|Submited on :||Fri, 20th of Jul 2018 - 09:55:21 AM|
|Post ID :||90bwz6|
|Post Name :||t3_90bwz6|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qh4j|
Only one question needs to be answered
Turkey raises tariffs on US imports
European monarchies by type of succession.
Malta Day 3 Gozo Island
Maybe I'm not well informed on that subject, but I've reserves about an actual president son participating directly in a dangerous conflict.
The elite usually finds very good ways to to shield their children from the common people destiny.
Except Stalin. Just shows how progressive and selfless he was in some regards, despite what the media says.
He was reactionary, a conservative and nationalist 'communist', which is the antithethis of what communism is, a progressive, internationalist ideology.
But in a way, he was selfless. To be fair, I prefer the term inhumane. He had such a brutal disregard for human life that even his son or his second wife were nothing to him.
Like bone spurs.
I visited Montie last summer. Everyone would pronounce it how you'd pronounce Montenegro, I always pronounced it like Montenégro as an American because of... well just feels weird.
Fun fact, I currently live in Turkey and there are cookies called Bold Negroes here.
Wait, how would you pronounce Montenegro? I pronounce it as MONtenegro, do you pronounce it as monteNEgro on purpose?
I emphasize the NE but I don't pronounce it like nee. I think the normal pronunciation is MonteNEEgro
Maybe for Americans. In Europe it's always moNtenegro, e like in get. At least from my experience.
In America the normal pronunciation has an e like screech but most Americans I know including myself pronounce it with an e as in fez because using the word negro just feels uncomfortable.
Yeah, in my opinion the long ee is the incorrect pronunciation because Montenegro is 'black mountain', black being a romance word which has the short e vowel.
I know that but in English the latin word Negro is already used, initially to describe all blacks but in the twentieth century it was more of a slur.
But words can have different pronunciations based on the meaning. English is well-versed in the art of having confusing pronunciation.
Negro in that case means black, and there's a good reason to use pronunciation that's similar to the Italian one to distinguish it from the other, not-so-nice meaning.
I guess so. There's not really a right or wrong. I wasn't even pronouncing it with an é consciously at first but realized later on. Just think it's interesting.
But what I wonder is: do the montenegrin people (not the government) want to be in NATO? I mean they were bombed by NATO after all.
Cant speak for everyone,but as far as the official polls were concerned the Pro-NATO side was steadily gaining popularity. It was pretty even,with a good percentage of people undecided.
As for the bombing part,IMO its stupid to let that hold us back. We werent the primary target to be honest,and the casualties we suffered were accidents.
And by how brutally bombed the Vietnamese was, they don't hold much grudge against the USA today, why should the Montenegrin.
That's really, really bad reasoning that ignores all context of Vietnam.
Vietnam was never anti US. Ho Chi Minh was their George Washington, their Guiseppe Garibaldi, their Peter the Great, their Joan of Arc, etc, etc. He deeply admired America and wrote many letters to the US Presidents, starting with F. Roosevelt. He fought for his country's freedom from the French and Japanese. He was a nationalist first. He knew there had to be land reform in his nation, but he wasn't exactly a rabid communist. He was brutally rebuffed by the US who installed a corrupt, unpopular and deeply oppressive government in South Vietnam even as the people actually wanted unity, not two Vietnams.
Vietnamese for centuries have been bullied and colonised by the Chinese. They needed protection from China first. USSR stepped in and did this. It also protected it from America, but China was very alarmed as well so it temporarily switched sides to aid North Vietnam as well. However, soon after the Amis left, China attacked in 1979 and USSR sent over a million troops to the Chinese border, where some fights broke out. Vietnam turned out to be a meatgrinder that the Chinese stuck their cock into, so they hastily retrated. But ever since then, China has been encroaching on Vietnam on multiple fronts, particularly territorially. US is the only nation left with the power projection capabilities and the appetite for the use of force -- plus, US is no friend of PRC.
That's why Vietnam likes US. Because it needs US.
NATO, no matter who the U.S leader is. . . is not going to abandon its military presence in Europe and Asia. . .
EE are not stupid. The fact they have more trust in Trump's US that EU in terms of security, says a lot about EU.
