rowlf

Trump vs. NATO

69 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, explorer1954 said:

Why is the Trump administration try to involve itself in our independent judicial process?

A fair enough question.

But I could ask why Obama tried to influence the Brexit referendum. Also I don't think it would have been unreasonable to protest his increased use of drone strikes in Afghanistan.

But I bet you any money you like if someone had organised a protest during his last visit and flown a caricature balloon, all the SJWs would have been screaming "RACIST"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes against the grain for me to agree with the Daily Mail but I have to do so today.

Their front page refers to Jeremy Corbyn as a pygmy for leading the anti-Trump demonstration. That description is spot on.

This is a man who aspires to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. If he ever achieves that aim he will have to deal with the USA, led in all probability by Donald Trump. In that case, what damage will his childish antics have done to UK-US relations? He needs to grow up and realise that actions allowable to a back bencher are not always appropriate for those seeking to hold high office.

I felt sorry for the US electorate at the last Presidential election because of the two grotesques they had to chose from. They really were between a rock and a hard place.

But it seems they were better off than us, cursed as we are by a spineless jellyfish of a Prime Minister, who has been promoted well above her level of incompetence and an infantile pygmy leading Her Majesty's opposition.

Edited by Ursula Harrison
Punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

A fair enough question

And the answer is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

The USA will act either in the best interests of the USA (perfectly reasonably) or to satisfy the demands of whatever ethnic group the incumbent White House regime is beholden to.

I wouldn't like to rely on them riding to our rescue.

You know, I would like to see a Great Britain, that needn't rely on my country. Or any other country, for that matter. I do realize that we all need a surge of additional support when the odds are overwhelming.

The reason I say that, is that no one wants to rely on another for support. Be it an individual or a country. To do so takes away the spirit and makes an entity feel indebted to this protector. Maybe even a little resentment thrown in, to boot.

Disclaimer: layabouts are the exception to this rule......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, explorer1954 said:

And the answer is?

How would I know? You'll have to ask Mr. Brownback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, rowlf said:

You know, I would like to see a Great Britain, that needn't rely on my country. Or any other country, for that matter. I do realize that we all need a surge of additional support when the odds are overwhelming.

The reason I say that, is that no one wants to rely on another for support. Be it an individual or a country. To do so takes away the spirit and makes an entity feel indebted to this protector. Maybe even a little resentment thrown in, to boot.

I agree with every word of this.

But if it's not to be...

George Bernard Shaw once remarked that "large nations act like gangsters and small nations act like prostitutes". 

If that's all we are now, could we at least try to act like a high class courtesan rather than a cheap crack whore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

How would I know? You'll have to ask Mr. Brownback.

Do you not have a view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, explorer1954 said:

Do you not have a view?

Yes I do, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Yes I do, thanks.

Pretty daft reply then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, explorer1954 said:

Pretty daft reply then

Sorry, who the hell are you that I have to justify or explain my beliefs to your satisfaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Sorry, who the hell are you that I have to justify or explain my beliefs to your satisfaction?

Lol 

Why comment on the thread then if you won't let us in on your thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, explorer1954 said:

Why comment on the thread then if you won't let us in on your thoughts. 

I uploaded ten posts to this thread before you started interrogating me. See if you can deduce what I think from those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ursula Harrison said:

I uploaded ten posts to this thread before you started interrogating me. See if you can deduce what I think from those.

I only responded to your post!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll ask this again, as I had no response the first time. Maybe someone could answer this. Did the German gov need the approval of the EU to finance, or help with the natural gas pipeline being built? One would think it would be counterproductive to the EU's welfare. It would certainly be counterproductive to the reasons for the existence of NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rowlf said:

I'll ask this again, as I had no response the first time. Maybe someone could answer this. Did the German gov need the approval of the EU to finance, or help with the natural gas pipeline being built? One would think it would be counterproductive to the EU's welfare. It would certainly be counterproductive to the reasons for the existence of NATO.

I think somebody invented this thing called Google. You may find it quite useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, John Elton said:

I should imagine you have received no answer to your query, is, for the simple reason that nobody, on SHQ, has an answer.

It's not that nobody has an answer, it's that nobody knows the answer and with exception of rowlf, nobody is sufficiently interested to find out on rowlf's behalf. That includes you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It's not that nobody has an answer, it's that nobody knows the answer and with exception of rowlf, nobody is sufficiently interested to find out on rowlf's behalf. That includes you. 

::58674bddb5b72_EmojiSmiley-01:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rowlf said:

Did the German gov need the approval of the EU to finance, or help with the natural gas pipeline being built?

The EU is the expansion of Germany by other means.

The President of the EU was not elected by... well, by anyone. He was appointed by the German Chancellor.

