Mixed in with the truly needy are purely economic migrants looking for something better
Given how absolutely poverty stricken and hope-forsaken some parts of the world are I'd say there's a massive intersection between those two sets of people. I mean, how much does it matter if your life is in danger because you're the wrong religion compared with because you can't obtain life's necessities?
Sure, there are overlaps and category boundaries. But economic migrant is by definition not the same as refugee, escaping from danger to life because of government intolerance, or incompetence, or civil war. It’s not a zero category.
Without wishing to anticipate events, I wonder if Trump is likely to try to invade and seize Greenland?
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
Mixed in with the truly needy are purely economic migrants looking for something better
Given how absolutely poverty stricken and hope-forsaken some parts of the world are I'd say there's a massive intersection between those two sets of people. I mean, how much does it matter if your life is in danger because you're the wrong religion compared with because you can't obtain life's necessities?
Sure, there are overlaps and category boundaries. But economic migrant is by definition not the same as refugee, escaping from danger to life because of government intolerance, or incompetence, or civil war. It’s not a zero category.
Sure, but if you want define it as a distinctive category, it's one that exists as much in the past (or even more so - think the waves of European migrants from Ireland, Southern Italy etc).
"Ease up on their ecological restrictions" is pure sanewashing. Trump's actual statement is that "all they have to do is turn the valve" and that water can flow across two or three different watersheds from Canada to California. He thinks that there is a "valve" somewhere like a faucet.
And, even if there was a "valve" that could somehow shift rivers flowing towards the east to flow west that's not really going to help with fires in California (or elsewhere). What's really needed is rain, and a restoration of weather patterns that have become increasingly dry. Although restoration of climate systems would need not only massive reductions in fossil fuel burning to stop things getting much worse but massive ecological engineering to restore forests, peat and marine kelp and seagrass to soak up the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
Without wishing to anticipate events, I wonder if Trump is likely to try to invade and seize Greenland?
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
A very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Greenland is part of Denmark. An attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark, and therefore an attack on NATO. This would require all other members of NATO, including the US, to defend Greenland.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore"
"Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me"
"I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
These words, on the Statue of Liberty, stand as a moral challenge both to the USA and UK.
Oh I know it’s a mixed picture. Mixed in with the truly needy are purely economic migrants looking for something better, as well as those with darker, more destructive, motivations.
But there are millions of truly needy and some of them choose illegal immigration in desperation, faced with bureaucratic safety processes, often deliberately long winded, to control numbers.
The truth is that our societies have become progressively less inclined to meet the genuine need, to distinguish rapidly and fairly between the truly needy and others. “Charity begins at home”. Demonising them all is frankly offensive and unfair.
The need is irrelevant. It is not in the Overton window. Like taxation. There is no moral challenge to the masses. We'd make our needy needier. Because we'll never make the rich pay, only our needy.
Without wishing to anticipate events, I wonder if Trump is likely to try to invade and seize Greenland?
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
A very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Greenland is part of Denmark. An attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark, and therefore an attack on NATO. This would require all other members of NATO, including the US, to defend Greenland.
But that is meaningless Alan. The treaty did not envisage an attack by one member of NATO on another. The alliance in its current form would be dead if that happened.
"Ease up on their ecological restrictions" is pure sanewashing. Trump's actual statement is that "all they have to do is turn the valve" and that water can flow across two or three different watersheds from Canada to California. He thinks that there is a "valve" somewhere like a faucet.
It's in Washington, but we are not telling anyone where it is.
In truth, a number of years ago, someone presented a plan that would collect all the waters in the Northern Rockies and put a gigantic reservoir in Idaho. To say the least, it did not get off the ground.
Without wishing to anticipate events, I wonder if Trump is likely to try to invade and seize Greenland?
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
A very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Greenland is part of Denmark. An attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark, and therefore an attack on NATO. This would require all other members of NATO, including the US, to defend Greenland.
But that is meaningless Alan. The treaty did not envisage an attack by one member of NATO on another. The alliance in its current form would be dead if that happened.
