Nearly every lay-by in Belgium has a frite Mayo van and I checked my email on Have I been pawnd ,a free check service and it was hacked in Russia for passwords .
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Mayo and chips isn’t just a Belgian thing [emoji6]
Declaring themselves neutral, thereby providing Churchill with a false pretext for our involvement in a catastrophic World War, is.
A bit like Ukraine inviting NATO into Russia’s backyard and Boris and Biden saying go for it, we’ve got your back, what could possibly go wrong.
[/quote]
I think you’ll find Belgium didn’t declare its neutrality. The premise for that goes back to the Treaty of London. Neutrality was guaranteed cos Belgium tended to figure in most European attack strategies.
And you’re confusing world wars Belgian violation triggered WW1 - the trigger for Churchill in WW2 was Poland.
Apart from those little inaccuracies you’re grasp of European history is stunning. I shall follow your every utterance with a new found respect from now on
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Mayo and chips isn’t just a Belgian thing [emoji6]
Declaring themselves neutral, thereby providing Churchill with a false pretext for our involvement in a catastrophic World War, is.
A bit like Ukraine inviting NATO into Russia’s backyard and Boris and Biden saying go for it, we’ve got your back, what could possibly go wrong.
I think you’ll find Belgium didn’t declare its neutrality. The premise for that goes back to the Treaty of London. Neutrality was guaranteed cos Belgium tended to figure in most European attack strategies.
And you’re confusing world wars Belgian violation triggered WW1 - the trigger for Churchill in WW2 was Poland.
Apart from those little inaccuracies you’re grasp of European history is stunning. I shall follow your every utterance with a new found respect from now on
[/quote]
Until that Belgian neutrality was taken advantage of by Russia and France to threaten Germany by removing its only means of defence against a war on two fronts.
Not that I condone the refusal of Serb self determination in that but Churchill was happy enough to deny same for Ireland.
But ironically and more importantly it contains a frightening paralel to Ukraine in risking Europe over a minor localised tactical issue in which on balance NATO is the aggressor not Russia.Just like Germany had no intention of a war on two fronts in 1914 France forced its hand stupidly and tragically helped by us.
As for Churchill dragging us all into WW1 over a local Russian German argument which would have been over before it began if we had stayed well out of it, this Churchill.
We can probably transfer that opening theme and tune to Ukraine if NATO refuses to back down over moving into Ukraine.Even if Putin would stand for it his generals won’t.
dailymotion.com/video/x208lju 42.15 -
Also bearing in mind WW2 was just the sequel and America and most modern generations have no stomach for mutually assured destruction and Russia and China know it.
Harry Monk:
Could the conflict spread to Sweden?
If Russia goes for it then advancing across a wide a front as possible is to their advantage.
Also bearing in mind their old tried and tested retreat Eastwards back into their limitless interior then counter attack tactics.
While all we ever had was if they make a move on us then we end it all.The stupid Americans think that they can advance NATO piecemeal a bit at a time into Russia’s back yard like the Germans tried.
Even more stupidly they think that Putin and his generals will stand for it.
Ukraine is Russia’s red line in the sand and if NATO refuses to guarantee not moving in there, like it has done in Poland and the Baltics, all bets are off.
Harry Monk:
Could the conflict spread to Sweden?
Also depends on the definition of ‘conflict’.
youtube.com/watch?v=L60QCU9m9mQ
Notice that US/NATO hasn’t stated that it will escalate any tactical nuclear strikes with all out strategic mutually assured destruction retaliation.
The Americans are all mouth when gambling over a European War limited to Europe.
All on a stupid ego trip to expand NATO where it was never meant to be.
But these days they haven’t even got the bottle to back it by risking their own homeland.Which is why they ‘got rid’ of JFK and surrendered in Vietnam and to China ever since.
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
Mayo and chips isn’t just a Belgian thing [emoji6]
Declaring themselves neutral, thereby providing Churchill with a false pretext for our involvement in a catastrophic World War, is.
A bit like Ukraine inviting NATO into Russia’s backyard and Boris and Biden saying go for it, we’ve got your back, what could possibly go wrong.I think you’ll find Belgium didn’t declare its neutrality. The premise for that goes back to the Treaty of London. Neutrality was guaranteed cos Belgium tended to figure in most European attack strategies.
And you’re confusing world wars Belgian violation triggered WW1 - the trigger for Churchill in WW2 was Poland.
Apart from those little inaccuracies you’re grasp of European history is stunning. I shall follow your every utterance with a new found respect from now on
Until that Belgian neutrality was taken advantage of by Russia and France to threaten Germany by removing its only means of defence against a war on two fronts.
Not that I condone the refusal of Serb self determination in that but Churchill was happy enough to deny same for Ireland.
But ironically and more importantly it contains a frightening paralel to Ukraine in risking Europe over a minor localised tactical issue in which on balance NATO is the aggressor not Russia.Just like Germany had no intention of a war on two fronts in 1914 France forced its hand stupidly and tragically helped by us.
As for Churchill dragging us all into WW1 over a local Russian German argument which would have been over before it began if we had stayed well out of it, this Churchill.
We can probably transfer that opening theme and tune to Ukraine if NATO refuses to back down over moving into Ukraine.Even if Putin would stand for it his generals won’t.
dailymotion.com/video/x208lju 42.15 -
Also bearing in mind WW2 was just the sequel and America and most modern generations have no stomach for mutually assured destruction and Russia and China know it.
[/quote]
Ffs…how many tines?
