Russia - worrying?

[lookout]

You can't change most of humanity being stupid unfortunately. Most people in east Ukraine want a pro Russian Government so I have no problems with what Putin is doing. I don't think our government cares about Ukraine there is not much we could do about it.

Except to stay out of it !!

[susan]

Lookout yes mind our own business for a change

[scipio_usmc]

as far as i can russia is only defending it selelf

Stealing land from another country because Russia wanted the ports is defending itself?

[scipio_usmc]

I agree that the Baathist rule of Iraq was appalling.  I personally knew some victims of it.  There was an active though heavily suppressed opposition within Iraq.  It was for the Iraqi people to implement regime change, not an invading superpower.

Iraq invaded Kuwait which made it a World issue.  Part of the cease fire agreement was to completely give up its programs.  It had to declare all its weapons and provide unfettered monitoring.   Iraq hid technology from the programs hoping to start them another day and stupidly failed to comply with the monitorying.  They played cat and mouse games to make it appear they could produce WMDs anytime they wanted so that their neighbors would fear them.

Those games costed Saddam his administration and life and the people of Iraq are very happy to have him gone.   

[scipio_usmc]

  The aggressors in the Ukraine affair are clearly the western powers led as usual by the US and UK. Has everyone already forgotten the lies about WMD told by our leaders, and repeated uncritically by our supposedly free media, which took us to war in Iraq. The devastation caused and still being caused by those Western lies and propaganda should have woken everyone to the fact that we are the Nazis now.
   Which wars of aggression have Russia started in the last 30 years?
   Which Russian leaders have lied to the UN Security Council misrepresenting intelligence and telling outright lies in order to gain Security Council approval for their wars of aggression.
   Surely the facts speak for themselves now and as Dubya himself famously mangled, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again, shame on me".
   It is surely evident to all by now that the aggressors are us. The list of our "humanitarian interventions", which inexplicably always leave thousands dead and countries in states of anarchy, is now too vast to believe otherwise.

The only lies are coming from you.  Bush didn't lie about what the intelligence agencies assessed, the World's intelligence agencies including Russia's were all convinced Iraq had WMDs.  At the time of the invasion everyone knew Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement for failing to live up to the terms of the monitoring agreement. It was thought that Iraq could rapidly begin WMD production anytime it wanted.  There were also expectations they began to stockpile chemical resources. It turns out it would have taken longer than expected.  Iraq did illegally retain information on the production of WMDs and some equipment and did  indeed plan to restart the programs once the monitoring was done but hadn't actually begun doing so as was thought.  Iraq also had a great deal of undeclared chemical agents and weapons that were  never declared.  It took years to find and destroy all the artillery shells and agents that Iraq never declared. Getting rid of Saddam to establish a democracy was a very good thing. 

[nugnug]

exept no democracy has been establishd.

[nugnug]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2015%2F02%2F10%2Fyes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this%2F&ei=azH6VI7hOYvU7AbZmoGoBw&usg=AFQjCNFhtqVRt5c9JmBTj_0fHfddgyViTg&sig2=Cm6gCCV_YVJnDq_GcG_ImQ&bvm=bv.87611401,d.ZGU

[scipio_usmc]

With the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and their reluctance to stick to any ceasefire. They have increased their spending on defence - and today

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/27/russia-boris-nemtsov-shot_n_6772212.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK&ncid=webmail1

Putin reminds me of Hitler - he needs stopping because he is certainly up to something!

More like Stalin, who was in many ways like Hitler.  People always forget about the Soviet invasions of Finland, Rumania and even Poland- The Germans and Soviets split Poland.

Stalin already was expanding the size of the USSR before it got involved in WWII.  Stalin used Allied aid during WWII in order to not only kick Germany out of the USSR but to steal land from other countries like Finland and Poland, swallowing the Baltic Republics and set up Communist puppets in Eastern Europe and even North Korea.  Rather than allow free elections in Korea Stalin armed North Korea and approved of an invasion of South Korea. Soviet aircraft took part but not Soviet ground troops in earnest because he didn't want to get into a war with the US. 

