This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nigel Farage Rages At Juncker's "European Army" Proposal
Earlier today, the leader of Britain’s UKIP, eloquent wordsmith and member of the EU Parliament, Nigel Farage, unleashed one of his most memorable and finest diatribes in recent years.
"We ourselves in the European Union provoked the conflict through our territorial expansionism in the Ukraine. We poked the Russian bear with a stick, and unsurprisingly, Putin reacted. But this now is to be used as an opportunity to build a European army... And Mr. Juncker said, we must convey to Russia that we are serious. Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Juncker?"
Farage at his best...
* * *
As Liberty Blitzkrieg's Mike Krieger notes, while the topic of conversation was the recent push for an "EU Army," at its core the conversation was really about the dangerous and simmering catalyst for World War III, which continues to provoked in Ukraine.
»
- 38217 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The Farage Barrage!
cue in 3,2,1 for Ghordius telling us how everything is great in the EU and Juncker was simply misunderstood!
Tell me about it.That guy is a ball of cliches and contradictions. I can tell you things are a mess in the EU, even in Germany. Now troops on the streets in France and one wonders how it will go in Switzerland, where there are 20% immigrants and 5% muslims.
I've been going toe to toe with Ghordo for years now. I am fairly confident he a member of the EU Parliment. An academic & intellectual. Given his English fails (of which there are very few now) he is definitely a native German -- perhaps Dutch speaker. He could also be Danish or Swedish, but that is stretching it. He also can read Italian. He says he could be "considered" Austrian. He knows, according to him, quite a few Italian political figures personally without much comment on Austrian & German politicians outside of the EU Parliment. Methinks he is from SüdTirol and this gentlemen right here:
http://www.herbert-dorfmann.eu/en/press/news.html
I can also tell you two things about arguing with Ghordo --
1) When he has you by the balls in an argument, he won't hesitate from crucifying you upside down. He goes for the throat and you and he both realise he beat you. My normal course of action when this happens is wait for the thread to disappear into the bowels of Page 4 or 5 before reading and commenting further.
2) When you have Ghordo by the balls in an argument, he will dodge questions, discuss the political philosophy of the EU, bang on about how we Anglo's don't appreciate "Continential European Culture" (this distinguishing between the Anglo cultures and "everone else" while wallpapering over the cultural differences in Europe), try desperatly to change the subject, and after a response or two, you've forgotten you had him by the balls in the first place as he writes a Doctoral Abstract on how "All Europeans are one people."
That being said -- when he has you by the balls you and he both know it. When you have him by the balls, he knows it but is able to craft the conversation in a way that makes you want to go "No --- but" about something completely unrelated.
Needless to say, I like having him on here, if for no other reason than to trololol his sense of "European Solidarity" or whatever he wants to call the EU ethos he adheres to.
Interesting observation and in retrospect pretty accurate.
Also a "textbook" description of the standard EU / UK ("Mainstream") politician - "diversion" when things are not going "according to plan", single-minded imposition when they "are" going to plan . . . .
And let us not forget just how many Eurocrats re NON-elected personnel . . . . . .
They should hang most of those worthless cocksuckers from the lamp posts and bridges in Brussels. They will be directly responsible for millions of dead and wounded Europeans if they get their way antagonizing and provoking Putin and Russia into full scale war.
Egg-zactly, BoP! I love a wo/man who can weed out bullshit and cut straight to the chase.
I think I know how you feel about Putin, but is Glaziev the smartest and most honest man on the planet just now, or what?
I really wanna know what you think.
"They will be directly responsible for millions of dead and wounded Europeans if they get their way antagonizing and provoking Putin and Russia into full scale war."
interesting point of view. so if the european countries keep their defense spending at the same level and keep their military manpower at the same level...
... which, according to the US NeoCons is too little
... and which, btw, is three times more then Russia and makes up a total of 1.5 million active duty soldiers...
but instead of having national battlegroups they set up EU battlegroups...
... i.e. the same "stuff" but packaged differently...
then this will provoke Putin to attack us, causing millions of dead and wounded, and all our fault, of course
because it's EU "weenies" and "Conchita Wursts" that antagonize Russia, in particular Germany and France, eh?
because it's the US and the UK that are trying to talk to Russia, eh?
because it's Ms Nuland and Mr. Hunter Biden that are spreading peace and understanding, eh?
because it's the UK and the US that were engaged in peaceful trade with Russia, and now suffer from the sanctions, eh?
because Ukraine is full of unmarked soldiers speaking French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. etc., eh?
right. now excuse me, I have to board my €-tank, it takes a while to drive it to Moscow /S
"Interesting observation and in retrospect pretty accurate"
strictly speaking, completely OT. The article is about Mr. Farage's diatribe against what Juncker said, not me
further, isn't it anyway a classic ad-hom? shooting at the messenger instead of at the message? and how do you categorize this identity trial in an anonymous blog? note, in all this, my avatar: whatever I write here, has always a small warning that you might not like what I write
ask yourself if you prefer a ZH were comments are judged on their content or if you prefer a completely closed echo chamber engaged in in-group thinking
Haus claims he has identified me. What's next? To try to identify other commenters? (btw, I'm too old to be that guy)
He claims he has identified me as a MEP. So? Isn't Nigel Farage a Member of the European Parliament? UKIP had, for a long time, only a role in British politics thanks to their EP presence
He further claims that I "go for the jugular". So? Isn't this... Fight Club?
Note one little thing: Haus has also this little problem with me that he transposes what he hears around him to things I never wrote. Look back, and you'll find many comments where I claim he is not reading attentively, or taking my comment out of context. I, for example, don't care for this "European Solidarity" thing that he often brandishes. I further would never write that "Europeans are One People". A Nation is One People. Europe, in my view, is about how to cope with many Peoples, plural
Anyway, back to Nigel Farage
Kudos to him that he claims that "we" poked the bear. This "we" is correct, we europeans should have done more. For example, we should have restrained the UK more from pushing, pushing and pushing again the borders of the NATO alliance up to the nose of the Cremlin. But wait... that's exactly the camp I was in, then. We lost, the Eastern europeans are now in both clubs... and I'll be damned if we are not going to treat them as our peers, now
So what do we have here? Nigel starts with moaning that the British Defense Budget is too small for the defense of The Isles. Defense from what, Nigel? Not-The-Bear?
