News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]

Maybe the problem isn't the plane, but those who make the decisions on what to buy. It may have something to do with politics. Or, with what the German military wants to accomplish operationally with the planes it buys.

Personally, I think it has more to do with politics, but I really don't know since I'm not privy to the conversations being had between the German decision-makers. All I know is that the aerospace professionals I'm close to have become impressed with the new generation of F-35.

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]

What's reported in the media and what is actual fact aren't necessarily the same thing. Like I said, I believe it has more to do with politics than anything else--our countries don't see eye-to-eye on many things. Never underestimate the pettiness of political actors.

The F-35 is not perfect--nothing is--but contemporary air warfare isn't like Tom Cruise in Top Gun. It's been trending towards out-of-view striking for decades, which makes the need to be the fastest to be the best an outdated mode of thinking. It's more about stealth, range, and payload--mach 1.6 is plenty fast for what this plane is meant to do operationally...and it's meant to be a highly lethal plane. Apparently, many of the pilots who fly it think it's a fantastic warplane.

And, that German radar incident wasn't a blind test. It knew the F-35 was in the area. For it to be a conclusive test, it would have to be blind so it could determine if the signals were from a plane or not. That didn't happen, so I wouldn't put much stock in it.

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]


You're making it sound like it, indeed, was a political decision.

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]

Germany ended up buying Typhoons?

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]

It's going to be interesting to see what develops in Germany, and the EU for that matter, over the next 10-15 years. There's some very strong headwinds that'll need to be navigated. Let's hope none of these warplanes need to be used.

News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy. [304]

European energy prices are obscene! If Europe started fracking, different ballgame. If I recall correctly, Poland had some fracking success but had the EC hammer come upon their heads.

News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy. [304]

I was in Poland mid-Dec through mid-Jan and gas for the car was a little above 5 PLN per liter. Household electricity costs are around .25 euro cents per kwh, that's double the US average. Germans pay about .31 euro cents per kwh. Natural gas on average is something like $6.50 per gallon, whereas US is below $3. What's so frustrating about this is that Europe is sitting on an ocean of oil and has plenty of coal to lower energy prices.

I live in Cincinnati and gas was $2.05/gallon today.

History / Why is Vatican traditionally on German and not on Polish side? [65]


Absolute baloney!

If you're talking about the 1933 Concordat, it's easy to look at it through a post-WWII lens and make moral judgments, but that's a practice in historical reactionism. In 1933, the Church enter an agreement to not openly oppose the Reich government and in turn the Reich would allow the Church to preserve and keep independent its institutions and churches. Once the Reich broke the agreement, Pius assumed his vocal opposition of the Nazis (he opposed them when he was stationed in Germany during the Nazi rise). He tampered down his public opposition when it became clear that his public attacks were causing an increase of Catholic persecution by the Nazis. However, he secretly promoted that Catholic institutions do everything to protect Jews. Probably the most powerful illustartion of Pius not selling out the fascism was the Chief Rabbi of Rome during the Nazi oppression converted to catholicism after the war because of Pius' courage and witness of charity to the Jewish people.

History / Why is Vatican traditionally on German and not on Polish side? [65]

Focus, Lyzko, focus. :). You're drifting off the road.

You made two claims:

1) That in the 2000-plus years of popedom, the ONLY pope to ever build substantive bridges amongst Catholics and Jews was JPII, and
2) Pope Pius sold out to fascism--and he did it to save face.

As I said, the 1933 Concordat was about the Church surviving a regime that was fundamentally at odds with the Church. To preserve its existence and independence in internal governance, the Church agreed to not openly oppose the Reich government--Hitler misinterpreted the meaning of the Concordat as meaning the Church supported the Reich (but that was not Pius' fault, it, but Hitler's). That's not selling out to fascism. If it is, then you would have to say Roosevelt and Churchill sold out to Communism by allying with Stalin and the Soviets--and you're going to be hard pressed to find a more sober-minded anti-communist than Winston Churchill.