Stalin pushed as far as he could stopping short only of the line he knew would result in war.

At the end of WWII the Soviet Union was in tatters, they had no manpower reserves left and could not have gone toe to toe with an atomic armed Allied force.  The Soviets would have to have capitulated it the Allies refused to allow them to take land from other but the Allies wouldn't do it.  The Allies sold the Poles down the river just liek is being done to Ukraine.

Instead of the Allies making sure Poland was restored to the pre-WWII status quo, the Allies allowed the Soviets to steal land from Poland that Russia lost during WWI and allowed the Soviets to install a repressive Communist regime.  Poles rose up against Germany in Warsaw and the Soviets would not lift a finger to help.  They were Free Poles and the Soviets enjoyed seeing the Germans brutally kill them so that these Free Poles would not be able to resist the Soviets.

The Western Allies simply allowed the Soviets o take any land they wanted, allowed the Soviets to strip anything they wanted from the other countries and even allowed the Soviets to use enemy troops as slave labor till 1955. Stalin was brutal on his own people and the World did nothing.

Fast forward to the present.  Putin wants all the land that borders the Black Sea to be under Russian control.  He already Seized Crimea and plans to use the insurgents to help him seize the rest.  He has designs over other former Soviet territory as well. The world is too selfish to care though about Ukrainians. Russia has a large army even though it is not that good and people don't want to risk a war.  Putin know it and that is why Putin feels like he can play the games he does. If there were genuine resolve he would be too scared to do it.

Why did the World act in Libya and Bosnia?  Because there was no threat of a major war.  Libya could not do anything to the major powers.  Russia is a major power though so it would take more effort and more importantly since Russia is such a huge trading partner would hurt European economies.  That in fact is the biggest leverage against Putin so that a war would not even be unnecessary but Europe doesn't want to wield the threat.

Only if the US lead an effort to oppose Putin would Europe get any resolve to do something but Obama is one of the most worthless presidents in American history.  Putin knows Obama is not going to organize any meaningful effort to oppose his efforts and knows Europe lacks the backbone so has no fear in continuing his meddling in Ukraine.

[David1819]

Only if the US lead an effort to oppose Putin would Europe get any resolve to do something but Obama is one of the most worthless presidents in American history.  Putin knows Obama is not going to organize any meaningful effort to oppose his efforts and knows Europe lacks the backbone so has no fear in continuing his meddling in Ukraine.

Agreed.

Obamas foreign policy is a joke and he cannot assert it effectively. His middle east legacy is ISIS not to mention he has made no progress on North Korea either 

However I don't mind Putin he has done a very good job rebuilding Russia.

[gringo]

Iraq invaded Kuwait which made it a World issue.  Part of the cease fire agreement was to completely give up its programs.  It had to declare all its weapons and provide unfettered monitoring.   Iraq hid technology from the programs hoping to start them another day and stupidly failed to comply with the monitorying.  They played cat and mouse games to make it appear they could produce WMDs anytime they wanted so that their neighbors would fear them.

Those games costed Saddam his administration and life and the people of Iraq are very happy to have him gone.

   And how do you know this?
    You call people liars without pointing any out and then come out with this gem. I think you are lying about this and you have just made it up to suit your bias( as you are so fond of saying). So what is your source for this rather bold claim. Most commentators would seem to disagree as any quick search will confirm and a Zogby poll in 2011 found the exact opposite to your claim.
    The rest of the opinions you posited sound like they were written by the state department. Just believe the official story and ask no questions. No-one is taken in by your biased BS on this.

[gringo]

More like Stalin, who was in many ways like Hitler.  People always forget about the Soviet invasions of Finland, Rumania and even Poland- The Germans and Soviets split Poland.

