- Joined
- Jun 14, 2015
- Messages
- 7,115
- Reaction score
- 17,907
- Location
- Shreveport, Louisiana
- Media
- 266
- Articles
- 5
- Member of
- NRA, DSC
- Hunted
- Nam, Zam, Zim,RSA (Eastern Cape & NW), Canada, NZ, Alaska, TX, LA, MO, OH, MT, ID, WA, WY
Teddy Roosevelt said we could welcome immigrants, but they need to assimilate. I have short cutted his brief speech. One of our finer presidents in my book!Most of the European countries are waking up to the dangers of non-assimilation
Too little, too late. A book written by a Frenchman in the 70's predicted this.Most of the European countries are waking up to the dangers of non-assimilation
My wife and I had this discussion the other night, she said they were just proud of their country. I said Bull Shit, if they’re so damned proud of their country they should keep their proud asses in it.WTF! If you want to Immigrate, in other words leave the country you are from to better your life in another, why would you carry or display the flag of what you are leaving? I do not understand this!?
We are being told these are Asylum seekers. Well turn those f#$@ers around, they are certainly not seeking Asylum if they are loyally displaying the flag of the country they are leaving!!!
And I am all for immigration for the right reasons. I have just not seen Clinton, Obama, nor Biden ever explain the right reasons. In Minnesota Obama used Immigration to permanently change House seats in Congress. Isn't there some law against this?
View attachment 576834View attachment 576835
The most recent article I saw in the Washington Post (November) put the likely blame on the Ukrainians. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ Perhaps you read a newer one?
That said, whomever and however it was accomplished, very few people in the West with any understanding of the situation did anything but quietly applaud. I think @rigbymauser is spot on in his analogy to the British attack on the French Fleet at Mels-el-Kebir in July 1940. France had just fallen, and the French fleet, allied to a newly triumphant Germany, would have dominated the Mediterranean likely making the British position in Egypt untenable. The British gave the commander of the French fleet the option of placing the ships under British control or sailing them to the French West Indies. Darlan equivocated, and the British struck putting the French fleet out of action for the remainder of the war and killing over a thousand French sailors (and recent allies) in the process.
Nord Stream was a deal with the devil. I think even most Germans realized that it represented a "bargain" that along with cheap natural gas, limited Germany's ability to fully exercise its sovereignty - particularly with regard to Russian aspirations. I have no doubt that factored greatly in Putin's strategy for recreating a Soviet-like empire.
Cutting that umbilical cord did not result in near the economic dislocation predicted by many, and witness the recent deployment of a combat brigade to the Baltics, Germany is already exercising a more aggressive role in Europe than at any point since the Second World War. That probably doesn't make France entirely happy, but it is good news for the West's collective national interests,
The notion that the Biden administration could make such a decisive move has never seemed very likely to me. Joe Biden is no Winston Churchill, and the hyper cautiousness Jake Sullivan and his other advisors have shown with regard to every other aspect of the Ukraine conflict, would argue against such a decisive move with regard to Nord Stream.
Eventually, someone will tell the story, and historians will render their judgement. Regardless how it was accomplished, I suspect most of those historians will conclude it was an important waypoint in Europe's economic independence. Whether it was an important waypoint in Ukraine's waits to be seen.
I think it's going to cause more than just economic challenges, I think we're looking at a serious threat of accelerated deindustrialization in Germany. This would be a far greater (and already immediate) economic threat to them as a nation than them buying cheap gas from Russia. I do think Germany would have been better off to really lean into nuclear energy to facilitate their industrial base as opposed to natural gas from Russia. However, I can also acknowledge that, as a sovereign nation, their decision on energy sourcing should come from their government and electorate, not from threats and pressure from the US, NATO, or anyone else.AfD polling ahead of other German parties? In a sense they do with respect to the individual parties of the current ruling coalition. But the far right party of Germany remains under domestic surveillance. They did win their first mayoral election in a large city - Pirna, Saxony. But Krah and his followers have a bit of a way to go. They are polling at 23% nationally, but until they can build a coalition with someone, then they remain an interesting populist phenomena.
To be clear, what I criticized was Germany entering into an economic relationship with a foreign power whose strategic goals were fundamentally at odds with Germany's role in NATO and Western Europe. And no, I don't care who put together the governing coalition that consummated that relationship. The destruction of Nord Stream, like an addict going cold turkey, severed both that relationship and what I suspect and hope was Germany's sense of safety residing as it has historically at Russia's doorstep.
So in a word, yes, I think I'll stick with my assessment.
I find it interesting that you bring up Ismay, if for no other reason it is good to interact with someone who is well read. But Churchill's admonishment to him has been irrelevant for at least four decades as the US under administrations of both parties (to include Donald Trump) has urged Germany to take a stronger leadership role in Europe and in its own defense. I absolutely believe ending the economic bondage to Russian natural gas is the single most important strategic step Germany could take in exercising that new leadership role. In other words, the opposite of Churchill's guidance to Ismay. Will it cause some economic challenges - of course - but over long term, Germany will be far more free to act in its and the Alliance's critical interests than it ever could under Russian economic blackmail.
Also I enjoy the conversation here too, and I stand by my statement from last week that this place is better than basically any think tank in DC, hahaAfD polling ahead of other German parties? In a sense they do with respect to the individual parties of the current ruling coalition. But the far right party of Germany remains under domestic surveillance. They did win their first mayoral election in a large city - Pirna, Saxony. But Krah and his followers have a bit of a way to go. They are polling at 23% nationally, but until they can build a coalition with someone, then they remain an interesting populist phenomena.
