VE DAY

[soarer]

Well said sir I totally agree.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-16 1:12 PM

pelmetman - 2017-05-15 7:45 PM..............................Just because John52 is the O&L Jeremy Corbyn.......does that mean he deserves special treatment ?.....

No, it just means his views deserves to be taken seriously, and argued with rationally, rather than him being personally attacked for his views. Disagree with him by all means - I too find some of his views rather extreme - but don't call someone an idiot just because they have views you don't agree with. Most of the argument is about history. So, if you know his version is wrong, show him where and how he is wrong, by quoting the "correct" version. That way we may all learn something. All history is part politics (not party politics) because, as is famously said, history is invariably written by the victor. There is always more than one version of historic "truth", but some never learn that, and cannot cope when the version they learnt is thrown into question. They then tend to be come irate, and shout, or call the other person a fool. I know this: my father was a past master at exploding at anyone who questioned "his" version!

How can you or anyone take him seriously (John that is) when he constantly litters his responses with (irrelevant to the topic)his seemingly obsessive hatred of the Monarchy, elements of Government and the Armed Forces etc etc?

Why was it necessary to slag Churchill if not to vent his bile?  Why include comment on the Duke of Westminster in this thread?  Almost every thread he ever gets involved with he peppers with his inane irrelevant comments which ruins the run of the topic.

Opinions, views I can accept when there is a relevance.  Continued outpouring of non applicable bile I find difficult to accept.  Argued rationally?  Oh come on where is there ever an opportunity to enter into 'rational' discourse with him?  I have tried a few times to do so but to no avail.  He finds it impossible not to divert the topic with his litany of hatred ergo there is no opportunity to hold a rational argument with him.  I should realise by now the best thing is as was mentioned in another contribution.....ignore him because how does one hold a 'rational' discourse with someone who is clearly irrational?

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-16 1:12 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-15 7:45 PM..............................Just because John52 is the O&L Jeremy Corbyn.......does that mean he deserves special treatment ?.....

No, it just means his views deserves to be taken seriously, and argued with rationally, rather than him being personally attacked for his views. Disagree with him by all means - I too find some of his views rather extreme - but don't call someone an idiot just because they have views you don't agree with.

 

Most of the argument is about history. So, if you know his version is wrong, show him where and how he is wrong, by quoting the "correct" version. That way we may all learn something. All history is part politics (not party politics) because, as is famously said, history is invariably written by the victor. There is always more than one version of historic "truth", but some never learn that, and cannot cope when the version they learnt is thrown into question. They then tend to be come irate, and shout, or call the other person a fool. I know this: my father was a past master at exploding at anyone who questioned "his" version!

 

"I too find some of his views rather extreme - but don't call someone an idiot just because they have views you don't agree with" ... That comment must also be true when calling folk racists and bigots then Brian when folk on here show concern regarding immigration and immigrants and refugees and the rest ... Im glad you've pointed that out

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-16 3:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-16 1:12 PM

pelmetman - 2017-05-15 7:45 PM..............................Just because John52 is the O&L Jeremy Corbyn.......does that mean he deserves special treatment ?.....

No, it just means his views deserves to be taken seriously, and argued with rationally, rather than him being personally attacked for his views. Disagree with him by all means - I too find some of his views rather extreme - but don't call someone an idiot just because they have views you don't agree with. Most of the argument is about history. So, if you know his version is wrong, show him where and how he is wrong, by quoting the "correct" version. That way we may all learn something. All history is part politics (not party politics) because, as is famously said, history is invariably written by the victor. There is always more than one version of historic "truth", but some never learn that, and cannot cope when the version they learnt is thrown into question. They then tend to be come irate, and shout, or call the other person a fool. I know this: my father was a past master at exploding at anyone who questioned "his" version!

How can you or anyone take him seriously (John that is) when he constantly litters his responses with (irrelevant to the topic)his seemingly obsessive hatred of the Monarchy, elements of Government and the Armed Forces etc etc?