Pius not only commanded that Catholic institutions protect Jews, but he did it himself by providing Jews shelter in the Vatican and the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. Plus, the historical record shows that he was constantly contact with foreign diplomats to apprise them of the Jewish situation and use the Church as a vehicle of intelligence sharing.

Pius (and foreign diplomats, BTW) knew the way to maintain the position of rescuing Jews (and keep Catholics from persecution--priests and religious were persecuted by Nazis also, Dachau alone imprisoned 1000's of Catholic priests) was to maintain the appearance of neutrality. Notice the word "neutrality", which is different than "collaboration".

Anyhow, I still stand by my assertion that your post was absolute baloney--but don't take it personally. :)

History / Why is Vatican traditionally on German and not on Polish side? [65]


I think you got it right the first time. ;)


More baloney! Your reading seems to be select articles from the internet. His change from speaking out wasn't a change in thought, but a matter of prudence to protect Catholics and Jews.

No doubt this a complex issue that is easy to make black-and-white moral judgments rom the comfort of our peacetime living rooms, but the contemporary realities of that time demanded prudence. What seems to accompany the criticisms against Pius is that the moral imperative to speak out against the evils of nazism were paramount and that prudential judgment had no place--it's a kind of scorched Earth kind of mentality.

You should check out books written by Rabbi Donald Dalin and Ronald Rychlak.

The defamation of Pius started with a play in the 1960's that wasn't based on historical research. Also, consider how Yad Vashem has gradually been softening its tone against Pius.


What's your point? Are you claiming Pius had something to do with de-nazification policy or that he procured safe passage of known nazis to S.A.?

Look, there's no doubt that anti-semitism existed (and still exists) within the Church and that even some churchmen were supportive of the Nazi regime (at least at the beginning). But, none of that means Pius was a fascist sell-out or anti-semitic.

@Tacitus

Good post!

News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy. [304]


The European average is .25 euro cents--give or take a euro cent or two.


26 Billion metric tons is pretty big. statista.com/statistics/237096/proven-coal-reserves-of-the-top-ten-countries

Why does it require heavy subsidies?

History / Why is Vatican traditionally on German and not on Polish side? [65]

@ Lyzko

I apologize if I came off condescending. I see where you might think I was. My sincerest apologies. I still think your analysis is baloney, though. :)

I'm genuinely interested in understanding your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that Pius XII was a sell-out to fascism.

You having read copiously about the subject would know that before 1939, Church programs, institutions, and, even, liturgical services were being assaulted. That Catholic publications were being censored--Catholic publications couldn't even publish dates of pilgrimages or catholic club meetings. That Catholic leaders, priests, and religious were being imprisoned and fined--priests were even tried for treason because they were accused of importing and exporting currency. Catholic schools and unions were disbanded by pressure from the Reich, etc., etc., etc.

You'd also know that during the war, 1,000s of Catholic priests and religious were sent to the death camps. That when the Dutch bishops spoke out against Jewish deportations, Catholics were persecuted (a good number of them Jewish converts). That many Polish Catholics suffered reprisals when the vatican would speak out. Plus, the other examples mentioned before and the context that Tacitus laid out, which is no small matter, and the fact that many Jews during that period praised and defended Pius.

I would think that these things can't easily be dismissed when considering what role Pius played. To say Pius sold out to the fascists seems that you are not giving these points adequate consideration.

So what's your reasoning?

News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy. [304]


OK, that makes sense why it's not worth mining.

What about oil and gas fracking in Poland? I recall there was some real promise there, but EU regulatory pressures got in the way. True or not?

News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy. [304]

I see. But regulations can make things very pricy, even if a thing isn't banned You have any idea what the financial impact of those regulations are?

News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy. [304]

Oh, OK. I wonder if the lack of commercial success is due to burdensome regulation. We experienced such burden here in the US. My understanding is that Europe is sitting atop a significant amount of shale gas and oil. If that can be harvested, it would change the energy game. Although, it would **** Russia off and they might want to invade or something.

