Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read up on this. I fail tounderstand why this is any different to NATO, or any other treaty formed within Europe. NATO already has 22 EU member a part of it. What is the difference? Why is it worse? Why is NATO better?" Any country could leave nato at any point, when the eu army is created all members will be paying towards it and will have no choice but to be part of it, it will start as a drip drip process such as the "command" centre which is now on the cards and there maybe a opt out but slowly slowly it will morph into a full blown army just as the coal and steel alliance turned into the eu which in turn will become the US of E. Through out the period since WW2 bit by bit the process has moved slowly on changing thisand changing that often without the population having a chance to have a say | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Op as you say NATO already has 22 EU members so what is the point of duplicating it with an EU army? What would be the point of an EU army? The end of NATO? WW3? Do the megalomaniacs in Brussels want to take oe Russia? America even? Who would have control of British and French nuclear weapons? Some knobhead in Brussels? As I said n the other thread, Colonel Bob Stewart got it pretty much right when he said that the creation of an EU army would be a Trojan Horse to reach the creation of a European Superstate. Now what would be the aim of that and where could that lead?" bob stewart ? had the great misfortune to be in bosnia on grapple 1 , the man is a complete cock , never will you find a more contemptuous self aggrandising specimin, he was humping that medicin sans frontier nurse in a nice cosy house while we were in tents in the shite , managed to get his driver killed, he never so much as went for a shite unless he had the black widow ( kate adie ) and a film crew on hand so he could do an interview about it. its little wonder that when he came out the army he was destined to become a member of the tory partys corrupt elite . if ever there was a man whose next shit should have been a hedgehog its him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Op as you say NATO already has 22 EU members so what is the point of duplicating it with an EU army? What would be the point of an EU army? The end of NATO? WW3? Do the megalomaniacs in Brussels want to take oe Russia? America even? Who would have control of British and French nuclear weapons? Some knobhead in Brussels? As I said n the other thread, Colonel Bob Stewart got it pretty much right when he said that the creation of an EU army would be a Trojan Horse to reach the creation of a European Superstate. Now what would be the aim of that and where could that lead? bob stewart ? had the great misfortune to be in bosnia on grapple 1 , the man is a complete cock , never will you find a more contemptuous self aggrandising specimin, he was humping that medicin sans frontier nurse in a nice cosy house while we were in tents in the shite , managed to get his driver killed, he never so much as went for a shite unless he had the black widow ( kate adie ) and a film crew on hand so he could do an interview about it. its little wonder that when he came out the army he was destined to become a member of the tory partys corrupt elite . if ever there was a man whose next shit should have been a hedgehog its him. " So? Do you think what he said is wrong? What would be the point/aim of an EU army? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Op as you say NATO already has 22 EU members so what is the point of duplicating it with an EU army? What would be the point of an EU army? The end of NATO? WW3? Do the megalomaniacs in Brussels want to take oe Russia? America even? Who would have control of British and French nuclear weapons? Some knobhead in Brussels? As I said n the other thread, Colonel Bob Stewart got it pretty much right when he said that the creation of an EU army would be a Trojan Horse to reach the creation of a European Superstate. Now what would be the aim of that and where could that lead? bob stewart ? had the great misfortune to be in bosnia on grapple 1 , the man is a complete cock , never will you find a more contemptuous self aggrandising specimin, he was humping that medicin sans frontier nurse in a nice cosy house while we were in tents in the shite , managed to get his driver killed, he never so much as went for a shite unless he had the black widow ( kate adie ) and a film crew on hand so he could do an interview about it. its little wonder that when he came out the army he was destined to become a member of the tory partys corrupt elite . if ever there was a man whose next shit should have been a hedgehog its him. So? Do you think what he said is wrong? What would be the point/aim of an EU army?" it would provide the same function as every other army ,gets young lads off the street gives them a job and a purpose instead of the jail , provides industry jobs , bit of income for the government selling weapons to various dodgy regimes round the world and gives polititions a nice tame patriotic photo shoot to put in the papers when ratings are low , nothing looks better in the news than a bunch of the lads being lined up and told to smile while some shite of a politician stands in with them , that nob cheese john major took a break from humping that dog edwina curry to come out to bosnia to give us all a splendid wee speech and get his photo taken , all the Sargent majors were sent in amongst us to ensure we all behaved ourselves and clapped at the right times same as the yanks but they got paid alot better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'?" please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Op as you say NATO already has 22 EU members so what is the point of duplicating it with an EU army? What would be the point of an EU army? The end of NATO? WW3? Do the megalomaniacs in Brussels want to take oe Russia? America even? Who would have control of British and French nuclear weapons? Some knobhead in Brussels? As I said n the other thread, Colonel Bob Stewart got it pretty much right when he said that the creation of an EU army would be a Trojan Horse to reach the creation of a European Superstate. Now what would be the aim of that and where could that lead? bob stewart ? had the great misfortune to be in bosnia on grapple 1 , the man is a complete cock , never will you find a more contemptuous self aggrandising specimin, he was humping that medicin sans frontier nurse in a nice cosy house while we were in tents in the shite , managed to get his driver killed, he never so much as went for a shite unless he had the black widow ( kate adie ) and a film crew on hand so he could do an interview about it. its little wonder that when he came out the army he was destined to