Donald Trump

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

neo-colony =/= colony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

It helps if you read ALL the words.

Defined in the link as follows: "Neocolonialism, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization and cultural imperialism to influence a developing country in lieu of direct military control (imperialism) or indirect political control (hegemony)."

Which countries in Western Europe do you class as 'developing' ?

Anyway, it's relative. One of the causes of war in Europe previously was the exercise of superior economic status to coerce weaker neighbours. One of the underlying reasons for having a united Europe and a single currency. It is a very difficult change in a diverse continent and the UK has copped out to please ideologues and opportunists.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

neo-colony =/= colony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

It helps if you read ALL the words.

Defined in the link as follows: "Neocolonialism, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization and cultural imperialism to influence a developing country in lieu of direct military control (imperialism) or indirect political control (hegemony)."

Which countries in Western Europe do you class as 'developing' ?

Quite a few would qualify when they started. Bits of Southern Europe still would. Nowadays there've been attempts to pull some former Eastern Bloc countries towards the West, with a reaction from Russia.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

neo-colony =/= colony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

It helps if you read ALL the words.

Defined in the link as follows: "Neocolonialism, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization and cultural imperialism to influence a developing country in lieu of direct military control (imperialism) or indirect political control (hegemony)."

Which countries in Western Europe do you class as 'developing' ?

Anyway, it's relative. One of the causes of war in Europe previously was the exercise of superior economic status to coerce weaker neighbours. One of the underlying reasons for having a united Europe and a single currency. It is a very difficult change in a diverse continent and the UK has copped out to please ideologues and opportunists.

Nope, its quite important really as it clearly does not fit the definition.

If you read the examples as advised by Rick, you'll see that these refer to what we typically refer to as developing - a very different set of countries from those in Western Europe, which is not referred to as an example anywhere in the link.

FishFish

Pross wrote:

FishFish wrote:

So you believe GM? Are they a car maker or economics consultancy?

You don’t think that maybe a global vehicle manufacturer would consult with economists as part of planning their business strategy and that, just maybe, those consultants understand the likely economics of the situation more than you? You should offer your services, it might help offset their rising costs!

These would be the same consultants who allowed, without mitigation, the destruction of the motor industry in Detroit; Motown.

FishFish

Stevo 666 wrote:

If you read the examples as advised by Rick, you'll see that these refer to what we typically refer to as developing - a very different set of countries from those in Western Europe, which is not referred to as an example anywhere in the link.

But in fairness to development we do have to recognise that scotchland is primitive and unlikely to develop - but, unlike us - it is in W Europe.

Stevo_666

FishFish wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

If you read the examples as advised by Rick, you'll see that these refer to what we typically refer to as developing - a very different set of countries from those in Western Europe, which is not referred to as an example anywhere in the link.

But in fairness to development we do have to recognise that scotchland is primitive and unlikely to develop - but, unlike us - it is in W Europe.

Fair point: although it is more accurate to say England has 'neo-colonialised' Scotland rather than the USA.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

neo-colony =/= colony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

It helps if you read ALL the words.

Defined in the link as follows: "Neocolonialism, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization and cultural imperialism to influence a developing country in lieu of direct military control (imperialism) or indirect political control (hegemony)."

Which countries in Western Europe do you class as 'developing' ?

In 1946? Most of Europe.

rick_chasey

On a very basic level, what do you think the Marshall Plan was?

And why would America do it?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

neo-colony =/= colony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

It helps if you read ALL the words.

Defined in the link as follows: "Neocolonialism, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization and cultural imperialism to influence a developing country in lieu of direct military control (imperialism) or indirect political control (hegemony)."

Which countries in Western Europe do you class as 'developing' ?

In 1946? Most of Europe.

You made the cold war reference above which extended to around 1990. Still struggling to see Western Europe as developing in that time given the examples in your link.

rick_chasey

Can’t help ya there then mate.

Marshall plan & subsequent US policy towards Europe is quite easy to see as neeo-colonialism. Quite easy to argue US policy of liberalising and deregulating, plus peace keeping “developed” Post war west-Europe.

If you don’t want to see that because of one narrow and debatable criterium on a Wikipedia definition then knock yourself out; pointless having an argument.

You struggle with history as you condense it all into straw men in order to “win” an argument.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can’t help ya there then mate.

Marshall plan & subsequent US policy towards Europe is quite easy to see as neeo-colonialism. Quite easy to argue US policy of liberalising and deregulating, plus peace keeping “developed” Post war west-Europe.

If you don’t want to see that because of one narrow and debatable criterium on a Wikipedia definition then knock yourself out; pointless having an argument.

You struggle with history as you condense it all into straw men in order to “win” an argument.

If it was 'one narrrow and debatable criterium' on Wiki, why did you post the link to it then? Especially after telling people to read it all - did you not do that?

The neo-colonial point is clearly first world vs third world - not the case here.

rick_chasey

Haha ok.

So the Marshall plan was in who’s interest? Just Europe?

FishFish

Liberalising started during the war with the employment of women - bet it happened all throughout Europe too and not as a result of the USA. De-regulation of what? In UK, sell off of state owned enterprises, white heat of technology and the national re-build following the war were nothing to do with USA. Maybe you mean the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act. That was helpful. This place is about having arguments and not about winning them.

Although in my case I have an impeccable record.

pblakeney

FishFish wrote:

Although in my case I have an impeccable record.

