Comments by "Antony Wooster" (@antonywooster6783) on "The Duran"
channel.
-
158
-
140
-
122
-
113
-
100
-
98
-
94
-
90
-
88
-
86
-
85
-
84
-
79
-
71
-
66
-
65
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
50:45 The weakness of this discussion is that it ignores the way that there was an underlying sympathy in Britain (Churchill and many British aristocrats) and in America (General Grove, John Foster Dulles)) for the N*zis, which sympathy survived WW2 and was expressed not only in "Operation Paperclip" and the analogous Japanese operation, but also in the wholesale adoption and incorporation of the Gehlen Organization and its use to harass the Soviet Union, not only, but particularly in Ukraine. IOW this cultivation of the extreme right-wing elements in Ukraine is not something that started in 2014 but goes back at least to 1945. Nor should one, in this context, forget that the original idea to research the possibility of making atom-bombs, it seems was NOT "in case the Germans got there first" but in order to defeat the USSR.
Seeing how friendly NATO was with almost every F*scist dictatorship there was in the world, (Spain, Portugal, Egypt, Libya, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Greece, Vietnam, China, South Korea, Indonesia, Philippines etc., etc.) and how the US intervened in liberation movements to install F*scist governments, (Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc.) it seems to me that the "Political West" was not some relatively innocuous aspect of Western Society or civilization, but more like a powerful F*scist crusade.
Put it another way: what would you call people who organize, finance, arm, protect and support in every possible way, F*scists? Liberals? Democrats? Philanthropists?
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
25:19 You are absolutely spot on with your analogy to the British situation in 400AD! There is not one problem, there are a miriad and they have no skill in any of them! They have no diplomats not enough engineers, not enough skilled metal workers, not enough inspectors, not enough engineers and even management in Britain is mostly done by amateurs. (Only 1/4 of managerial staff in Britain had a formal qualification of any sort last time I heard.) They have no experienced generals and with the armed forces being so small, almost certainly, no corpus of NCOs. As I have said before, if you are going to make explosive devices, drones, no less than shells, you absolutely have to have skilled inspectors. Without them you will lose factories and everything in them.
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
11:57 What happened to the "Left" in Britain? The Communist party, the CPGB was at its strongest ever at the end of WW2. I don't know how it happened, but quite a number of communists and left-wing social democrats, got into the Education Corps during the war and had quite a radicalising effect on the armed forces, boosting the reputation of the Red Army. This effect was large enough to alarm Bevin and Bevan and the High command. Probably it was part of the reason why "Operation Unthinkable" never got off the drawing board. In the election immediately following the end of the war, which Churchill had expected to win, the Labour Party won. They introduced what they said was Socialism and was in fact a mixed economy. However, it was also a fraud, in that the state owned enterprises, were all charging large private industries rock bottom prices while the price to retail consumers was 4 -6 times higher and all the while the MSM kept up a contant mantra of "Socialism is all very well in theory, but inpractice it always makes a loss!!
Around 1952 the Conservative party managed to be elected and immediatly started whittling away at the "Socialism" first by declaring "The War on Drugs" and making prescriptions for addictive drugs no longer free. This was a really destructive move, because up until then, there was practically no "Drugs Problem." There were a very few people, who had been working in the Far East and had become addicted to opium and were on diminishing doses of other narcotics to get them off their habits. The MSM made a great fuss about "Ordinary folks subsidizing these evil peoples' habits!" This change opened a way for organized Crime to make a huge financial ,killing which has never stopped since and it provided funding for organised crime and the excuse for many more policemen with much greater powers.
"The Socialism" was used to take the old worn out industries, coal mining, iron and steel manufacture, road transport, railways, electricity generation and distribution, gas manufacture and distribution, Post Office including telephones, and modernise them at the taxpayers expense. These measures by Labour governments were followed by Conservative government that then sold off the refurbished enterprises to "friends" at rock-bottom prices. Very profitable for the moneid and very bad for leftwing thinking. In fact it was a very successful campaign by the Right and the Ruling Class.
