Re: OT: Greenland/Canada

Jan 18, 2026 Last reply: 6 months ago 4 Replies

Am 18.01.26 um 18:54 schrieb john larkin:



>> And there's many of them.
>> I predict Trump will break from NATO. Just you wait and see..... >
> It's certainly time for european countries to pay for european wars.

That amount of brain damage: how is it possible to survive with that? It must hurt badly.


It is certainly time for the US to pay for the US wars.


Less than 5% of peace time for the US in the last 250 years, and in the time before that, there was no peace at all. Oh, the plaintiffs cannot complain anymore, they have been conveniently eradicated.


For the bible thumpers: read 1Samuel -25. It tells how that's done correctly.


And for the occupiers: Its about time to go home. You never protected us, you protected your own interests. We are just a bridge head against the Ruzzians, with middle Europe as the designated playground for your thermonuclear fantasies.


Yes, we'll pay more, but to our own companies. Gripens instead of the defunct but overpriced F-35s with their remote kill switch. Just like the Canadians will do.


Your biggest car exporter is BMW. Guess how long they will stay in Spartanburg with import taxes on parts? Or Audi?


It's kinda fun to watch that narcissist sock puppet of Putin's in the White House (as far as there is still something left of it). If he ever develops ideas of his own, all it takes is a 20 minute phone call from the Kremlin to put him straight back in line.


I wonder what material they have on file against him. Given how the GDR targeted western managers with with Romeo/Juliet agents during the Leipzig Fair, it's more than probable that the KGB did the same during the Moscow Trump Tower adventure. Hell, he even got premises for it, inexpensively, beautyful, big, gooood deal!


With his preference for gold, maybe there is more to the rumors about Golden Showers in a hotel room? On tape, perhaps?


Oh, and the Nobel price medal: Goebbels got one, too, from a fanboi, in 1943. (Knut Hamsun, 1920 for literature) Birds of a feather.

500 million Europeans [are asking] 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians.

- Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

They aren't. America and quite a lot of Europe are members of a very long standing alliance (though Poland only joined NATO recently) which binds them to come to one another's defence if attacked by any third party (most likely Russia).

America's military industrial complex has persuaded the US to invest a lot in very expensive weapons, and they are using their influence on the US government (which is considerable) in the hope of selling some of them to European customers.

Russia isn't a particularly threatening enemy - it's economy is about the same size as Italy's, and it has been trying to invade the Ukraine for about four years without making much progress. It does have nuclear weapons, but if they employed them they would certainly be destroyed by the retaliation.

Hey s******ds, we are not asking you to protect us! You ever did or could. You criminals that had the Northstream 2 pipeline blown up, started the Ukraine war by provoking Russia, are the SOURCE of wars here, started by you so you can sell your own gas, F35 and other crap, etc etc. All CIA plots, SHITLENSKY is a CIA clown. Go and save your own drugs addicted mob. If you can ? No you cannot!!! War addicts!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The English Electric P1 Lightening fighter was intended for point defence and had two jet engine stack in the fuselage giving it enough thrust to climb vertically for a couple of miles faster than the speed of sound.

It had very little range. That was a inherent property, intend to optimise it's performance when used in defence.

Scarcely. The Russians started their formal invasion with the tried and true columns of tanks, and he Ukranians chewed them up with cheap armed drones. The Russians ended up buying drone from Iran to compete.

This assumes that a big nation will have cost effective weapons.

Mary Kakdor's 1981 book'

formatting link
argued that the US and Russia had elaborate and expensive - baroque - weapons where simpler weapons (and more of them) could have been more cost-effective.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required