Meanwhile, he takes the opportunity of junking Juncker's proposal for an EU Army, and goes on talking about existing "EU Battlegroups" already engaged in anti-piracy and other tasks. Nope, those aren't "EU battlegroups", then the participation in them is of some 9 members, not 28
His logic is compelling. If the UK would increase it's defense budget... then it's fine for him. If the EU would have an Army, then it's a provocation for Russia. Let me see...
the UK has invaded all countries of this world bar half a dozen. The EU has invaded... zero, yet
the UK is a nuclear power that just recently claimed "just war" on the "intelligence" that Iraq had WMDs. The EU... zero, yet, zero Army and zero "just wars", yet. Oh, and Brussels is being spied on by the UK and the US
the UK had two hundred years of imperial animosity versus Russia, including the Great Game and the Cold War. The EU... one unanimous trade restriction (includes the UK's vote)
you know what? I like Juncker's EU Army. Up to now, it's perfect. It has zero funding, zero treaties behind it, zero material and zero troops. And it can invade zero countries
Meanwhile, it's a wonderful way to tell both Russia and the US (and yes, the UK, too) that we europeans have options and that we are fed up, and it wonderfully flushes out hypocrites
Behold Juncker's Phantom Army. Never have so few words caused so much righteous anguish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQy9Abx-1HI
Note the date when this was posted.
"Behold Juncker's Phantom Army. Never have so few words caused so much righteous anguish"
The chief problem with an army across history is what to do with it if you don't happen to be at war.
just a question: you do know that the EU Countries spend three times more for defense then Russia, and have something like frigging one point five million active troops? Don't you?
is anybody - including Juncker - talking about spending "moar" and having "moar" troops? no. even his proposal would mean a shift of funds and troops under a blue-and-gold flag instead of national flags
just saying, Juncker's proposal is a wonderful exercise in pointed diplomacy with the wonderful effect of flushing out hypocrites
A famous Chinese proverb once said;
"A army full of sheep led by a lion would certainly overwhelm an army full of lions led by a sheep."
I'll let you decide who is who in my cheeky little analogy.
I quote: "...try desperatly to change the subject..."
I wrote plenty, above, while your little analogy could be actually used by Juncker to highlight that Russia would be deterred better by one blue-and-gold army then 28 national ones
fact is that it's an army full of nothing, at the moment. fact is that Russia has an army full of arms, young men and national fervour. and one that feels that it is full of lions and led by lions, a feeling shared by the American Army
Russian propaganda makes a huge fuss out of Conchita Wurst. And many propagandists from several sides are often busy picturing Europeans as weak, effeminate and hedonistic. Enter the stage Juncker with a proposal of an EU Army... and Lo And Behold! Suddently it is as if he had kicked several wasp nests at once
I think you hit the nail on the head --
" fact is that Russia has an army full of arms, young men and national fervour." With the bolded and italics for emphasis.
Moreover, I am not changing the subject -- but illustrating not what propaganda may lead many to believe -- but the fact that the "strongest" military in Europe might just leave, and #2, aside from having an excellent track record of losing wars, starting wars then running off, freezing to death in the snow, or running to #1 and the Colonialists for help -- there isn't much of anything there.
The Italians are too busy using their Navy as a ferry service. The Spanish military has a legally required 2 hours Siesta every day, and the Portuguese have mothballed most of their aircraft as they cannot afford new ones nor can they afford parts to keep them modernized.
The fact of the matter is you have Russia, which is lions run by lions, the US which is lions run by lions, and the various European militaries which are either lions leading sheep, sheep leading sheep or just people wanting to take Tapas break.
The only military in Europe I can think of that could stand up to the Russians for more than a week or so, and has the will to do it is the Polish. However, if this scary scenario ever happens, as soon as the Polish realises the Anglo-American empire has sold them down the river again they'll fall apart too. I have no doubt the French would show up to the party -- but a look at their track record is suspect. Just 2 years ago -- they ran out of bombs in less than 48 hours, and before they could "borrow" some from the US -- they were dropping 600 kg dummy bombs on targets to immobilize them. If you think they would perform better against the Russians than Ghadaffi -- I believe you are seriously mistaken.
And before you step in with a "well in theory this is exactly why an EU army would be better for EU security than the status-quo" I would remind you to look at how well anything works out the EU touches.
Lastly, no one is scared of a EU army if it were to ever exist for the reasons mentioned above. No one is much too concerned except those who live in "Europe" and have a vested interest in preventing the further centralization of power in Brussels and Strausbourg.
"...no one is scared of a EU army if it were to ever exist..." Considering the reaction in ZH... or the reaction of Nigel Farage... I'd say Jucker touched a nerve
but it's funny to read a summary of all those propagandistic denigrations of the various non-US NATO armed forces. that's an interesting confluence of US Neo-Con propaganda and Kremlin propaganda
on what do Nuland and Putin agree? Freedom Fries and Conchita Wurst, lions on the edges and sheep in the middle
Of course he touched a nerve.
Nigel farage isn't scared of the big bad EU army, he is scared of more centralization of power. Something I am scared of and something you should be scared of as well.
Time will tell my friend. Time will tell.
are you sure? as a reminder, he wants to take the UK out of the EU. and so whatever looks bad at home, he just shamelessly uses it, for pure propagandistic purposes
Juncker provided him with electoral candy. Already there are pro-UK-stay-in-the-EU partisans that accuse Juncker of having this in mind, foremost, with his Phantom Army
Which goes back to the rivalry between Luxembourg and London about financial services in the EU. Oh, and the way Cameron is handing all things starting with eu-
National Elections in the UK, soon. (UKIP vs Conservatives) vs (Lib-Dems vs Labour). First-Past-The-Post electoral system. And the EU is a big issue, in this election
And you do know that the Persians ranged vast armies against numerically far-inferior forces when fighting the Greeks, and got royally stuffed, right? The Greeks had their internal frictions, Lord knows, but the EU looks just like Persia to me.
do I have to watch it all? yes, there is an EuroCorps. Yes, it has some 50'000 troops, from memory. Yes, Nigel Farage mentioned it. No, he made a distinction between it and the Juncker Proposal
further, the EuroCorps has, again from memory, 9 countries contributing to it, while Juncker envisions an Army of 28 members
so what is your point, exactly?