become a member of the tory partys corrupt elite . if ever there was a man whose next shit should have been a hedgehog its him. So? Do you think what he said is wrong? What would be the point/aim of an EU army? it would provide the same function as every other army ,gets young lads off the street gives them a job and a purpose instead of the jail , provides industry jobs , bit of income for the government selling weapons to various dodgy regimes round the world and gives polititions a nice tame patriotic photo shoot to put in the papers when ratings are low , nothing looks better in the news than a bunch of the lads being lined up and told to smile while some shite of a politician stands in with them , that nob cheese john major took a break from humping that dog edwina curry to come out to bosnia to give us all a splendid wee speech and get his photo taken , all the Sargent majors were sent in amongst us to ensure we all behaved ourselves and clapped at the right times same as the yanks but they got paid alot better " one way of looking at it. It would just be a vanity project then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Op as you say NATO already has 22 EU members so what is the point of duplicating it with an EU army? What would be the point of an EU army? The end of NATO? WW3? Do the megalomaniacs in Brussels want to take oe Russia? America even? Who would have control of British and French nuclear weapons? Some knobhead in Brussels? As I said n the other thread, Colonel Bob Stewart got it pretty much right when he said that the creation of an EU army would be a Trojan Horse to reach the creation of a European Superstate. Now what would be the aim of that and where could that lead? bob stewart ? had the great misfortune to be in bosnia on grapple 1 , the man is a complete cock , never will you find a more contemptuous self aggrandising specimin, he was humping that medicin sans frontier nurse in a nice cosy house while we were in tents in the shite , managed to get his driver killed, he never so much as went for a shite unless he had the black widow ( kate adie ) and a film crew on hand so he could do an interview about it. its little wonder that when he came out the army he was destined to become a member of the tory partys corrupt elite . if ever there was a man whose next shit should have been a hedgehog its him. So? Do you think what he said is wrong? What would be the point/aim of an EU army? it would provide the same function as every other army ,gets young lads off the street gives them a job and a purpose instead of the jail , provides industry jobs , bit of income for the government selling weapons to various dodgy regimes round the world and gives polititions a nice tame patriotic photo shoot to put in the papers when ratings are low , nothing looks better in the news than a bunch of the lads being lined up and told to smile while some shite of a politician stands in with them , that nob cheese john major took a break from humping that dog edwina curry to come out to bosnia to give us all a splendid wee speech and get his photo taken , all the Sargent majors were sent in amongst us to ensure we all behaved ourselves and clapped at the right times same as the yanks but they got paid alot better one way of looking at it. It would just be a vanity project then" thats the only reason that england has its atomic bombs , pure vanity and a rather pathetic attempt to look like a big player , aint nothing but toys for very silly boys | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well the USA spends over 5 billion a year, Europe combined about 225 all USD... where would no nato and no EU when/if brexit happens... " America contributes approx $650 billion to NATO? Imagine if just a tenth of that was spent on the world's poor... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"America contributes approx $650 billion to NATO?" Bollox! The USA contributes nothing to NATO! The USA spend $650 billion a year protecting and defending its corporate profit making interests and markets in Europe. The trumpster like any good businessman intends to reduce this by transferring as much of the costs as possible to the market thus increasing profit margins.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"America contributes approx $650 billion to NATO? Bollox! The USA contributes nothing to NATO! The USA spend $650 billion a year protecting and defending its corporate profit making interests and markets in Europe. The trumpster like any good businessman intends to reduce this by transferring as much of the costs as possible to the market thus increasing profit margins. "I got the info from the NATO website? The so-called great free market isn't the be all and end all either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I got the info from the NATO website? The so-called great free market isn't the be all and end all either. " And who do you think dictates the website content? Do you think that there is a possibility that it is the USA? What do you think are the chances that it is telling porkies to keep the likes of you and me in line and supporting/financing US corporate greed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I got the info from the NATO website? The so-called great free market isn't the be all and end all either. And who do you think dictates the website content? Do you think that there is a possibility that it is the USA? What do you think are the chances that it is telling porkies to keep the likes of you and me in line and supporting/financing US corporate greed?" Well, how would they be able to dictate the contents of an organisationa website if they weren't the biggest contributor? I just view NATO as an arm of the American war machine anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, how would they be able to dictate the contents of an organisationa website if they weren't the biggest contributor? I just view NATO as an arm of the American war machine anyway. " They don't contribute! A contribution is a gift. All US military spending is to protect US interests. The USA demands that all (execpt France who told the USA to FO) NATO countries contribute to an organisation it set up to protect US interests in Europe. Are you beginning to understand where I am coming from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Op as you say NATO already has 22 EU members so what is the point of duplicating it with an EU army? What would be the point of an EU army? The end of NATO? WW3? Do the megalomaniacs in Brussels want to take oe Russia? America even? Who would have control of British and French nuclear weapons? Some knobhead in Brussels? As I said n the other thread, Colonel Bob Stewart got it pretty much right when he said that the creation of an EU army would be a Trojan Horse to reach the creation of a