FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The future of NATO

The future of NATO

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

It seems to be quite worrying how almost all of the Republican nominees in America are talking in terms that have not been heard on the international stage since pre-1942.

In their desire to oppose the Biden Administration in everything that they do, the leading Republicans are almost unanimous in their opposition to continuing to support Ukraine and being in step with their European allies.

This all started with Trump but is being pushed to the next level by the current Republican hopefuls.

Is this going to be the end of NATO as we know it if a Republican President is appointed in their next election? It probably almost certainly is if Trump can overcome his legal battles and gets elected - but the others don't seem any less destructive.

Where would Britain sit in a future separation of interests between the United States and Europe?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"It seems to be quite worrying how almost all of the Republican nominees in America are talking in terms that have not been heard on the international stage since pre-1942.

This all started with Trump but is being pushed to the next level by the current Republican hopefuls.

Where would Britain sit in a future separation of interests between the United States and Europe?"
Hopefully Europe they are much closer to you than we are geographically. We don't need to be involved in European affairs anymore. When there are bigger issues here.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *estivalMan 37 weeks ago

borehamwood

"It seems to be quite worrying how almost all of the Republican nominees in America are talking in terms that have not been heard on the international stage since pre-1942.

This all started with Trump but is being pushed to the next level by the current Republican hopefuls.

Where would Britain sit in a future separation of interests between the United States and Europe?"
if the american people vote any of them in then there obviously ok with them not funding ukraine, nothing to do with us or the eu what the american people want, and end of the day its on our continent so more our problem than theres

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

"It seems to be quite worrying how almost all of the Republican nominees in America are talking in terms that have not been heard on the international stage since pre-1942.

This all started with Trump but is being pushed to the next level by the current Republican hopefuls.

Where would Britain sit in a future separation of interests between the United States and Europe?if the american people vote any of them in then there obviously ok with them not funding ukraine, nothing to do with us or the eu what the american people want, and end of the day its on our continent so more our problem than theres"

The modern world is a very small place and events involving Russia will always have some impact on the United States, no matter who is President.

The separation of interests between the United States and Europe will be the most significant geopolitical event in decades.

The U.K. will have to make some pretty decisions if that happens.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago

Terra Firma

The US are taking an approach of looking after themselves first.

If the US have no desire to influence Europe, west or east, they will save themselves a fortune that they can reinvest at home.

Makes sense to me

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *estivalMan 37 weeks ago

borehamwood

"It seems to be quite worrying how almost all of the Republican nominees in America are talking in terms that have not been heard on the international stage since pre-1942.

This all started with Trump but is being pushed to the next level by the current Republican hopefuls.

The modern world is a very small place and events involving Russia will always have some impact on the United States, no matter who is President.

The separation of interests between the United States and Europe will be the most significant geopolitical event in decades.

The U.K. will have to make some pretty decisions if that happens."
the uk wont have a hard decision to make, we will do what we always do and that is what is best for us, that might be getting closer to europe or on the other hand getting closer to the u.s

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness."

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently? "

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?"

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?"

And the answer would be yes.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes."

You don't know.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes.

You don't know."

Given Crimea/Donbas, I’m pretty certain.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes.

You don't know.

Given Crimea/Donbas, I’m pretty certain. "

Those came after Ukraine started pushing for Nato membership which started in 2008. Any Russian president could not let Ukraine join Nato. It strategic suicide.

Just like any American president could not let Canada join a hostile alliance.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

Poland should be in charge over there they surpassed our gdp on military spending. They are going to be a European powerhouse. We need to back off and take care of our own issues. Every European has some inner distaste for Americans. So it's much more prudent to just not be involved anymore. Looks like it might just happen.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"Poland should be in charge over there they surpassed our gdp on military spending. They are going to be a European powerhouse. We need to back off and take care of our own issues. Every European has some inner distaste for Americans. So it's much more prudent to just not be involved anymore. Looks like it might just happen."

Would your vast military complex allow that to happen though. Even if a future President wants to start reducing your military budget. Would he be able to manage it.

The monster that has been created will want to keep on being fed. Also the potential loss of jobs wouldn't be popular.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes.