History / Why is Vatican traditionally on German and not on Polish side? [65]

Who's "the former"? How would not entering into the Concordat been a better negotiating position? Are you suggesting Hitler and Mussolini's ambitions were somehow dependent upon Vatican approval?


But, isn't that exactly what you are doing? Guessing what would have happened if the Concordat wasn't signed?

History / Why is Vatican traditionally on German and not on Polish side? [65]

You shouldn't go around breaking promises, Lyzko! What promise did you break?

Anyhow, the Concordat was entered into with the Reich government, not Mussolini. If signing the Concordat was considered to be a wink and a nod to the Fascists, wouldn't Mussolini have closer ties to the Vatican already? How would have not signing the Concordat created a more friendly environment for the Vatican to have closer ties, thereby a better negotiating position, with the Fascists? Also, how would Italian influence made the situation better? Is there evidence that Mussolini had significant influence over Hitler--my understanding is there isn't any evidence of such, but there is evidence Hitler didn't give much care to what Mussolini had to say.

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]


I'd argue that the USA isn't any more isolationist than it was 10, 25, 40 years ago. The difference now is that we are pressuring other allies to increase what they contribute to NATO, pulling back some of our police actions (though we remain engaged diplomatically), and seek more balanced trade agreements.

News / Coal-Powered Poland Refuses to "Go Green". EU Ain't Happy. [304]


But, are those other businesses taxed like the coal companies? Tax policy is one way to effect change. If gov wants to limit coal it can lay a direct tax on coal while not laying the same type of tax on other businesses.

History / Why is Vatican traditionally on German and not on Polish side? [65]

But, that's the issue: is the black eye legitimate?

I argue that according to the empirical evidence we have, it is not. I think it's beyond a reasonable doubt that Pius was acting prudential in his public policy, while behind the scenes actively promoting and supporting efforts to save Jews, as well as protecting Catholics and the institutional church so it could carry on its temporal mission during a very difficult and evil time. If I'm not mistaken, up until Hochhuth or Hocktuth (can't remember the guy's name) wrote his play in the early '60s, many Jews and even the State of Israel had a favorable opinion of Pius (I might need to be corrected on the support of the State of Israel, but many individuals Jew attested to Pius' efforts to protect Jews).

The reason I think it is important to fix this flawed perception of Pius is that his cause for canonization is being considered and if the Church finds he's worthy to be proclaimed a saint, you know as well as I that there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in Israel and throughout the Jewish world--hell, the political pressure has already paused his beatification. There will be great political tension between the Vatican and Israel, which is not good for the Middle east.

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]

@ Tacitus

The clearer Trump's foreign policy becomes, what I see is Trump trying to correct Obama's pivot. Trump's foreign policy seems to be about strong deterrence (that certainly means paying a lot attention to China but it also includes deterring Iran and Russia, and that's why he isn't working to dissolve NATO but reform it in a meaningful way so it can project real power and have Euros share more of the financial burden (you guys have been eating a free US-subsidized lunch for too long :) )), equitable trade agreements, combatting terrorism, and disentangling the US in costly police actions (Syria, for example).

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]


How is the narrative false? The vast majority of NATO nations do, indeed, underfund their military's and do not spend the agreed upon 2% of their GDP on defense. Do you agree that this weakens NATO? And, that the USA is left to fill that void to maintain the credibility of NATO defense power? I've seen reports where the German military is only 30-40% operationally ready at any time. That the French military would find it dificult to maintain a brigade over even a short period of time.


You may be right about that, I'm not sure; but, it isn't necessarily an indicator that America is looking to fold up NATO. It is an indicator of what America sees as the biggest threat to not only America, but the West : China. But having said that, there is still the reality that America is concerned with Russia, i.e. new US garrisons in Ploland.