European Superstate. Now what would be the aim of that and where could that lead? bob stewart ? had the great misfortune to be in bosnia on grapple 1 , the man is a complete cock , never will you find a more contemptuous self aggrandising specimin, he was humping that medicin sans frontier nurse in a nice cosy house while we were in tents in the shite , managed to get his driver killed, he never so much as went for a shite unless he had the black widow ( kate adie ) and a film crew on hand so he could do an interview about it. its little wonder that when he came out the army he was destined to become a member of the tory partys corrupt elite . if ever there was a man whose next shit should have been a hedgehog its him. " No EU army officers will be humping any medicins sans frontiers nurses in the event an EU army is created because Medicins sans frontiers don't want anything to do with the EU and they now refuse to accept any funding or donations from the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Op as you say NATO already has 22 EU members so what is the point of duplicating it with an EU army? What would be the point of an EU army? The end of NATO? WW3? Do the megalomaniacs in Brussels want to take oe Russia? America even? Who would have control of British and French nuclear weapons? Some knobhead in Brussels? As I said n the other thread, Colonel Bob Stewart got it pretty much right when he said that the creation of an EU army would be a Trojan Horse to reach the creation of a European Superstate. Now what would be the aim of that and where could that lead? bob stewart ? had the great misfortune to be in bosnia on grapple 1 , the man is a complete cock , never will you find a more contemptuous self aggrandising specimin, he was humping that medicin sans frontier nurse in a nice cosy house while we were in tents in the shite , managed to get his driver killed, he never so much as went for a shite unless he had the black widow ( kate adie ) and a film crew on hand so he could do an interview about it. its little wonder that when he came out the army he was destined to become a member of the tory partys corrupt elite . if ever there was a man whose next shit should have been a hedgehog its him. No EU army officers will be humping any medicins sans frontiers nurses in the event an EU army is created because Medicins sans frontiers don't want anything to do with the EU and they now refuse to accept any funding or donations from the EU. " I have always wondered just how full of self loathing that nurse was to allow a creature like bob stewart to bang her  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army?" You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. " and that wasn't? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read up on this. I fail tounderstand why this is any different to NATO, or any other treaty formed within Europe. NATO already has 22 EU member a part of it. What is the difference? Why is it worse? Why is NATO better? Any country could leave nato at any point, when the eu army is created all members will be paying towards it and will have no choice but to be part of it, it will start as a drip drip process such as the "command" centre which is now on the cards and there maybe a opt out but slowly slowly it will morph into a full blown army just as the coal and steel alliance turned into the eu which in turn will become the US of E. Through out the period since WW2 bit by bit the process has moved slowly on changing thisand changing that often without the population having a chance to have a say" NATO hasn't had that though has it? There are plenty of NATO HQs in Europe, but no standing Army. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. " You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, how would they be able to dictate the contents of an organisationa website if they weren't the biggest contributor? I just view NATO as an arm of the American war machine anyway. They don't contribute! A contribution is a gift. All US military spending is to protect US interests. The USA demands that all (execpt France who told the USA to FO) NATO countries contribute to an organisation it set up to protect US interests in Europe. Are you beginning to understand where I am coming from? "Well that's not strictly true. The NATO rules (that all the members states agreed to in Cardiff 2014) are that each country spends 2% of its GDP on defence. There are no limits on how much of that defence is earmarked for NATO. The UK does now spend that, but only through dubious accounting measures that mean that pensions are now counted as defence spending when they previously weren't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example." None of those were an attack on nato by its own citizens | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example. None of those were an attack on nato by its own citizens " I know, yet they were NATO missions, so NATO can, and indeed has, deployed without Article 5 being invoked. You said that can't happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example. None of those were an attack on nato by its own citizens I know, yet they were NATO missions, so NATO can, and indeed has, deployed without Article 5 being invoked. You said that can't happen." so what would be the point and aims of an EU army? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example. None of those were an attack on nato by its own citizens I know, yet they were NATO missions, so NATO can, and indeed has, deployed without Article 5 being invoked. You said that can't happen. so what would be the point and aims of an EU army?" Why do you keep on asking me what the point and aims are, of an organisation that doesn't exist, and that I don't believe ever will exist?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example. None of those were an attack on nato by its own citizens I know, yet they were NATO missions, so NATO can, and indeed has, deployed without Article 5 being invoked. You said that can't happen. so what would be the point and aims of an EU army? Why do you keep on asking me what the point and aims are, of an organisation that doesn't exist, and that I don't believe ever will exist? "because certain people at the top of the EU have said that that is what they want to see and as you are such an advocate of the EU I thought you might be able to explain why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example. None of those were an attack on nato by its own citizens I know, yet they were NATO missions, so NATO can, and indeed has, deployed without Article 5 being invoked. You said that can't happen. so what would be the point and aims of an EU army? Why do you keep on asking me what the point and aims are, of an organisation that doesn't exist, and that I don't believe ever will exist?