You don't know.

Given Crimea/Donbas, I’m pretty certain.

Those came after Ukraine started pushing for Nato membership which started in 2008. Any Russian president could not let Ukraine join Nato. It strategic suicide.

Just like any American president could not let Canada join a hostile alliance."

Why would it be strategic suicide to ‘allow’ a sovereign foreign nation to join NATO? Do

You believe NATO are a threat?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes.

You don't know.

Given Crimea/Donbas, I’m pretty certain.

Those came after Ukraine started pushing for Nato membership which started in 2008. Any Russian president could not let Ukraine join Nato. It strategic suicide.

Just like any American president could not let Canada join a hostile alliance.

Why would it be strategic suicide to ‘allow’ a sovereign foreign nation to join NATO? Do

You believe NATO are a threat? "

The Libyan people never wanted nato in their country which they destroyed to get one man who threatened to drop the oil dollar, mr assad only mentioned he may do the same, the anger from the west was all to see under the disguise of human rights abuses.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes.

You don't know.

Given Crimea/Donbas, I’m pretty certain.

Those came after Ukraine started pushing for Nato membership which started in 2008. Any Russian president could not let Ukraine join Nato. It strategic suicide.

Just like any American president could not let Canada join a hostile alliance.

Why would it be strategic suicide to ‘allow’ a sovereign foreign nation to join NATO? Do

You believe NATO are a threat?

Defending Assad now? Jeez.

You do you, man.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

Would your vast military complex allow that to happen though. Even if a future President wants to start reducing your military budget. Would he be able to manage it.

The monster that has been created will want to keep on being fed. Also the potential loss of jobs wouldn't be popular. "
it's still is being fed go look at Poland's purchases from us. We can still export.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes.

You don't know.

Given Crimea/Donbas, I’m pretty certain.

Those came after Ukraine started pushing for Nato membership which started in 2008. Any Russian president could not let Ukraine join Nato. It strategic suicide.

Just like any American president could not let Canada join a hostile alliance.

Why would it be strategic suicide to ‘allow’ a sovereign foreign nation to join NATO? Do

You believe NATO are a threat? "

Because the Black Sea is the only all year round operative port for the Russian navy. With a Nato navy base in Ukraine, they are allowing themselves to a strong possibility of a blockade.

Is Nato a threat, yes to the Russians they are. It calls itself a defensive alliance. Dont think Gaddafi would agree if he was alive.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

Would your vast military complex allow that to happen though. Even if a future President wants to start reducing your military budget. Would he be able to manage it.

The monster that has been created will want to keep on being fed. Also the potential loss of jobs wouldn't be popular. it's still is being fed go look at Poland's purchases from us. We can still export."

Yes but exports could never replace the money from the US government. You spend more than the next 10 highest spending nations combined.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

A threat that does not exist?

Have you spoke to anyone from Ukraine, recently?

The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine in the event of them being a member of NATO?

You could also ask would Russia have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been pushing for Nato membership..?

And the answer would be yes.

You don't know.

Given Crimea/Donbas, I’m pretty certain.

Those came after Ukraine started pushing for Nato membership which started in 2008. Any Russian president could not let Ukraine join Nato. It strategic suicide.

Just like any American president could not let Canada join a hostile alliance.

Why would it be strategic suicide to ‘allow’ a sovereign foreign nation to join NATO? Do

You believe NATO are a threat?

Defending Assad now? Jeez.

You do you, man. "

I am just stating facts, man, that the west invaded Syria on the propaganda that Mr assad was a human rights abuser and they turned tail when Russia was invited to the party. Why?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

It won't.

There are far too many very intelligent and pragmatic Americans who know their history.

It is still a worry thogh i think.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

"The US are taking an approach of looking after themselves first.

If the US have no desire to influence Europe, west or east, they will save themselves a fortune that they can reinvest at home.

Makes sense to me"

Right - because Europe and the UK has never needed the military help of the United States has it?

Not quite sure how it can "make sense."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness."

What threat doesn't exist?

Russia literally invaded Ukraine and Putin has stated openly that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a mistake and it is his aim to put it back together.