Assuming the reporting is accurate about USA vs. Denmark...
I think the NON-USA countries in NATO need to get together and issue an ultimatum to the POTUS...
Mr. Trump, do you wish for the abolition of NATO?
If no, then please desist with all this manifest-destiny crap.
If yes, then let's abolish NATO and each country choose its allies and adversaries as it sees fit.
Without wishing to anticipate events, I wonder if Trump is likely to try to invade and seize Greenland?
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
A very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Greenland is part of Denmark. An attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark, and therefore an attack on NATO. This would require all other members of NATO, including the US, to defend Greenland.
But that is meaningless Alan. The treaty did not envisage an attack by one member of NATO on another. The alliance in its current form would be dead if that happened.
Assuming the reporting is accurate about USA vs. Denmark...
I think the NON-USA countries in NATO need to get together and issue an ultimatum to the POTUS...
Mr. Trump, do you wish for the abolition of NATO?
If no, then please desist with all this manifest-destiny crap.
If yes, then let's abolish NATO and each country choose its allies and adversaries as it sees fit.
It's not for them to set the agenda. It's for them, us, to put up, against Russia, or...
In 193 AD (sorry, CE) Publius Helvetius Pertinax bought the Roman World from the Praetorian Guard, who were selling it to the highest bidder following the assassination of Commodus, and thereby became empereor. He lasted three months before being assassinated in his turn.
Without wishing to anticipate events, I wonder if Trump is likely to try to invade and seize Greenland?
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
A very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Greenland is part of Denmark. An attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark, and therefore an attack on NATO. This would require all other members of NATO, including the US, to defend Greenland.
But that is meaningless Alan. The treaty did not envisage an attack by one member of NATO on another. The alliance in its current form would be dead if that happened.
Assuming the reporting is accurate about USA vs. Denmark...
I think the NON-USA countries in NATO need to get together and issue an ultimatum to the POTUS...
Mr. Trump, do you wish for the abolition of NATO?
If no, then please desist with all this manifest-destiny crap.
If yes, then let's abolish NATO and each country choose its allies and adversaries as it sees fit.
I think we should be careful what we wish for there. I think Trump would be delighted to abolish NATO and it would give him the perfect excuse to do so.
It might happen anyway. I think European countries should regard the end of NATO within 4 years as a possible contingency (10-20% chance?) And that suggests that 5%+ defence spending as Trump says he wants is indeed necessary.
The Danish PM shoul make it clear to Trump that Danidh people are not for sale. I doubt if the message would get through though. He ptobably thinks they will all jump at the chance to become Americans.
No, NATO cannot function without the US. "It will not have the same power": the difference in degree would be so great as to be a difference in kind. You could still have a European alliance, maybe even including Canada, but it would fundamentally not be doing the same job. Better admit that it would be at an end.
No, NATO cannot function without the US. "It will not have the same power": the difference in degree would be so great as to be a difference in kind. You could still have a European alliance, maybe even including Canada, but it would fundamentally not be doing the same job. Better admit that it would be at an end.
The "job" NATO is doing has historically been keeping Russia/the Soviet Union out of central and western Europe. On a secondary level it prevents military competition/conflict between its member states. Given the current performance of the Russian military, I'm skeptical of the bare assertion, without supporting arguments or details, that NATO minus the U.S. is not capable of this.
I agree to some extent @Crœsos. Europe could keep Russia out, given the will. But this would be very different to sheltering under the US umbrella. I think it would mean:
* A much more unified approach than we've seen over the past few years - no Hungarys or Slovakias.
* Greatly increased defence spending, around 10%, especially by Germany.
* An evident will to use that increased military capability.
* and possibily including as evidence of that an increased nuclear deterrent from France and the UK, and maybe putting that deterrent under a unified allied command. Maybe we should not be getting rid of all that plutonium from Sellafield.
Point of fact, Trump cannot unilaterally pull out of NATO. There is a law on the books that says the United States will not pull out of NATO without the consent of the Senate or by act of Congress. Either way, it would take 2/3 of the Senate to approve any withdrawal. If by act of Congress, it would only take a majority of the House; but--for the time being--the House has long supported NATO. I think in two years the Democrats will regain the House anyway.