Why was it necessary to slag Churchill if not to vent his bile?  Why include comment on the Duke of Westminster in this thread?  Almost every thread he ever gets involved with he peppers with his inane irrelevant comments which ruins the run of the topic.

Opinions, views I can accept when there is a relevance.  Continued outpouring of non applicable bile I find difficult to accept.  Argued rationally?  Oh come on where is there ever an opportunity to enter into 'rational' discourse with him?  I have tried a few times to do so but to no avail.  He finds it impossible not to divert the topic with his litany of hatred ergo there is no opportunity to hold a rational argument with him.  I should realise by now the best thing is as was mentioned in another contribution.....ignore him because how does one hold a 'rational' discourse with someone who is clearly irrational?

You have quoted Brian's comment, and then ignored it, so I doubt if I will have any success. But I'll try. The Duke of Westminster was an illustration of how the military most benefits those with most property to defend. At the other end of the scale, a guy living on the streets (and still paying tax like VAT), might not appreciate the Government closing homeless shelters to pay for the highest military spending in Europe because he has got no property to defend.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-16 7:04 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 3:13 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-16 1:12 PM

pelmetman - 2017-05-15 7:45 PM..............................Just because John52 is the O&L Jeremy Corbyn.......does that mean he deserves special treatment ?.....

No, it just means his views deserves to be taken seriously, and argued with rationally, rather than him being personally attacked for his views. Disagree with him by all means - I too find some of his views rather extreme - but don't call someone an idiot just because they have views you don't agree with. Most of the argument is about history. So, if you know his version is wrong, show him where and how he is wrong, by quoting the "correct" version. That way we may all learn something. All history is part politics (not party politics) because, as is famously said, history is invariably written by the victor. There is always more than one version of historic "truth", but some never learn that, and cannot cope when the version they learnt is thrown into question. They then tend to be come irate, and shout, or call the other person a fool. I know this: my father was a past master at exploding at anyone who questioned "his" version!

How can you or anyone take him seriously (John that is) when he constantly litters his responses with (irrelevant to the topic)his seemingly obsessive hatred of the Monarchy, elements of Government and the Armed Forces etc etc?

Why was it necessary to slag Churchill if not to vent his bile?  Why include comment on the Duke of Westminster in this thread?  Almost every thread he ever gets involved with he peppers with his inane irrelevant comments which ruins the run of the topic.

Opinions, views I can accept when there is a relevance.  Continued outpouring of non applicable bile I find difficult to accept.  Argued rationally?  Oh come on where is there ever an opportunity to enter into 'rational' discourse with him?  I have tried a few times to do so but to no avail.  He finds it impossible not to divert the topic with his litany of hatred ergo there is no opportunity to hold a rational argument with him.  I should realise by now the best thing is as was mentioned in another contribution.....ignore him because how does one hold a 'rational' discourse with someone who is clearly irrational?

You have quoted Brian's comment, and then ignored it, so I doubt if I will have any success. But I'll try. The Duke of Westminster was an illustration of how the military most benefits those with most property to defend. At the other end of the scale, a guy living on the streets (and still paying tax like VAT), might not appreciate the Government closing homeless shelters to pay for the highest military spending in Europe because he has got no property to defend.

Once again you have to deliver a barbed comment regarding your clear dislike of the level of military spending in this country but are quite happy to live under the umbrella of those who have given, and continue to give their all to allow you to do so.

How does the extent of ones 'estate' determine or influence the degree of reliance on the military?  It might mean the estate owner has more to loose in terms of tangible assets but when it comes to the bottom line what one is left with is life and limb.....freedom as we know it yet you have to bring in the divisive comments that really are nothing more than an excuse for you to spout your bile towards the 'establishment'.  

There are aspects of that 'establishment' that I too occasionally despair of their actions.  However the difference between you and me is that I do not hijack almost every thread in order to insert some irrelevant, or at best seriously tenuous link in order to inject your obsessive bile.

Should you care to look further....beyond your clear hatred of most things the population of this country holds dear you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

However I suspect that doesn't meet with your UK bashing agenda so I won't hold my breath.