NATO is a defensive alliance of independent countries whose existence has been justified 100 times over in the last 18 months.

The question is - where would Ukraine be WITHOUT US Arms as so many Republicans are wanting?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

"The US are taking an approach of looking after themselves first.

If the US have no desire to influence Europe, west or east, they will save themselves a fortune that they can reinvest at home.

Makes sense to me

Right - because Europe and the UK has never needed the military help of the United States has it?

Not quite sure how it can "make sense.""

And we finished paying for that help in 2006, 50 yrs we were paying for that help.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

What threat doesn't exist?

Russia literally invaded Ukraine and Putin has stated openly that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a mistake and it is his aim to put it back together.

NATO is a defensive alliance of independent countries whose existence has been justified 100 times over in the last 18 months.

The question is - where would Ukraine be WITHOUT US Arms as so many Republicans are wanting?"
We are tired of the endless wars. Is that wrong? If Europe is so concerned maybe they should ramp up the industrial war machine. Spend your tax dollars instead of ours.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

What threat doesn't exist?

Russia literally invaded Ukraine and Putin has stated openly that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a mistake and it is his aim to put it back together.

NATO is a defensive alliance of independent countries whose existence has been justified 100 times over in the last 18 months.

The question is - where would Ukraine be WITHOUT US Arms as so many Republicans are wanting?"

This notion that Nato is just a defensive alliance is so naive.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

What threat doesn't exist?

Russia literally invaded Ukraine and Putin has stated openly that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a mistake and it is his aim to put it back together.

NATO is a defensive alliance of independent countries whose existence has been justified 100 times over in the last 18 months.

The question is - where would Ukraine be WITHOUT US Arms as so many Republicans are wanting?

This notion that Nato is just a defensive alliance is so naive."

Maybe you could start a thread about it?

But let’s imagine for one second that Ukraine was a Member of NATO 15 years ago.

Do you think the annexation of Crimea and occupation of Eastern Ukraine would have happened in 2014 and do you think that Putin would have attempted to overthrow the Zelensky regime in February 2022?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

What threat doesn't exist?

Russia literally invaded Ukraine and Putin has stated openly that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a mistake and it is his aim to put it back together.

NATO is a defensive alliance of independent countries whose existence has been justified 100 times over in the last 18 months.

The question is - where would Ukraine be WITHOUT US Arms as so many Republicans are wanting? We are tired of the endless wars. Is that wrong? If Europe is so concerned maybe they should ramp up the industrial war machine. Spend your tax dollars instead of ours."

Nothing wrong with being tired of endless wars but the very policy you are advocating has already been tried (twice) and failed after the sinking of the Lusitania and then despite it being reintroduced in the inter-war periods, it failed again in December 1942.

I am only hoping that sensible heads prevail next year and the Republican Party will first be torn apart because of Trump and hopefully the pragmatic majority will take control once again of the GOP.

A separation of interest between Europe and the United States will be an even bigger win than Brexit for Russia.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

What threat doesn't exist?

Russia literally invaded Ukraine and Putin has stated openly that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a mistake and it is his aim to put it back together.

NATO is a defensive alliance of independent countries whose existence has been justified 100 times over in the last 18 months.

America is far from tired of war. America loves little more than war, it’s a nice earner for them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *estivalMan 37 weeks ago

borehamwood

Haha i wonderd how long it would take for brexit to be shoe horned into it ?? ?? ??

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You have to understand why nato was formed, it should of been disbanded when the curtain fell but they are seeking new members for a threat that does not exist.

Madness.

What threat doesn't exist?

Russia literally invaded Ukraine and Putin has stated openly that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a mistake and it is his aim to put it back together.

NATO is a defensive alliance of independent countries whose existence has been justified 100 times over in the last 18 months.

The question is - where would Ukraine be WITHOUT US Arms as so many Republicans are wanting?

This notion that Nato is just a defensive alliance is so naive.

Maybe you could start a thread about it?

But let’s imagine for one second that Ukraine was a Member of NATO 15 years ago.

Do you think the annexation of Crimea and occupation of Eastern Ukraine would have happened in 2014 and do you think that Putin would have attempted to overthrow the Zelensky regime in February 2022?