That does not mean Trump may move to reduce our footprint in NATO by bringing our troops back to the United States. He is such an isolationist in that regard.
As already pointed out, though, the Russian military has been so decimated by Ukraine, it will not have the capability of attacking anyone for quite a long time.
Keep the faith, people. We will get through this. The first 100 days of the Trump reign will be rough. He might get some things through congress in the next 18 months; but, then, we will be into the by election--we call it the off election--in which the make-up of Congress will shift and then it will be a different ball game.
Speaking of Ukraine, throughout the campaign Trump had promised he could end the fighting in it within 24 hours. We are now five days into his reign. Has the war ended? No? Another failed promise.
Point of fact, Trump cannot unilaterally pull out of NATO. There is a law on the books that says the United States will not pull out of NATO without the consent of the Senate or by act of Congress. Either way, it would take 2/3 of the Senate to approve any withdrawal. If by act of Congress, it would only take a majority of the House; but--for the time being--the House has long supported NATO. I think in two years the Democrats will regain the House anyway.
Long term, though, if Trump continues to harass other NATO countries about surrendering territory to the USA, and especially if he continues to imply that he's willing to take it by force, a lotta Canadians and Europeans will decide that even if it's all just a joke to entertain the rubes in Flyover, the USA can no longer be considered a serious ally. And that even if the next POTUS is a fanatical Atlanticist, it's not worth taking the risk of another clown-show grabbing the White House somewhere down the road. Then, they might start looking for other security arrangements.
First, they fired the DEI workers.
I did not speak up because I was not DEI
Then they fired the woke generals.
I did not speak up because I was not a general
Then they came for the illegals.
I did not speak up because I was not illegal.
Then they came for me.
But there was no one left to speak for me.
And, then there is this:
But mark this:
There will be terrible times in the last days.
People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power.
The latest move is to suspend all foreign aid. Including military aid (except Israel and Egypt). Rubio says it will remain suspended while reviewed to see whether it conforms to American interests and Trump foreign policy.
The latest move is to suspend all foreign aid. Including military aid (except Israel and Egypt). Rubio says it will remain suspended while reviewed to see whether it conforms to American interests and Trump foreign policy.
First, they fired the DEI workers.
I did not speak up because I was not DEI
Then they fired the woke generals.
I did not speak up because I was not a general
Then they came for the illegals.
I did not speak up because I was not illegal.
Then they came for me.
But there was no one left to speak for me.
And, then there is this:
But mark this:
There will be terrible times in the last days.
People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power.
They're craven. Hide behind a flag, hide behind a cross, hide behind any symbol to give them the appearance of a spine, a seeming of principle or courage, but underneath it's just the casual self interest of someone whose deepest concern is not being concerned.
Without wishing to anticipate events, I wonder if Trump is likely to try to invade and seize Greenland?
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
A very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Uh huh. They already occupy it and have been doing what the hell they like since 1941. Denmark vs the US. Apart from the World Cup? Really? With Spain, Slovenia, Portugal and Bulgaria amongst others to back them up. Oh God, I could just feel a wave of hysteria vibrate my diaphragm.
Apparently the Trump administration is also questioning the citizenship of Native Americans who are also members of recognized tribes: “The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes. If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,”
The latest move is to suspend all foreign aid. Including military aid (except Israel and Egypt). Rubio says it will remain suspended while reviewed to see whether it conforms to American interests and Trump foreign policy.
Dictator behaviour.
How so?
If you’re a democrat and have Presidential power, of course you can assert that foreign aid, having grown up over time and ratified by various Presidents and Congresses may in places be wasteful and not in American interests. So you call for an urgent review, targeting areas of immediate concern and time limiting that review. But you don’t stop the money straight away. Here’s why.
If you’re a dictator you stop all the money straight away and won’t reintroduce any of it until you are personally satisfied. You don’t know or care about the consequences, human, contractual or whatever, of the sudden stopping. You overturn actions whose financing is ratified by Congress without caring about any short term damage you may causing.
