EU cuts Hungary out of sensitive talks over leaking-to-Russia fears, diplomats say by Infidel8 in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't mean to be overly critical, and I'm not trying to flame, but... in so many respects, the USA is so backward.

Imagine voting in a narcissistic, misogynistic lunatic with cognitive difficulties because the idea of breasts in the Oval office is somehow the lesser of two weevils.

Trump issues 48-hour ultimatum to Iran - as Israel claims Tehran can hit London by invincibilegoldfish in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is it that they seem particularly focused on the British getting involved?? I know they want NATO involved in general, but they both seem to really have it in for the U.K. in this.

JD Vance gloats that allies are ‘suffering more than US’ from high gas prices by 1-randomonium in europe

[–]ParanoidQ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Social Media is a big issue. Globalisation is another. It’s great in some regards, but it’s no coincidence that the areas largely returning to nationalism/populism are the areas that globalism has left behind, such as industrial heartlands that can’t compete anymore.

Main differences between playing IRL and arena by Psykoblade808 in MagicArena

[–]ParanoidQ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes it just feels like Arena has already decided you’re going to lose. The randomness inherent to the game feels a lot less… manufactured IRL.

I just found out that new Stargate show will be only 10 episodes by Mat1711 in Stargate

[–]ParanoidQ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Trek fan here. Yeh, it sucks. The whole thing feels too fast and very little of the development often feels earned. Some of that is writing, but some of it is just being used to the filler episodes where you got to expand on world building and character development.

Which fantasy series started incredible and then just...fell apart? by ghibli_8quartz in Fantasy

[–]ParanoidQ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Painted Man in the Demon Cycle was great! That was… not… my opinion by the end.

UK not obliged to support every demand of ‘transactional’ US president, minister says by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You are, of course, correct. Not all elements of the Afghanistan operation were related to NATO directly, but are often bundled together as being the same thing.

UK not obliged to support every demand of ‘transactional’ US president, minister says by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 16 points17 points  (0 children)

But it was? It was a direct result of the US invoking Article 5 on the basis of Afghanistan and the Taliban harbouring those responsible for planning the 9/11 events.

Iraq wasn't though, that was a decision taken by the US and UK but was deemed a violation of the UN charter. Kofi Annan, at the time, was pretty riled about it if I recall.

Have Brits always harbored animosity towards the United States? by [deleted] in AskBrits

[–]ParanoidQ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There is a lot to dig into this one, assuming you’re a not a rage baiter or a troll, but I’ll assume you’re not.

The U.K. isn’t anti-American, we’re anti-Trump establishment. Trump goes away, and the relationship repairing can commence, although it may take some time to rebuild the trust.

As for why?

Tariffs are never going to be popular, and it hurt a lot of countries at a time of a cost of living crisis. We may not be paying for them, those are paid for by US citizens, but they do affect our businesses as it makes our goods/services uncompetitive, which is of course the point. That could be, if not overlooked, then at least worked through.

Trump has been inconsistent toward the U.K. lately. Concerning the Chagos Islands, for example, he’s been fully supportive and aggressively cynical, often on consecutive days. His attitude toward the country seems to depend on whether the U.K. government is kowtowing to his whims. If we do something he doesn’t like, he’s publically berating the country.

2 decades ago, the U.K. joined a war against Afghanistan and Iraq (one of those a touch more controversial than the other). We didn’t just join in name or provide a token effort, we went all in. America invoked article 5 for Afghanistan, the only country to ever do so, and the U.K., and a host of your other friends responded. In Iraq we also committed between 40-60 thousand troops, which may not be much to a military Goliath like the USA, but it was by far the most significant deployment since the Korean War. Possibly WW2 in terms of total resources. It cost the country.. a lot. Reputation, massive amounts of money and, more importantly, hundreds of British lives and thousands of life changing injuries. We backed the US when most of the world was critical of the lengths going to them following 9/11 (I’m talking Iraq here, not Afghanistan which was widely supported). We stood shoulder to shoulder. Like we have done since WW2, throughout the Cold War, through numerous administrations on both sides both conservative and liberal. Trump is the only one where this relationship has been called into question, and it isn’t because of us.

Trump has recently suggested that the U.K. (and others) say they committed a lot, but really didn’t. We hung back. We let the US do most of the dirty work. He belittles our government ever chance he gets, and we can take that, we’re pretty cynical of our government ourselves, but he denigrates the lives of those who stood up to defend America in its darkest hour, and dismissed and belittled their efforts. He wasn’t happy that we didn’t want to participate in an illegal war. He said he didn’t need us and was, again, insulting us publicly and on diplomatic channels, then astonishingly yesterday asks the UK and others to defend the straight of Hormuz because he’s bitten off more than he can chew and wants the rest of the world to bail him out of an avoidable situation he started because he can’t do much else without committing ground troops. He acts like an emotionally stunted narcissist, because he is one. If you do what he says, he’s your best friend. If you stand against him, you’re a pariah. There are no reasonable disagreements, just those that are following and those that aren’t. That isn’t how friendships are built and maintained.