So while there may have been some rubber stamping by the EU, the effective answer to your question is "no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It's not that nobody has an answer, it's that nobody knows the answer and with exception of rowlf, nobody is sufficiently interested to find out on rowlf's behalf. That includes you. 

Isn't this something that should be questioned? Or are you willing to go along with it, without making 'waves'. Is this part of your 'involvement' in making sure government is open and honest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As explorer suggested, I 'googled' it. The NYT, the most liberal newspaper in the US called Trump's statement 'misleading'. But obviously true. And I don't have an answer to all this, but why are our respective media reinforcing the actions of left leaning govs and criticizing those working for conservative values? Why is it the media desires humans to be driven as cattle to the market? It's as plain as day relying on Russia to supply your energy needs is suicidal. They have already shut off the supply of gas to the Ukraine in 2009. And this concerns no one?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/world/europe/trump-germany-russia-gas.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rowlf said:

I'll ask this again, as I had no response the first time. Maybe someone could answer this. Did the German gov need the approval of the EU to finance, or help with the natural gas pipeline being built? One would think it would be counterproductive to the EU's welfare. It would certainly be counterproductive to the reasons for the existence of NATO.

I thought I would Google this as well. This is from Reuters.

 "An EU legal opinion has rejected a European Commission proposal to extend the bloc's internal energy market rules to regulate Russia's planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany.

The opinion is a blow to the EU executive's push to stall Russia's plan to double the gas it could pump under the Baltic Sea to Germany, bypassing traditional routes via Ukraine. The Commission fears the pipeline would undercut efforts to reduce dependence on Moscow and its support for Kiev.

The opinion, seen by Reuters, from the legal service of the Council of the European Union, the body where EU ministers meet, said applying EU rules to offshore pipelines may breach U.N. law regulating the seas."

So it would appear this is nothing to do with the EU from my reading of this. If anything the EU was against it at a ministerial level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, explorer1954 said:

I thought I would Google this as well. This is from Reuters.

 "An EU legal opinion has rejected a European Commission proposal to extend the bloc's internal energy market rules to regulate Russia's planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany.

The opinion is a blow to the EU executive's push to stall Russia's plan to double the gas it could pump under the Baltic Sea to Germany, bypassing traditional routes via Ukraine. The Commission fears the pipeline would undercut efforts to reduce dependence on Moscow and its support for Kiev.

The opinion, seen by Reuters, from the legal service of the Council of the European Union, the body where EU ministers meet, said applying EU rules to offshore pipelines may breach U.N. law regulating the seas."

So it would appear this is nothing to do with the EU from my reading of this. If anything the EU was against it at a ministerial level.

I don't know what the hell it is says. The EU rejected the EU's decision to stall the building of the pipeline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

The EU is the expansion of Germany by other means.

The President of the EU was not elected by... well, by anyone. He was appointed by the German Chancellor.

So while there may have been some rubber stamping by the EU, the effective answer to your question is "no".

This is the sort of shameful Fake News that has bedevilled the Brexit vote.

There is no "President of the EU", this is a fictional post, and so this post is not elected by anyone, because it does not exist.  Neither is it appointed by the German Chancellor, again because the post does not exist.

There are two posts in the EU bureaucracy that have the word President in their title, they are the Presidents of the EU Council and Commission respectively.  The Government of each member state has a seat on the EU Council and the President of the Council is elected by those members.  So Germany has one vote, the same as Malta, despite Germany being far larger, richer and more populous.  

Each member nominates a representative to the EU Commission, and the EU Council nominate one of these to be the President of the Commission.  The nomination of the EU Council has to be ratified by a vote of the EU Parliament.  So again, Germany only has one vote on the Council with which to nominate a Commission President.  In the European Parliament the number of MEPs a nation has is proportionate to its population size, so German MEPs form only a small minority.  And of that minority her political party only has a third of the seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, ab. I read up on this and there are 3 presidents of the EU, council, commission, and parliament.  Are they all equal? Explorer stated a EU legal opinion ultimately allowed the pipeline to be built. Would the president of the Parliament group be the branch that issued the opinion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Explorer stated a EU legal opinion ultimately allowed the pipeline to be built. Would the president of the Parliament group be the branch that issued the opinion?

 

7 hours ago, explorer1954 said:

The opinion, seen by Reuters, from the legal service of the Council of the European Union, the body where EU ministers meet, said applying EU rules to offshore pipelines may breach U.N. law regulating the seas."

As you can see they thought trying to regulate Nordstream 2 would be in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, explorer1954 said:

 

As you can see they thought trying to regulate Nordstream 2 would be in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

And you believe that crap......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, rowlf said:

And you believe that crap......

So as a maritime legal expert let me know what's wrong with that opinion.

Edited by explorer1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, explorer1954 said:

So as a maritime legal expert let me know what's wrong with that opinion.

Isn't it like the coyotes watching the hen house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now