anger, but generally through your statements you have contradictions and inconsistencies in overall cause and effect.
Apologies for typos iPhone 7 typing as ever. |  |
|  |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 17:53 - Jan 16 with 1998 views | sparks |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 17:41 - Jan 16 by BorisOrTrevor |
NATO is obsolete and has been for two decades. The reason it was invented no longer exists, its expansion was a mistake and the fact it has hit a bulwark in its expansion plans now means it has helped to create the problem for which it is now deemed to be the solution for.
Anyone n their right mind can see that the immigration issue with Germany is a powder keg waiting to happen and is detrimental for all. Apart from all that lovely cheap labour to keep the globalisers happy.
Global trade is designed to make the 1% ever richer, the profits are becoming ever more distant and wealth is being stolen. BMW are no worse than all the others, fair trade no longer exists. The major trade pacts that Obama was entering such as TPP will lead to further inequality.
Not bothered by your presumptions based on media skew. Who knows is probably the answer to this. I would say that Putins era has led to an undeniable increasing standard of living in Russia with renewed vigour and pride in many areas including position on he world stage, the way Merkel is going she is going to be leaving a broken and divided Germany as her main legacy.
You don't know Putin from Adam.
On the one hand you criticise Putin, then the other you side with Iran. They are bedfellows ying and yang. The Iran deal was a poor one and is symptomatic of failed US foreign policy.
The US, or Obama, did draw a line in the sand. The use of Chemical weapons. I for one think he did the right thing in squirming out of it as the evidence was wafer thin, but he should have never made the pledge in the first place. Failure to follow through made him and US look weak and was yet another failure in the last incumbents foreign policy.
Towards the end you move on to Israel which seems to be the real bent of your anger, but generally through your statements you have contradictions and inconsistencies in overall cause and effect.
Apologies for typos iPhone 7 typing as ever. |
This istedious so ill be brief. No one else in Nato thinks it obsolete.
Immigration in Germany was a massive benefit because they had a population issue meaning they needed fresh input. Being decent human beings and helping people is also a decent thing to do.
You dont address the point on cars.
Nor on Putin.
You offer a straw man regarding iran, ignoring what I said.
On Syria, you ignore what Trump said to which i was responding.
Then you avoid addressing anything else.
This is a man who is going to put a spanner int he works of envinronmental progress and denies science. He believes that the optimum exit strategy from Iraq was for the US to "keep the oil" and leave people there to protect it and have it for themselves.
He's dangerous, arrogant and lots of other things besides. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 18:46 - Jan 16 with 1977 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:49 - Jan 16 by BlueBadger |
'"Afghanistan is, is not going well. Nothing’s going well – I guess we’ve been in Afghanistan almost 17 years – but you look at all of the places, now in all fairness, we haven’t let our people do what they’re supposed to do. You know we have great military, we’re gonna have much greater military because we’re gonna have – you know right now it’s very depleted, we’re gonna have great military, but we haven’t let our military win.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin are you know big contractors for this country and we have an F-35 program that has been very, very severely over budget and behind schedule. Hundreds of billions of dollars over budget and seven years behind schedule. And, uh, they got to shape up.'
Well, that's certainly cleared everything up there. |
“I have just looked at something... Oh, I should not show you it at all, because it’s secret — but I have just taken a look at Afghanistan. If you look at the Taliban there — ... They’re just getting bigger and bigger and bigger every year. And you ask yourself ‘what’s going on there?’”  |  | | |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 20:57 - Jan 16 with 1933 views | BorisOrTrevor |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 17:53 - Jan 16 by sparks |
This istedious so ill be brief. No one else in Nato thinks it obsolete.
Immigration in Germany was a massive benefit because they had a population issue meaning they needed fresh input. Being decent human beings and helping people is also a decent thing to do.
You dont address the point on cars.
Nor on Putin.
You offer a straw man regarding iran, ignoring what I said.
On Syria, you ignore what Trump said to which i was responding.
Then you avoid addressing anything else.
This is a man who is going to put a spanner int he works of envinronmental progress and denies science. He believes that the optimum exit strategy from Iraq was for the US to "keep the oil" and leave people there to protect it and have it for themselves.
He's dangerous, arrogant and lots of other things besides. |
Yes they do, you are mistaken. Look again. EU army anybody?