Lastly as I have said before there are occasions when I agree with your sentiments/opinion and respond accordingly.  However when you revert to the insertion of unrelated/ultra tenuous links to provide a platform for your outpourings of hatred I find it quite unpleasant and respond accordingly.  Therefore should you decide to post 'on topic' adding condemnation/disagreement only where appropriate we might just get back to an acceptable level of interaction.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM

you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'

(I can't call it it 'defence' spending when its being used for the illegal invasion of Iraq)

My only experience of Germany is being treated very well, and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity and egalitarianism leading to a very low crime rate and prison population.

Wheras the British Government seems to think it has more obligation to increase its military spending than towards the homeless.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-15 7:45 PM

 

Just because John52 is the O&L Jeremy Corbyn....

 

 

Actually, something Jeremy Corbyn said in the Leaders interview on ITV struck a cord with me.

He said they won't engage in debate, and can only offer personal abuse.

Perhaps referring to Theresa May's refusal to debate with him on live TV.

Wheras politicians can agree questions in advance with interviewers as a condition of appearing on their programme, she wouldn't be able to do that if debating with another politician.

[Bop]

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

 

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'

 

Not much at all TBH. They've continued to trail way behind the UK in terms of what % of its GDP is allocated to NATO (UK is 2.2%; Germany is 1.2%).

 

The US (3.2%GDP for NATO) is becoming somewhat peeved by the whole NATO- thing and the likes of Germany consistantly avoid their full payment (2%GDP) as they simply can't afford it and, like the US have alluded too, can get away with it so will.

 

The US (IMO) will step up the pressure on NATO members regarding the shared payment scheme and if the likes of Germany continue to lack commitment to said scheme (as they originally promised years back), then the US will start to withdraw its commitment to within better 'financial boundaries'.

 

The last few years have seen only 5-countries fulfill their NATO obligations - US, UK, Poland, Greece and Estonia; even France has not been able to step up to the table with 1.8%.

 

The remaining countries have been sailing on a free ticket for far too long.

[John52]

Do we really need to spend that much?

Being surrounded by sea should make us cheaper to defend.

Defending our shores from invasion is one thing

Although as Jeremy Corbyn pointed out our biggest threat is terrorism and cyber attacks - no help from our most expensive weapons there.

But should we be increasing the poverty in England to defend tax havens thousands of miles away?

[Bop]

John52 - 2017-05-17 11:16 AM

 

Do we really need to spend that much?

 

This is a difficult question to answer since our forces are no longer configured as an independent system. Instead, the current military configuration has been strategised on the proviso that we maintain maximum interoperability and cohesion alongside our primary political allies. The NATO-thing is merely a tool these days to help underpin the cohesive nature (including the shared expenditure) for joint force deployments; the British Aircraft carriers and the use of French jets is a prime example of asset sharing for mission deployments.

 

Personally speaking, If I were to have any beef with the military system in the UK then it's with the politicians who have continually moved each other's overseas political goal posts from one election campaign to the next.

 

This is where the problem lies John and why so much money (IMO) is wasted because the military is constantly trying to adjust to the new political agenda of the day. It takes over a decade, at least, for a military system to change its modus operandi, and strategic focus, to any degree of effectiveness, so when the political lay of the land changes every 2-5 years then what chance does the military system have in terms of achieving a desirable end state; not much perhaps!

 

That being said, if I was the country boss for a day with only one executive order to make then my choice would be to half the DFID budget and redirect those squandered funds to better causes in the UK whether that be poverty, NHS, infrastructure, governance etc etc. My own dealings with DFID have proved on many-many-many occasions just what a waste of time and money that organisation is.

 

 

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

[John52]

Bop - 2017-05-17 1:11 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-17 11:16 AM

 

Do we really need to spend that much?

 

This is a difficult question to answer since our forces are no longer configured as an independent system. Instead, the current military configuration has been strategised on the proviso that we maintain maximum interoperability and cohesion alongside our primary political allies. The NATO-thing is merely a tool these days to help underpin the cohesive nature (including the shared expenditure) for joint force deployments; the British Aircraft carriers and the use of French jets is a prime example of asset sharing for mission deployments.