Of course not. That's why he had to attack before it became a member. But this war was always going to cost Russia.

It was a war that was always beneficial to the west. They can weaken Russia by supplying arms, and having Ukrainians to fight .

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *amish SMan 37 weeks ago

Eastleigh

The USA without NATO would be nothing on the world stage, and they know that. It would have no global influence, their economy would decline and they would have to pay prices the likes of China and others dictate.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"The USA without NATO would be nothing on the world stage, and they know that. It would have no global influence, their economy would decline and they would have to pay prices the likes of China and others dictate. "
I want to see your assumptions. So do others.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"The US are taking an approach of looking after themselves first.

If the US have no desire to influence Europe, west or east, they will save themselves a fortune that they can reinvest at home.

Makes sense to me

Right - because Europe and the UK has never needed the military help of the United States has it?

Not quite sure how it can "make sense.""

You really can’t see how it would make sense to the US?

They don’t need to be NATO to offer assistance

Money saved

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago

Terra Firma

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oolyCoolyCplCouple 37 weeks ago

Newcastle under Lyme

"The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

Libya didn't feel the full force of NATO, though perhaps the CIA manipulated them into fighting a civil war. Ukraine not being a member and then being invaded by Russia before it had chance to become a member proves the point of NATO being a deterrant.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

"The ussr is no more, have you spoke to anyone from Libya recently. They felt the full force of nato, are Ukrainian a member.

NATO invaded Libya.

and bombed it into the middle ages with Mr Cameron on the steps in tripoli stating that he had saved them from a tyrant and they are still coming to the UK by boat to be saved by Mr Cameron.

Russia invaded Ukraine and is bombing the crap out of it.

Spot the difference.?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oubleswing2019Man 37 weeks ago

Colchester

There are plenty of emerging threats on the European landmass both short term and immediate and long term and projected.

The USA due to geolocation could up the drawbridge and just deal with its own internal market. It would need to stop global trade however. And manufacture itself. I am not sure if the local citizens have an appetite for higher wages if they reverse their manufacturing decline however.

Europe could form its own Nato-like army. The UK would be well-served to lead, with our experience and skill.

Bottom line, USA rides off in to the sunset, and the EU-equivalent takes on the role as Globocop in its own backyard. There are plenty of countries in Europe who are not EU members yet and need protection, because if the EU don't look after then, other superpowers will.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10 "

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hot OP Couple 37 weeks ago

North West

"There are plenty of emerging threats on the European landmass both short term and immediate and long term and projected.

Europe could form its own Nato-like army. The UK would be well-served to lead, with our experience and skill.

Europe forming its own NATO like army (EU Army) was seemingly one of the Brexit triggers (even though we had a permanent opt out).

Are you saying this might be a good idea ( as long as GB is in charge though right?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"There are plenty of emerging threats on the European landmass both short term and immediate and long term and projected.

Europe could form its own Nato-like army. The UK would be well-served to lead, with our experience and skill.

Europe forming its own NATO like army (EU Army) was seemingly one of the Brexit triggers (even though we had a permanent opt out).

Are you saying this might be a good idea ( as long as GB is in charge though right? "
it's a great idea. To have a EU army and just disband NATO. The logistics alone would save billions of US taxpayers money. We can close A lot of bases worldwide and invest in our own defense and other issues on the home front. If some of the bases want us to be there then they must front the money for us to be there not the US taxpayer.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

It's common sense. We are not getting anything in return financially. Unless you Europeans go off the rails. Then we have to intervene and then use our industrial power to bail people out. Then it takes decades to pay the US back. We are a young nation. The squabbling over there created us in the first place. So squabble . I would rather see people here benefitting than foreigners. Take care of your own backyard. Leave us out of it. I seen war. It's gets to the point of fuck it. It's not worth the effort. When we can just kick back relax and watch the world burn.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

Great debate.

in all honesty take care of your own is priority in my eyes. Fuck this global shit. Some of you can't understand my values. Just like I can't understand yours. There's is no common bond. So why try anymore.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple 37 weeks ago

Brighton

I guess the USA would only project their power when there is oil and gas to gain control over?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago

Terra Firma

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple 37 weeks ago

Brighton

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves. "

Totally agree.