Think about this and tell me what you think: if Trump wanted to leave NATO, why would he constantly be badgering NATO nations to increase defense spending? To me, the only reason he'd be doing that is so Europe would be strong enough to defend itself. But, if that is the reason, why build new garrisons. Also consider how hard Trump has been lobbying NATO to develop a strategy to deal with China and Iran?


In fact he has increased significantly, as he should, IMO. Deterrence is a major part of Trump 's foreign policy. As a historian, would you say that historically, deterrence has been one of, if not the best, purveyor of peace?

News / Modern F-35 bought by Poland. Good decision? [288]


Yeah, during the beginning of his campaign there was a lot of media reports characterizing Trump as not knowing how NATO was funded, but once he started detailing what he hoped to accomplish it was clear he realized it was 2% of GDP.

I don't know if you are aware, but the US military is under a sequestration that cut military spending by tens of billions USD each year since 2013. The military needed to boost spending to modernize and recover strength. Trump's spending is doing that.

Also, it wasn't Trump who started massive debts, that started back ion the 60's. The wild massive debt problem started in the 90's and has been compounding ever since. Recently, the Great Combover proposed a budget cutting $4.4 trillion--it won't be adopted, though.


Not sure what you mean by this. US is, in part, modernizing and beefing up its military to counter China's defense modernization, for sure. But, it's doing it in a general way. The reality, though, is a huge sum of US defense spending is for day-to-day operations of the Dept of Defense, which includes Asian and Middle Eastern Operations, but that's just a sliver of the pie. A whole bunch goes toward non-Asian and Mid-eastern operations.



Now you know what it's like to be an American. ;). All the bitching and moaning from across the Atlantic we've endured over the past 80 years to bring and keep peace and prosperity to your beautiful continent is voluminous, and all we ask for is you keep your promise to spend 2% of GDP and help us keep each other safer by fighting terror in the terrorists neighborhood (I'll concede that Iraq was a monumental blunder--Afghanistan is legit, although it needs to end). Are we really asking too much?

NATO nations--other than Turkey--should realize that China is a threat and it doesn't respect weakness. I believe Trump is right to prod NATO in that direction. The stronger each individual NATO member country is, the stronger the alliance is (and, yes, the less the US will need to spend to offset the defense shortcomings of other NATO countries).

News / Why is Poland so hostile against Germany? Do they realize how their reparations rubbish damages relations? [512]


How do you define nationalists? It seems like every group or movement or political party that wants to protect its sovereignty is being lumped together, even though they have completely different political philosophies and policies. The AfD in Germany appears to be much different than, say, the Freedom Caucus in America, for instance.

News / Why is Poland so hostile against Germany? Do they realize how their reparations rubbish damages relations? [512]


I think the argument isn't about what is a patriot or a nationalist or a globalist, really. I think the argument is do you want a country that that is governed by the people through elected officials or do you want a country governed by an elite who are not answerable to the people? Now, cynics will say, "well, all political representatives are bought and paid for by special interests and don't give a damn about the people." That can be true, but the people still have the power to kick 'em out; whereas, an unelected political elite is virtually untouchable.

BB's view, as I understand it, is that a supranational globalist body is the best way to ensure peace and prosperity...for Germany, which directly benefits him. {Is that accurate, BB? } Notice his ultimate aim is self-interest, which is to live in peace and prosper. Who doesn't want that? BB's aims are normal and good.

The question is, does a supranational globalist political-economical regime really provide that in the long run? Will a supranational elite be sensitive to your needs? How will a supranational regime effect the distinct cultures it governs? How does a supranational regime effect local economies? How do you hold the supranational regime accountable?

News / Why is Poland so hostile against Germany? Do they realize how their reparations rubbish damages relations? [512]


I knew you were going to say that! I almost added the phrase "...and others."

Torq sees a nationalist as someone who is willing to give up his humanity for the perceived good of the state and is attracted to power.

BB sees a nationalist as someone who despises those contrary to his beliefs and is intolerant of opposition, who creates political division and conflict.

Would you agree with that synopsis, BB and Torq?