Difference between millions of uncontrolled migrants vs a sensible immigration policy. The proof is in the pudding and that pudding is the breakdown of the EU project.
Sorry got sidetracked on car point, was at work. Main point is that global elite are taking the piss to the detriment of normal working class people. There needs to be rules to prevent, just like there should be within banking. Free trade is great, but this not free trade it is exploitation and somebody has to stop it. If it is Trump, brill.
Reading through your monotonous assault on Israel and Putin for the rest is tedious and I have better things to do. I have responded to the remotely interesting points you made. | |
| |
| The awful thing is people are beginning to laud Trump's frankness and pragmatism on 21:51 - Jan 16 with 1896 views | unstableblue |
Everyone thinks Trump is great now, he can strike a deal, he takes no sh!t... he's draining the swamp.
Even I have been warming to the false idol.
But what it actually means is wanton capitalism is king, with no moral compass or values.
"Putin is someone we can do business with, it's in our interests" - slate NATO cause it's not necessary- we've just had the first hostile land grab in Europe since early USSR. Russia just shot down a Dutch passenger plane. They're doing Stuxnet viral attacks on Balkan and Ukrainian infrastructure. He killed a UK citizsen under direct orders. He stops free press, he promoted a homophobic agenda.
It's a sad slow creeping to the wrong world agenda. |  |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 21:55 - Jan 16 with 1887 views | lowhouseblue |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:25 - Jan 16 by sparks |
What do I disagree with? Where does one start?
I disagree with the following:
That Nato is “obsolete” or that it is sensible for a president elect to say such a thing.
That Merkel made a “catastrophic mistake” helping refugees.
That there is any logic or reason behind the complaint about german cars, given that BMW and Mercedes are clearly more desirable to most Europeans than Chevrolets, and better in most ways.
That it is remotely appropriate to talk about trust of Merkel and Putin in the same breath.
That it is sensible to trust Putin.
That it is appropriate to even talk about reneging on a deal with Iran, given that it would simply demonstrate that the West cannot be trusted and don’t keep to their own claimed standards of keeping their words and being fair.
That the US could and should have drawn a “line in the sand” in Syria. Or that this is consistent with anything else he says on that subject, or on relations with Russia.
That we didn’t let people do what they were tasked to do in Afghanistan
That it is appropriate to appoint a brother in law as a peace envoy of some sort in the most difficult part of the world.
That the man in question has any chance of securing an “Israel deal”.
That Obama’s decision to abstain on the votes by the UN to prevent Israel from continuing to expand its territory at the expense of Palestinians was “terrible”.
His comments on Jewish friends which appear to make the erroneous assumption that anyone Jewish ought to support Israel’s settlement policy.
That he might continue using Twitter as president
That he is covered dishonestly by the press. |
 |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Trump said... on 23:00 - Jan 16 with 1871 views | unstableblue |
| The awful thing is people are beginning to laud Trump's frankness and pragmatism on 21:51 - Jan 16 by unstableblue |
Everyone thinks Trump is great now, he can strike a deal, he takes no sh!t... he's draining the swamp.
Even I have been warming to the false idol.
But what it actually means is wanton capitalism is king, with no moral compass or values.
"Putin is someone we can do business with, it's in our interests" - slate NATO cause it's not necessary- we've just had the first hostile land grab in Europe since early USSR. Russia just shot down a Dutch passenger plane. They're doing Stuxnet viral attacks on Balkan and Ukrainian infrastructure. He killed a UK citizsen under direct orders. He stops free press, he promoted a homophobic agenda.
It's a sad slow creeping to the wrong world agenda. |
last week, Mr. Trump was emphatic on one point: “I have no dealings with Russia.” And he repeated: “I have no deals that could happen in Russia because we’ve stayed away.”
This is a massive lie, he and his children have been trying to drive business into Russia for over a decade. He drove the miss universe pageant towards Moscow, he boasted that he had access "to the top people, all the oligarchs, the generals"
I now a New York Times article exposing these facts us being called fake news! How does this end?
That when it is uneconomic to report the truth, we just get was us pallatable. | |
| |
| Trump said... on 23:09 - Jan 16 with 1856 views | Freddies_Ears |
| Trump said... on 23:00 - Jan 16 by unstableblue |
last week, Mr. Trump was emphatic on one point: “I have no dealings with Russia.” And he repeated: “I have no deals that could happen in Russia because we’ve stayed away.”