 

Personally speaking, If I were to have any beef with the military system in the UK then it's with the politicians who have continually moved each other's overseas political goal posts from one election campaign to the next.

 

This is where the problem lies John and why so much money (IMO) is wasted because the military is constantly trying to adjust to the new political agenda of the day. It takes over a decade, at least, for a military system to change its modus operandi, and strategic focus, to any degree of effectiveness, so when the political lay of the land changes every 2-5 years then what chance does the military system have in terms of achieving a desirable end state; not much perhaps!

 

That being said, if I was the country boss for a day with only one executive order to make then my choice would be to half the DFID budget and redirect those squandered funds to better causes in the UK whether that be poverty, NHS, infrastructure, governance etc etc. My own dealings with DFID have proved on many-many-many occasions just what a waste of time and money that organisation is.

 

Unfortunately moving the goalposts has long been a feature of British politics- like in the Prison service where they constantly swing back and forth between rehabilitation and punishment. Another reason for reducing spending because if they didn't spend so much they couldn't waste so much :-D

But the DFID provides plum jobs for the boys going abroad dishing out our money. They certainly show more enthusiasm for that than the homeless in their own back yard of Westminster :-S

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-17 1:13 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

So it might make the Germans think about it if we reduced our military spending their level?We have the advantage of being surrounded by sea. A barrier which stopped Hitlers army even after they had routed the combined British and French armies in 6 weeks.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-17 1:53 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 1:13 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

So it might make the Germans think about it if we reduced our military spending their level?We have the advantage of being surrounded by sea. A barrier which stopped Hitlers army even after they had routed the combined British and French armies in 6 weeks.

Clearly the Channel was a barrier however without materiel,  and resources allied to sufficient control of the skies he had no option but to call off Operation Sea Lion:

This was for a number of good reasons:

Germany had no military invasion fleet, being forced to use wooden river barges, which were collected in rivers of northern France, where they were bombed repeatedly by the RAF.

For the seaborne invasion to have crossed the English Channel, Germany needed to sink the Royal Navy, a feat it never looked liked being able to accomplish.

To have crossed the Channel and maintained logistics, Germany also needed to defeat the RAF, so after Germany had lost the Battle of Britain by 11 October, 1940, such an invasion was doomed to failure.

However one needs to look at the bigger picture.  It is not just 'us' we need to consider NATO as a whole, what it has provided and continues to provide.  Just because one of the 'supposedly larger contributory' nations reneges on it's responsibilities surely that is not sufficient reason for 'us' to stoop to their level and in doing so most likely bring an end to the alliance as we know it? 

[nowtelse2do]

Bop - 2017-05-17 11:00 AM

 

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

 

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'

 

Not much at all TBH. They've continued to trail way behind the UK in terms of what % of its GDP is allocated to NATO (UK is 2.2%; Germany is 1.2%).

 

The US (3.2%GDP for NATO) is becoming somewhat peeved by the whole NATO- thing and the likes of Germany consistantly avoid their full payment (2%GDP) as they simply can't afford it and, like the US have alluded too, can get away with it so will.

 

The US (IMO) will step up the pressure on NATO members regarding the shared payment scheme and if the likes of Germany continue to lack commitment to said scheme (as they originally promised years back), then the US will start to withdraw its commitment to within better 'financial boundaries'.

 

The last few years have seen only 5-countries fulfill their NATO obligations - US, UK, Poland, Greece and Estonia; even France has not been able to step up to the table with 1.8%.

 

The remaining countries have been sailing on a free ticket for far too long.

 

It's not as if Germany is without a bob (euro) or two is it?

 

Dave

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/bundesbank-hauls-its-gold-back-from-new-york-and-paris-2016-12?IR=T

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-17 2:05 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 1:53 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 1:13 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

So it might make the Germans think about it if we reduced our military spending their level?We have the advantage of being surrounded by sea. A barrier which stopped Hitlers army even after they had routed the combined British and French armies in 6 weeks.

