Politics – More Zonkyness

Why NATO Isn’t Cooperating With The US War On Iran

Apr 032026

The Twitterverse is agog with dumb Trumpists whining about NATO not kowtowing to Trump and following his lead into war with Iran. Clearly illustrating they have no idea what NATO is.

What Is NATO?

NATO is a mutual defense treaty where members agree to come to the assistance of other members who are attacked. There is no obligation to assist a member who wants to carry out military adventures – even if those military adventures have reasonable goals behind them.

And it isn’t the US going to war with Iran; it’s Israel going to war with Iran and the US is helping its ally. Israel isn’t a member of NATO, so there’s even less reason for NATO to assist.

Is It Legal?

I’ve no idea if Netanyahu’s military adventure is legal or not, but there are legitimate concerns about whether Israel’s and the USA’s actions are legal. There’s no mandate from the UN giving permission to spank Iran; there’s not even a consensus amongst the nations of NATO.

Whilst it may seem strange to USAians that some country leaders worry about whether their actions are legal, it is not unreasonable to refuse to assist a military adventure if doing so may end up with a time in gaol.

Unlikely but not impossible.

The Nukes?

Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? Well come up with proof of that, and you’ll get cooperation. But we haven’t seen any proof; we’re supposed to trust the word of Israel (who are currently short on trust). No thanks.

Particularly when previous military adventures supposedly destroyed the weapons programme.

The Money Question

One of the things that keeps cropping up when the USians want to whine about NATO is that the US is supposedly paying for Europe’s defence. A great deal of that whining is based on lies.

First of all the direct costs of running NATO are funded by all members making a contribution based on how wealthy they are – the US contributes 16.2% of the total (Germany is also on 16.2%), and that percentage is of the entire NATO budget of €5.3billion.

NATO membership also requires countries to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military spending. That target is increasing to 5%.

However whilst Europe has traditionally lagged at below the 2% commitment, the situation has changed considerably in recent years with 23 out of 32 countries meeting or exceeding the 2% of GDP.

You will hear a great deal of the US’s $1 trillion spent on European defence. That’s another lie; the US spends that amount on all military spending including world-wide commitments. And yes that’s more than every other country in Europe – that’s how that “2% of GDP” works out – the rich pay more, and the US is effectively as large as the whole of Europe.

Now if you add up all European military spending, it still doesn’t match the US spending and that should be corrected (which is slowly happening) but it is actually a huge chunk of money – $472 billion. That’s well over twice what Russia spends militarily.

Who Defends Who?

The only time NATO was obligated to defend one of its members under “Article 5″ was in the aftermath of 9/11. Defending the USA.

The War on Cars (and Drivers)

General, Politics No Responses »

Mar 072026

Every single measure taken to improve air quality on roads, add facilities for cyclists, restrict parking, restrict entry to overcrowded cities invokes a cry from the loony right of “Not more war on car drivers”. As if there really were a war on car drivers!

To those who read this and say “There is”, just imagine if there really were such a war – we could legalise shooting cars with shot-guns, setting up traps that’ll dump cars in the sea, etc.

Well perhaps not. But if you look at the harm cars cause, you do have to wonder if there shouldn’t be a war on cars – cars kill roughly 2,000 people a year (or just under) :-

And that ignores the thousands of “live-changing injuries” (that means important bits came off) that occurred over the same time period. If you compare with the number of deaths that occur through shooting in the UK, and the response to that cause of death, you see if anything we underreact to the deaths caused by cars.

And deaths are not the only aggravation caused by cars: noise, localised pollution, space on our streets, excessive priority, and probably a whole lot more.

So the answer to “Why the War on Cars?” is “Well it’s about time.”

Is The UK a Christian Country?

General, Politics, Religion No Responses »

Dec 042025

No.

No country believes in this religion or that religion; it is an individual choice of the members of that country as to what religion they should believe in (or not).

The lunatic fringe of the far right want to push the notion that the UK (and the USA) is a christian country because they want to use that as an excuse to punish anyone who isn’t. Oh, it’ll start with Muslims and Hindus and end with anyone who doesn’t follow their brand of Christianity.