This is a massive lie, he and his children have been trying to drive business into Russia for over a decade. He drove the miss universe pageant towards Moscow, he boasted that he had access "to the top people, all the oligarchs, the generals"
I now a New York Times article exposing these facts us being called fake news! How does this end?
That when it is uneconomic to report the truth, we just get was us pallatable. |
Private Eye reported last week that a UKIP MEP was not permitted to meet Trump on election night because, down on the ground floor of Trump Tower, there were too many Russian business people that he didn't want to be photographed with.
I am so fearful for the future. I suspect the CIA will have Trump assassinated. I am not sure that will help. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 00:33 - Jan 17 with 1830 views | monytowbray |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:08 - Jan 16 by J2BLUE |
You are just as bad as the people you criticise. You see things from one side and refuse to look at it from any other angle. What did the remain camp say? Lets vote remain and reform from within. Something we know wasn't possible and something the EU showed no appetite for.
Ignore that though because they're on your side so it doesn't count. |
You don't half blub these days.
It was a simple observation. Comfort is easier than having no f'ing idea. Boris ran a mile when he accidentally got his wish. Which just about says it all. Blind leading the blind. |  |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 00:34 - Jan 17 with 1830 views | monytowbray |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:16 - Jan 16 by GlasgowBlue |
A few years ago when Ed Milband was threatening a mansion tax and bankers bonuss taxes, it was pointed out that these financial institutions and wealth creators would leave the country taking their jobs and taxes with them.
"Fcuk 'em" was the general feeling from the usual suspects on here. The Factual Blue's. The Cotty's. The Dryas'. "We don't need them".
These same people are now the ones crying how the financial institutions and wealth creators will leave the country taking their jobs and taxes with them because of Brexit.
They make it up as they go along. |
I didn't realise the financial institutes all operated out of mansions. | |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 00:37 - Jan 17 with 1827 views | monytowbray |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:35 - Jan 16 by J2BLUE |
Yes some did. There were some classics from Gove and Farage's claim he never supported the bus was clearly BS. I am happy to admit it was a terrible campaign based mostly on BS from both sides. |
I was never actually majorly for either option TBH and thought the entire referendum was a joke. As stated several times, uncertainty swayed by vote. But you continue to pretend I'm some kind of pro-EU person whom hates all remainers. I only hate the stupid or the racist ones. | |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:04 - Jan 17 with 1780 views | Benters |
Great man. calls a digging implement a digging implement that sort of thing . |  |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:22 - Jan 17 with 1770 views | NewcyBlue |
A quick trade deal with the States.... Quick get private health insurance before the premiums shoot up due to the demise of the NHS. |  |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:25 - Jan 17 with 1761 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:04 - Jan 17 by Benters |
Great man. calls a digging implement a digging implement that sort of thing . |
I'd say 'great' is slightly pushing it |  |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:26 - Jan 17 with 1759 views | wkj |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 17:16 - Jan 16 by BorisOrTrevor |
Hi Guthrum.
Leaders provide broad sweeping statements. Detail is left to the followers/managers to sort. I do not want to hear minor details yet, I want a vision. A tone.
And he provides that in bucket loads. |
Trump has a tone alright, It's Orange... |  |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:27 - Jan 17 with 1759 views | Steve_M |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 17:53 - Jan 16 by sparks |
This istedious so ill be brief. No one else in Nato thinks it obsolete.
Immigration in Germany was a massive benefit because they had a population issue meaning they needed fresh input. Being decent human beings and helping people is also a decent thing to do.
You dont address the point on cars.
Nor on Putin.
You offer a straw man regarding iran, ignoring what I said.
On Syria, you ignore what Trump said to which i was responding.
Then you avoid addressing anything else.
This is a man who is going to put a spanner int he works of envinronmental progress and denies science. He believes that the optimum exit strategy from Iraq was for the US to "keep the oil" and leave people there to protect it and have it for themselves.
He's dangerous, arrogant and lots of other things besides. |
And, of course, if NATO is obsolete why does it worry Putin so much? |  |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:35 - Jan 17 with 1747 views | No9 |
He's a descendant from the Isle of Lewis.