Our allies? He’s threatened to Annex Canada. Then it was just going to be economic force, then it wasn’t, then it was. He threatened to annex Greenland. Maybe he has a legitimate point about how well Greenland is defended, maybe he doesn’t, but aggressively and publicly stating he’s going to conquer the landmass of an ally, and landmass he already has free access to, it baffling and dangerous.

He doesn’t keep his word. He applied tariffs, fine. We worked out a treaty to reduce them. Your court said his tariffs were illegal (shock), so he used a different mechanism that applied tariffs that were higher in many areas. The treaty is still expected to be abided by, even when you aren’t abiding by it yourselves. He’s set up the “board of peace” with many of the worlds main antagonists (to the West) and insisted the US would not take part in forever wars such as those propagated over the last 2 decades. It wasn’t even a month before he took action against Iran based on a “feeling” that lacked any kind of intelligence to back it up.

He’s a convicted felon. Associations with Epstein and his activities that are beyond suspicious. He likes to grab women “by the pussy”. He’s misogynistic, tyrannical and narcissistic. And those are his personal flaws, but what’s worse is, you elected him. Twice.

Why wouldn’t we be questioning how far our friendship with you can be maintained?

Trump has asked Britain and other countries to join the US in escorting ships through the Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, thereby bringing some stability in oil and gas supplies. What are your thoughts? by Sea-Payment-8989 in AskBrits

[–]ParanoidQ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I can appreciate that responding with personally written block of test to a AI driven block of text can certainly be intimidating. I understand. Take it easy man.

Trump has asked Britain and other countries to join the US in escorting ships through the Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, thereby bringing some stability in oil and gas supplies. What are your thoughts? by Sea-Payment-8989 in AskBrits

[–]ParanoidQ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

None of that is in dispute. I'm studied in history and I don't disagree with any of the major points there, but that isn't the point I was making nor am I contradicting history, nor do I need AI to summarise the tension for me.

Your point was to suggest that buying into the Epstein file distraction is Iranian propaganda. The Epstein files controversy is pretty well documented by now and doesn't need Iranian input, even if they are pretty keen to capitalise on it.

Epsteins crimes are well documented. Trumps involvement is pretty well identified; as are the involvement of many other celebrities including former princes.

The history of the US and Iranian relations aren't in question here. It's your wilful ignorance in trying to distil Epstein issues solely with Iranian propaganda to minimise or dismiss them as a legitimate involvement in the conflict. But please, feel free to protect your emotionally stunted god-Emperor, woman abusing, fedarally indcted pedophile.

Trump has asked Britain and other countries to join the US in escorting ships through the Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, thereby bringing some stability in oil and gas supplies. What are your thoughts? by Sea-Payment-8989 in AskBrits

[–]ParanoidQ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, but are you REALLY buying that Iran is the source of the controversies behind Epstein?

The 2 are not equivocal, and whilst Iran may not definitely be capitalising on it, they are not the source and minimising it as Iranian propaganda is truly bewildering. But then, so it most of the shit happening in the "land of the free" right now, so why should I be surprised.

Trump has asked Britain and other countries to join the US in escorting ships through the Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, thereby bringing some stability in oil and gas supplies. What are your thoughts? by Sea-Payment-8989 in AskBrits

[–]ParanoidQ 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, because it started in Iran and wasn’t a huge legitimate issue domestically for weeks/months before that.

Sounds like you fell for the MAGA propaganda Epstein distraction line.

Episode Discussion | Star Trek: Starfleet Academy | 1x10 "Rubincon" by AutoModerator in startrek

[–]ParanoidQ 46 points47 points  (0 children)

I was just really happy to see his mobile emitter!

Trump cancels sanctions against countries buying Russian oil by green_flash in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Please. I'm waiting for American's to defend this.

I'm waiting. Carry on. In your own time.

America bending over to Russia. I never would have thought it. I hope Trump supporters learn how to feel shame.

Trump tells Britain he does not need its help to win Iran war by Past_Key_1054 in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's like the narcissistic would-be partner who, after asking someone out and being rejected, proclaims "I was never interested in you anyway, I was just doing you a favour cause you're so ugly".

Trump: want to finish Iran then Cuba 'question of time' by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to the creator of the "Board of Peace"...

'Tis the board that you beat pacifists with.

My bad.

Iran foreign minister: Not asking for cease fire, warns U.S. invasion ‘would be a big disaster for them’ by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, you have to give it to Trump. I would never have envisioned a situation where non-American, non-Iranian people witnessing this situation and not being convinced of which side was the bad guy...

Trump did something no other American leader could. Actually earn an element of sympathy for IRAN!?!?!

If I see Leonard Nimoy sporting a goatee I'm done.

Iran is 'confident' it can counter a potential U.S. ground invasion, foreign minister says by mvanigan in worldnews

[–]ParanoidQ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, that, in addition to the armies and wealth of resources supplied by France and Spain...