I don't remember exactly when but some time after Stalin's death the CPSU(B) pronulated a new doctrine called the "Parliamentary Road to Socialism" .(As opposed to the revolutionary road that had been the doctrine since about 1917) the CPGB of course followed the Soviet lead but when the Chinese Communist Party objected, it split not just the World Communist movement but a split occurred also in the CPGB. After the split occurred and the more left-wing faction left the Party in disgust, the leftists did not unite, but split up into numeroud little groups which each claimed to be more Marxis-Leninist than all thee rest occurred, a My impression is, that probably all of them were infiltrated by the Special Branch and gradually everyone in them got fed up and resigned. At least, that is how it looks to me.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
9:38 We are in a time of what is, I believe, called a state of "meta-stability", (in Europe) i.e. a state which in fact, although not moving much at the moment, is poised to move a very great deal. You know, like, say, the East Coast of Norfolk, UK, where every now and then a huge chunk of cliff collapses into the sea.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Calling this trouble in the US a "Cancer" seems to me to be a very good analogy.. It is embedded deeply in the substance of the US, in the central nervous system if you like. It further resembles a cancer in that as time goes on it takes more and more of the substance of the US, more of its lifeblood, if you like. It is also a very hard thing to break into, because it is circular in nature and very self-protective. I am sure that if anyone were seriously to threaten this cancer, their life would be in danger. The flow of money in it is circular but it all eventually comes from outside the cancer which consumes, but produces absolutely nothing , but trouble.
Being a vicious circle (A very vicious circle!), you cannot "start at the beginning", because there is no "beginning". So let's start with the Arms industry and the MIC. This is a series of very large companies and thousands of little companies that supply the big companies and their plants are spread in every state of the union. They all ultimately depend to a large extent, on orders from the USG. These orders are all more or less authorized, approved by or passed by or ignored by congress. The companies employ lobbyists to find out who will support the government in ordering large amounts of expensive equipment or expensive research from the MIC. The members of congress want the companies to prosper, because they provide relatively stable and well-paid work in their constituencies. As most of them have investments in the companies of the MIC they also like the fact that when these companies prosper, they themselves, receive large dividends from them. If a member of congress happens to land a position on a committee which has influence on what orders are placed with the MIC, when they retire, they will probably be offered a sinecure position on the board of one or more of these companies. When they are up for election, they will be given campaign contributions if they promise to support the arms program and if they do not so promise, their opponents will be given campaign contributions to run against them. The money that the lobbyists contribute, of course, comes from the companies of the MIC. Thus the circle is completed. For the people on the inside of this circle it is a very satisfactory set-up. For those on the outside it is really like a cancer in the body-politic.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
35:25 The Grinding down approach has the merit that while the Ukraine army fights, it is using up the CW's stock of weapons at an extraordinary rate. It is using these weapons profligately, probably faster than better trained troops would and, probably, with less effect than better trained troops would. If this goes on much longer, the CW's arsenals are going to be so depleted that they will not be able to sustain US or UK or French or German "boots on the Ground. (BotG).
To sustain a war effort (and particularly if you are at the same time building ships as fast as you can) you need steel, lots and lots of it and not just any old steel either. You need alloy steel and for that you need, in addition to iron, nickel, chromium, vanadium, manganese and I dare say other, more exotic components. You will also need lots of titanium, copper, tin and aluminium. You would also need uranium for electricity, and for driving submarines.
Most of the iron foundries and steel mills that used to be in Germany, the US and the UK have migrated to China. Steel comes, I believe, mostly from China these days. The UK used to make iron and steel but most of that industry was closed down by Thatcher. The aluminium mostly comes from Russia as does most of the titanium. Some, at least of the European plants making aluminium have closed down for lack of cheap Russian gas. So you would have to make do with the output of Iceland and Norway (and Canada?) Uranium also comes from Russia.