I take it you didn't watch it to 1:32-1:40
and? do I deny the existing proposers of EU Federalism? do I deny the existing proposers of a future EU Superstate? of a EU Constitution?
no, I am busy countering them, among many others, with a vision of a confederation of sovereign nations, which, btw, is exactly what the EU Treaties are
the current status quo of the EU is exactly this: sovereigns engaged in treaties for common purposes, with a treaty-org tasked to it
what I fear, my dear Haus, is that those are words you don't understand. I fear you don't understand the difference between federated and confederated
I fear you don't understand the very word sovereign. I fear you don't understand the difference between acts and words, at times
Nuland... acted. Putin... acted. Juncker... talked
The US Army is real. The Russian Army is real. The British, French, German etc. Armies are real. The EU Army of 28 is... words
and isn't that a wonderful sign of the times that people seem to care more for words then for reality? For intentions more then actions?
I would appreciate it in the future then -- jumping down the throats of those who propose EU Federalism and a EU Superstate as opposed to telling us how our understanding of similar concepts is not the same as yours.
While we are talking about words and actions my friend, your words are "EU Federalism is bad, and EU Superstate is bad" (I agree btw) but your action (at least on here) is activly defending those whom you say are bad. See, your words are one thing, your actions are another.
Lastly, words eventually become actions. No army can stop an idea whos time has come. Where we find ourselves now is two mutually exclusive ideas (EU Federation and EU Confederation) sharing the same space. Which side wins and how is the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZi0vLAhzgQ
amazing. did I write that EU Federalism and a EU Superstate are... bad? I just wrote that I oppose them
the boundaries between federation or confederation are often shifty. the US, for example, started as a de-facto confederation while calling itself a "union", and "progressed" to something that can't be called anything else then a unitary state. The UK calls itself a Union, and is now becoming more federal then before
the ideas are not mutually exclusive, it's just that if one side wins unilaterally, then the other side loses unilaterally. it's like the Chinese concept of two extreme points, i.e. vices, joined by a continuum of moderate positions in between, i.e. virtues
to make a point that is actually a bit more near to our times, giving in to Nuland, completely, is a "bad". giving in to Putin, completely, is a "bad", too. from our perspective, of course
note that both Nuland's bunch and Putin's bunch give a fig about sovereignty, or treaties, or many related things
we had a lot of discussions because you often take the federalist propaganda as fact. Where then I point out that it's not true, and point to the treaty-based confederational reality
I'm not in the business of indentifying the "black hats". Russia pushes. That's a fact. The US pushes. That's a fact, too. The UK spies and plays many roles at the same time. And that's a fact, too.
Meanwhile, Juncker... talked. And proposed something that is not welcome neither in Moscow nor in Washington nor in London. Think about that
Ghordo --
Said Federalist propaganda is the tone taken with most media -- at least here in Germany, it is the goal set and the barometer for being a "good European" and its detractors either remain silent or are marginalized.
I am confident there are really 3 sides to the EU discussion.
In one camp you have the EU Federalists. A group of ideologically bankrupt individuals who want to create essentially a "United States of Europe." These people are trying to back-door their way into a federation ignoring the democratic will of the people, cutoms, languages, cultures and even the most basic of common sense. The plot thus far has closely followed Star Wars Episode 1 and if the EU elites keep doing what they want to keep their USE dream alive -- they'll end up with Episode 2.
The next group is a group that is largely silent. I call it the silent majority. They want a European confederation -- not a federation. These people like the idea of the EU and Europeans talking about their problems with one another instead of shooting at one another. This group of people aren't comfortable with a "USE" and they aren't comfortable with breaking the whole thing up either. These are a pretty politically responsible group of individuals -- save for their habitual inability to tell the federalists "no stop. I am French/German/Italian etc etc not "European". Their inability to tell the federalists stop is what has led to the creation of the third group. My experience here is that it is political correctness that keeps this middle group quiet.
The last group is a reaction to group 1's ideas and policies and group 2's silence. They a believe the EU is too far down the path to federalization at this point and the only way to stop it is to break it up and start over. Most of these people(of which I am one) focus more on the negatives than the positives, but are fairly pragmatic about money problems.
your three groups are a simplification. but ok, let's put 100+ national political party positions - which in the very EU Parliament are grouped in 7 "families" - into those 3 groups, for this discussion's sake
EU Federalist groupings, EU Confederationalist groupings and Anti-EU groupings
the first group wants us to progress to USE. And it uses endless propaganda, as you have noted yourself
the second group... is the Status Quo. My group, btw. The one behind the Treaties, the way they were agreed upon
the third group... uses endless propaganda, too
in short, for simplicity's sake, the first and third group tell a bloody lot of lies and are constantly engaged in simplifications and voter catching, preferably the discontent and the ignorant
so all in all... I take it as a compliment for our group. Again, it's a bit more complex then a group, because it's more of a political moderate/centrist consensus
what do you propose? that we engage in a counter-federalist propaganda in Germany? Germans love federalism. The German Federal Republic is a jewel of applied federalism
asking Germans not to be pro-federalism is... utterly useless. Germans become confederalists where it counts: when they engage with non-Germans
you can't even seriously think to change the character of a whole tight cultural/linguistic/political bunch of Peoples like the German ones. one third of them is hopelessly socialist anyway, and will chatter about all those words that go on your nerves for ever
so my advice to you is still the same: spend more time to understand how they tick instead of thinking of pushing them somewhere
-----
speaking of the third group: well, they do have the right of making counterproposals. AfD as much as Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage
in fact, I will enjoy the sight of a Nigel or a Marine at the realities of power when elected as much as I am enjoying Syriza at the Greek Helm of State
after all, they might be right. one very important part of our consensus is that we try to keep it undogmatic and pragmatic:
"does it work? show us", and "you first, lead by example". particularly on the field of applied governance, which is what the EU is all about (currently, not in the future)
You're switching the time scale as it fits your needs, but never compare apples with apples.
Most interesting is what you're carefully avoiding to talk about:
european countries defense spending is three times more then Russia and makes up a total of 1.5 million active duty soldiers
So in money you compare (without ever touching on effectiveness of that spent money well ok), but on soldiers you only mention one side.
And the most glaring omission is you don't even mention that an EU Army would mean one command, and suddenly the single EU country has little to nothing to say in its eventual deployment. Do you love your centralized serfdom that much?
For example, we should have restrained the UK more from pushing, pushing and pushing again the borders of the NATO alliance up to the nose of the Cremlin. But wait... that's exactly the camp I was in, then. We lost, the Eastern europeans are now in both clubs... and I'll be damned if we are not going to treat them as our peers, now
Side-stepping the main point once again: Do you think Ukraine should become a NATO member too?