He has significant gloabs businesses
& his ips move
What else can you need to know? | | | |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:41 - Jan 17 with 1733 views | No9 |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:08 - Jan 16 by J2BLUE |
You are just as bad as the people you criticise. You see things from one side and refuse to look at it from any other angle. What did the remain camp say? Lets vote remain and reform from within. Something we know wasn't possible and something the EU showed no appetite for.
Ignore that though because they're on your side so it doesn't count. |
In reality the EU has been evolving & reforming since inception. Just not in the way the RW of British politics wants.
It is he fault of the UK people not the EU that we have sent so many worthless MEP's who's only interest aparet from colecting expenses is to try to bring down the EU.
But having said that, the people of the UK have shown repeatedly they do not want decent transport systems nor decent housing, nor decent working conditions, nor decent wages.
Having spent a lot of time in the EU it is abundantly clear w=that whilethe EU wants to move forward the RW in the UK want and are somewhat succesful in driving the country back to the 19th century.
Why? | | | |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:50 - Jan 17 with 1720 views | No9 |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 20:57 - Jan 16 by BorisOrTrevor |
Yes they do, you are mistaken. Look again. EU army anybody?
Difference between millions of uncontrolled migrants vs a sensible immigration policy. The proof is in the pudding and that pudding is the breakdown of the EU project.
Sorry got sidetracked on car point, was at work. Main point is that global elite are taking the piss to the detriment of normal working class people. There needs to be rules to prevent, just like there should be within banking. Free trade is great, but this not free trade it is exploitation and somebody has to stop it. If it is Trump, brill.
Reading through your monotonous assault on Israel and Putin for the rest is tedious and I have better things to do. I have responded to the remotely interesting points you made. |
& my friend, Trump is not only a part of the global elite he opintimises it.
Words to detract from the real objective | | | |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 08:32 - Jan 17 with 1693 views | StokieBlue |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 14:25 - Jan 16 by sparks |
What do I disagree with? Where does one start?
I disagree with the following:
That Nato is “obsolete” or that it is sensible for a president elect to say such a thing.
That Merkel made a “catastrophic mistake” helping refugees.
That there is any logic or reason behind the complaint about german cars, given that BMW and Mercedes are clearly more desirable to most Europeans than Chevrolets, and better in most ways.
That it is remotely appropriate to talk about trust of Merkel and Putin in the same breath.
That it is sensible to trust Putin.
That it is appropriate to even talk about reneging on a deal with Iran, given that it would simply demonstrate that the West cannot be trusted and don’t keep to their own claimed standards of keeping their words and being fair.
That the US could and should have drawn a “line in the sand” in Syria. Or that this is consistent with anything else he says on that subject, or on relations with Russia.
That we didn’t let people do what they were tasked to do in Afghanistan
That it is appropriate to appoint a brother in law as a peace envoy of some sort in the most difficult part of the world.
That the man in question has any chance of securing an “Israel deal”.
That Obama’s decision to abstain on the votes by the UN to prevent Israel from continuing to expand its territory at the expense of Palestinians was “terrible”.
His comments on Jewish friends which appear to make the erroneous assumption that anyone Jewish ought to support Israel’s settlement policy.
That he might continue using Twitter as president
That he is covered dishonestly by the press. |
I'll pick a couple - your reply is good and I agree with most of what you have said.
Just on the first one, from a US perspective isn't NATO pretty much obsolete?
The US don't need any help defending against any other nations. From a European perspective it's far from obsolete. He has a point though that other NATO members should pay their way, only 5 out of 27 meet their treaty commitments on defence spending. Once again, from an entirely US perspective why should the US continue to pay for the defence of Europe if the Europeans themselves don't want to pay for it?
On the German cars, his point on there being no US cars in Europe is stupid, they are pretty poor and designed for different types of roads with lower fuel costs. His point on why should they use cheap labour in Mexico to build the cars then take advantage of the NAFTA agreement to drive them over the border and make larger profits in the US is more valid. He wants those jobs in the US where there would be no import tariff - it might not be free trade but once again from an entirely US perspective there is nothing wrong with what he said on that part of the point.
On Merkel's "catastrophic mistake", he referred directly to the Germans not making a careful not of who they were taking in and keeping detailed records. That's a fairly valid point. Obviously taking refugees was the correct thing to do though so he is wrong on any other statements he makes on that outside the record keeping aspect.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 08:36 - Jan 17 with 1679 views | StokieBlue |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 07:27 - Jan 17 by Steve_M |
And, of course, if NATO is obsolete why does it worry Putin so much? |
You need to look at the perspective.