You would also need a lot of oil, for fuel, for lubrication and to make plastics. My impression is that most plastics these days, come from China and, of course, oil can be a bit of a problem!
It all looks like a logistical nightmare to me.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
21:41 In the West, you could not have such a factory set up and ready to start producing, say, shells, because it would be privately owned. That would mean that the accountants and the shareholders would be complaining that it was non-working capital, tied up in a non-productive way. It would either have to be used for something else or it would have to be written off and scrapped and the factory used for something else or sold to a, preferably, non-competing company. Anyway, idle plant in private industry, is regarded as a waste of capital. This is why the west has too little ammunition and very little chance of making much more any time soon.
In addition, I suspect that shells are relatively unprofitable and making state-of-the-art weapons pays many times better. So making shells has been neglected, and the factories that made them have been sold off for office building or some much more profitable activity such as financing car purchases.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I forget where I saw it but someone was bemoaning the complete abscence of Naval Tenders, which the US Navy scrapped some time ago, as with nuclear engines, the carriers did not need refuelling,(?) This move had, apparently, not taken account of the fact that ships need more than just fuel and lubricants. So whereas, in the past, if a carrier on station needed some more supplies, a tender would come alongside and the goods would be offloaded by the tender into the carrier, now, when the carrier runs low on supplies, of almost anything, it has to go to a naval port to be resupplied.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1:44:20 The Rules Based International Order is propaganda slogan without any factual basis. No one has ever formally defined it , for the good reason that if one did formalize it realistically it would amount to "We make the rules and you obey them; or else." Naturally, no one could possible lend their support to such a formulation, so it has to remain undefined. It has to remain as an advertising slogan. It sounds good, just so long as you don't ask, what exactly it means.
The Atlantic Council Strategy Paper Series December 16, 2020 has this to say about it:
"The rules-based international system was constructed mostly by leading democratic allies at the end of World War II, and was deepened and expanded by many other countries over time. The system is predicated on a set of norms and principles pertaining to global security, the economy, and governance. It consists of: a set of rules encouraging peaceful, predictable, and cooperative behavior among states that is consistent with liberal values and principles; formal institutional bodies, such as the United Nations (UN) and NATO, that serve to legitimize and uphold these rules, and provide a forum to discuss and settle disputes; and the role of powerful democratic states to help preserve and defend the system. In the security realm, the system is characterized by formal alliances in Europe and Asia, in addition to rules that protect state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and place limits on the use of military force and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the economic domain, the rules-based system has served to promote an interconnected global economy based on free markets and open trade and finance. Finally, in the realm of governance, the rules-based system advanced democratic values and human rights. The system has never been fixed, but has evolved over time, with major periods of adaptation and expansion at major inflection points after World War II and at the end of the Cold War.
Note the last sentence: "The system has never been fixed," In other words "we make it up as we go along to suit our own convenience."
4
-
4
-
4
-
I's a long list: Wheat, lumber, oil, aluminium, nickel, palladium, neon, deuterium, tritium, coal....... it goes on and on. I think the trouble is that the people in power in the west have graduated in political economy or media studies, or classical history or, you know, some other non-rigorous subject where imagination is more important than logical thought, appearance is more important than substance and no automatic application of scepticism is required. Add to that there is an almost complete lack of graduates in STEM subjects and apparently, no grasp of quantities and numbers. Worse, no grasp of the old discoveries that "action and reaction are equal and opposite" and "all actions have consequences."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alexander will be familiar with this but I would like Jimmy and Glenn to see it if they haven't already.
Almost all the conflict that has plagued the World since 1945 has originated in the US, because of its obssession with being the World Hegemon. The constsnt war-mongering has its seat in what I call the "Vicious circle" in Washington DC. This circular structure is fed, willy-nilly by the us taxpayer and passes out money to the shareholders and employees of the weapons mfgs and the lobbyist industry, shareholders and employees and the MSM feeds off advertising bought by the weapon mfgs. It consists of various parts: the congress-critters, the weapons manufacturers, the United States Government and the lobbying industry.