Clearly the Channel was a barrier however without materiel,  and resources allied to sufficient control of the skies he had no option but to call off Operation Sea Lion:

This was for a number of good reasons:

Germany had no military invasion fleet, being forced to use wooden river barges, which were collected in rivers of northern France, where they were bombed repeatedly by the RAF.

For the seaborne invasion to have crossed the English Channel, Germany needed to sink the Royal Navy, a feat it never looked liked being able to accomplish.

To have crossed the Channel and maintained logistics, Germany also needed to defeat the RAF, so after Germany had lost the Battle of Britain by 11 October, 1940, such an invasion was doomed to failure.

However one needs to look at the bigger picture.  It is not just 'us' we need to consider NATO as a whole, what it has provided and continues to provide.  Just because one of the 'supposedly larger contributory' nations reneges on it's responsibilities surely that is not sufficient reason for 'us' to stoop to their level and in doing so most likely bring an end to the alliance as we know it? 

Would it bring NATO to an end if we stopped closing homeless shelters to increase our military spending? Last figures I saw Britain had the highest military spending in Europe, but since it was measured in US dollars before the pound crashed after the Brexit vote, Britain might have fallen below first place. But we are still a long way above the European average in military spending, despite being surrounded by water which is an advantage they don't have.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

 

Wheras the British Government seems to think it has more obligation to increase its military spending than towards the homeless.

 

......and the increase in the homeless is due to what John? ;-) ........being members of the EU *-) .......

 

In Weymouth there are loads of beggars on the street during the day, along with the obligatory Eastern European "Big Issue" seller ........

 

Those British beggars all have hostel accommodation according to my SIL who's just retired from the DSS.......

 

So I suspect those who sleep rough are in the main from the Eastern Europe :-|.......if they decide to come here to sleep rough, that's really not our problem is it? >:-) ..........

 

 

 

 

[Bop]

nowtelse2do - 2017-05-17 6:47 PM

 

Bop - 2017-05-17 11:00 AM

 

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

 

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'

 

Not much at all TBH. They've continued to trail way behind the UK in terms of what % of its GDP is allocated to NATO (UK is 2.2%; Germany is 1.2%).

 

The US (3.2%GDP for NATO) is becoming somewhat peeved by the whole NATO- thing and the likes of Germany consistantly avoid their full payment (2%GDP) as they simply can't afford it and, like the US have alluded too, can get away with it so will.

 

The US (IMO) will step up the pressure on NATO members regarding the shared payment scheme and if the likes of Germany continue to lack commitment to said scheme (as they originally promised years back), then the US will start to withdraw its commitment to within better 'financial boundaries'.

 

The last few years have seen only 5-countries fulfill their NATO obligations - US, UK, Poland, Greece and Estonia; even France has not been able to step up to the table with 1.8%.

 

The remaining countries have been sailing on a free ticket for far too long.

 

It's not as if Germany is without a bob (euro) or two is it?

 

Dave

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/bundesbank-hauls-its-gold-back-from-new-york-and-paris-2016-12?IR=T

 

That's a fair point indeed Dave. I should have expanded my post by saying that Germany has no appetite for an increased military budget as it knows that the US will pick up the tab in its capacity as the 'Global Police'.

 

I can recall back in 2009 when I was in Baghdad and the German Embassy was bombed (vehicle-borne) as a consequence of the German Government re-signing an extended military SOFA in Afghanistan the day before; talk about indirect effects and consequences eh. The Iraq-based embassy was targeted within 18-hours of the SOFA being formally signed. The point here is that the German political machine (behind the scenes) went into wibble-wobble mode and it indicated to us, perhaps for the first time, that Germany's appetite for military commitment overseas was starting to waver. IMO Germany has since reduced its military commitments to the current global requirment and this has subsequently allowed for it to reduce its portion of GDP expenditure accordingly.

 

I'll be interested to see what pressures will be brought to bare by the US in terms of it pressurising the NATO members to up their respective financial commitments.