Apparently the Trump administration is also questioning the citizenship of Native Americans who are also members of recognized tribes: “The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes. If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,”
US citizenship of "Indians" is, as I understand it, not covered by the 14th amendment as the tribes have jurisdiction. Their citizenship, like that of Puerto Ricans, is a matter of statute rather than constitutional law. I will, of course, defer to @Nick Tamen in this.
The latest move is to suspend all foreign aid. Including military aid (except Israel and Egypt). Rubio says it will remain suspended while reviewed to see whether it conforms to American interests and Trump foreign policy.
Dictator behaviour.
How so?
If you’re a democrat and have Presidential power, of course you can assert that foreign aid, having grown up over time and ratified by various Presidents and Congresses may in places be wasteful and not in American interests. So you call for an urgent review, targeting areas of immediate concern and time limiting that review. But you don’t stop the money straight away. Here’s why.
If you’re a dictator you stop all the money straight away and won’t reintroduce any of it until you are personally satisfied. You don’t know or care about the consequences, human, contractual or whatever, of the sudden stopping. You overturn actions whose financing is ratified by Congress without caring about any short term damage you may causing.
I think that’s dictatorial, don’t you?
No, it's by popular consent, populist. Diktat isn't.
False dichotomy, Martin54. Populist doesn’t justify dictatorial behaviour. Riding roughshod over pre-existing democratic controls ignores the separation of powers which is built into the constitution which he has just sworn to protect.
He was duly elected but with less than 50% of the vote from about 65% of the voting public. He’s there for all the people.
Oh I know some of this is just populist pandering and some establishing a powerful initial negotiating position. The trouble with Trump’s art of the deal is that he doesn’t give a toss about constitutional restraints or riding roughshod. He’s got dictatorial instincts. He knows best.
False dichotomy, Martin54. Populist doesn’t justify dictatorial behaviour. Riding roughshod over pre-existing democratic controls ignores the separation of powers which is built into the constitution which he has just sworn to protect.
He was duly elected but with less than 50% of the vote from about 65% of the voting public. He’s there for all the people.
Oh I know some of this is just populist pandering and some establishing a powerful initial negotiating position. The trouble with Trump’s art of the deal is that he doesn’t give a toss about constitutional restraints or riding roughshod. He’s got dictatorial instincts. He knows best.
If the controls were real then he couldn't do it. He's disobeyed, suspended no law.
Different ground I think. Executive Orders are subject to constitutional challenge in the courts. I think there will be a fair bit of that. The one on birth citizenship has already been described as blatantly unconstitutional by one judge. I suspect there will be others. Whether it will apply to the EO on foreign aid remains to be seen. my gut tells me it’s in conflict with separation of powers but don’t know enough about its detailed wording or the constitutional view of financial control to have an informed opinion.
It’s all a bit difficult in the USA now to see how constitutional arguments will work. Trump has stacked the Supreme Court. I think in practice that separation of powers has been weakened thereby. It’s certainly given the incoming Trump administration confidence to draft for Presidential signature EOs without paying a lot of attention to constitutional limits to Presidential power.
You may not see the riding roughshod. I do. Biden’s warning about an oligarchy is well placed.
Different ground I think. Executive Orders are subject to constitutional challenge in the courts. I think there will be a fair bit of that. The one on birth citizenship has already been described as blatantly unconstitutional by one judge. I suspect there will be others. Whether it will apply to the EO on foreign aid remains to be seen. my gut tells me it’s in conflict with separation of powers but don’t know enough about its detailed wording or the constitutional view of financial control to have an informed opinion.
It’s all a bit difficult in the USA now to see how constitutional arguments will work. Trump has stacked the Supreme Court. I think in practice that separation of powers has been weakened thereby. It’s certainly given the incoming Trump administration confidence to draft for Presidential signature EOs without paying a lot of attention to constitutional limits to Presidential power.
You may not see the riding roughshod. I do. Biden’s warning about an oligarchy is well placed.