The EU has invaded... zero [countries], yet
Please give us another example of your stretching and redefining the facts, and tell us how the EU didn't factually invade the Kosovo.
The EU... zero, yet, zero Army and zero "just wars", yet.
Oh, how was that with "Die Freiheit Deutschlands muss am Hindukush verteidigt werden" again?
Meanwhile, it's a wonderful way to tell both Russia and the US (and yes, the UK, too) that we europeans have options and that we are fed up, and it wonderfully flushes out hypocrites
Rrright, because the European army is not and will never be under the control of the US.
The biggest righteous hypocrite I can see is you.
fact is that it's an army full of nothing, at the moment.
You are clearly a politician. Only those downplay the run-up that strong until the irreversible facts are created.
You failed to provide any statement if you would still like it if it one day becomes an army full of something, under control of a group to which your country has little to say.
you don't understand the difference between federated and confederated
Maybe you should talk to the southern US states over that, I'm sure they can give you some strong statements on that and the civil war outcome.
point to the treaty-based confederational reality
Once more:
The creation of an EU army has no effect on the implementation and enforcement of such treaties?
No backdoor or sedond-round effects at all?
You're a complete psychopath. (I really do hope you're not that herbert dorfmann guy Haus believes to have identified.)
and you, my dear Malek, don't read. didn't I clearly state in my exchange with Haus that I oppose Juncker's proposal?
further, I opposed the entry of all Eastern European countries. but now that they are in, I am for treating them as peers
no, I don't think Ukraine should become a NATO member. who is pushing for that?
further, an EU army would be deployed for external EU interests. in the same way as the US army is deployed to protect external US interests. Yes, like in Kosovo, yes, like in the Hindokush
to recap:
US Neo-Cons are still pushing us europeans to spend moar for defense. hence my mention: moar money? sure? what for? and my argument that we spend way more then Russia
if you still don't realize that an EU Army is the very last thing US Neo-Cons AND the Cremlin hawks would like to see, I can't help you
as a reminder, US Neo-Cons are still smarting from the last time a european parliament - Westminster, of all unlikely candidates - said "NO" to them about a Syria intervention
as for now, NATO is based on the leadership of the one partner that is the most... centralized. and that is a fact. what happens if this changes? well, then which interests abroad should be "defended" gets a different handling. It would be a subtle shift of power from the US President to... an elected european parliament (the BAD, BAD, EVIL EU parliament /s). Only that this is not true, because it would still be a matter for the EU Council, and there it becomes again the question: do you really believe the EU Council is willing to centralize this kind of power? IF, then only partially
so in reality, we are talking here of the proposal for an "EU Expeditionary Corps". Yes, the same was the US Marines were born, a small specific army, roughly 200'000, customized for interventions of "World Police" kinds
now, do I ever read of average Americans questioning why the US needs the US Marines Corps (founded in 1834)? Isn't it hypocrisy that currently The West / NATO is led by Washington, but no, no, no, whatever happens important decisions can't be taken in Europe?
as a reminder, when Iraq was "full of WMDs", Paris (and Berlin) objected, strongly. If our EU Expeditionary Corps would have been the scheduled arm for intervention, and in an EU Council vote France would have put a veto... we would have possibly not be involved in Iraq, and perhaps even not in Afghanistan. Instead, we can read here dummies talking about "Fearful France", and "Cheese Surrendering Monkeys"
Would it be fearsome centralization if the "EU Marines Corps" would be deployed according to an unanimous vote in the EU Council?
so yes, I stand fast to my core message: Juncker's EU Phantom Army is flushing out the hypocrites
so while I oppose it... I'm laughing at the way it's making certain people squirm and twist their propaganda into bretzels. particularly a Nigel Farage that moans Britain is not spending enough for defence... while giggling about how much this Phantom Army of the bad, bad EU is going to help him in the coming British elections
You remind me of Schröders "unbedingtes Wollen" style of politics. Which is a beautiful euphemism for "having no plan B" or in other words going with the flow and having no strict principles on anything.
You always stress that you oppose Juncker's proposal - but if it comes true will you then embrace it too? You know like your but now that they [Eastern European countries] are in [NATO], I am for treating them as peers?
US Neo-Cons are still smarting from the last time a european parliament - Westminster, of all unlikely candidates - said "NO" to them about a Syria intervention
How cute! So now it was UK parliament which stopped US invasion of Syria? Russia had nothing to do with it?
And how did it work out for Germany and France last time when they opposed US invasion of Iraq?
Apples to Oranges again:
So the Marines, which were founded by a single country, are comparable to a EU Expeditionary Corps? Seriously??
(And even without being asked, on the side you concede having a special army for interventions is a good thing?)
But the best is still your dancing around the elephant of centralization pretending it's not there:
You don't believe it would be easier to coax a single EU Council into a questionable EU Army deployment than all the parliaments of the EU countries?
I think the core of our contention here is this: "You don't believe it would be easier to coax a single EU Council into a questionable EU Army deployment than all the parliaments of the EU countries? "
Yes. I believe it would be more difficult. As an example, the current unanimous sanctions against Russia are going to fail the next EU Council vote
as a reminder, members of the EU Council have to answer their own parliaments, and those can kick them out and replace them, and then vote again
so yes, something so important as the deployment of a EU Expeditionary Corps would get at least a binding provisio of needing an unanimous vote, like sanctions. and then a vote in the EU Parliament, and then inquiries in the national parliaments, and then perhaps even governments falling and being replaced by those parliaments, and then a new vote
for the last Iraq war, Paris and Berlin were against, Italy, Poland, the UK, etc. went to war
I am baffled by your naivety, or shall I say stupidity. If you really are of older age as you stated somewhere else, old age wisdom must have eluded you.
History has proven time and again that powerful central committees are simply more easier subverted than distributed powers.
To the facts:
As an example, the current unanimous sanctions against Russia are going to fail the next EU Council vote
If that really happens, I'd still consider it at best a "glass half full" example, so you prove nothing by that one.
members of the EU Council have to answer their own parliaments, and those can kick them out and replace them, and then vote again
Please point us to written law or similar on which those statements are based (instead of he-said-she-said articles.)
Especially the point and then vote again needs serious clarification: how often can the same thing be voted on? Who has the right to initiate re-voting? Has nobody the right to non-unanimous block such a re-vote?
a binding provisio of needing an unanimous vote
Elaborate: How difficult would it be to change the provisio?
Even if it stands, what do you do if the council unanimously votes for a deliberately vague resolution, which is later reinterpreted to cover much larger scale actions?