 

This is hurting my brain (it's far too early for serious stuff) so I'm off for a coffee and a chocolate biscuit. :-D

[Bop]

John52 - 2017-05-18 5:17 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 2:05 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 1:53 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 1:13 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

So it might make the Germans think about it if we reduced our military spending their level?We have the advantage of being surrounded by sea. A barrier which stopped Hitlers army even after they had routed the combined British and French armies in 6 weeks.

Clearly the Channel was a barrier however without materiel,  and resources allied to sufficient control of the skies he had no option but to call off Operation Sea Lion:

This was for a number of good reasons:

Germany had no military invasion fleet, being forced to use wooden river barges, which were collected in rivers of northern France, where they were bombed repeatedly by the RAF.

For the seaborne invasion to have crossed the English Channel, Germany needed to sink the Royal Navy, a feat it never looked liked being able to accomplish.

To have crossed the Channel and maintained logistics, Germany also needed to defeat the RAF, so after Germany had lost the Battle of Britain by 11 October, 1940, such an invasion was doomed to failure.

However one needs to look at the bigger picture.  It is not just 'us' we need to consider NATO as a whole, what it has provided and continues to provide.  Just because one of the 'supposedly larger contributory' nations reneges on it's responsibilities surely that is not sufficient reason for 'us' to stoop to their level and in doing so most likely bring an end to the alliance as we know it? 

Would it bring NATO to an end if we stopped closing homeless shelters to increase our military spending? Last figures I saw Britain had the highest military spending in Europe, but since it was measured in US dollars before the pound crashed after the Brexit vote, Britain might have fallen below first place. But we are still a long way above the European average in military spending, despite being surrounded by water which is an advantage they don't have.

I know where you're trying to go with this but isn't the NATO financial model and the EU model much of the same, i.e. Where 3-5 main players prop up the financial health of the rest.In monatry terms alone what would happen to the EU if it lost the combined financial inputs of the U.K., Germany and France - the rest of Europe would find that it just about had enough funds to buy 20 bags of Haribo sweets for a kids party.The same goes for NATO. If it wasn't for the likes of the US (predominantly) then does anyone really think that NATO would survive in any decent form beyond Xmas-2017.Albania (as an example) contributes 1.2% of its GDP to its military which when you look at its GDP is worth bugger all.The US on the other hand allocates 3.2% of an 18-Trillion dollar GDP (figures as per 2015) to its military so in real terms it's just by the grace of God that NATO is still intact.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-18 8:04 AM

Those British beggars all have hostel accommodation according to my SIL who's just retired from the DSS.......

 

Hard to see how these hostels are funded with a zero budget: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/21/uk-council-cuts-more-people-sleeping-rough-charities-warn

 

Those being urinated on whilst sleeping rough don't seem to get much protection from the defence budget http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38386088

These are old links, but the graph Iposted earlier shows homelessness has increased since then

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-18 8:04 AM......if they decide to come here to sleep rough, that's really not our problem is it? >:-) ..........

 

Actually it is. because the cost to other agencies like police, courts, and NHS https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/25/huge-rise-in-hospital-beds-in-england-taken-up-by-people-with-malnutrition is likely to be more than the cost of a few homeless shelters

[John52]

Bop - 2017-05-18 9:43 AM

John52 - 2017-05-18 5:17 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 2:05 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 1:53 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 1:13 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

So it might make the Germans think about it if we reduced our military spending their level?We have the advantage of being surrounded by sea. A barrier which stopped Hitlers army even after they had routed the combined British and French armies in 6 weeks.

Clearly the Channel was a barrier however without materiel,  and resources allied to sufficient control of the skies he had no option but to call off Operation Sea Lion:

This was for a number of good reasons:

Germany had no military invasion fleet, being forced to use wooden river barges, which were collected in rivers of northern France, where they were bombed repeatedly by the RAF.

For the seaborne invasion to have crossed the English Channel, Germany needed to sink the Royal Navy, a feat it never looked liked being able to accomplish.