I see it at least as clearly as you. And? America is a Constitutionally flawed democracy. The race to the bottom is now complete. No one could think this low before Trump.
All the more reason to oppose further constitutional dilution. In my case from across the Atlantic of course but I’m intending to show solidarity with beleaguered US Shipmates. As well as concern about the impact of a USA with diluted constitutional controls on the rest of the world.
All the more reason to oppose further constitutional dilution. In my case from across the Atlantic of course but I’m intending to show solidarity with beleaguered US Shipmates. As well as concern about the impact of a USA with diluted constitutional controls on the rest of the world.
I appreciate that. But opposition is futile. Solidarity is all we have. Our turn will come when Musk buys Reform for Yaxley-Lennon. There is only freedom now, the freedom to be fascist. With guns across the Pond.
No, NATO cannot function without the US. "It will not have the same power": the difference in degree would be so great as to be a difference in kind. You could still have a European alliance, maybe even including Canada, but it would fundamentally not be doing the same job. Better admit that it would be at an end.
The "job" NATO is doing has historically been keeping Russia/the Soviet Union out of central and western Europe. On a secondary level it prevents military competition/conflict between its member states. Given the current performance of the Russian military, I'm skeptical of the bare assertion, without supporting arguments or details, that NATO minus the U.S. is not capable of this.
That’s a very US view of the job of NATO. Its purpose was three-fold, and keeping the Russians out is only one of the legs.
Lord Ismay (first NATO secretary general) pithily nailed the truth with ‘to keep the Americans in, the Soviet Union out, and the Germans down.’
The last has somewhat tailed off - but the European pov has historically treated the first two legs as equivalent.
Basically I’m sure that Europe could do something itself given enough time money and will, but the entire defence posture of basically every nation in Western Europe since 1945 has been predicated on blithe reliance that the US Cavalry is not just going to appear over the hill, but that it is here already.
I’m not sure a dozen years, let alone four or fewer, can unpick that and the (lack of) investment that has flowed from it. The argument that the social bits of European social democracy have been paid for by freeloading off American defence and not having to pay the expensive premiums for 70 years isn’t totally untrue.
(Sorry for third post) - I’ve served in one of the better European militaries, and alongside some of the worse, and the idea of European states trying to operate not under the US umbrella can genuinely give me sleepless nights. Maybe it would work 20-30 years down the line, but first get through the 20-30 years unscathed.
I see a report that a draft bill has been filed in the US Congress to amend the Constution to allow former ptesidents to seek re-election unless they have already served two consecutive terms. This would allow Trump to dve a third term, but not Obama or George W. Bush.
I see a report that a draft bill has been filed in the US Congress to amend the Constution to allow former ptesidents to seek re-election unless they have already served two consecutive terms. This would allow Trump to dve a third term, but not Obama or George W. Bush.
And this is when it’s a good thing that the Constitution is so difficult to amend, requiring a 2/3 majority vote of each house of Congress and 2/3 of the states. The votes aren’t there.
I see a report that a draft bill has been filed in the US Congress to amend the Constution to allow former ptesidents to seek re-election unless they have already served two consecutive terms. This would allow Trump to dve a third term, but not Obama or George W. Bush.
It wouldn't, in fact, because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
I see a report that a draft bill has been filed in the US Congress to amend the Constution to allow former ptesidents to seek re-election unless they have already served two consecutive terms. This would allow Trump to dve a third term, but not Obama or George W. Bush.
It will not pass. Nor will it meet the constitutional restrictions. I say it will not pass because the House is so evenly divided, just to GOP votes against it will kill it. Then the Senate. It would take two thirds of the Senate just to close debate on it. It would face an ignoble death.
Our Constitution specifically says a president can only serve two terms or ten years (assuming the person took the office at the sudden death of the previous president). The only way to get around that would be to pass a new constitutional amendment changing the term limits, but that sure as h3ll ain't going to happen.