From a higher level view your whole safety concept is basically based on blocking features, such as need for unanimous votes.
As anyone with deeper insight has learned over the years, such systems always fail quickly because they can be subverted by identifying and attacking then breaking the single weakest link in the chain-link fence.
If you really believe such centralization of powers is the best (or only) way to counteract US overreach, you are a dangerous fool.
As I have difficulty believing someone here on this forum is so foolish, it seems more likely you are a disinformation agent (as you are more persistent than trolls.)
malek, how can I point you to anything written when the whole thing is just a figment of the imagination of Juncker, pure words and nothing else?
If I understand your point, centralization is bad, period. ergo whoever even stops fighting centralization is a kind of traitor to humanity or something
fine. tell that to America, tell that to Russia, tell that to China
meanwhile, saying european sovereigns should not, ever, do what others do... is hypocritical
"History has proven time and again that powerful central committees are simply more easier subverted than distributed powers"
also fine for me. and about which powerful central committees are we talking about? an EU Council filled with national ministers that answer to national parliaments and have to make unanimous decisions in things like the current soon withdrawn sanctions on Russia or something imaginary in the future?
what I find amazing at your point of view is that you argue as if British planes would not bomb, Italian and Polish troops would not have fought in Iraq, French troops would not have been nearly sent to Syria and German troops would not have been sent to Afghanistan
this is reality. european troops are being deployed in interventions worldwide. but no, you moan that they should not have something like an EU norm slapped on them, that there should not be any additional veto power over them? because it smacks of dreaded "centralization", without looking into the details?
And you accuse others here that they're not reading and understanding your statements thoroughly??
Please point us to written law or similar for:
members of the EU Council have to answer their own parliaments, and those can kick them out and replace them, and then vote again
So once again you swallow wholesale the "normative Kraft des Faktischen" without taking into any kind of consideration if you find that fact should be pursued by everyone, or better not:
what I find amazing at your point of view is that you argue as if British planes would not bomb, Italian and Polish troops would not have fought in Iraq, French troops would not have been nearly sent to Syria and German troops would not have been sent to Afghanistan
So in which way does this justify an EU Army being created and sooner or later doing the same?
Except in the poorest of all excuses: "But the others [bad guys] were doing it as well!"
And then even topping that with "every moral person is a hypocrite as they have certain things they would never do even if others do them."
I consider your argumentation completely bankrupt -and you realize that too-, if you end up with such reasoning.
Oh, and I will hold you to your words forecasting the current soon withdrawn [by EU Council] sanctions on Russia.
malek, here the definition of hypocrisy
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs orprinciples, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
-----
so read again. yes, we have european armed forces. yes, we use them. what do you think I am pretending, exactly, when I say that there IS no moral high ground anymore? where do you see me taking a desirable or publicly approved attitude, here?
so, if we have an EU Army and it needs 28 Yes to even deploy, is it better or worse?
(yes, I do expect that the unanimity there will fail, soon. I'm not the only one, even the EU foreign ministers are saying that. we'll see)
Parrotile: "And let us not forget just how many Eurocrats re NON-elected personnel"
this is a very important meme in the UK, that "non-elected". The EU has two legislative bodies that steer it. The EU Council and the EU Parliament
the second is clearly elected. the first... is the appointed ministers of the EU. National prime ministers like PM Cameron (UK), PM Tsipras (GR) and PM Merkel (GFR), and national ministers like FM Varoufakis (GR), FM Schäuble (GFR) and FM Osborne (UK), just to pick six out that might be recognized
none of those EuroCrats is directly elected to be in the Council. in fact, none of them is directly elected to be a national minister, they are all appointed to those ministerial tasks by their elected National Parliaments. The same parliaments that can throw them out of those appointed tasks, any time
the commissioners? well, don't they have to be appointed by the Council and confirmed or rejected by the EU Parliament? it's just the same parliamentary procedure... again. with the same parliamentary provision that they are on sufferance of those two bodies, that can throw them out, if they want so
too complicated? well, then go on and vote directly for one man to hold immense power without recall, if you prefer it... simple
Sounds like you've cut that particular knot.
Didn't John Titor say that World War III started in part as a response to a combined European army marching against Russia? =)
those with common sense and decency have to business in politics. now if he were to worship satan and diddle little kids, he has a bright future.
most of my UK F'book "friends" think Farage/UKIP ARE the racist spawn of satan...The man gets worse press over there than Ron Paul does here...
who's the jackass that redded that?
I don't like Farage's politics one little bit.
And this tactic of his, openly speaking the unvarnished truth, is distinctly dirty pool when everyone else is covering up and lying through their teeth.
The nerve of him, to do that without shame.
no, dirty pool is covering up
Fargage also raged that artic ice is not shrinking...
Nigel, sit down before you fall down...
Doesn't the artic ice melt away completely on a fairly regular basis?
on a long enough timeline...
...... so yeah, I don't see the problem with the European Army thingy and applying a little non-linear thinking - it could actually help resolve the shrinking ice issue and for that matter the argument on whether global warming is man made...... Ok so Junkfuker gets his army, the Nulandcons send thier hapless contingent they all get stupid march eastward get obliterated then whats left of the useless fuks fire off a couple of tactical nukes that dominoes into a full on strategic launch and the cockroaches - actual cockroaches not the political types - will scurry around under the skies of a nuclear winter feasting on our irradiated corpses and discussing who was right about the whole global warming thing....... did I miss anything??
It is going to be interesting in the next UK election, to see how far the UKIP party climbs in ranks!
If Ms Nuland (and her supporters) get their way, elections might be delayed "owing to unforeseen circumstances" (namely the European entree to WW3)
Vlad got the white stripes cranked up at the kremlin" seven nation army couldn't hold me back"
The best fight song ever. (If you can't ID that, delete your account immediately) The T-95s need to play this when they roll into Kiev.
Goin out West-Tom Waits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27LLPANAgzw
The us is run by a bunch of losers I admit . But beside what I've read about Dempsey.i see someone not to be fucked with. One either side. Hopefully a G c Marshall of or time. We shall see. He's got the eyes inho
He might be a London-Centric, national-socialist with a deep seeded love for the anglo-empire but I can't help liking him.
He is fantastic - could be in USA and win every time somewhere
Farage against the dying of the sun!
Unless my memory is off, isn't Juncker a Bilderberg?