because certain people at the top of the EU have said that that is what they want to see and as you are such an advocate of the EU I thought you might be able to explain why?"You mean like the quotes from the other thread where they made it clear it was just HQs, no standing army, no threat to NATO, and member states retained responsibility for defence? Ooooh, terrifying!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please can someone explain why the arent worried about the UK CEF and the CJEF, or even the VHRJTF, but ARE worried by what at this stage is purely the idea of an EU 'army' What do you see as the key differences, are they all a threat, or just the EU 'army'? please can you explain the point/aims of an EU army? You can't deploy nato unless it's an attack on a nato country. So you'd struggle to put US marines on the ground to defend against a terrorist attack by French nationals. You can ignore the rest of the stuff on this thread it's the usual daily mail bolloxs. You can deploy NATO. There have been NATO missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans and anti piracy operations for example. None of those were an attack on nato by its own citizens I know, yet they were NATO missions, so NATO can, and indeed has, deployed without Article 5 being invoked. You said that can't happen. so what would be the point and aims of an EU army? Why do you keep on asking me what the point and aims are, of an organisation that doesn't exist, and that I don't believe ever will exist?
because certain people at the top of the EU have said that that is what they want to see and as you are such an advocate of the EU I thought you might be able to explain why?
You mean like the quotes from the other thread where they made it clear it was just HQs, no standing army, no threat to NATO, and member states retained responsibility for defence? Ooooh, terrifying! "there was more than that said though wasn't there? Or do you not even know the aims of the organisation you support? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Once the Romans started of as a republic The people s country then julius ceaser took control Could this happen to the EU " Its happened in the USA with Trump. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat." what Russian threat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?" Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news ." No, I saw that in the news and it is bollocks and he knows it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news ." Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc. "Russia is in the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news ." ...all this propaganda is designed for gullible fools...assad with the help of the Russians are defeating isis and the rebels...the Americans and their allies have been bombing innocent children and women in their own homelands for over twenty years.. The body count is hundreds of thousands... Now go and work out who the real boogie men are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I got the info from the NATO website? The so-called great free market isn't the be all and end all either. And who do you think dictates the website content? Do you think that there is a possibility that it is the USA? What do you think are the chances that it is telling porkies to keep the likes of you and me in line and supporting/financing US corporate greed?" Probably a lot less than the chances of you telling a load of porkies to try and convince us all to support your anti-American and radical leftist populist ideas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?"Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news ....all this propaganda is designed for gullible fools...assad with the help of the Russians are defeating isis and the rebels...the Americans and their allies have been bombing innocent children and women in their own homelands for over twenty years.. The body count is hundreds of thousands... Now go and work out who the real boogie men are." Now assad is a bit of a nut job but no worse than lots of middle east leaders, the differnce to many is he was elected and is fighting rebels and if he had lost does anyone think the replacement leader would be any different in treatment of the syrians and would no doubt be anti western powers far more than assad was, its still awful for those poor people in syria though at least it looks like the end game might be near | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news ....all this propaganda is designed for gullible fools...assad with the help of the Russians are defeating isis and the rebels...the Americans and their allies have been bombing innocent children and women in their own homelands for over twenty years.. The body count is hundreds of thousands... Now go and work out who the real boogie men are. Now assad is a bit of a nut job but no worse than lots of middle east leaders, the differnce to many is he was elected and is fighting rebels and if he had lost does anyone think the replacement leader would be any different in treatment of the syrians and would no doubt be anti western powers far more than assad was, its still awful for those poor people in syria though at least it looks like the end game might be near " ...just listening to John kerry on sky news..telling us about the atrocities happening in allepo....didn't hear much from him and Obama when the innocents where being butchered by isis before they were kick out of town. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""We have a lot to thank the Americans for but they won't look after Europes security forever, we have to do this ourselves which is why we need a new approach to building a European Security Union with the end goal of establishing a European army"- The words of megalomaniac pisshead and biggest threat to world peace, Jean Claude Juncker, 10-11-2016" Personally I'm not currently in favour of a pan European army, either controlled through the EU, European Council or OSCE. The external defence of Europe has been successfully managed through NATO for 70 years and i see no advantage in making significant changes to that current arrangement. However, if things were to change and the US's commitment to Europe's defence were to be in doubt, then my attitude would change. In this regard, some of the statements from Trump as to whether the US would actually come to the aid of another NATO member if it were attacked, definitely adds wait to the argument put forward that Europe should take on more responsibility for its own defence. It does not surprise me that the same cohort of BREXITers and UKIPers are vehemently