As of 2021, the UK was 46.5% Christian; that’s the single largest religious group. But it isn’t the majority; there’s plenty of other religious groups and the non-religious. Of course the christofascists will point out that in the past, the UK was nearly 100% Christian, glossing over the fact that this was forced on us – either explicitly or more subtly.

The past is the past – whilst we may have a christian tradition we also have a pre-christian tradition (or a pagan tradition). Christianity is a foreign religion – it’s an immigrant from the middle-east.

The Past Wasn’t That Great

General, Politics No Responses »

Nov 302025

Just recently my Twitter feed has seen any number of photographs of the past pretending to show how much better things were in the past.

It is all very well, but the past sucked. You can take historical photos that show how grand things were but like today we didn’t take photos of the bad things; and even if we did, we wouldn’t show them today. At least not in the posts claiming how great the past was.

For example. Bill Brandt amongst other things made images of really grim Durham miners slums – houses with no windows and built so shodily that they were horrendously damp. The great public housing boom of the 1950s and 1960s wasn’t just about repairing the damage of war but also making decent homes for the working class replacing swathes of slums.

And things we take for granted today – central heating, running water, inside lavatories and bathrooms, all of which were rare or non-existent not so long ago. And some places shared outside lavs.

We take health for granted these days. From the visit to the doctor or the visit to A&E which cost nothing, to vaccinations which prevent many of childhood’s terrorists – Polio, Measle, Rubella, Smallpox, Whooping Cough, … the number of folk who remember such an era where school friends would disappear dragged to an early grave by one of those lurgies is getting smaller.

And you don’t see a man coughing his lungs out in those smiling photos of the past; yet they were present. Coal miners with black lung, builders with asbestosis, those who worked with radium and phosphorus losing their jaws. Or crippled by dangerous machinery.

And so on.

You can’t have the good bits of the past without the bad bits. And there were plenty of those – this just touches the surface.

The Reaction to the Charlie Kirk Killing

Politics No Responses »

Sep 142025

So some nutter has killed Charlie Kirk, the well known right-winger. This is obviously bad (and I’m a left-winger), but the reaction to his killing is interesting to say the least …

“He’s Not Right-Wing”

And in come the denials as if “right-wing” is something to be ashamed of – now I think it’s something to be ashamed of, but his fellow right-wingers would presumably think it’s fine. But they’re denying it. So let’s have a look at the signs :-

“Charlie Kirk addressed and acknowledged the Great Replacement.“. The “Great Replacement” is a white supremacist theory that there is some conspiracy to “replace” white folk. Charlie once claimed “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified,” – plainly racist. Normally racist is a sign of a right-winger at least amongst reasonable folk.
Raging misogynist: “Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”. Again most reasonable folk classify hatred of women as right-wing.
Kirk on vaccine mandates: “a form of medical apartheid.”. Now this is isn’t right-wing; it’s just nuts. And evil nuts at that.
Most ironically: “I think it’s worth having a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,”.

And there’s more, far more.

Does this make him right-wing? Well yes, but more so – he was a toxic extremist holding views that effectively regarded “others” (women, black folk, homosexuals, etc) as sub-human with fewer rights than the classic rich white men.

Opposing such extremists is something folk should be celebrated for doing. But killing? No that’s just wrong.

The Left Killed Him

As we don’t currently know the motives of the killer, claiming that the left killed him is a bit premature.

One of the related strands is the strange notion that the left is violent whilst the right is peaceful. However a US government survey of political violence shows something very different :-

Ideology		1,563	—	Percentage
	Islamist			17.6
	Left-wing			23.4
	Right-wing			59

(source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/ )

So the 59% of all political violence is right-wingers – exceeding both left-wing and islamists.

Surprised? No wonder – the right-wing is very good at lying.

They (the right) were very quick to start blaming the left even claiming Democrats were effectively urging the murder of Kirk. Well, for a start, the Democrats aren’t leftist – they’re far too right wing for this leftist.

And even if the left in general (and Democrats) criticise Kirk for some of his positions, that isn’t encouraging political violence.

But ultimately we don’t know what motivated the killing of Charlie Kirk. There’s just as many hints that he was right-wing as hints that he was left-wing. But let’s stop pointing fingers until we know.

Even if that’s less fun.

Older Entries