To have crossed the Channel and maintained logistics, Germany also needed to defeat the RAF, so after Germany had lost the Battle of Britain by 11 October, 1940, such an invasion was doomed to failure.

However one needs to look at the bigger picture.  It is not just 'us' we need to consider NATO as a whole, what it has provided and continues to provide.  Just because one of the 'supposedly larger contributory' nations reneges on it's responsibilities surely that is not sufficient reason for 'us' to stoop to their level and in doing so most likely bring an end to the alliance as we know it? 

Would it bring NATO to an end if we stopped closing homeless shelters to increase our military spending? Last figures I saw Britain had the highest military spending in Europe, but since it was measured in US dollars before the pound crashed after the Brexit vote, Britain might have fallen below first place. But we are still a long way above the European average in military spending, despite being surrounded by water which is an advantage they don't have.

I know where you're trying to go with this but isn't the NATO financial model and the EU model much of the same, i.e. Where 3-5 main players prop up the financial health of the rest.In monatry terms alone what would happen to the EU if it lost the combined financial inputs of the U.K., Germany and France - the rest of Europe would find that it just about had enough funds to buy 20 bags of Haribo sweets for a kids party.The same goes for NATO. If it wasn't for the likes of the US (predominantly) then does anyone really think that NATO would survive in any decent form beyond Xmas-2017.Albania (as an example) contributes 1.2% of its GDP to its military which when you look at its GDP is worth bugger all.The US on the other hand allocates 3.2% of an 18-Trillion dollar GDP (figures as per 2015) to its military so in real terms it's just by the grace of God that NATO is still intact.

I'm not suggesting we should drop out of NATO, just reduce our contribution to the average level of others. Then if they are not happy they can contribute more. Paerticularly wealthy tax havens like Gibraltar who contribute nothing. It should be enough to defend our own borders. But not go off on military adventures abroad to Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever. Which only seems to have encouraged states like North Korea to build nuclear weapons in case we try to invade them like we did Iraq

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-05-16 3:13 PM.....................How can you or anyone take him seriously (John that is) when he constantly litters his responses with (irrelevant to the topic)his seemingly obsessive hatred of the Monarchy, elements of Government and the Armed Forces etc etc...............

Because those are his views. So, one should either accept them as such and not respond, or argue with the view. Calling someone an idiot for holding just starts a pub brawl, it doesn't settle any of the issues, or resolve any of the differences. Bit pointless, somehow.

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-18 11:27 AM

 

RogerC - 2017-05-16 3:13 PM.....................How can you or anyone take him seriously (John that is) when he constantly litters his responses with (irrelevant to the topic)his seemingly obsessive hatred of the Monarchy, elements of Government and the Armed Forces etc etc...............

Because those are his views. So, one should either accept them as such and not respond, or argue with the view. Calling someone an idiot for holding just starts a pub brawl, it doesn't settle any of the issues, or resolve any of the differences. Bit pointless, somehow.

Yes but it takes intelligence to 'argue with the view.' Wheras anyone can just call someone an idiot :-S

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-18 5:17 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 2:05 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 1:53 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-17 1:13 PM

John52 - 2017-05-17 9:23 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 9:01 PM you might turn your bile towards Germany which has year upon year failed to uphold it's obligations with regard to defence spending......I recall mentioning this before........to the betterment of it's financial standing.

What are Germany's 'obligations with regard to (military) spending?'  

...... and admiring their infrastructure like roads etc, prosperity.

Illegal wars?  Agreement point one then.  Yes I agree and it would be sweet justice to see B'liar in the dock.

You asked the question regarding Germany's obligations, received an answer although it didn't actually show what Germany is 'obliged' to spend under the terms of the NATO agreement.  That figure is 2% of GDP nation by nation.  Germany has consistently underfunded since 1991.  As for 2016 the figure was 0.8% underfunded (for that year only not accumulated) of GDP which translates to approximately $24 BILLION for 2016 alone. 