Can you please stop giving this prick attention. I know he's anti EU and that's a good thing but he is just another political wanker using anti EU populism to get power.
Oh for those who don't know his background... He used to work in the City and his only MPs are ex Tories. Say's everything you need to know about this establishment bellend.
He's entertaining -- that's enough.
Farage IS entertaining, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that he is a politician.
As a politician, his aim is to wield sufficient power to impose his personal preferences upon the rest of us, using the violence of the State.
In short, he's just another arsehole, who would be better dangling from a streetlamp. Along with the rest of 'em.
(judging by all the down-arrows, Collectivism is still very much the preferred philosophy of the ZHers. )
"He's entertaining -- that's enough."
Sorry, but that's not enough for me. There are plenty of smart and competent people looking for work, who'd no doubt love to ride the EU-Taxpayer funded Gravy-Train, the way Farage does. Candor aside, a politician also needs to help build policies and work through issues.
Sticking to the Issue of an EU Army for a moment (and hitting the Pause button on Nigel's sardonic lines), I'd argue that...
1. An EU Army should ONLY happen, if and only IF they separate from NATO. IOW... Non-EU members of NATO (US, Canada) may NOT join, and the EU members would sever their military relationship to Canada+US. Let the Anglos (Five Eyes) fund their own wet dreams of 'Ruling The Waves'. All US forces would HAVE to leave the EU. Period. And no back-door "Joint Exercises" bullshit either, which would 'harmonize', link or coordinate Anglo forces with the EU.
2. An EU Army would ONLY be involved in a mutual and centrally coordinated Defense Dept that... (a) Has a mandate and scope of protecting/defending the immediate EU territories, (b) Not play Imperialist expansion games into adjacent territories or play World Cop, (c) Stay out of MENA, Eastern Europe, (d) Not make any Preemptive strikes as a pretext for a Defensive moves, and (e) would ONLY purchase Arms and Technology developed and made in the EU. Foreign arms and tech would be 'Verboten'. Sorry, US MIC.
3. An EU Army would make total sense with this Mandate, Scope and Terms -- but the US MIC would shit its pants, if it were to come about, as their Fed/DOD driven hegemony would end pretty quickly, and they would not stand for "competition" (loss of dominance and market share).
or, as George Carlin eloquently put it... "They wanted to dominate the world! BULLSHIT, that's OUR fuckin' job!!!"
Your idea is very good except for who finances the EU military?
You already have richer Countries, and poorer Countries that cannot afford to pay their fair share. So would this put more loans on the poorer countries? Would the PIIGS have to take on more loans to pay their share?
I do not agree with the EU as I would not agree with an Joint Military.
I think having a joint EU military would be controlled by a bunch of power hungry pshycopaths just like the US and in a short period of time they too would be creating their own MIC and threats to smaller countries.
I think the world would be a safer place with smaller tribes of less power and control.
Just like I hate a majoriy .gov that instantly becomes a dictatorship like Harper is doing with Canada.
I am all for the Euorpean Countries to split up and go back to their own currencies, where honest hard working countries will prosper and their currency will rise in purchasing power, and of course the lazier non producing countries will plunder.
This European Union is about to wreck "The Old Country traditions" which I think is important.
To make a European Union is Like making a very large company Union whereas the hard workers get exploited and the lazy worker reaps unearned benifits at the expense of company or in this case the Countries.
I just don't ever see this being able to work! It is not the same as the "United States" of America, hence they are are a mixture of foreigners clear across the country.
Even here in Canada we have a lot of infighting, whereas Quebec gets subsidies paid for by the Taxes of Alberta Oil.
and the New Foundland people have had as long as I can remember 20-30% unemployment living off of the more proserous parts " provinces" of the country.
As always when money gets tight the fighting starts.
I think we need less people with immense power for the safety of us all!
and I think the EU Air Force should be composed of flying kitties with manta rays strapped to their paws
White doves, with freakin lasers attached to their skulls.
White doves, with freakin lasers attached to their skulls.
1,000 points to you!
I'm sorry, Kirk, but once they get a standing army they'll use it. I think they'd have to. That's been shown since Rome. After all, they won't want thousands of unoccupied soldiers lying around the barracks, getting into bar fights, beating up prostitutes and generally stinking up the place with all that testosterone. I believe aggression is the only purpose for maintaining a standing army.
You anti-testosterone or sumpin'.......a standing Armiy ensures the continuity and security of a Nation/peoples and seperately the state. The only purpose/job of an Army. Oppresion of a nation/people is typically acccomplished with police/intelligence agencies in employ of state.K
Standing armies are ALWAYS used, if not externally for some made up threat, then internally against 'domestic terrorists'.
+1. Juncker even said, "With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighbouring state." (Emphasis mine.)
I agree completely with you. Europe (except UK) is now "ripe" to make further integrative steps.
In my opinion this is what all Euroland member countries do want now. The US did a great job enforcing "pax americana" after WWII on the Western part of Europe thus creating the climate for the EU. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union something happened which was not according to the plan of the US/UK empire.
Gorbatschow laid an egg which stirred-up on the long run the empires policy. The German reunification was the Trojan horse of the Russians and the Germans jumped on this horse in no time. They were un-stoppable except by brute force.
This Trojan Horse did its work since then in the sense of the Russians and in the first two decades it worked also well for the US. German busines activities stabilized much of the East of Europe economical and political. While at the same time these markets provided the opportunity to boost the German economy thus stabilizing the economic heartland of Europe.
Now the interest of Euroland and the US are diverging more and more. Euroland wants to get rid of its master the US/UK empire because if its continuing, the tribute the empire needs is sucking out all the wealth produced after WWII.
This is a long and ongoing process but in my opinion it is the same as with the German re-unification. It can only be stopped by war but Euroland does not like to fight Russia,. It needs Russia as a business partner. The same accounts for China. While for the US both Russia and China (among others) are regarded as enemies.
your name says all we need to know, he must be terrifying for your kind
It's all very well supporting him from across the pond but here it's his other polices beyond fuck the EU that worry us.
A vote for UKIP is the same as a vote for Labour, Tory or Lib Dem it's just another vote for the broken status quo.
He isn't a British Ron Paul!
Plenty of former labour voters switching to farage's UKIP in the north of england and also in the east where there has been a tidal wave of immigration from south asia and eastern europe.
farage rocks...
And how exactly will leaving the EU stop immigration from Asia?