To be clear, what I criticized was Germany entering into an economic relationship with a foreign power whose strategic goals were fundamentally at odds with Germany's role in NATO and Western Europe. And no, I don't care who put together the governing coalition that consummated that relationship. The destruction of Nord Stream, like an addict going cold turkey, severed both that relationship and what I suspect and hope was Germany's sense of safety residing as it has historically at Russia's doorstep.
So in a word, yes, I think I'll stick with my assessment.
I find it interesting that you bring up Ismay, if for no other reason it is good to interact with someone who is well read. But Churchill's admonishment to him has been irrelevant for at least four decades as the US under administrations of both parties (to include Donald Trump) has urged Germany to take a stronger leadership role in Europe and in its own defense. I absolutely believe ending the economic bondage to Russian natural gas is the single most important strategic step Germany could take in exercising that new leadership role. In other words, the opposite of Churchill's guidance to Ismay. Will it cause some economic challenges - of course - but over long term, Germany will be far more free to act in its and the Alliance's critical interests than it ever could under Russian economic blackmail.
I think it's going to cause more than just economic challenges, I think we're looking at a serious threat of accelerated deindustrialization in Germany. This would be a far greater (and already immediate) economic threat to them as a nation than them buying cheap gas from Russia. I do think Germany would have been better off to really lean into nuclear energy to facilitate their industrial base as opposed to natural gas from Russia. However, I can also acknowledge that, as a sovereign nation, their decision on energy sourcing should come from their government and electorate, not from threats and pressure from the US, NATO, or anyone else.
May I add China to the list, as per good american example of doing business?Those who can are switching production to the US, Latin-America, Asia.
This is my prediction too. Once the normalization process starts, economy will kick in.I predict Russian pipeline gas will be flowing to Europe again. No matter the politics, or geo-strategy, it will prove impossible to ignore a very cheap and easily accessible supply of energy, so close to the industrial base that needs it.
The most recent article I saw in the Washington Post (November) put the likely blame on the Ukrainians. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ Perhaps you read a newer one?
That said, whomever and however it was accomplished, very few people in the West with any understanding of the situation did anything but quietly applaud. I think @rigbymauser is spot on in his analogy to the British attack on the French Fleet at Mels-el-Kebir in July 1940. France had just fallen, and the French fleet, allied to a newly triumphant Germany, would have dominated the Mediterranean likely making the British position in Egypt untenable. The British gave the commander of the French fleet the option of placing the ships under British control or sailing them to the French West Indies. Darlan equivocated, and the British struck putting the French fleet out of action for the remainder of the war and killing over a thousand French sailors (and recent allies) in the process.
Nord Stream was a deal with the devil. I think even most Germans realized that it represented a "bargain" that along with cheap natural gas, limited Germany's ability to fully exercise its sovereignty - particularly with regard to Russian aspirations. I have no doubt that factored greatly in Putin's strategy for recreating a Soviet-like empire.
Cutting that umbilical cord did not result in near the economic dislocation predicted by many, and witness the recent deployment of a combat brigade to the Baltics, Germany is already exercising a more aggressive role in Europe than at any point since the Second World War. That probably doesn't make France entirely happy, but it is good news for the West's collective national interests,
The notion that the Biden administration could make such a decisive move has never seemed very likely to me. Joe Biden is no Winston Churchill, and the hyper cautiousness Jake Sullivan and his other advisors have shown with regard to every other aspect of the Ukraine conflict, would argue against such a decisive move with regard to Nord Stream.
Eventually, someone will tell the story, and historians will render their judgement. Regardless how it was accomplished, I suspect most of those historians will conclude it was an important waypoint in Europe's economic independence. Whether it was an important waypoint in Ukraine's waits to be seen.
Correct. Only europan understand that!You don`t say "no" to the friends in EU and the consensus to just ride along(always say yes regardsless of crap)
I'll simply say that there is a thin but incredibly deep chasm between acquiring a resource cheaply and becoming dependent upon it - particularly if that resource is held by a power with potentially adversarial territorial, military, and economic ambitions.All the figures are pointing to this no longer being a threat. But actual fact. CWE is deindustrializing at a fast pace. Chemical producers (Basf, Ineos, ...), Steel/metals manufacturers (Thyssen Krupp, Nyrstar, Arcelor Mittal, ...), Tire producers (Michelin), Glass manufacturers (AGC, O-I, Saint-Gobain) in sum all basic industry, producing the big volumes of basic commodities that run an economy are consuming 20-30% less energy than before. This means they are running less than optimum efficiency of 24/7, meaning they cannot be cost-competitive on the worldwide markets. Many of them are closing down operations in some of their sites in Europe.
Those who can are switching production to the US, Latin-America, Asia.
I predict Russian pipeline gas will be flowing to Europe again. No matter the politics, or geo-strategy, it will prove impossible to ignore a very cheap and easily accessible supply of energy, so close to the industrial base that needs it.
On nuclear you have a point. I do not know about Namibia, but in energy production, if you take the nukes off the table, you are not serious. I predicted 5 years ago that the eventual saviours for the CWE industrial base and economy will not be the consumers of bratwurst und kartoffeln, but rather the adepts of vin, fromage et baguette, who might put logic in front of emotion.
V.
National interests drive relations with any nation. With respect to the US, the "America First" crowd actually have it correct even if they mean something entirely different (the few who have any understanding what that may mean at all). Where those interests are shared, they become collective interests.I think it's going to cause more than just economic challenges, I think we're looking at a serious threat of accelerated deindustrialization in Germany. This would be a far greater (and already immediate) economic threat to them as a nation than them buying cheap gas from Russia. I do think Germany would have been better off to really lean into nuclear energy to facilitate their industrial base as opposed to natural gas from Russia. However, I can also acknowledge that, as a sovereign nation, their decision on energy sourcing should come from their government and electorate, not from threats and pressure from the US, NATO, or anyone else.