Little anecdote...

Back in the 90s my girlfriend lived in a Wapping Townhouse and several of her neighbours had been burgled with one assault. The police visited everyone to give advice. My GF admitted to keeping a knife under her bed. The police officer strongly advised against that for two reasons:

1. The burglar could use the knife on her.

2. If she stabbed/killed the burglar it might be considered as premeditated murder!

The police officer advised my GF to buy one if those massive torches (long handle with several batteries that looks a bit like a truncheon) and keep under bed as it would be plausible to keep that there in case of power cuts!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"Great debate.

in all honesty take care of your own is priority in my eyes. Fuck this global shit. Some of you can't understand my values. Just like I can't understand yours. Theirs is no common bond. So why try anymore."

Take care of your own, taken to its natural conclusion leads to everyone for themselves - the end of society.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple 37 weeks ago

Bournemouth

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves. "

Another one in agreeance here.

I fucking detest the fact that someone can be charged for dealing an intruder in anyway they see fit.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Another one in agreeance here.

I fucking detest the fact that someone can be charged for dealing an intruder in anyway they see fit. "

Under common law, which the uk and usa are common law jurisdictions there is little thing called pre-emptive strike, you don't have to wait to defend yourself from an act of violence.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ophieslutTV/TS 37 weeks ago

Central

Blowhards shouting off when they probably have little chance of anything, isn't new. Trump is probably the one with the chance, if he's not in jail. Would he truly end NATO or would it get transformed, into a new organisation? Would the US give up all of their listening posts etc in Europe, happy to know less about Russia? Even under Trump? Whilst Putin remains, the US will continue to rightly need to fear Russian capabilities.

Blowhards may blow but it doesn't mean that they achieve anything much when coming to get to change things. It could also be several years to implement something radically different.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple 37 weeks ago

Bournemouth

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Another one in agreeance here.

I fucking detest the fact that someone can be charged for dealing an intruder in anyway they see fit.

Under common law, which the uk and usa are common law jurisdictions there is little thing called pre-emptive strike, you don't have to wait to defend yourself from an act of violence.

No you don't but as said already, why should the person defending their own home have to prove 'reasonable force'?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Another one in agreeance here.

I fucking detest the fact that someone can be charged for dealing an intruder in anyway they see fit.

Under common law, which the uk and usa are common law jurisdictions there is little thing called pre-emptive strike, you don't have to wait to defend yourself from an act of violence.

No you don't but as said already, why should the person defending their own home have to prove 'reasonable force'?

Yes you do, you do not have to wait to be struck if a person is threatening to commit an act of violence on your person.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 37 weeks ago

Gilfach

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family."

This just isn't true. It's all down to motivation. If you expect an intruder, select a weapon, and place it ready for use, then the system will (rightly) see you as deliberately planning to kill someone. If you see an intruder, panic, and beat them to death with the nearest blunt object, you'll be seen as a victim and let off.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Totally agree.

Little anecdote...

1. The burglar could use the knife on her.

2. If she stabbed/killed the burglar it might be considered as premeditated murder!

I’ve got a baseball bat that I keep in the hallway. Of course I have a baseball kept nearby as well. I collect sports stuff, naturally

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place."

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 37 weeks ago

Gilfach

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family."

"This just isn't true. It's all down to motivation. If you expect an intruder, select a weapon, and place it ready for use, then the system will (rightly) see you as deliberately planning to kill someone. If you see an intruder, panic, and beat them to death with the nearest blunt object, you'll be seen as a victim and let off.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place."

"Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?"

Simply having something to hand can't be classed as premeditated. But if you deliberately placed it there, having carefully thought through your plan, with the intention of harming someone - then you aren't defending yourself, you're planning an attack.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Totally agree.

Little anecdote...