against this. Their whole resondetra seems to be based on resistance to any form of European cooperation in anything unless it has the approval of their hero, idol and ultimate paymaster, Uncle Dobby (AKA Vlad the dictator). A bigger bunch of quislings, ne'er-do-wells and out right traitors to their country, democracy and the rule of law since 1936. The sooner they all get shown to be what they really are the better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news ....all this propaganda is designed for gullible fools...assad with the help of the Russians are defeating isis and the rebels...the Americans and their allies have been bombing innocent children and women in their own homelands for over twenty years.. The body count is hundreds of thousands... Now go and work out who the real boogie men are. Now assad is a bit of a nut job but no worse than lots of middle east leaders, the differnce to many is he was elected and is fighting rebels and if he had lost does anyone think the replacement leader would be any different in treatment of the syrians and would no doubt be anti western powers far more than assad was, its still awful for those poor people in syria though at least it looks like the end game might be near ...just listening to John kerry on sky news..telling us about the atrocities happening in allepo....didn't hear much from him and Obama when the innocents where being butchered by isis before they were kick out of town." Then you must not have been listening very well. There have been loads of reports in the news about ISIS atrocities over the last five years. I'll give you this much. Uncle Dobby (Aka Vlad the dictator) and his side kick Assad are not as bad as ISIS but that small grain of comfort does not leave me sleeping any the better at night nor should it be used as an excuse to medal around with our defence either by premature talk or establishment of an European army nor a failure to cooperate fully, as we do now, with our European allies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely a EU army would be very useful against the expansionist putin regime.Weve recently deployed hundreds of our personal and tanks to eastern europe to counter a growing Russian threat. what Russian threat?Oh i don't t know maybe the one NATO is currently responding to along the eastern border.Oh and the head of MI5 thinks there is a growing Russian threat to Britain.I guessed you missed all that in the news . No, I saw that in the news and it is bollocks and he knows it" And there's the post truth world summed up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?
Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all. "It was actually the EU who encouraged the coup in Ukraine which led to a democratically elected leader being toppled there, which was clearly explained to you in fine detail on another thread within the last week. Then like a domino effect that lead to what happened in Crimea, but as usual most fact based information seems to go in one ear and out the other with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?
Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all.
It was actually the EU who encouraged the coup in Ukraine which led to a democratically elected leader being toppled there, which was clearly explained to you in fine detail on another thread within the last week. Then like a domino effect that lead to what happened in Crimea, but as usual most fact based information seems to go in one ear and out the other with you. "If the EU hadn't told Ukraine to put on that skirt, Russia wouldn't have raped her? Is that what you're saying? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?
Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all.
It was actually the EU who encouraged the coup in Ukraine which led to a democratically elected leader being toppled there, which was clearly explained to you in fine detail on another thread within the last week. Then like a domino effect that lead to what happened in Crimea, but as usual most fact based information seems to go in one ear and out the other with you. "Do you get paid directly by Uncle Dobby (aka Vlad the dictator) or does it come indirectly through UKIP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""We have a lot to thank the Americans for but they won't look after Europes security forever, we have to do this ourselves which is why we need a new approach to building a European Security Union with the end goal of establishing a European army"- The words of megalomaniac pisshead and biggest threat to world peace, Jean Claude Juncker, 10-11-2016 Personally I'm not currently in favour of a pan European army, either controlled through the EU, European Council or OSCE. The external defence of Europe has been successfully managed through NATO for 70 years and i see no advantage in making significant changes to that current arrangement. However, if things were to change and the US's commitment to Europe's defence were to be in doubt, then my attitude would change. In this regard, some of the statements from Trump as to whether the US would actually come to the aid of another NATO member if it were attacked, definitely adds wait to the argument put forward that Europe should take on more responsibility for its own defence. It does not surprise me that the same cohort of BREXITers and UKIPers are vehemently against this. Their whole resondetra seems to be based on resistance to any form of European cooperation in anything unless it has the approval of their hero, idol and ultimate paymaster, Uncle Dobby (AKA Vlad the dictator). A bigger bunch of quislings, ne'er-do-wells and out right traitors to their country, democracy and the rule of law since 1936. The sooner they all get shown to be what they really are the better." Trump makes a valid point that European members of Nato should honour their Nato spending commitments and pay their fair share of what they agreed when they signed up to Nato. Many of them have been falling short in their payments and keep expecting America to pick up the bill, it's wrong and each country should pay in full what it signed upto when they joined Nato. That is called Nato cooperation which most Brexiters support but Remainers like yourself keep making excuses for the EU (or European Nato countries). Can the EU do no wrong in your eyes and is the EU above criticism now? Won't even bother to comment on your Putin rant because frankly it was a load of nonsensical bollocks designed to provoke a negative reaction, which is best ignored. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?
Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all.