Stalin already was expanding the size of the USSR before it got involved in WWII.  Stalin used Allied aid during WWII in order to not only kick Germany out of the USSR but to steal land from other countries like Finland and Poland, swallowing the Baltic Republics and set up Communist puppets in Eastern Europe and even North Korea.  Rather than allow free elections in Korea Stalin armed North Korea and approved of an invasion of South Korea. Soviet aircraft took part but not Soviet ground troops in earnest because he didn't want to get into a war with the US. 

Stalin pushed as far as he could stopping short only of the line he knew would result in war.

At the end of WWII the Soviet Union was in tatters, they had no manpower reserves left and could not have gone toe to toe with an atomic armed Allied force.  The Soviets would have to have capitulated it the Allies refused to allow them to take land from other but the Allies wouldn't do it.  The Allies sold the Poles down the river just liek is being done to Ukraine.

Instead of the Allies making sure Poland was restored to the pre-WWII status quo, the Allies allowed the Soviets to steal land from Poland that Russia lost during WWI and allowed the Soviets to install a repressive Communist regime.  Poles rose up against Germany in Warsaw and the Soviets would not lift a finger to help.  They were Free Poles and the Soviets enjoyed seeing the Germans brutally kill them so that these Free Poles would not be able to resist the Soviets.

The Western Allies simply allowed the Soviets o take any land they wanted, allowed the Soviets to strip anything they wanted from the other countries and even allowed the Soviets to use enemy troops as slave labor till 1955. Stalin was brutal on his own people and the World did nothing.

Fast forward to the present.  Putin wants all the land that borders the Black Sea to be under Russian control.  He already Seized Crimea and plans to use the insurgents to help him seize the rest.  He has designs over other former Soviet territory as well. The world is too selfish to care though about Ukrainians. Russia has a large army even though it is not that good and people don't want to risk a war.  Putin know it and that is why Putin feels like he can play the games he does. If there were genuine resolve he would be too scared to do it.

Why did the World act in Libya and Bosnia?  Because there was no threat of a major war.  Libya could not do anything to the major powers.  Russia is a major power though so it would take more effort and more importantly since Russia is such a huge trading partner would hurt European economies.  That in fact is the biggest leverage against Putin so that a war would not even be unnecessary but Europe doesn't want to wield the threat.

Only if the US lead an effort to oppose Putin would Europe get any resolve to do something but Obama is one of the most worthless presidents in American history.  Putin knows Obama is not going to organize any meaningful effort to oppose his efforts and knows Europe lacks the backbone so has no fear in continuing his meddling in Ukraine.

   Read the thread from the start. Not everyone is as gullible as you. Defending the Iraq invasion and Libya bombing, given the anarchy unleashed by those actions which is by any reasonable measure even worse than Saddam's or Gaddafi's rule, renders your opinion worthless.
     How do you feel about the Saudi or Bahrain regimes? Following your principles shouldn't the US be invading those countries in their aim to promote "freedom and democracy" via the novel means of bombing them.

[scipio_usmc]

   And how do you know this?
    You call people liars without pointing any out and then come out with this gem. I think you are lying about this and you have just made it up to suit your bias( as you are so fond of saying). So what is your source for this rather bold claim. Most commentators would seem to disagree as any quick search will confirm and a Zogby poll in 2011 found the exact opposite to your claim.
    The rest of the opinions you posited sound like they were written by the state department. Just believe the official story and ask no questions. No-one is taken in by your biased BS on this.

They didn't ask in the Zogby poll whether it was a good thing that Saddam was gone.  They did ask that in this poll:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf

Iraqis overall have a positive view of the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Asked, “Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that
ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?” 77% say it was worth it, while 22%
say it was not.

Gallup asked the same question in April 2004. At that time, 61% said that it was worth it and 28% said that it was not. However, here again, the ethnic divisions are very sharp. Ninety-eight percent of
Shia and 91% of Kurds say the hardships were worth it, while 83% of Sunnis say they were not.