The vicious circle functions in the following way: being circular there is no startpoint or end point, but I will start with the congress-critters, who vote for payments to the arms mfgs. The government then orders the weapons and pays the weapons mfgs. The weapons mfgs then pay their shareholders and employees and the lobbyists who pay the congress-critters' election expenses on condition that they vote "the right way" and so it goes round and round with the MSM carrying adverts from the arms mfgs and helping along with stories to alarm the general public.
This structure is very powerful, very rich, quite ruthless and very well established. So long as it exists in its present form, I doubt that the World will ever know peace. The only solution I can think of, is if the US is handed a resounding defeat in Ukraine and the Russians insist that all arms mfgs must be nationalised enterprises, with no other shareholder than the government of their country. This, by cutting the financial nexus, and removing the built-in conflict of interest bedevilling the arms industry, would kill the "Vicious Circle" stone-dead
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
8:10 Listening to AC, I realised that the hunt for "Terrorists" exactly mirrors the medieval hunt for "Heretics" and later for "Catholics" and then, in turn for "Dissenters", "Diggers", "Levellers", "Anarchists", "Communists", & "Drug Pushers". It seems that the Ruling Class, always requires a "dangerous enemy" and lacking such, will always manufacture it. It does so because it is always afraid of its working classes and feels the need for extra protection against it. Hence the "Special Branch in Britan, and Homeland Security (and the other 16 or so 3-letter agencies) in the US.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
15:32 It is precisely because the US has never worried about killing civilians that they whole-heartedly backed the g*nocid*l policies of their ally in the ME. They have never seen anything wrong with killing civilians and because they were perceived as being undefeatably strong they were allowed to get away with it. Since the failure of the "Multi-seasonal Offensive" in Ukraine, perceptions have changed, the fragile nature of the paper-tiger has come into focus and the whole edifice, which was held together by fear, has started to crumble away at an astonishing pace.
Another point is (I don't know how important it is) that the war in Gaza has elements of an inter-religious war, which means, that at least on the Muslim side, people may well be willing to take inordinate risks, "to defeat the invaders", thinking that even if they die in the cause, they will automatically go to Heaven as Matryrs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
17:24 There is no doubt in my mind that when BoJo and Biden promised "Unlimited aid", until Russia was defeated, they meant it seriously. They believed, like nearly everyone else, that NATO was, vastly more powerful than it has turned out to be. They thought that NATO was a real Tiger and that Russia was a pussy-cat by comparison! Well that's what happens when you believe your own propaganda instead of doing the necessary calculations and research. They had no idea how many shells and drones and missiles and airplanes and helicopters the Russians had, nor how few the West had and they believed that the Russian forces were stupid, lazy, incompetent, corrupt, badly trained, badly armed, disorganized and mutinous. So of course, they thought the well-trained, battle-hardened, motivated, well-armed Ukrainians were going to wipe the floor with the Russians. Why would they not have thought that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
9:08 In medieval times the Italians produced armour for knights which was totally unsuitable for battle, but which was intended to look wonderful in a parade. There is also the story that when our moustachioed friend vitisted Italy, Mussolini had a huge number of cardboard battle tanks built and had them stationed all along the railway line that the visitor's train would travel. He also had the entire Italian army, send everyone it could spare for the day, to stand around near the tanks, so that his guest, got an entirely false impression of Italy's military might.