The US doesn't need NATO. The Europeans need NATO. Nobody can threaten the US militarily. Putin doesn't like NATO as he doesn't like the US being close to his borders or Europe having a united front against him.
It's all about perspective, from Trump's perspective he and the US get very little from being in NATO. Personally I don't think it's obsolete and it's good to have an alliance to work together. However I also feel the 22 countries who don't pay up to their treaty requirements should have to.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 09:40 - Jan 17 with 1644 views | No9 |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 08:36 - Jan 17 by StokieBlue |
You need to look at the perspective.
The US doesn't need NATO. The Europeans need NATO. Nobody can threaten the US militarily. Putin doesn't like NATO as he doesn't like the US being close to his borders or Europe having a united front against him.
It's all about perspective, from Trump's perspective he and the US get very little from being in NATO. Personally I don't think it's obsolete and it's good to have an alliance to work together. However I also feel the 22 countries who don't pay up to their treaty requirements should have to.
SB |
And isn't it time the rest of the world stopped loking to the USA to be policemand and started to make things work for themselves, in which case a European Army becomes a necessity.
I am not si sure no one can threaten the US military, due to their continued practice (since Reagan) to ignore the fact the military contractors are happy to sell their designs to allcomers mean the Russians et al have a pretty good idea where the US is on armament development? | | | |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 09:42 - Jan 17 with 1638 views | sparks |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 08:36 - Jan 17 by StokieBlue |
You need to look at the perspective.
The US doesn't need NATO. The Europeans need NATO. Nobody can threaten the US militarily. Putin doesn't like NATO as he doesn't like the US being close to his borders or Europe having a united front against him.
It's all about perspective, from Trump's perspective he and the US get very little from being in NATO. Personally I don't think it's obsolete and it's good to have an alliance to work together. However I also feel the 22 countries who don't pay up to their treaty requirements should have to.
SB |
I think the us have a major interest in Europe being stable and not vulnerable to Russian aggression. Especially when Russia and China are allied and moron Trump is tweaking the latter's nose on Twitter! | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 09:42 - Jan 17 with 1634 views | No9 |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 08:32 - Jan 17 by StokieBlue |
I'll pick a couple - your reply is good and I agree with most of what you have said.
Just on the first one, from a US perspective isn't NATO pretty much obsolete?
The US don't need any help defending against any other nations. From a European perspective it's far from obsolete. He has a point though that other NATO members should pay their way, only 5 out of 27 meet their treaty commitments on defence spending. Once again, from an entirely US perspective why should the US continue to pay for the defence of Europe if the Europeans themselves don't want to pay for it?
On the German cars, his point on there being no US cars in Europe is stupid, they are pretty poor and designed for different types of roads with lower fuel costs. His point on why should they use cheap labour in Mexico to build the cars then take advantage of the NAFTA agreement to drive them over the border and make larger profits in the US is more valid. He wants those jobs in the US where there would be no import tariff - it might not be free trade but once again from an entirely US perspective there is nothing wrong with what he said on that part of the point.
On Merkel's "catastrophic mistake", he referred directly to the Germans not making a careful not of who they were taking in and keeping detailed records. That's a fairly valid point. Obviously taking refugees was the correct thing to do though so he is wrong on any other statements he makes on that outside the record keeping aspect.
SB |
Speaking as someone who had to live with an American car (via a hire car co) it is very easy to see why Americans buy Merc's BMW & Audi cars. | | | |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 09:43 - Jan 17 with 1628 views | Steve_M |
| What does he say here that you disagree with on 08:36 - Jan 17 by StokieBlue |
You need to look at the perspective.
The US doesn't need NATO. The Europeans need NATO. Nobody can threaten the US militarily. Putin doesn't like NATO as he doesn't like the US being close to his borders or Europe having a united front against him.
It's all about perspective, from Trump's perspective he and the US get very little from being in NATO. Personally I don't think it's obsolete and it's good to have an alliance to work together. However I also feel the 22 countries who don't pay up to their treaty requirements should have to.
SB |
Yes, I do appreciate why many in the US may feel it is unnecessary, although it is worth noting that the only time NATO invoked Article 5 was in September 2001.
It's also a very odd coincidence that Trump's tweets have so much in column with Russia Today's newsline. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