It's immigration from Asia that keeps the NHS going and farage has no plan to stop that
Regarding the Europeans coming over well it's not their fault that so many Brits are to bone idle to get off their arse and work. Someone has to work and if the Brits wont then we need to ship people in. Simple as that really.
Right on! Vote Labour, vote Tory, anything but UKIP. Nigel will lead us away from this land of milk and honey...
>>>land of milk and honey...
Nah... it's the land of no glory, and next to no hope.
You've just described America.
Meh...I think everybody is starting to come around. I mean, once all the change destroyed all the hope theres nowhere to go but up! ;-)
- in smoke, or - in a (nuclear) flash :-)
Make mine a "Ground Zero" - so fast your nervous system will be "long gone" before the pain messages reach the brain!! :-)
You stated that UKIP is a tory party mark two, I pointed out that many many former Labour voters are switching because immigration is unpopular especially where immigrants are dumped into northern towns to live alongside working class brits with the associated pressure on public housing, jobs, medical services and schools. A vote for Farage is a vote for a better quality of life because Britain will become sovereign again and will control its own borders.
Go Nigel!
Detectivestern" but we britts are perfectly conforable with carrots stuck up our ass. Its been there so long its rather quite comfortable. What would we put there if the carrots were removed? A potato?"
My stomach hurts laughing.
It is the accent!!
Where do you get off deciding what "we" must do? If Brits do not want to work, so what? Instead of bringing foreigners in to alter the country which affects everyone perhaps you should consider moving out as that only affect you.
Selfish or not selfish?
Immigration from Asia is controlled by visa, there is no immigration control within Europe, as EU treaties insist that all membes of the union have freedom of movement within member states. And Brits are not lazy, they just cant compete with cheap Eastern European labour. How can someone with a family and mortgage and everything that goes with it compete with 14 Eastern Europeans living in one house sharing the rent, they just cant afford to work for minimum wage
Sounds like the USA situation...
Immigration from Asia is controlled by visa, there is no immigration control within Europe, as EU treaties insist that all membes of the union have freedom of movement within member states. And Brits are not lazy, they just cant compete with cheap Eastern European labour. How can someone with a family and mortgage and everything that goes with it compete with 14 Eastern Europeans living in one house sharing the rent, they just cant afford to work for minimum wage
As an Aussie, I may assure you that "The Brits" are pretty hard workers, and unlike "many Countries" the population seems to cope just nicely with their really crap weather.
If you want to see the real definition of "Bone Idle" - any Aussie "Road Maintenance / Construction" gang, especially the superheroes who do the "Traffic Management" role.
Speaking of those God's chosen types working in traffic management, night shift with a stop and slow sign nets you 85 an hour fucking pathetic. I will hopefully one day be in a PM role and will at best be earning less than some fucking Collingwood supporting drunk spinning a sign in his hand whilst on the piss. What has the wolrd come to?
My favourite is it took a team of 16 construction "workers" 17 months to replace 500m of stormwater pipes in our street, apart from the sheer incompetency of them all it was interesting seeing 16 working all the time when only 3 workers could be down in the pits at any one time meaning that we had 3 traffic managers (everyone is a manager these days) and 10 on break no matter what any time of day etc (50-60 an hour they were pulling too).
You sort of had me Detective right up until: "it's not their fault that so many Brits are to (sic) bone idle to get off their arse and work"
That's the same crock-a-shit line bandied about about by the Internationalists over here: the meme of the "lazy-anglo" as the gringos get displaced in their own country.
Fuck them and fuck YOU.
Yeah he rocks, he is the "controlled Opposition" for the establishment. Its that simple. No one uncontrolled is permitted to "occupy" such a popular theme without being part of the rigged game. Its the same everywhere.
at least he is honest about NATO/ZIO lies and aggression re: Ukraine...
more than can be said for any politician in USSR
Yes but seeing as his party do things like calling Westminster Abbey a mosque on twitter no one pays attention to them.
Yeah .... and they also unfortunately support the 'tribe' too which is lots worse!
Thank you for the interesting alternative "UK inside" view of Mr. Farage.
Seriously.
Agreed. I like Farage - I like listening to him speak. I had started crafting a comment in support of Farage when I was reminded of how I recently supported - really wanted to believe in - Varoufakis. Before he sold out his countrymen and revealed himself to be a politician after all (I realize he's just the FinMin, but still). Then I thought of the many politicians before him who I've "supported" only to be reminded that ALL POLITICIANS ARE TRAITIORS TO THE PEOPLE. The few exceptions, probably Kennedy for example, don't last long.
I'm not going to come in and try to defend another politician. I'm done being a shmuck - in this context anyway.
smells like a Zio schmear to me, if he supports that please link the video...
There is no ussr except possiby in some weaker minds.
He meant USSA. That should have been obvious.
A vote for UKIP is the same as a vote for Labour, Tory or Lib Dem it's just another vote for the broken status quo.
You sound like a US GOP. A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party.
So Lesser of Two Evils is a global phenomenon now?
Immigration is the response to the next level of taxation required to support the next level of planned issuance of public debt by a legislative body. The bankers open the door at the border so the tax doesn't get voted down which would block the debt issuance
It goes that way in EVERY country beholden to a privately run central bank
That's all it is folks. A "merry-go-round"
Yes, but being very serious now.....what other choice do you really have?
Everything Farage is saying in this speech is correct.
Not everything. He's correct that Juncker is kidding himself when he says that Europe is serious about military strength. But he implicitly cedes Ukraine to a Soviet - oops, i meant Russian - sphere of influence. That is false, and it offers dangerous encouragement to Putin.
History isn't on your side.
...nor is sanity.
Yeah, Ukraine IS in Russia's sphere of influence. It's only about 550 miles between Kiev and Moscow and you're insane if you think that Russia will allow--got that, ALLOW--NATO armies and missles that close to its capitol.
You're obviously qualified to work at Dept. of State.
We are lucky tp have a brave and honest man like Farage to tell the truth to the EU liars, and stand up for democracy against wanking pricks like detectiveStern who, with their EU tyranny are destroying Europe. Vote UKIP for a better Europe.
Anti EU is a good thing.
dupe
He was a metals trader, so fuck off.
The same insanity as the US War Department. Same demon?
100% financed!
love this guy!!!!
In other ``news``...
CSU's Michelbach says Germany to defend itself if Greece confiscates assets -- Handelsblatt
DEPLOYMENT OF NATO FORCES ON ROTATION BASIS NEAR RUSSIAN BORDERS WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR EUROPEAN SECURITY - RU FOREIGN MINISTRY -- IFX
Putin cancels state visit, signing of important treaty? Cause for concern as this has never happened before
Uh oh?