Come to think of it, I once met a man who had been a tanker in North Africa during WW2. He told me that Italian tanks were much safer to be in than US or British tanks because they were made of such thin material that a bullet would pass straight tthrough them and unless you happened to be in the wrong place you were unhurt. Also they were much lighter and therefore much speedier than the lumbering giants of the allies, If you got hit by an anti-tank rocket the chances were that it too, would pass straight through without exploding, while if you were in an allied tank you would almost certainly be killed by the spray of molten steel that came into the interior.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
28:04 Its not just that the US benefits from the Nordstream sabotage (NSS), that Biden, Sullivan (Or was it Blinken?) and Nuland said they were going to NSS, that they had the means to carry out NSS, and that they also had the opportunity to do the deed, but that the site of NSS, was heavily patrolled by N@0 and any Russian Naval Vessel in those waters would have been closely watched. If that is not an "open & shut case", it must be pretty close!
So you have statement of intent, the opportunity, the means, the motive, and an alibi for everyone, else except those who might have done it for the US.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
31:00 As I see it, there is a small but powerful faction in the West that really HATES Russia and wants all day and every day to attack and destroy Russia, so that they can feast on the remains. They can't do it, because Russia is too strong, but the intention, the hope, the aspiration, is always there. Hence the constant establishment of new bases all over the World, since the end of WW2. Sometimes it is more hidden than at other times but it is a constant factor. It really makes "Negotiations", with the West pointless. What is needed is to make sure that Russia is strong enough, to keep the desires of this clique as just desires.
If I conclude anything from this, it is that the Russians should buck-up their propaganda and PR efforts, The Ukrainian war is, at least in part, the result of the West's underestimating the strength of the Russians, economically, politically and militarily. PR and propaganda, is MUCH CHEAPER than war and it may well be the alternative.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
10:07 The problem is this: The Europeans have followed the USA down the rabbit hole into a severe slump, induced by cutting off Europe's supply of cheap energy from Russia and the USA is now demanding, that they contribute more to NATO, which in very fact is not and never has been, a "Defensive" alliance. (It has never come to the defenso of anyone except after 9/11 and that was a put-up job anyway.) It has always attacked other countries, that the US and Israel wanted reduced in power, no wonder they are worried.
The other point to condider is that armies are always the last resort of the ruling class to keep themselves in power. That is the principal reason why countries have armies. The threats of external enemies are very largely and most of the time, excuses for having them. NATO backs up the other five or six layers of protection that the ruling classes surround themselves with, the Police, the Education system, the MSM and publishing system, the burocracy. Dismantling NATO at a time when the farmers in various NATO countries look as though they might be considering going home for their pitchforks, is an alarming idea. Particularly given the parlous state of most of the armies in the CW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:20 To understand US foreign policy you have to bear in mind, all the time, that the aim and object of the policy is not to make friends, it is to achieve Global Hegemony. They cannot do it by out-competing the Eurasian bloc that they have succeeded in creating, so they are determined to do it by downgrading the Eurasians, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. By hook or by Crook!
Actually, the BIGGEST OBSTACLE by far, at the moment, to their making Friends, at all, is their alliance with and support of Israel. Anyone looking at the genocide taking place there can be expected to think: "What is happening to the Palestinians Today, could just as well happen to us Tomorrow!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
!:34:38 When one learms about "science" and the "Scientific Method"; one learns that, in scientific work, one first observes and tries to draw conclusions to explain the thing observed. The explanation is called a hypothesis. One then devises experiments to test the conclusions, to test the hypothesis. One then observes the results of the experiments and either they confirm the hypothesis or they don't. If they do, one devises other experiments to test the hypothesis further. If they don't, one make a new hypothese to explain all the results and then test the new hypothesis and so on until you feel satisfied that you understand whatever it is you are studying. At that point your hypothesis, is dignified with the appelation of a theory. All the time, you have to keep in mind that you may be overlooking something important and that all conclusions are subject to revision, when newly discovered facts do not fit the theory. (I.e. "It ain't neccessarily so!")
