Search results

No. That is going down the road to authoritarianism. Anyone should have the right to protest about anything. You can excuse/ban anything on 'security' reasons.

It is a win at the moment as he could face execution in the US.

They cannot move till their political masters tell them to move.

You are forgetting that the US was in negotiations for months beforehand and had agreed on the date they were going to pull out. The stuff they left was because the cost of getting it out was more than the cost of the item. They just trashed any large items to make sure they could not be used.

Turkey also has two of the largest US bases in Europe.

It would take many months to remove a base by which time they would have come under fire. If Americans 'were given a safe route out' that would destroy the NATO organisation and the US has pumped too much money into it to let if go. It also negates their plan since WW2 to fight any war in Europe...

Except as I mentioned there are US troops all over Europe, for central Europe to Turkey and any President who did zero after American troops got killed would not be there for long.

It wouldn't because they would have to have garrison troops to make sure the land was quelled thus weakening any forward movement. The reverse would be true, Russia would grow weaker especially as the store of equipment is used in any initial thrust.

You are forgetting NATO has military bases(usually American) all over Europe so the Americans would be involved straight away. Nato has been doing war game scenarios since just after WW2, I think they will have plans in place for whatever place ant attack may happen.

There is always an early stage in any conflict when supply outstrips demand but as has been shown before, capitalist countries adapt much, much quicker and supply everthing needed.

The armed forces are 8-25% understaffed depending on the service. Govt has decided to stop its current recruitment outsourcing contract and start a new outsourcing recruitment campaign. Maybe what you are experiencing is the start of this new companies campaign.

You are trying to say other countries would not defend themselves based on my personal beliefs. The UK has ensured itself by deing in NATO. The militarists like you want to re-arm when the countries structure is falling apart for a threat that only exists in the militarists minds.

Or you can belong to a bigger gang(NATO). An agressor may not think twice about attacking you on your own but if there were nine of your friends with you...............

Why would they NOT defend themselves. There are not many pacifists.

We already have that by being a member of NATO which now includes many more members than before Putin's invasion. No need to start re-arming etc.

People leaning towards militarism tend to exaggerate any threat because they see the situation simplistically as the 'good guys vs the bad guys'

You mentioned the UK being attacked then talked about WW2. That was not a situation when another country suddenly attacked Britain as we decided to declare war. You then went on to rabbit about Iran which had nothing to do with the point I made.

The NRA type response. We just need bigger and more guns to kill the 'bad guys'. How's that working in America? Your ideas about Putin are really simplistic. It is still a joined up world and Putin realises it.

You missed the point. I am a pacifist and see politicians as the real enemy of peace. To me the first people who should be drafted would be politicians/their children then newspaper owners/journalsts and their chiuldren. There would be a swift peace/agreement.

WE declared war on Germany though so not the same.