It was actually the EU who encouraged the coup in Ukraine which led to a democratically elected leader being toppled there, which was clearly explained to you in fine detail on another thread within the last week. Then like a domino effect that lead to what happened in Crimea, but as usual most fact based information seems to go in one ear and out the other with you.
If the EU hadn't told Ukraine to put on that skirt, Russia wouldn't have raped her? Is that what you're saying? "This debate was done to death already on another thread within the last week and the poster called hotlovefun handed you your arse, or have you forgotten already? Not sure you want to go there again, but then you'd probably trot out the same nonsense the following week after another bout of selective amnesia. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?
Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all.
It was actually the EU who encouraged the coup in Ukraine which led to a democratically elected leader being toppled there, which was clearly explained to you in fine detail on another thread within the last week. Then like a domino effect that lead to what happened in Crimea, but as usual most fact based information seems to go in one ear and out the other with you.
Do you get paid directly by Uncle Dobby (aka Vlad the dictator) or does it come indirectly through UKIP?"Is Cleggy the Europhile making payments directly into your bank account now you're a Lib dem supporter or are you still on the payroll of Juncker the D*unker? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site." There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?
Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all.
It was actually the EU who encouraged the coup in Ukraine which led to a democratically elected leader being toppled there, which was clearly explained to you in fine detail on another thread within the last week. Then like a domino effect that lead to what happened in Crimea, but as usual most fact based information seems to go in one ear and out the other with you.
If the EU hadn't told Ukraine to put on that skirt, Russia wouldn't have raped her? Is that what you're saying?
This debate was done to death already on another thread within the last week and the poster called hotlovefun handed you your arse, or have you forgotten already? Not sure you want to go there again, but then you'd probably trot out the same nonsense the following week after another bout of selective amnesia. "Hardly, it was a pathetic attempt to justify the invasion of a country by blaming it, yet again, on the EU. I bet the ghost of Hitler is wishing he had you guys around in the 1930s to apologise and justify his actions when he was doing exactly the same thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some" Because of course you know more than the security services | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services "No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some" ..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My problems with an eu army vary: Google German army working hours. 39 hour working week then they stop. That includes driving time. Common language for clear instructions /orders It's another political step in the grand unification project. And who would work with the French. Look at their record with Muslim, Asian and black people. There's no way our soldiers should be subject to that." a 39 hour working week ? when i was a squaddie that would have been nirvana , trust the box heads to get the easy life | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU army would be to defend against the US if it ever came to that in nato the us has the biggest army and the most money they are the boss ....if the us were to change its foreign policies and become hostile to Europe who could stop them?" So the idea then would be to have the worlds 'first army'?. Another European had that idea about 80 years ago | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU army would be to defend against the US if it ever came to that in nato the us has the biggest army and the most money they are the boss ....if the us were to change its foreign policies and become hostile to Europe who could stop them? So the idea then would be to have the worlds 'first army'?. Another European had that idea about 80 years ago" their is alot more countries in world besides Europe and alot more countries than 28 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time?"Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community. "Well who is going to know more about threats to national security, the UKs thousands of professional, full-time intelligence analysts with their multi million pound budgets and advanced technological capabilities, or a builder who reads the Daily Mail? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community. "Of course, what the security services of this country tell the people is all true and what the Russian security services tell the people of their country is all bollocks isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community.
Well who is going to know more about threats to national security, the UKs thousands of professional, full-time intelligence analysts with their multi million pound budgets and advanced technological capabilities, or a builder who reads the Daily Mail? "I'm neither a builder or read the daily mail, though I don't see what that has to do with it. I am not saying I know more but they will let you know what they want you to believe. Stop being naive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, how would they be able to dictate the contents of an organisationa website if they weren't the biggest contributor? I just view NATO as an arm of the American war machine anyway. They don't contribute! A contribution is a gift. All US military spending is to protect US interests. The USA demands that all (execpt France who told the USA to FO) NATO countries contribute to an organisation it set up to protect US interests in Europe. Are you beginning to understand where I am coming from? "Spookily, I am! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community.
Well who is going to know more about threats to national security, the UKs thousands of professional, full-time intelligence analysts with their multi million pound budgets and advanced technological capabilities, or a builder who reads the Daily Mail?
I'm neither a builder or read the daily mail, though I don't see what that has to do with it. I am not saying I know more but they will let you know what they want you to believe. Stop being naive"Maybe you just look at the pictures | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community. "HA HA HA, would that be the same intelligence services who told a pack of lies and fooled everyone into thinking Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Have any weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq to this day? As the Chilcot report concluded the intelligence was deeply flawed and 'sexed up' in order to gain more public support for the invasion of Iraq. And now you expect us to believe everything the intelligence services feed to the public? Get real, wake up and get your head out of your arse! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community.