1. The burglar could use the knife on her.

2. If she stabbed/killed the burglar it might be considered as premeditated murder!

I’ve got a baseball bat that I keep in the hallway. Of course I have a baseball kept nearby as well. I collect sports stuff, naturally

"
I have a loaded semi auto shotgun with 00 buck next to the bed and multiple rifles and pistols in the safe nearby. I like shooting sports naturally.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple 37 weeks ago

Bournemouth

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

I have a knife in my bedroom. It's there because I wrap presents in my bedroom away from prying eyes.

Guaranteed I would be charged with premeditated if I used it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple 37 weeks ago

Bournemouth

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Another one in agreeance here.

I fucking detest the fact that someone can be charged for dealing an intruder in anyway they see fit.

Under common law, which the uk and usa are common law jurisdictions there is little thing called pre-emptive strike, you don't have to wait to defend yourself from an act of violence.

No you don't but as said already, why should the person defending their own home have to prove 'reasonable force'?

Yes you do, you do not have to wait to be struck if a person is threatening to commit an act of violence on your person."

'No you don't' (have to wait). I was agreeing with you.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

I have a knife in my bedroom. It's there because I wrap presents in my bedroom away from prying eyes.

Guaranteed I would be charged with premeditated if I used it. "

How do you wrap presents with a Bowie knife though?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple 37 weeks ago

Bournemouth

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

I have a knife in my bedroom. It's there because I wrap presents in my bedroom away from prying eyes.

Guaranteed I would be charged with premeditated if I used it.

How do you wrap presents with a Bowie knife though?

It's just an old kitchen knife

Used to slice the wrapping paper.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple 37 weeks ago

Brighton

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

I have a knife in my bedroom. It's there because I wrap presents in my bedroom away from prying eyes.

Guaranteed I would be charged with premeditated if I used it.

How do you wrap presents with a Bowie knife though?

It's just an old kitchen knife

Used to slice the wrapping paper. "

Switch it to a big pair of scissors, have some wrapping paper in the bedroom and Bob’s your (stabbed) intruder!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

This European hasn’t got an inner distaste for Americans, I rather like the ability to defend your home and family as a starter for 10

Good job you can defend your home and family in the U.K as well then

You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

The onus on reasonable force being on the defender, is BS.

The US castle doctrine should be adopted here, put the onus on the person who intends to do harm, they came with bad intent and whatever the consequences they brought upon themselves.

Another one in agreeance here.

I fucking detest the fact that someone can be charged for dealing an intruder in anyway they see fit.

Under common law, which the uk and usa are common law jurisdictions there is little thing called pre-emptive strike, you don't have to wait to defend yourself from an act of violence.

No you don't but as said already, why should the person defending their own home have to prove 'reasonable force'?

Yes you do, you do not have to wait to be struck if a person is threatening to commit an act of violence on your person.

'No you don't' (have to wait). I was agreeing with you. "

My apologies, I read it wrong.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple 37 weeks ago

Brighton

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

And this is where it all seems a bit fucked up. I disagree on many things with Blu but if someone breaks into my home with the intention of doing me or mine harm, then I should be able to defend myself/my family and I should not have to pause and discuss with the assailant what we consider to be reasonable force or an appropriate object to use as a “weapon”.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 37 weeks ago

Gilfach

"And this is where it all seems a bit fucked up. I disagree on many things with Blu but if someone breaks into my home with the intention of doing me or mine harm, then I should be able to defend myself/my family and I should not have to pause and discuss with the assailant what we consider to be reasonable force or an appropriate object to use as a “weapon”."

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple 37 weeks ago

Bournemouth

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

I have a knife in my bedroom. It's there because I wrap presents in my bedroom away from prying eyes.

Guaranteed I would be charged with premeditated if I used it.

How do you wrap presents with a Bowie knife though?

It's just an old kitchen knife

Used to slice the wrapping paper.

Switch it to a big pair of scissors, have some wrapping paper in the bedroom and Bob’s your (stabbed) intruder!"

Cleaner cut with a knife

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple 37 weeks ago

Brighton

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive."

I was being sarky. But yeah see my anecdote. You need a plausible reason to have a potentially lethal weapon to hand. Feisty having big scissors is better than a big knife in the bedroom for example.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple 37 weeks ago

Brighton

"You know as well as I, that the law is stacked against a person who is protecting their property or family.