If this is correct, can we say that this fits every leader or movement throughout the world that is being labeled nationalist?

It seems that nationalist equals something Naziesque in most people's minds. So, maybe we should make a distinction between those who reject globalism and fit the above definitions with those who want to maintain national sovereignty without supranational governance yet remain mutually engaged with others. We can call the latter Sovereignists.

News / Why is Poland so hostile against Germany? Do they realize how their reparations rubbish damages relations? [512]


It doesn't necessarily have to be politicians, but Trump, I'd argue, is, indeed, a Sovereignist. I am a Sovereignist.


Make American Great Again isn't blaming foreigners and other countries. It's blaming domestic leaders and bureaucrats for entering into agreements and making policies that don't serve the interest of the average American.

All of this hyperventilating over Trump's perceived nationalism isn't grounded in the facts of his policies. For instance, look at the new trade deal between the US, Mexico, and Canada, it doesn't screw over Mexico and Canada, it benefits and respects all parties involved. It just makes the trade environment more fair. Hell, it even benefits the average Mexican, for instance there's a provision that will significantly raise wages for mexican auto workers.

News / Why is Poland so hostile against Germany? Do they realize how their reparations rubbish damages relations? [512]


That's my belief, it's simply a matter of misperception--probably fueled by the personal dislike the Great Combover and Merkel have for each other (but that is a mutual feeling between the two--it's not a one-way street). I'm not aware of the Orange Crush putting forward anything that actually weakens or severely harms Germany.


Absolutely and unequivocally not!

You raise a very important point that begs a clarification. Strictly speaking, a soveriegnist could be of any stripe as long as he adheres to national independence and integrity--this could include communists, fascists, etc. So, we need to distinguish between the types of sovereignists. The sovereignists I defined in my previous post can be called a Democratic Sovereignist.

Humanity is at the very root of being a democratic sovereignist . Humanity is what is sacrosanct to the democratic sovereignist. The democratic sovereignist is motivated by the liberty of the human person to govern himself (done through representative government). The state is not viewed as an idol to be worshipped, but a vehicle to serve the popular will of the people and protect the rights of individuals.


I agree, also. There is nothing inherently evil in such constructs. But what recourse do you have when such a construct no longer...


How does the people hold a supranational regime accountable?

My main point is that globalist constructs actually weaken the liberty and rights of individuals.

News / Why is Poland so hostile against Germany? Do they realize how their reparations rubbish damages relations? [512]


Yes, I do. The concern is how do you ensure it.


I agree that such constructs vary greatly and you can't judge them all as the same. I also agree they are not all inherently bad. But, I do believe they put a fundamental limit on liberty. Reality is there is always going to be some limits put on liberty, even in a fully sovereign democratic regime, i.e. you have to pay taxes, can't infringe on public or private property, etc. But, those limitations are not done by governmental fiat, rather by consent of the people via elected officials; if the government overreaches, the people have an apparatus it can use to effect change: the vote. In a supranational regime, that doesn't really exist; the real power is concentrated in a body appointed by elites, not the people they govern.


But what happens if it does begin to opress?


How about a supernatural organization? :)


If he said "hurt", then I'd disagree with that, but if he meant to rival the US, then that's spot on. We do, in fact, see each other as rivals (again, it's a two-way street). But, rivalry doesn't mean hatred. Rivalry can make each other better, as long as the playing field is fair. The Great Combover has said more than anything, the playing field isn't fair and has been stacked against the US. I think that's demonstrably true. He's not trying to hurt the EU, he's trying the even the playing field. Remember, it was Trump who proposed no tariffs across the board with the EU--that didn't come from the EU.

News / Presidential elections 2020 - your opinions about campaign, candidates [2223]

If anyone read the Los Angeles Times, one would think Biedron is on the verge of not only toppling the Polish political establishment, but emerging victorious in his moral crusade to reimagine Polish culture.

latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-05/poland-presidential-candidate-robert-biedron

Is his message resonating much in Poland? Does he have a realistic chance?