HA HA HA, would that be the same intelligence services who told a pack of lies and fooled everyone into thinking Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Have any weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq to this day? As the Chilcot report concluded the intelligence was deeply flawed and 'sexed up' in order to gain more public support for the invasion of Iraq. And now you expect us to believe everything the intelligence services feed to the public? Get real, wake up and get your head out of your arse! "Another putin lover looking at putin through rose tinted glasses.I'll take MI5 over your insane ramblings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's a tin foiler.Conspiracy fuckwit.He thinks he's being open minded but went too far and his brain fell out.Post truth nutters are everywhere these day.Probably spends the day in his internet echo chamber feeding his confirmation bias." ...can you debate without insulting others on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some Because of course you know more than the security services
No. But do you think they will tell you the truth all the time? Are you wearing a tin foil hat as you type as this smacks of conspiracy theorist tripe.I guess we should go with your armchair politics.Rather than the intelligence community.
HA HA HA, would that be the same intelligence services who told a pack of lies and fooled everyone into thinking Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Have any weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq to this day? As the Chilcot report concluded the intelligence was deeply flawed and 'sexed up' in order to gain more public support for the invasion of Iraq. And now you expect us to believe everything the intelligence services feed to the public? Get real, wake up and get your head out of your arse! Another putin lover looking at putin through rose tinted glasses.I'll take MI5 over your insane ramblings."So are you saying the findings of the Chilcot report were wrong then? You know the Chilcot report that was compiled by experts in their field of work who Remainers keep telling Brexiters to listen to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some" What utter bilge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dont get the love for putin on a swinging site.His views on LGBT are medieval.Hes ex KGB and ultra nationalistic and a clear threat to the west. Only a dribbling mind would think otherwise. If our secret service heads think hes a threat then i'll go with the informed opinion.Rather than the foaming at the mouth opinions of the flotsam and jetsam of life that drifts through this site. There is no love for Putin, just the ability of some on here to think for themselves. The secret service came out with a load of shite last week on Russia and Syria and he would have done better to stay out of the limelight. What do they say? Give the populace just enough information to keep them a little bit afraid in order to control them? It obviously works with some What utter bilge. " explain why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim?" It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it? "It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers."France is currently debating the re introduction of compulsory military Service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers.
France is currently debating the re introduction of compulsory military Service."They only got rid of it relatively recently, here is from wikipedia; "With France finally disengaged from colonial commitments it was possible to progressively reduce military service to 18 months from 1962, 12 months in 1970 and finally 10 months in 1992. The drawbacks of this reliance on short-term conscripts became evident at the time of the First Gulf War when France had to draw on its limited number of fully trained professional units to provide a significant contribution. The relevance of the historical system of universal military service to modern commitments and warfare accordingly came under review. France accordingly suspended peacetime military conscription in 1996. President Jacques Chirac's government formally announced the end of compulsory military service[4] in 2001. Young people must still, however, register for possible obligatory service of an unspecified nature (should the need arise). A recent change is that women must now register as well.” Compulsory military Service is generally a great way to ensure you have a shit military, and pissed off young people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers.
France is currently debating the re introduction of compulsory military Service."I've heard they are bringing in Usain Bolt as a special advisor | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers."It would be made up of the EU member states own armed / defence forces surely? Like UN Peacekeepers etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it? "And that nearly came to grief because a few Belgian farmers got arsey about it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
And that nearly came to grief because a few Belgian farmers got arsey about it!"At least the Belgians had the sense to write into their membership of the EU that they would need ratification from both the Walloons and the Flemish. It's a shame that our 4 constituent countries weren't afforded the same level of consultation prior to agreement at EU level. It is Democratic to allow full agreement, is it not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers.
It would be made up of the EU member states own armed / defence forces surely? Like UN Peacekeepers etc"But according to the people who are scared of the EU 'Army' the citizens of the EU all hate the EU. At the moment if you join the military, you join (for the most part) your own nation's military. Some people love their country, but hate the EU.In the future, you wouldn't be joining your national military because it doesn't exist, you would be joining an 'EU Army' well if you hate the EU as these people say they do, you are unlikely to join are you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers.
It would be made up of the EU member states own armed / defence forces surely? Like UN Peacekeepers etc
But according to the people who are scared of the EU 'Army' the citizens of the EU all hate the EU. At the moment if you join the military, you join (for the most part) your own nation's military. Some people love their country, but hate the EU.In the future, you wouldn't be joining your national military because it doesn't exist, you would be joining an 'EU Army' well if you hate the EU as these people say they do, you are unlikely to join are you?"Right, so would this EU army replace existing member states individual armed or defence forces then? If that is the case, I see your point. If not, then those who seek a career in the army but are anti-EU wouldn't opt for that route. I'm confused about the whole subject. Which isn't surprising really, seeing how easily confused I am of late. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU army will do one of two things. Duplicate NATO......and so be an extra cost for no point whatsoever. Or Replace NATO with something far less effective . Neither of these scenarios appeal to me or seem to make any sense. What it would do is centralise even more power and control in the hands of unelected Eurocrats. Which actually seems to be the only aim? It took the EU 7 years to work out a trade deal with Canada, can you imagine these morons forming a cohesive, non-political, useable military force? Can you imagine them sat around a table when a threat presents itself, trying to decide what to do about it?