You can protect yourself, but you can't plan to kill someone and then claim that it was their fault for being in the wrong place.

Your explanation sums up exactly why it is stacked against the defender..

Having something to hand, can be classed as deliberately trying to kill someone! So people need to lie to protect themselves and you say it’s not stacked?

I have a knife in my bedroom. It's there because I wrap presents in my bedroom away from prying eyes.

Guaranteed I would be charged with premeditated if I used it.

How do you wrap presents with a Bowie knife though?

It's just an old kitchen knife

Used to slice the wrapping paper.

Switch it to a big pair of scissors, have some wrapping paper in the bedroom and Bob’s your (stabbed) intruder!

Cleaner cut with a knife

Oh you are one of those super pressie wrappers!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

* Hey Google play bodies by drowning pool *

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

"* Hey Google play bodies by drowning pool * "

Let the bodies hit the floor.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago

Terra Firma

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive."

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

Alternative, you lie for fear of being locked up… the law is upside down and exactly why the states that have the castle doctrine are in my opinion doing the right thing by their law abiding citizens.

I want our police to warn criminals that if they intend visiting their area for the purposes of harm, they deserve whatever is coming their way, like they do in certain counties in the US. That is the deterrent and I applaud them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. "

You are over thinking it, all you need is a bad ass trained attack dog.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago

Terra Firma

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. "

You’re having a laugh, surely?

You sound like a person employed to stand in Westfields on a home security stand.

And the hypocrisy of you! You stash a baseball bat with intent of force and you tell me I can’t do something to protect my family and home…

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed.

You’re having a laugh, surely?

You sound like a person employed to stand in Westfields on a home security stand.

And the hypocrisy of you! You stash a baseball bat with intent of force and you tell me I can’t do something to protect my family and home… "

No, I have a baseball bat because I collect sporting stuff

I also have secure doors and windows. I’m just trying to help you stay the right side of the law.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. "
Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO."

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar. "
insurgency?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar. insurgency? "

No insurgency can take down the most powerful militarily force in the world. Seriously.

How many MAGA folks with AR-15’s could stand up to a drone?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar. insurgency?

No insurgency can take down the most powerful militarily force in the world. Seriously.

How many MAGA folks with AR-15’s could stand up to a drone? "
the Taliban did it. Now they ruling Afghanistan.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan 37 weeks ago

dudley

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar. insurgency?

No insurgency can take down the most powerful militarily force in the world. Seriously.

How many MAGA folks with AR-15’s could stand up to a drone? "

Is the drone the baseball bat by the door or the intruders.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar. insurgency?

No insurgency can take down the most powerful militarily force in the world. Seriously.

How many MAGA folks with AR-15’s could stand up to a drone? the Taliban did it. Now they ruling Afghanistan."

Didn’t your boy trump sign up to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? How much of the country did the Taliban control prior to the removal of troops?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar. insurgency?

No insurgency can take down the most powerful militarily force in the world. Seriously.

How many MAGA folks with AR-15’s could stand up to a drone?

Is the drone the baseball bat by the door or the intruders. "

It’s a simple question for those who think 2a means anything in the 21st century.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago

No discussion is required, and you can use any weapon that falls to hand.

What you can't do is plan it all beforehand, arrange the weapons in a line, and then wait for the intruder to arrive.

Not planning on defending your family and house beforehand, can you hear how that sounds?

You can plan to protect your property by investing in a security system. Decent quality window locks and high quality doors.

You can’t plan to protect your property by stashing an armoury under your bed. Then I guess you don't need a military to protect your homeland or NATO.

In the same way that a ‘well armed militia’ won’t take down a government, a person with a blunt object won’t be able to defend themselves against Putin or similar. insurgency?

No insurgency can take down the most powerful militarily force in the world. Seriously.

How many MAGA folks with AR-15’s could stand up to a drone? the Taliban did it. Now they ruling Afghanistan.

Didn’t your boy trump sign up to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? How much of the country did the Taliban control prior to the removal of troops? "
why stay?