Our Constitution specifically says a president can only serve two terms or ten years (assuming the person took the office at the sudden death of the previous president). The only way to get around that would be to pass a new constitutional amendment changing the term limits, but that sure as h3ll ain't going to happen.
That is what @Eirenist said has been proposed—a constitutional amendment.
Picking up on some news, has he just proposed ethnic cleansing of Gaza? OK, probably just enough wriggle room in the statement to provide plausible deniability ... but "You're talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing", especially with comments that this might be permanent, looks very much like that. I suspect he probably accepts that might is right, and that military victory demonstrates a right to kill off or displace the defeated population to make lebensraum space for the people of the victors.
WTF? I haven't seen this item (I'm keeping away from the news as far as possible - it's too awful), but who does he mean by *We*? Surely not the US, or has he gone completely stark raving bonkers?
No, NATO cannot function without the US. "It will not have the same power": the difference in degree would be so great as to be a difference in kind. You could still have a European alliance, maybe even including Canada, but it would fundamentally not be doing the same job. Better admit that it would be at an end.
The "job" NATO is doing has historically been keeping Russia/the Soviet Union out of central and western Europe. On a secondary level it prevents military competition/conflict between its member states. Given the current performance of the Russian military, I'm skeptical of the bare assertion, without supporting arguments or details, that NATO minus the U.S. is not capable of this.
That’s a very US view of the job of NATO. Its purpose was three-fold, and keeping the Russians out is only one of the legs.
Lord Ismay (first NATO secretary general) pithily nailed the truth with ‘to keep the Americans in, the Soviet Union out, and the Germans down.’
The last has somewhat tailed off - but the European pov has historically treated the first two legs as equivalent.
But it has only tailed off because we assume that the US will do the heavy lifting. If Europe is to defend itself, if Europe is to be in principle able to fight off Russia, what can that mean? Who is going to do this fighting? It's got to be Germany, hasn't it? At least in large part?
So the Germans could no longer be "down" militarily. Germany would have to be "up", well up.
So who is for a heavily re-armed Germany under the AfD? Elon Musk, I guess!
Our Constitution specifically says a president can only serve two terms or ten years (assuming the person took the office at the sudden death of the previous president). The only way to get around that would be to pass a new constitutional amendment changing the term limits, but that sure as h3ll ain't going to happen.
That is what @Eirenist said has been proposed—a constitutional amendment.
Again, not going to pass. Can't get two thirds of the House or the Senate to agree. Sure as hell not going to get three fourths of the states to fall in.
And now the dictator of the world wants the Jordanians and the Egyptians to take in all the Palestinians so he can bulldoze the whole of Gaza and set up a resort in his name.
And he talked tough with the PM of Denmark, like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
No, NATO cannot function without the US. "It will not have the same power": the difference in degree would be so great as to be a difference in kind. You could still have a European alliance, maybe even including Canada, but it would fundamentally not be doing the same job. Better admit that it would be at an end.
The "job" NATO is doing has historically been keeping Russia/the Soviet Union out of central and western Europe. On a secondary level it prevents military competition/conflict between its member states. Given the current performance of the Russian military, I'm skeptical of the bare assertion, without supporting arguments or details, that NATO minus the U.S. is not capable of this.
That’s a very US view of the job of NATO. Its purpose was three-fold, and keeping the Russians out is only one of the legs.
Lord Ismay (first NATO secretary general) pithily nailed the truth with ‘to keep the Americans in, the Soviet Union out, and the Germans down.’
The last has somewhat tailed off - but the European pov has historically treated the first two legs as equivalent.
But it has only tailed off because we assume that the US will do the heavy lifting. If Europe is to defend itself, if Europe is to be in principle able to fight off Russia, what can that mean? Who is going to do this fighting? It's got to be Germany, hasn't it? At least in large part?
So the Germans could no longer be "down" militarily. Germany would have to be "up", well up.
So who is for a heavily re-armed Germany under the AfD? Elon Musk, I guess!
Hence everything I said about it might be plausible in 20-30 years, but from a standing start it’s not credible in the next 10-15…
Comments
Sure, there are overlaps and category boundaries. But economic migrant is by definition not the same as refugee, escaping from danger to life because of government intolerance, or incompetence, or civil war. It’s not a zero category.