Churchill DIDN’T drag us into WW1 [emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Can’t wait to see how many $billions worth of arms and equipment Bidet’s war machine manages to lose or leave behind in the threatened (by Bidens regime) next debacle of his alleged presidency.
I wonder. It depends on how big the ammunition stockpiles of the west are…
Stockpiles need to be used, to stop the ammo going out of date, and to keep the armaments industry running. It’s been a long time since the Gulf War, and now that the West no longer use Afghanistan as a sandbox, the West needs a new proxy war to use its ammunition stocks.
America won’t sent troops (the electorate will lynch Biden), but will supply… I mean sell vast quantities of hardware/ammo.
Putin killing NATO without a shot.
zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … ns-ukraine
reuters.com/world/europe/ge … 022-01-21/
But I guess for Germany the choice is betwenn NATO or lecky and gas
osark:
Putin killing NATO without a shot.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … ns-ukraine
reuters.com/world/europe/ge … 022-01-21/
But I guess for Germany the choice is betwenn NATO or lecky and gas
NATO is far more than just Germany; in truth German military capability is extremely limited.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Carryfast:
As for Churchill dragging us all into WW1 over a local Russian German argument which would have been over before it began if we had stayed well out of it, this Churchill.
We can probably transfer that opening theme and tune to Ukraine if NATO refuses to back down over moving into Ukraine.Even if Putin would stand for it his generals won’t.
dailymotion.com/video/x208lju 42.15 -Also bearing in mind WW2 was just the sequel and America and most modern generations have no stomach for mutually assured destruction and Russia and China know it.
Ffs…how many tines?
Churchill DIDN’T drag us into WW1 [emoji1787]
Watch the video.Which clearly shows that he did including resignations by cabinet ministers over it.When ‘alliance’ France stopped working he and France played the Belgian ‘neutrality’ card and the PM bought it.
Monkey241:
osark:
Putin killing NATO without a shot.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … ns-ukraine
reuters.com/world/europe/ge … 022-01-21/
But I guess for Germany the choice is betwenn NATO or lecky and gas
NATO is far more than just Germany; in truth German military capability is extremely limited.
NATO never at any time stated that it could win a conventional war with Russia let alone a combined force of Russia and China.Thats why the US surrendered in Vietnam because they knew that to win would mean direct involvement of China and Russia.
Such a war would either mean the choice of mutually assured destruction or Russia and China would win.
Like Vietnam Ukraine isn’t worth it.
bbc.co.uk/news/world/europe-60145159.amp
It’s like 1914 all over again.
Wrong war for the wrong reasons as would be expected of the Biden circus.
They’ve backed Putin into a corner and the odds are he will have to act or lose credibility with his generals and he won’t stop at Ukraine.
All because the US lost the bottle for mutually assured destruction at home and chose containment of Russia instead.
lancpudn:
Is Ukraine going to become the new Vietnam?. youtube.com/watch?v=sYez_jckzbg
Ironically the US lost the Vietnam War because they didn’t have the stomach for a War with Russia and China which is what it would have taken to win it.
NATO can’t win a conventional war against that landmass and manpower numbers.
The choice was always mutually assured destruction or surrender to them and the former was rightly seen as the better option if it ever came to it.
Which can only mean that Biden is trying to create a pretext to surrender Europe to the Chinese which has probably already happened by stealth anyway.
But ‘losing’ a needless war, to a combined force of Russia and China, would seal the deal.Wéithout the need to admit to the sell out having already happened.
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
osark:
Putin killing NATO without a shot.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … ns-ukraine
reuters.com/world/europe/ge … 022-01-21/
But I guess for Germany the choice is betwenn NATO or lecky and gas
NATO is far more than just Germany; in truth German military capability is extremely limited.
“Thats why the US surrendered in Vietnam because they knew that to win would mean direct involvement of China and Russia.”
Not so. The militarily powerful US were being soundly beaten up by the “rag tag” Vietcong. The South Vietnam population mostly supported the Vietcong. The US troops were demoralised and many US youngsters became draft dodgers. The US public was certainly showing to politicians that they had had enough of seeing their young men massacred either by the Vietcong or drug abuse. People power influenced US politicians.
Dipster:
Carryfast:
Monkey241:
osark:
Putin killing NATO without a shot.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … ns-ukraine
reuters.com/world/europe/ge … 022-01-21/
But I guess for Germany the choice is betwenn NATO or lecky and gas
NATO is far more than just Germany; in truth German military capability is extremely limited.
“Thats why the US surrendered in Vietnam because they knew that to win would mean direct involvement of China and Russia.”
Not so. The militarily powerful US were being soundly beaten up by the “rag tag” Vietcong. The South Vietnam population mostly supported the Vietcong. The US troops were demoralised and many US youngsters became draft dodgers. The US public was certainly showing to politicians that they had had enough of seeing their young men massacred either by the Vietcong or drug abuse. People power influenced US politicians.
The US boots on the ground were facing PLA masquerading as VC which meant PLA numbers.
The war could have been won by air power alone if LBJ had unleashed it but Beijing had implied Chinese entry into the war if he did.
The USAF was fighting against Russian manned fighter aircraft and SAM batteries.
VC supply and command and control all had a large Russian and PLA content masquerading as ‘advisors’ and again the US knew that it would be WW3 if it took them all out.
The fact remains the choice for NATO was always mutually assured destruction or surrender in the event of a Russian/Chinese invasion of Europe.
Then the US lost its bottle and chose containment of Russia and appeasement of China and abandonment of the MAD strategy. Rather than risk the loss of the US homeland to a nuclear exchange.