I was interested by Colonel Macgregor's statement that the USA should concern itself with the independence of the UK. That is far from reassuring, as the USA itself is the greatest (and almost the only) threat to the UK's independence.
Many people have expressed surprise at Iran's reluctance to form military alliances with friendly nations such as Russia and China. Such people should read Iran's Constitution - freely available in English online. It's a fairly short document and very well written. It makes clear in several places that Iran's independence must be preserved at all costs - and that means that no foreign soldiers should be allowed on Iranian soil. They understand that once that happens, the host nation is apt to end up like the UK today - as some realists have pointed out, already conquered and colonised by the USA without most people ever noticing.
A propos Mr Proud's praise of ententes... the Entente Cordiale was a main cause of WW1. The French government thought it gave them carte blanche to provoke the Germans, especially after Sir Edward Grey took it upon himself to tell the French secretly that whatever happened Britain would back them up. (This without telling the Cabinet or even the PM).
The French, as usual, were unconcerned with what the Germans might think or do - which was to fear what might happen if they were to be attacked on two fronts by France, Britain, and Russia. So they launched the Schlieffen Plan, hoping to knock out France on the model of 1870 before Russia could mobilise.
To avoid terrible wars, politicians must behave like statesmen and the leaders of armed forces must be punctilious in giving the politicians full disclosure of status, plans, and likely outcomes. Otherwise a repeat of the unexpected outbreak of WW1 is only too likely.
Not just financially broke but morally.
The two defeats in four years is just because they started two wars in four years.
They lose ALL their wars.
The US military is not built to win wars, it’s built to generate profit, which is why it always wins the war it has with it’s defense budget…
I was interested by Colonel Macgregor's statement that the USA should concern itself with the independence of the UK. That is far from reassuring, as the USA itself is the greatest (and almost the only) threat to the UK's independence.
Many people have expressed surprise at Iran's reluctance to form military alliances with friendly nations such as Russia and China. Such people should read Iran's Constitution - freely available in English online. It's a fairly short document and very well written. It makes clear in several places that Iran's independence must be preserved at all costs - and that means that no foreign soldiers should be allowed on Iranian soil. They understand that once that happens, the host nation is apt to end up like the UK today - as some realists have pointed out, already conquered and colonised by the USA without most people ever noticing.
A propos Mr Proud's praise of ententes... the Entente Cordiale was a main cause of WW1. The French government thought it gave them carte blanche to provoke the Germans, especially after Sir Edward Grey took it upon himself to tell the French secretly that whatever happened Britain would back them up. (This without telling the Cabinet or even the PM).
The French, as usual, were unconcerned with what the Germans might think or do - which was to fear what might happen if they were to be attacked on two fronts by France, Britain, and Russia. So they launched the Schlieffen Plan, hoping to knock out France on the model of 1870 before Russia could mobilise.
To avoid terrible wars, politicians must behave like statesmen and the leaders of armed forces must be punctilious in giving the politicians full disclosure of status, plans, and likely outcomes. Otherwise a repeat of the unexpected outbreak of WW1 is only too likely.