Now, in the West, most politicians are not scientists nor are they scientifically trained. This is shown up, by such episodes as the recent spate of sanctions on Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and many others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These are "crazy" plans all right, but they are persistent, Governments change, but the new governments accept the same "Crazy" plans. I think you have to follow the command structure and the old adage: CUI BONO? If this is a Younohuish revenge on the Russian/the Christians (?) for being thrown out of Khazaria,1200 years ago, however absurd that idea sounds, it would explain the consistency. I mean, this is not new, it goes way back to the 19th Century at least. The excuses for the unremitting hostility vary, Russian imperialism, Communism, being "too large", not having the "Right Values" and so on but the hostility is constant. Look at the ethnicity of thr Hostiles, they are mostly of one type and or married to a spouse of that same ethnicity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:05:00 Personally, I feel that logically, the defeat in Ukraine ought to lead to the winding up of NATO. After all, Nato was sold to the participating countries, as being this great, invincible, Military machine, "The greatest Military Machine the World has ever seen" (No less!), which no mere Russia would ever dare to attack, That, which if anyone did dare to attack any member, all would pile in to defend the victim, et hic genus omne. Having de-militarized NATO and the US, I would hope that the Russians would insist on something, more like what they were talking about in Gecember 2021.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe there are a few people in Washington, London, Brussels and Warsaw who would just LOVE to start WW3, using any excuse!
The SMO in Ukraine, has shown, beyond doubt, that NATO is a) unwilling to meet the Russians on the battlefield and b) unable to produce the necessary volume of arms to defeat them if they ever did get to fight them. Mao was right! "All reactionaries are Paper Tigers!" NATO is, in my view, hamstrung by the MIC which is intent on making, not usable, robust weapons, which can stand up to battlefield conditions, but weapons which look impressive, sound impressive, and make a lot of money for the MIC (and never mind the performance! In any case, they are not supposed to be USED!).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Japanese used things very like modern high-explosive shells in the Battle of Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. A long time ago I read a very interesting book called: "Tsushima, the Death of a Floating City" written by a man who was an engineering officer on a Russian battleship, of the Baltic Fleet, who was captured in the battle that effectively destroyed the Russian navy, at Tsushima, which is somewhere between Japan and China. He reported that the Russian shells, which were filled with black powder, "merely took the paint off" Japanese ships when they hit them, which was not that often. While Japanese shells, were filled with high-explosive and destroyed the Russian ships, when they hit, with most shells hitting what they were aimed at.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
8:05 NATO is not weaker than it was, in February 2022, BUT, its real weakness has been exposed, like never before. "The mightiest military Machine the World has ever seen", with its massive armies, fleets of aircraft, thousands of tanks, limitless fleets of armoured vehicles of every sort, massive fleets patrolling the World's oceans and with the US at least, with military bases all over the World, etc., etc., that existed in the public imagination, has been shown to lack, not merely ammunition, but the ability to produce it in the quantities needed, in the requisite time-frame! It's expertise, has also suffered a terrible dimuniton in public estimation, for its reckless and frankly stupid, overestimation of the Ukrainians and its underestimation of the Russians. Its planning and forethought have also been shown to be severely deficient by the disaster that was the long-touted Offensive and its obvoius lack of any plan of what to do now that it is losing the war. ("Oops! We did not think of that!")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterrinas3862 As Kissinger put it: (Or words to that effect) "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, to be a friend is fatal."
I am older than you, I worked in many dying companies in Britain. Post Margaret Thatcher, there were many of them. I applied for a job in a company that was not dying (It made machinery for making pet food.) I submitted a resume of my previous jobs, the interviewer said:" There is one thing I don't like about your resume, nearly every company you worked for has gone bankrupt!" I had to explain to him, that when companies were going out of business, staff left, but they still had orders to fulfil, so they had to employ people like me, on a temporary basis, to finish off the work.
Many of the companies I worked for, were in the process of moving their work to Germany. I think you were 30-50 years ahead of us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I donot agree with this assessment of NATO at all.
