egg

Trump seems to think that he can do what he likes without recourse to the senate. He just cites "national security" and uses executive orders. I'd be more aligned with your point if I had any faith that this lunatic would respect rules, decency, allies, or democracy. Alas, he doesn't respect any of that, and is focused on "winning, which is another way of saying getting his own way.

I'm not sure of the relevance of that to what we've been discussing.

That doesn't address that US strength in Europe is, assuming the US remain an ally and committed to NATO, more beneficial to Europe than the US. Take that away and Europe has only got what Europe can provide. If this whole charade is intended as a wake up call to Europe, I suspect it's worked.

It's more than that. Greenland have said that the US can access all the minerals they want. If Trump was committed to NATO, and complying with Article 5, he'd leave Greenland alone.

Yep, although they already have bases there, but have chosen not to use them. They can also dig whatever they want out of the ground. It's imperialism.

Personally I'd prefer us to have a nuclear deterrent than not. They serve a purpose - Ukraine would never have been invaded if they still had theirs.

Why does he need them? They're relevant to help us (or worse), but assuming he remains an ally and committed to to NATO, we need him to have them.

Of course not, but, without a nuclear deterrent, and US support as part of NATO or otherwise, we're vulnerable. Are you comfortable seeing us without an effective nuclear deterrent?

The issue we have is we don't have a sustainable nuclear deterrent without the US being on our side. It'll be interesting to see which direction we go here. The French are better placed to tell him to fuck off. Would be nice if China did a press release to say that he he's talking bollox and that they have zero interest in it.

How come we haven't stormed into the lead if 4231, with these players, isn't the answer to our prayers? I repeat, the issue isn't the shape. It's everything.

Yep. We're badly coached, badly motivated, have inadequate players who are not fit enough, and people just bang on about a back 3 as if swapping Jelert for a CB and pushing Fellowes higher up will turn us into a decent team.

It had the back 4 that people are screaming for. People can't say let's have a back 4 with Jelert and Wellington and ignore how shit we were with a back 4 with Jelert and Wellington. You can't pick a lane, then choose another one when the facts don't suit.

Daft post, and ridiculously simplistic. I'm saying that I want 2 decent full backs, alongside 2 decent CB's, properly coached, and a team ahead of them that can work with a back 4. Watch the Doncaster game, and then come back and tell me that you want those 2 in a back 4.

We'd be worse with a 4 imo. Your suggested line up ^^^ is the same back 4 as we played at Doncaster, but with Wood in place of Quarshie. It's a shocking back 4, and if it didn't work at Doncaster, it won't work against anyone in the league. Anyways, it's been done to death.

The other side of the coin, is how bloody frustrating it is to read the same whining, constantly. I'd love to see us playing 4231, but we haven't got good enough full backs to make it work. Jelert and Wellington were full backs against Doncaster and were shite. People aren't thinking it through calling for the same in the league. Upgrade the full backs, then 4231 is the way to go.