The population only numbers about 57000, in a huge area, and Denmark is probably too small a country to muster enough military resources to defend it...which means that other European countries might need to assist.
A very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Sure, but if you want define it as a distinctive category, it's one that exists as much in the past (or even more so - think the waves of European migrants from Ireland, Southern Italy etc).
The need is irrelevant. It is not in the Overton window. Like taxation. There is no moral challenge to the masses. We'd make our needy needier. Because we'll never make the rich pay, only our needy.
But that is meaningless Alan. The treaty did not envisage an attack by one member of NATO on another. The alliance in its current form would be dead if that happened.
It's in Washington, but we are not telling anyone where it is.
In truth, a number of years ago, someone presented a plan that would collect all the waters in the Northern Rockies and put a gigantic reservoir in Idaho. To say the least, it did not get off the ground.
Assuming the reporting is accurate about USA vs. Denmark...
I think the NON-USA countries in NATO need to get together and issue an ultimatum to the POTUS...
Mr. Trump, do you wish for the abolition of NATO?
If no, then please desist with all this manifest-destiny crap.
If yes, then let's abolish NATO and each country choose its allies and adversaries as it sees fit.
It's not for them to set the agenda. It's for them, us, to put up, against Russia, or...
I think we should be careful what we wish for there. I think Trump would be delighted to abolish NATO and it would give him the perfect excuse to do so.
It might happen anyway. I think European countries should regard the end of NATO within 4 years as a possible contingency (10-20% chance?) And that suggests that 5%+ defence spending as Trump says he wants is indeed necessary.
The "job" NATO is doing has historically been keeping Russia/the Soviet Union out of central and western Europe. On a secondary level it prevents military competition/conflict between its member states. Given the current performance of the Russian military, I'm skeptical of the bare assertion, without supporting arguments or details, that NATO minus the U.S. is not capable of this.
* A much more unified approach than we've seen over the past few years - no Hungarys or Slovakias.
* Greatly increased defence spending, around 10%, especially by Germany.
* An evident will to use that increased military capability.
* and possibily including as evidence of that an increased nuclear deterrent from France and the UK, and maybe putting that deterrent under a unified allied command. Maybe we should not be getting rid of all that plutonium from Sellafield.
That does not mean Trump may move to reduce our footprint in NATO by bringing our troops back to the United States. He is such an isolationist in that regard.
As already pointed out, though, the Russian military has been so decimated by Ukraine, it will not have the capability of attacking anyone for quite a long time.
Keep the faith, people. We will get through this. The first 100 days of the Trump reign will be rough. He might get some things through congress in the next 18 months; but, then, we will be into the by election--we call it the off election--in which the make-up of Congress will shift and then it will be a different ball game.
Speaking of Ukraine, throughout the campaign Trump had promised he could end the fighting in it within 24 hours. We are now five days into his reign. Has the war ended? No? Another failed promise.
Long term, though, if Trump continues to harass other NATO countries about surrendering territory to the USA, and especially if he continues to imply that he's willing to take it by force, a lotta Canadians and Europeans will decide that even if it's all just a joke to entertain the rubes in Flyover, the USA can no longer be considered a serious ally. And that even if the next POTUS is a fanatical Atlanticist, it's not worth taking the risk of another clown-show grabbing the White House somewhere down the road. Then, they might start looking for other security arrangements.
And, then there is this:
II Timothy 3: 1-5
Getting down form the soap box, for now.
Dictator behaviour.
How so?
Business as usual.
They're craven. Hide behind a flag, hide behind a cross, hide behind any symbol to give them the appearance of a spine, a seeming of principle or courage, but underneath it's just the casual self interest of someone whose deepest concern is not being concerned.
Uh huh. They already occupy it and have been doing what the hell they like since 1941. Denmark vs the US. Apart from the World Cup? Really? With Spain, Slovenia, Portugal and Bulgaria amongst others to back them up. Oh God, I could just feel a wave of hysteria vibrate my diaphragm.