The phrase originated in the title of an article ("Mourir pour Dantzig?") by the French Neo-Socialist writer Marcel Déat, published on May 4, 1939 in the Parisian newspaper L'Œuvre
The article and several similar pieces were noticed by diplomats and government officials, French and foreign, and elicited press releases from Prime Minister Édouard Daladier and Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet, who noted that this sentiment did not represent the majority views of either the French public and the French government, and reaffirmed their support for the Polish-French alliance.
Totally comparable to a Head of State and Government saying it
who noted that this sentiment did not represent the majority views of either the French public and the French government, and reaffirmed their support for the Polish-French alliance.
And that is why kids, the Anglo-French forces attacked the virtually undefended German border in 1939-1940 and ended the war before it had a chance to develop, as the Nazi Germany was not prepared for a two-front war on its own soil in 1940, as all of Hitler's generals told him before he invaded Poland!
To be fair, they didn't know it was undefended.
They knew it was lightly defended, just not how lightly exactly. And they encountered no resistance except mines largely speaking. USSR had that intel through the spy Network and they offered even before the war to station quarter of a million red army troops along the German border, with a promise to double the commitment should a war break out.
Western Allies refused as they did not see Hitler as a serious threat, as Hitler was down with capitalism and Soviet Union was not, the wealthy classes feared for their money and instead forfeited everything.
Now, it is obvious as to why they were wary of an offer from Stalin, I would be too. But they were not simply exercising justifiable due diligence. They hoped, like craven rats to sell everyone East of them to the Devil. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Balkans, Greece (help was sent to Greece in fact, but woefully lacking what would constitute the help as expected by Greece due to the defensive pact it had with the UK). And of course, they also hoped to bait USSR and Germany to tear each other apart, except they did not do enough to safeguard themselves in the process of waiting for Hitler to strike USSR.
The best defence in a modern, mechanised war is a brisk and overwhelming offence. Germans revelled in offensive operations, Michael Offensive maneouvre in the Great War displayed that clearly. Defence is hard, it isn't like the Franco Prussian war where armies still had their main forces meet at set piece, almost remiscient of Napoleonic battles. In WWII front was continuous and manpower usage higher than ever. Attacks would come everywhere probing and then great spearheads where there was weakness.
Brits and French fucked up royally and they knew it too, the generals who knew what was up. They surrendered the initiative to the Germans without a fight, they started a war with a loser's mindset. Say what you will about the idiocy of Stalin, but the man demanded counterattacks from his beleaguered generals. They cost millions but they threw Germans off balance occasionally, delaying their arrival to Moscow.
I was more relating to the fact they didn't help Poland after all.
It's been a while since I've been to a math class, but I do believe a miniscule chance of engagement that barely goes above zero still qualifies as higher than no chance in hell (now please do your usual schtick and prove how wrong that position is by listing all the reasons why, according to you, it's going to be the right choice for WE to drop our useless asses).
NATO yes, Trump not.
Take note Poland and all the rest of EE who sees Trump and NATO more trustworthy than EU.
While Trump obviously sucks when it comes to his statements the US actually has troops and forces ready in Eastern Europe in case shit goes down and apart from recent times has been a pretty steadfast ally. It also has a very powerful military so is exactly who you would want as an ally.
Much of the EU is very behind when it comes to defence spending and countries like Germany are in a total shambles so you would be a fool to rely on them for defence over the US.
We're not Montenegro. And nothing has been destabilizied. And I don't trust Trump at all, I trust Washington.
There is a saying, "If you don't want to pay for your own army, you are going to pay for someone's else".
Well he is right. Montenegro is not worth starting a world war over.
A solid defensive pact should in theory protect everyone to the end. But in truth I wonder myself how effective such promises are, given how easily the West divested themselves of the East and the promises given before WWII. There are definitely lessons to be learned from history. Never depend on others to spill blood for you. Be prepared to spill your own. Balts know this very well, and they have good experience facing a crossfire of shit.
My favourite take on this is from Yes, Prime Minister: https://youtu.be/cxbFk4viTSQ
So you don't know what NATO is.
Now that you mention it I have seen it a couple of times in the news.Isn't that the defence alliance where most members complain when they're asked to pull their weight?