EU army

[AshVX220]

F1GTRUeno said:

No. The US hasn't been our ally since 1945.

Instead we've been their bh ever since. Hence we've had to join them in their pointless (unless you're a money maker) wars and it's cost us the lives of multiple thousands of our own soldiers but that doesn't make us allies, not really.

They don't care about us, they never really did. They only care about themselves. They're actually worse than Russia or China because they pretend to be your friend when they're not.

Their problem is much, much bigger than Trump will ever be, it's not a hissy fit about Trump, it's a hissy fit about America running the planet and convincing people that they care about you when they'd absolutely 'freedom' the st out of you the moment you stopped using dollars as currency for trading precious commodities.

The whole planet would be better off if America was cut off from us all and turned into something akin to Escape from New York/LA. We all need to be much less reliant on them because they're a cancer on this planet and they leave their st stained mark everywhere.

They're the British Empire of the 20th/21st century.

Comedy gold, oh wait......hang on......you're serious?!?!

OK........."TAXI"!

[garagewidow]

F1GTRUeno said:

No. The US hasn't been our ally since 1945.

Instead we've been their bh ever since. Hence we've had to join them in their pointless (unless you're a money maker) wars and it's cost us the lives of multiple thousands of our own soldiers but that doesn't make us allies, not really.

They don't care about us, they never really did. They only care about themselves. They're actually worse than Russia or China because they pretend to be your friend when they're not.

Their problem is much, much bigger than Trump will ever be, it's not a hissy fit about Trump, it's a hissy fit about America running the planet and convincing people that they care about you when they'd absolutely 'freedom' the st out of you the moment you stopped using dollars as currency for trading precious commodities.

The whole planet would be better off if America was cut off from us all and turned into something akin to Escape from New York/LA. We all need to be much less reliant on them because they're a cancer on this planet and they leave their st stained mark everywhere.

They're the British Empire of the 20th/21st century.

So which of the three would you prefer?

Coz one of them will win.

[toppstuff]

garagewidow said:

So which of the three would you prefer?

Coz one of them will win.

Won't be Russia. They are stupid little-but-large country that just happens to have a large armed forces and barks a lot. Largest land mass in the world yet an economy no larger than Italy - fragile and owned by a couple of dozen people. You could probably take Russia down with a coordinated campaign of a few dozen hitmen.

Having typed this, no doubt my email is being scanned and my personal details hacked in some hackerlab somewhere, in which case may I just say that I didn't mean it..

[pistonheads2018]

toppstuff said:

Won't be Russia. They are stupid little-but-large country that just happens to have a large armed forces and barks a lot. Largest land mass in the world yet an economy no larger than Italy - fragile and owned by a couple of dozen people. You could probably take Russia down with a coordinated campaign of a few dozen hitmen.

Having typed this, no doubt my email is being scanned and my personal details hacked in some hackerlab somewhere, in which case may I just say that I didn't mean it..

Why would GDP be related to land mass?

[Rovinghawk]

pistonheads2018 said:

Why would GDP be related to land mass?

Space to farm. Availability of raw materials, minerals, etc.

Space for industry, for solar panels as far as the eye can see, space for however they wish to develop.

Lichtenstein & Luxembourg do well in a limited range of options. Russia has those options whereas Lich & Lux can't really do extensive agriculture & opencast mining.

[pistonheads2018]

Rovinghawk said:

Space to farm. Availability of raw materials, minerals, etc.

Space for industry, for solar panels as far as the eye can see, space for however they wish to develop.

Lichtenstein & Luxembourg do well in a limited range of options. Russia has those options whereas Lich & Lux can't really do extensive agriculture & opencast mining.

The fact that roughly 50% of Russia is deemed to be uninhabitable is surely quite relevant?

[Rovinghawk]

pistonheads2018 said:

The fact that roughly 50% of Russia is deemed to be uninhabitable is surely quite relevant?

The habitable 50% is still pretty damn big.

[pistonheads2018]

Rovinghawk said:

The habitable 50% is still pretty damn big.

Indeed. But there’s much better correlations for GDP than size of land!

[toppstuff]

pistonheads2018 said:

Rovinghawk said:

The habitable 50% is still pretty damn big.

Indeed. But there’s much better correlations for GDP than size of land!

Who mentioned GDP? I simply said it was a big country with a ( relatively ) small economy.

[pistonheads2018]

toppstuff said:

Who mentioned GDP? I simply said it was a big country with a ( relatively ) small economy.

And you don’t think that the normal way of measuring the size of an economy is in terms of GDP?

[Rovinghawk]

pistonheads2018 said:

Indeed. But there’s much better correlations for GDP than size of land!

The fact is that they have space & resources but haven't made the best of their situation.

[toppstuff]

pistonheads2018 said:

toppstuff said:

Who mentioned GDP? I simply said it was a big country with a ( relatively ) small economy.

And you don’t think that the normal way of measuring the size of an economy is in terms of GDP?

Obvs. But that wasn't the point being made, Mr Obtuse.

[pistonheads2018]

toppstuff said:

Obvs. But that wasn't the point being made, Mr Obtuse.

So on what basis are you assessing the size of their economy as small, if not GDP?

[toppstuff]

pistonheads2018 said:

toppstuff said:

Obvs. But that wasn't the point being made, Mr Obtuse.

So on what basis are you assessing the size of their economy as small, if not GDP?

I think you have a crush on me. All the weird irrelevant questions, the cheeky passive aggressiveness. You little scamp, you.

[pistonheads2018]

toppstuff said:

I think you have a crush on me. All the weird irrelevant questions, the cheeky passive aggressiveness. You little scamp, you.

If you read the thread you'll see you were the 'passive aggressive' and you were the one that brought up the size of the economy (i.e GDP). The fact it made no sense is hardy my fault!

[toppstuff]

pistonheads2018 said:

toppstuff said:

I think you have a crush on me. All the weird irrelevant questions, the cheeky passive aggressiveness. You little scamp, you.

If you read the thread you'll see you were the 'passive aggressive' and you were the one that brought up the size of the economy (i.e GDP). The fact it made no sense is hardy my fault!

Your point was and remains deliberately obtuse. I made the point that Russia is big while its economy is small. You chose to be a pedant over the metrics, which do nothing to add to the point in any way.

If you want to refer to GDP or indeed any other metric then go for it. Knock yourself out. It will still be irrelevant to the thread.

Edited by toppstuff on Wednesday 12th December 20:50

[anonymous-user]

pistonheads2018 said:

If you read the thread you'll see you were the 'passive aggressive' and you were the one that brought up the size of the economy (i.e GDP). The fact it made no sense is hardy my fault!

It made perfect sense. Russia's a huge country with vast resource wealth; it's economic potential is huge but it's GDP per capita is half that of Greece.