Please Keep giving Farage Farage exposure, he is the one person who gets it and actually tells the truth.
His comments on Ukraine are once again bang on the money.
We are lucky we have hime over here in Blighty. Him and Rand Paul should get together for dinner...
They better make that appointment "somewhere discreet" and very low - key.
"The Firm" has a track record for "elimination of troublesome opposition"
Especially with all the business deals going on
ExxonMobil Boosts Drilling Rights in Russia Giving It More Holdings There Than in U.S.
Poland’s APS Energia Launches Assembly Plant in Russia
Swiss Krono Group Begins Woodwork Mill Construction in Perm Krai Russia
German Utility RWE AG to Sell Oil and Gas Fields in Britain, Norway, Denmark, and Germany To Russian Mikhail Fridman
Britain Sells £86m Of Arms To Russia 5/2014
Former BP CEO to Head Russian L1 Energy Oil and Gas Company
It's how the game is played. They did it with the Nazis, they did it with the Soviets. TPTB will invest their money in the nation where they expect you to invest your blood.
Don't you just love the music played at the end? Sounds like it could be for an episode of I Love Lucy. Indicative of the comedy that is the EU.
Was thinking the same, but it should be circus themed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D5Sa2Yq-2g
: - <
The "U" in EU is an oxymoron.
The"dads army' theme was the interprtation wanted I think.
A slight from the hedia.
The music is the theme song from a British TV comedy set during WWII, which starts with the lines "Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler, If you think we're on the run...".
Farage makes a play on this opening line during his speech
It's the theme tune from an old British tv comedy called "Dad's Army" :- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDWDAMRBeU
They're still replaying it!
Nigel led UKIP is that last chance for U.K. survival! It's citizens have been sold down the river by wide-eyed socialist visionary fanatics! Very sad!
We need a start USIP a find a guy like Nigel to lead it!
Nigel come the the US and kick some asses!
Indeed. This man should be speaking in front of Congress, not Bibi calling for more war.
Indeed. This man should be speaking in front of Congress, not Bibi calling for more war.
Really?
No not really. No double, make it a triple.
Sheesh.
Nigel is the only stateman ln the EU. He is fearless in his actions and speech. He calls the evil when he sees it. Where else do you find correct thinking of this kind. If you hate Nigel you must love Nuland.
I see it slightly more differentiated... There is no such thing as a "fearless politician". They either get in and stay in, or they don't.
They all have their Base that they must appeal and cater to for core support and funding. That's just Reality, and is true for anyone holding office anywhere on the planet. Beyond that, politicians seek to expand their appeal to gain market share.
Like everyone else, Farage has a niche. The difference is, that he has defined and created it, rather than just try to gain dominance in a large and established niche/segment. That speaks to his personality and probably character.
It is an Absolute Truth that it is easier to criticize than to build and create.
As much as I may "like" the guy, my main objection to his methods is that he does not work to create policies or laws in the EU Parliament. That too tells me something about his character: that he's a populist contrarian, happy to enjoy his ride on the EU Gravy-train, by simply being critical and smarmy. He's a "Latter Day English Bulldog": attack, bitch, moan and complain.
Yes, he does often say what needs to be said, but... Insofar he does not deviate from that formula (while enjoying the Ride), it indicates to me that he has his own version of being disingenuous. Where do you apply for that job?
The following may be only semantics, but...
>is that he does not work to create policies or laws in the EU Parliament.
Don't we already have enough people creating more "policies" and "laws"? If he were working to eliminate outdated "policies" and "laws", I'd like him even more.
Exactly so .. he has been ni EU as MEP for nearly 20 years.. his entire belief sysem is geared to the idea that the end of the nation state is a bad thing.. something which will put the technocrats in charge.. where the MEP becomes a rubber stamp for whatever Brisse;s and the PTB are pushing ... his thing is to be he the sand in the big machine of the NWO .. when the power is handed over to a bunch of losers in Brussels and taken away from nations and their people... what you end up with is a faceless tyranny run by oligarchs.The last thing Farage needs to be doing is creating more laws for BRUSSELS to impose on what used to be sovereign nations.
He is like Tsipras who can't stop playing the opposing role when he has to govern. Being against is always easier then provide solutions.
I thumb upped to counteract the Hope and Changey dopes
If the U.S. and the EU go to war against Russia it will be the least publically supported war in U.S. history.
You obviously have not read some of the comments on Yahoo, or facebook, or any other "popular" ""news sites"" then. Most Americans are eating up this propaganda and think we should go over and kick their Russian butts for em. Or at the very least just "make a parking lot out of Russia". Seriously...
Source, please, ms Sandman.
You're either confabulating or outright lying.
The last war the majority of the public in the U.S. supported was the Revolution, in the 1700s, all others have been carried out without the public's support.
That's why the draft was invented. The draft riots give a far better idea of how little support there is for war.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html
Source, WTF are you talking about? Go find an article on Yahoo dealing with "Russian aggression" and read the comments smart guy. Then do the same on FaceBook or any other western media darling and you'll find that most Americans are completely ignorant sheep and easily tricked into going to war. Just read the comments douche...
Message boards do not an accurate representation make.
If you're reeduced to name calling as a debate or argumentative technique then you have outed yourself as a misinformed human bean, without an ability to retract your errors in thinking, source accuracy and facts. Social media is a petri dish of minority proportions, with no more substance than the feather of hoe.
The people are decidedly againstt war, even the War between the States was disfavored by the people of the North after several lost Battles.
You are so right Sandman. I also note the hundreds of comments about "nuking" ISIS or the Middle East or entire countries. This society is insane, not only for thinking crap like that but for believing they are immune from blowback.
You're right, a large number of Americans fervently believe that the US and their Euro satraps are the good guys and that they need to attack Russia, but ...
... this type of thinking shouldn't be a surprise coming from people who believe that Velveeta is cheese.
And damn good cheese it is.
Think that opinion might change a bit when nukes start exploding in USSA cities?
Also, is an "opinion" completely devoid of facts really an opinion? Does a simple playback of remembered mainstream media lies count as "an opinion"? Is mental activity beyond simple memory and recall required to qualify as "an opinion"?
I guess most people think not. I guess I've always assumed that some thought is required, but maybe that's just my assumption, formed in earlier days when at least some people performed at least a little semi-independent mental activity.