Dark Side Of The Moon is pretty good I'll grant you.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

On a very basic level, what do you think the Marshall Plan was?

And why would America do it?

Two reasons:

The USA gave aid to Europe, Germany in particular, because it needed to restore Europe's prosperity in order to have a market for its own goods.

It was also scared of communism taking over the whole impoverished continent instead of just eastern Europe. Despite Russia's role as an ally against Germany in 1946 Churchill made his 'iron curtain' speech defing Russia as an opponent:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

Bizarrely, in 1944 it had been Churchill who made the notorious 'percentages' agreement with Stalin without US knowledge. This established spheres of influence in Europe and Roosevelt later accepted the concept. The US had opposed Churchill's preference for liberating Europe via the Balkans - payback?

FishFish

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

On a very basic level, what do you think the Marshall Plan was?

And why would America do it?

Two reasons:

The USA gave aid to Europe, Germany in particular, because it needed to restore Europe's prosperity in order to have a market for its own goods.

It was also scared of communism taking over the whole impoverished continent instead of just eastern Europe. Despite Russia's role as an ally against Germany in 1946 Churchill made his 'iron curtain' speech defing Russia as an opponent:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

Bizarrely, in 1944 it had been Churchill who made the notorious 'percentages' agreement with Stalin without US knowledge. This established spheres of influence in Europe and Roosevelt later accepted the concept. The US had opposed Churchill's preference for liberating Europe via the Balkans - payback?

America was never any good at this sort of thing. Later in the 60's and 70's it was Britain which 'sorted' out the Middle East conspiring with the Trucial States and the Emirates so to allow oil past Hormuz without encountering Iran and leaving Saudi to the Americans. Oman was the biggest of all wins. The other wins such as Al Yamamah had to be bribed.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

You struggle with history as you condense it all into straw men in order to “win” an argument.

Don't be a smartarse. I know you have a history degree. But at least I can read the first paragraph of a wiki page that I might post to support my case. Might help you next time

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You struggle with history as you condense it all into straw men in order to “win” an argument.

Don't be a smartarse. I know you have a history degree. But at least I can read the first paragraph of a wiki page that I might post to support my case. Might help you next time

True, but there are plenty of other articles discussing the Marshall Plan as the first example of neocolonialism. Stalin denounced it as imperialism at time. Whether you want to use either term or just call it basic self interest is just a matter of nomenclature. But either way I think it is a bit of a limited view. Things don't usually happen for a single reason.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You struggle with history as you condense it all into straw men in order to “win” an argument.

Don't be a smartarse. I know you have a history degree. But at least I can read the first paragraph of a wiki page that I might post to support my case. Might help you next time

True, but there are plenty of other articles discussing the Marshall Plan as the first example of neocolonialism. Stalin denounced it as imperialism at time. Whether you want to use either term or just call it basic self interest is just a matter of nomenclature. But either way I think it is a bit of a limited view. Things don't usually happen for a single reason.

I'm sure there are definitions of neocolonialism that handily suit the point that some are trying to make - and have been wheeled out after I merely pointed out that that the definition supplied by Rick did not cover the point that he was trying to make.

Some might call that moving the goalposts.

robert88

Now you lot ain't going to believe this, you'll think it is FAKE news and that I'm stuffing Alternative Facts down your throats like making foie gras.

Never mind, here it is anyway:

Trump is proposing USEXIT from the WTO. What's surprising about that I hear you say. Not a lot obv. - it's what he does.

But it's called "United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act". Think about it. A US president called Trump is going to have a FART act.

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-war-l ... e0f83.html



They do now.

rolf_f

But what do we think of the Farts Fart? Is the Trump Fart going to clean up the world and make everything smell of roses or will it just make the USA stink even more?

bianchimoon

Dealing with Trump it has been said is like playing chess with a pigeon. First it knocks over all the pieces, then it sh1tts on the board, and finally it struts around like it won.

bianchimoon

John Bolton refusing to rule out that the US will recognise the of Russian invasion of Ukraine during Trump Putin summit

FishFish

bianchimoon wrote:

John Bolton refusing to rule out that the US will recognise the of Russian invasion of Ukraine during Trump Putin summit

Nice to see that you can manage three consecutive sentences without a copied URL - next you'll manage to provide one with some insight or value.

I'm also refusing to rule out that the US will recognise the of.... have you just read what you have written - as if a pigeon had scattered random words across the page.

bianchimoon

Oh fishbott you are such a идиот

kingstongraham

bianchimoon wrote:

Oh fishbott you are such a идиот

should be "an".

Stevo_666

FishFish wrote:

Nice to see that you can manage three consecutive sentences without a copied URL - next you'll manage to provide one with some insight or value.

kingstongraham

bianchimoon wrote:

Dealing with Trump it has been said is like playing chess with a pigeon. First it knocks over all the pieces, then it sh1tts on the board, and finally it struts around like it won.

I like that.

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Nice to see that you can manage three consecutive sentences without a copied URL - next you'll manage to provide one with some insight or value.

But seriously Stevo, we might not have the same political view, but being amused by Fishbot :roll:

FishFish

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Dealing with Trump it has been said is like playing chess with a pigeon. First it knocks over all the pieces, then it sh1tts on the board, and finally it struts around like it won.

I like that.

But why would you play chess with a bird?