Now consider that and relate it to that additional $24 billion going into the German economy while it sponges off other fully contributing nations year on year and it is clear to anyone that it is no wonder Germany is so prosperous.  It has a budget surplus, as of 2016, of $23.7 billion which strangely enough is almost what it 'owes' NATO for 2016.

So yes the German people are in the main very nice....I was once bought a beer by a poor chap (half of his jaw was missing) who was bombed by the RAF during WWII as a thank you for it's part in defeating Hitler.  I was in the RAF at the time hence the relevance but it goes to illustrate the character of some in Germany so on that we agree.

German infrastructure is good....road and rail so we agree once more.  However it is my contention that a great deal of German prosperity (Governmentally not industrially or individually) is founded on it's to underpaying NATO giving it ever more money to spend on it's infrastructure and social plans.

So you asked what are Germany's obligations......there is your answer, clear, illustrative, a couple of agreements, no ad hominem and no GIF's.

A reply acknowledging that you have your answer, without diversion or other tenuous links to quite irrelevant elements would be nice.

So it might make the Germans think about it if we reduced our military spending their level?We have the advantage of being surrounded by sea. A barrier which stopped Hitlers army even after they had routed the combined British and French armies in 6 weeks.

Clearly the Channel was a barrier however without materiel,  and resources allied to sufficient control of the skies he had no option but to call off Operation Sea Lion:

This was for a number of good reasons:

Germany had no military invasion fleet, being forced to use wooden river barges, which were collected in rivers of northern France, where they were bombed repeatedly by the RAF.

For the seaborne invasion to have crossed the English Channel, Germany needed to sink the Royal Navy, a feat it never looked liked being able to accomplish.

To have crossed the Channel and maintained logistics, Germany also needed to defeat the RAF, so after Germany had lost the Battle of Britain by 11 October, 1940, such an invasion was doomed to failure.

However one needs to look at the bigger picture.  It is not just 'us' we need to consider NATO as a whole, what it has provided and continues to provide.  Just because one of the 'supposedly larger contributory' nations reneges on it's responsibilities surely that is not sufficient reason for 'us' to stoop to their level and in doing so most likely bring an end to the alliance as we know it? 

Would it bring NATO to an end if we stopped closing homeless shelters to increase our military spending? Last figures I saw Britain had the highest military spending in Europe, but since it was measured in US dollars before the pound crashed after the Brexit vote, Britain might have fallen below first place. But we are still a long way above the European average in military spending, despite being surrounded by water which is an advantage they don't have.

Oh that's what we are doing is it either spending on defence or homeless people!   I didn't realise the two were as interdependent as that.

However looking at it from your perspective John the homeless should be pretty well off then because defence spending as a % of GDP has fallen year on year since the peak of 2011.  So I don't understand your logic in blaming increased spending on defence for the plight of the homeless when defence spending has, and continues to do so, fallen year on year since 2011.

Please explain your claim.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-18 11:27 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-16 3:13 PM.....................How can you or anyone take him seriously (John that is) when he constantly litters his responses with (irrelevant to the topic)his seemingly obsessive hatred of the Monarchy, elements of Government and the Armed Forces etc etc...............

Because those are his views. So, one should either accept them as such and not respond, or argue with the view. Calling someone an idiot for holding just starts a pub brawl, it doesn't settle any of the issues, or resolve any of the differences. Bit pointless, somehow.

Interesting defence of John there.  I agree those are his views however it doesn't give him, or anyone else the right to 'almost continually' bang on the same drum of hatred, almost inevitably irrelevant to the topic, in most every thread or topic they post on.  It is almost as if he is actively behaving as an internet troll:

"Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

Now that, to me, clearly describes what John regularly posts apparently in his determination to insert criticism/dislike/hatred of his pet subjects.  So whilst an attitude of 'because those are his views' is laudable it really doesn't help.  Maybe if more people took issue with his constant hijacking..........or (I should take my own advice here...goodness knows I've tried)ignore him in the hope he goes away although I doubt that very much.

PS.  I have to admit to his last few posts being somewhat lacking in the 'bile/hatred/tenuous' department so I trust it will continue.