It makes no sense whatsoever, the people who are shitting themselves at the thought of an EU Army are always telling us about how the citizens of the EU hate the EU. If thats the case, then who will volunteer for this EU Army? Its not going to be much of an Army if it doesn’t have any soldiers.
It would be made up of the EU member states own armed / defence forces surely? Like UN Peacekeepers etc
But according to the people who are scared of the EU 'Army' the citizens of the EU all hate the EU. At the moment if you join the military, you join (for the most part) your own nation's military. Some people love their country, but hate the EU.In the future, you wouldn't be joining your national military because it doesn't exist, you would be joining an 'EU Army' well if you hate the EU as these people say they do, you are unlikely to join are you?
Right, so would this EU army replace existing member states individual armed or defence forces then? If that is the case, I see your point. If not, then those who seek a career in the army but are anti-EU wouldn't opt for that route. I'm confused about the whole subject. Which isn't surprising really, seeing how easily confused I am of late. "Well it's pure speculation, because no matter how much the Brexiters wet the bed over it, this EU 'Army' doesn't actually exist! There is no concrete plan that they can point to to say how this army will becreated or composed. There is no treaty about it, there is no consultation or debate about it. It's in their minds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well it's pure speculation, because no matter how much the Brexiters wet the bed over it, this EU 'Army' doesn't actually exist! There is no concrete plan that they can point to to say how this army will becreated or composed. There is no treaty about it, there is no consultation or debate about it. It's in their minds." You are right,there is no eu army and at the moment there is no PUBLIC concrete plan, how you know as well as everyone else there is a debate going on in that juncker and his mates are promoting the idea as are a good few euro politicians, you are either totally deluded or a troll personally I an favouring the later at the moment because if you seriously believed what you have just posted then you need help from a doctor,thats not meant as an insult but genuine concern forthe state ofyour mental health | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well it's pure speculation, because no matter how much the Brexiters wet the bed over it, this EU 'Army' doesn't actually exist! There is no concrete plan that they can point to to say how this army will becreated or composed. There is no treaty about it, there is no consultation or debate about it. It's in their minds. You are right,there is no eu army and at the moment there is no PUBLIC concrete plan, how you know as well as everyone else there is a debate going on in that juncker and his mates are promoting the idea as are a good few euro politicians, you are either totally deluded or a troll personally I an favouring the later at the moment because if you seriously believed what you have just posted then you need help from a doctor,thats not meant as an insult but genuine concern forthe state ofyour mental health " No, I'm just much better informed than you are on such matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well it's pure speculation, because no matter how much the Brexiters wet the bed over it, this EU 'Army' doesn't actually exist! There is no concrete plan that they can point to to say how this army will becreated or composed. There is no treaty about it, there is no consultation or debate about it. It's in their minds. You are right,there is no eu army and at the moment there is no PUBLIC concrete plan, how you know as well as everyone else there is a debate going on in that juncker and his mates are promoting the idea as are a good few euro politicians, you are either totally deluded or a troll personally I an favouring the later at the moment because if you seriously believed what you have just posted then you need help from a doctor,thats not meant as an insult but genuine concern forthe state ofyour mental health No, I'm just much better informed than you are on such matters." If you say so, keep taking the tablets | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, they can only see EU threats. You know like the EU invasion of Georgia, the EU invasion of Crimea, the EU invasion of eastern Ukraine, the EU state sponsored doping, the EU bribery for the world cup, the EU influence of the US election, the EU cyber attack on Estonia etc.
Russia is in the EU?
Actually, now that you mention it, they're not are they. Silly me, it was Russia who did all those things, not the EU after all.
It was actually the EU who encouraged the coup in Ukraine which led to a democratically elected leader being toppled there, which was clearly explained to you in fine detail on another thread within the last week. Then like a domino effect that lead to what happened in Crimea, but as usual most fact based information seems to go in one ear and out the other with you. "The Ukranians blame Russia. I know many Ukranians who fled to the EU and had families die. The Dutch blame Russia for the plane going down. Let's start blaming people who cause murderers to kill and arrest them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, how would they be able to dictate the contents of an organisationa website if they weren't the biggest contributor? I just view NATO as an arm of the American war machine anyway. They don't contribute! A contribution is a gift. All US military spending is to protect US interests. The USA demands that all (execpt France who told the USA to FO) NATO countries contribute to an organisation it set up to protect US interests in Europe. Are you beginning to understand where I am coming from?
Spookily, I am! "Isn't that the whole point of being in an alliance with someone? I mean it would be a very strange world where any country or organisation, including the US, EU or the UK defended and made alliances with other countries when they didn't think it was in their own best interest to do so, wouldn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