After WW2 there was a very powerful MIC in the US and a lack of customers for it. The MIC itself was almost entirely privately owned. It needed customers to survive. It therefore invented "the Soviet threat", to persuade the population of the Western countries that they needed to buy large quantities of weapons to defend themselves from the imaginary threat posed by the Soviet Union. I say "imaginary" because at Yalta, Stalin, Churchill and FDR had carved up the World into sphere of influence which all of them, religiously, stuck to until the USSR finally collapsed.
At some time after the end of WW2, I don't know exactly when it happened, the practice of Lobbying (Bribery) was legalised and the MIC was effectivly able to buy Congressional support and with that, to buy the US government, which has been the situation ever since. Since that happened, the foreign policy of the US has been determined by the interests, not of the US people, but the interests of the MIC! It still is. Being a collection of greedy capitalists and their shareholders, it is willing to take horrendous risks with the safety of the World merely to increase their quarterly returns. Expanding NATO simply increases the revenue stream. It is an odd phenomenon. I cannot think of another example of the same or an analogous phenomenon in history, nor even from evolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorenzomagazzeni5425 China is a country about the same size as the US. It use to be the case that some parts were so far from the main centres of population that it took weeks or even month to get there. With enemy organizations always trying to stir up trouble, it made it easier for them if the centre was weeks away. It was difficult to develop the outer parts of the country, because it was so hard to get people and things into and out of the far away places. If someone fell seriously ill, in some parts of old China, they would die before a doctor could get to them or they could get to a doctor (See a book by Josh Horne called "Away with all pests!") To develop the economy and to raise all people out of poverty it was neccessary to enable everybody to be able to trade with each other. So the government built roads to every village, masses of bridges to shorten routs and then railways. Evidently, they thought that while they were building a railway they might as well make it a high speed one. The result is that the interior of China is now developing rapidly. Instead of weeks it now takes a matter of hours to get from one end of the country to the other. People in remote villages can sell stuff on the internet by post and they do.
The problem with the wheels of an HST, is that the centrifugal force on a wheel rotating that fast is huge and unless the wheel is very strong it will fly to pieces. If you make it as a solid lump of steel the noise is terrible. The other problem is the bearings which have to be quite special, as otherwise they might seize up and derail the train, or as happened once in Germany a composite wheel came apart in the course of a journey, the rim of the wheel unrolled and came up through the floor of the carriage, passing between two people sitting there! The train left the track and IMMSMC hit a bridge. Quite a lot of people were killed.
Obviously, the railways are an important strategic asset too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The governments over the years have followed policies that have come back to bite them now. They have failed to fund the development of tidal power, which while not continuous in any one place can be effectively continuous, because the tides happen at different times in different places. It has failed to fund adequately, the development of geothermal power, which is continuous, it has failed to build new nuclear power stations in time and to cap it all, it has had a lot of bad luck, in that the French nuclear power stations, which supplied a lot of cheap power to Britain, cannot do so at the moment because the drought affecting France has left the power stations there bereft of cooling water, while the Norwegian hydroelectric power stations are affected by drought also, as are, I imagine, British hydroelectric power stations too. On top of that wind turbines have produced less than expected because of a lack of wind. Then of course there is the issue of sanctions - a strictly, and willfully self-inflicted injury if ever there was! Probably, most of the British government's policy on power generation can be explained on the assumption that it was was designed to suit the major oil companies, as for example the decision to sell off the North Sea oil and gas fields to them. No doubt, they are large contributors to the Conservative party's funds and, maybe the Labour party's also.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BertoxolusThePuzzled The universities such as Cambridge and Oxford, Paris, Heidelberg, and Padua were, as you say, founded by the RC Church. However, as they were set up to study everything, not just how to be a priest, they naturally, over time, caused the people in them to question things and spot the contradictions in the Bible. (Which most "ordinary" people did not ever read for themselves). This led to disputes over dogma and eventually to the "Reformation".
1