If you’re a democrat and have Presidential power, of course you can assert that foreign aid, having grown up over time and ratified by various Presidents and Congresses may in places be wasteful and not in American interests. So you call for an urgent review, targeting areas of immediate concern and time limiting that review. But you don’t stop the money straight away. Here’s why.
If you’re a dictator you stop all the money straight away and won’t reintroduce any of it until you are personally satisfied. You don’t know or care about the consequences, human, contractual or whatever, of the sudden stopping. You overturn actions whose financing is ratified by Congress without caring about any short term damage you may causing.
I think that’s dictatorial, don’t you?
US citizenship of "Indians" is, as I understand it, not covered by the 14th amendment as the tribes have jurisdiction. Their citizenship, like that of Puerto Ricans, is a matter of statute rather than constitutional law. I will, of course, defer to @Nick Tamen in this.
No, it's by popular consent, populist. Diktat isn't.
He was duly elected but with less than 50% of the vote from about 65% of the voting public. He’s there for all the people.
Oh I know some of this is just populist pandering and some establishing a powerful initial negotiating position. The trouble with Trump’s art of the deal is that he doesn’t give a toss about constitutional restraints or riding roughshod. He’s got dictatorial instincts. He knows best.
If the controls were real then he couldn't do it. He's disobeyed, suspended no law.
It’s all a bit difficult in the USA now to see how constitutional arguments will work. Trump has stacked the Supreme Court. I think in practice that separation of powers has been weakened thereby. It’s certainly given the incoming Trump administration confidence to draft for Presidential signature EOs without paying a lot of attention to constitutional limits to Presidential power.
You may not see the riding roughshod. I do. Biden’s warning about an oligarchy is well placed.
I see it at least as clearly as you. And? America is a Constitutionally flawed democracy. The race to the bottom is now complete. No one could think this low before Trump.
I appreciate that. But opposition is futile. Solidarity is all we have. Our turn will come when Musk buys Reform for Yaxley-Lennon. There is only freedom now, the freedom to be fascist. With guns across the Pond.
That’s a very US view of the job of NATO. Its purpose was three-fold, and keeping the Russians out is only one of the legs.
Lord Ismay (first NATO secretary general) pithily nailed the truth with ‘to keep the Americans in, the Soviet Union out, and the Germans down.’
The last has somewhat tailed off - but the European pov has historically treated the first two legs as equivalent.
I’m not sure a dozen years, let alone four or fewer, can unpick that and the (lack of) investment that has flowed from it. The argument that the social bits of European social democracy have been paid for by freeloading off American defence and not having to pay the expensive premiums for 70 years isn’t totally untrue.
It wouldn't, in fact, because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
It will not pass. Nor will it meet the constitutional restrictions. I say it will not pass because the House is so evenly divided, just to GOP votes against it will kill it. Then the Senate. It would take two thirds of the Senate just to close debate on it. It would face an ignoble death.
Our Constitution specifically says a president can only serve two terms or ten years (assuming the person took the office at the sudden death of the previous president). The only way to get around that would be to pass a new constitutional amendment changing the term limits, but that sure as h3ll ain't going to happen.
But it has only tailed off because we assume that the US will do the heavy lifting. If Europe is to defend itself, if Europe is to be in principle able to fight off Russia, what can that mean? Who is going to do this fighting? It's got to be Germany, hasn't it? At least in large part?
So the Germans could no longer be "down" militarily. Germany would have to be "up", well up.
So who is for a heavily re-armed Germany under the AfD? Elon Musk, I guess!
Again, not going to pass. Can't get two thirds of the House or the Senate to agree. Sure as hell not going to get three fourths of the states to fall in.
And now the dictator of the world wants the Jordanians and the Egyptians to take in all the Palestinians so he can bulldoze the whole of Gaza and set up a resort in his name.
And he talked tough with the PM of Denmark, like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
Hence everything I said about it might be plausible in 20-30 years, but from a standing start it’s not credible in the next 10-15…