[scipio_usmc]

   Read the thread from the start. Not everyone is as gullible as you. Defending the Iraq invasion and Libya bombing, given the anarchy unleashed by those actions which is by any reasonable measure even worse than Saddam's or Gaddafi's rule, renders your opinion worthless.
     How do you feel about the Saudi or Bahrain regimes? Following your principles shouldn't the US be invading those countries in their aim to promote "freedom and democracy" via the novel means of bombing them.

The US didn't unleash anarchy in Iraq, the US established a democracy in the wake of Saddam.  The ISIS invasion is a foreign invasion and one that was able to do the damage it did because of the ineptitude of the leaders the Iraqi people elected so a problem of their own making as well as Obama's worthlessness in actively trying to stem ISIS through competent efforts.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator who brutally repressed the majority of the population, invaded his neighbors multiple times and was thus a threat to his neighbors.  As a result the World had to keep forces there to try keeping him at bay and to make sure he didn't develop WMDs.  For as long as he was in power we would have to have remained there.  Installing democracy was a good thing.

The UN decided to step in in Libya where the regime was fighting islamic insurgents.  Because the UN is run by idiots they picked the wrong side to help and naturally since the European countries that demanded action are so inept and scared to use ground forces and since Obama, Clinton and his other advisors are all a joke no ground forces were sent and that allowed anarchy. It is the fault of Obama and all those in charge in the various UN countries that demanded action but failed to do anything that should be done.

The US spent a great deal of money and blood to establish order in Iraq and a functioning democracy.  The US didn't just run away and leave Iraq to its own devices.  The World wasn't willing to walk the Walk in Libya or Syria.  And the result is a far bigger mess that the World finds itself in.

The World is now standing on the threshold with respect to Iran.  We know for a fact Iran was allowing Al Qaeda members safe haven there and we know they sponsor terrorism.  Allowing them to get nuclear weapons will be worse than Saddam getting them.   With the exception of the leader of Israel, the current leaders of the World seem to be ok with pretending Iran isn't developing them and hoping that once they do they will not use them to cause trouble.  That kind of laziness at handling a problem before it become unmanageable is why the world is such a mess.

FDR and Truman mismanaged the end of WWII and the Communist takeover of China while European countries mishandled their former colonies and there are still repercussions to this day. many are like Obama and refuse to learn from history.  Europe won't do anything unless there is a strong American leader who is leading the way. By the time Obama is gone who knows how much additional damage will be done so the successor will have a lot of things on his plate.  If Hillary were to win then you can expect more of the same and the World is screwed.  While someone else would be better- better doesn't necessarily mean great.  It is better to get kicked in the ass than have someone sodomize you but neither is preferable.  The wisest men who ran for the Presidency the past decade were not nominated by the Republican party- Gingrich and Giuliani.  Only time will tell who they pick this time around.



   

[gringo]

They didn't ask in the Zogby poll whether it was a good thing that Saddam was gone.  They did ask that in this poll:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf

Iraqis overall have a positive view of the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Asked, “Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that
ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?” 77% say it was worth it, while 22%
say it was not.

Gallup asked the same question in April 2004. At that time, 61% said that it was worth it and 28% said that it was not. However, here again, the ethnic divisions are very sharp. Ninety-eight percent of
Shia and 91% of Kurds say the hardships were worth it, while 83% of Sunnis say they were not.

  Your way behind the curve. There was a clue in that I referred to 2011 Zogby Poll and not the Rockefeller funded one from 2006 that you linked to. I had a quick look through the sponsors of Pipa, the polling agency that you linked to and it has an interesting list of sponsors, almost as if they have an agenda. The gallup poll was in partnership with USA Today and CNN. The methodology and demographics are not explained fully on either and leave one concluding that both are flawed and biased.
    The methodology and demographics of the Zogby poll are clearly laid out. For instance Zogby polled in 9 countries(Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and UAE) with face to face interviews in most. They explain clearly how weighting techniques were used to obtain a representative sample. A margin of error is given. These are the basic facts required before weighing up the level of credence you should give any poll.
     In addition to the 9 countries listed a further 3 online surveys were conducted in Egypt, Tunisia and the US. In total over 9,000 respondents surveyed.
     Interestingly Saudi Arabia and UAE (freedom loving USA's favourite allies) were the only places where door to door interviews were not possible.A "referral sampling approach" had to be taken with measures taken to ensure a broadly representative sample.
     One of the questions was,
     " Do you think that the Iraqi people are better off/worse off than they were before American forces entered their country?"
      The results were:

                                IRAQ   EGYPT   JORDAN   SAUDI   LEBANON   TUNISIA   UAE      US      IRAN
BETTER OFF               30        37           25           16            22              31        30        39        25
WORSE OFF               42        41           61           66            57              20        48        18         52
SAME?NOT SURE      23/6   13/9        14/-         16/2        3/18          49/-      17/6    30/14    20/3
               
     The first thing that leaps out is that US opinion seems wildly out of kilter with everyone else. However I am sure that the US population is much better informed on Middle East issues than the populations of the Middle East
      The US sample can be further broken down and splits along party lines in America. Amongst Democrats 24% believe Iraq better off, 26% worse off, 36% same, 14% not sure. Amongst Republicans an amazing 58% believe Iraq better off, 10% worse off, 23% same, 9% not sure.
      So your opinion seems only to be shared by Republican supporting Americans whose views are so wildly out of whack that one has to conclude that they are mad or wildly misinformed. Personally I would say they are both mad and misinformed.
      Further questions include What has improved/What has not and asks for opinions on political freedoms, education, women's rights, government and personal safety to name a few.
      The Iraqis respondents were overwhelmingly of the opinion that all of those things were worse since the American invasion. Here are two examples: Since US forces entered Iraq 16% believe government is better whilst 59% believe it to be worse. Since US forces entered Iraq 18% believe personal safety and security has improved and 72% believe it worse.
      The American respondents percentages for those two examples were 34% to 26% (better/worse government) and 33% to 35% (personal safety improved/deteriorated).
      Again the American respondents split along party lines with Republicans obviously out on a limb again.
 
     There is also a question that asks who benefitted the most from the war in Iraq?
     Do I need to tell you that all other countries except the US concluded that the US benefitted the most?
     Your bias and irrationality are shining through here.
     
     

[gringo]

The US didn't unleash anarchy in Iraq, the US established a democracy in the wake of Saddam.  The ISIS invasion is a foreign invasion and one that was able to do the damage it did because of the ineptitude of the leaders the Iraqi people elected so a problem of their own making as well as Obama's worthlessness in actively trying to stem ISIS through competent efforts.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator who brutally repressed the majority of the population, invaded his neighbors multiple times and was thus a threat to his neighbors.  As a result the World had to keep forces there to try keeping him at bay and to make sure he didn't develop WMDs.  For as long as he was in power we would have to have remained there.  Installing democracy was a good thing.

The UN decided to step in in Libya where the regime was fighting islamic insurgents.  Because the UN is run by idiots they picked the wrong side to help and naturally since the European countries that demanded action are so inept and scared to use ground forces and since Obama, Clinton and his other advisors are all a joke no ground forces were sent and that allowed anarchy. It is the fault of Obama and all those in charge in the various UN countries that demanded action but failed to do anything that should be done.

The US spent a great deal of money and blood to establish order in Iraq and a functioning democracy.  The US didn't just run away and leave Iraq to its own devices.  The World wasn't willing to walk the Walk in Libya or Syria.  And the result is a far bigger mess that the World finds itself in.

The World is now standing on the threshold with respect to Iran.  We know for a fact Iran was allowing Al Qaeda members safe haven there and we know they sponsor terrorism.  Allowing them to get nuclear weapons will be worse than Saddam getting them.   With the exception of the leader of Israel, the current leaders of the World seem to be ok with pretending Iran isn't developing them and hoping that once they do they will not use them to cause trouble.  That kind of laziness at handling a problem before it become unmanageable is why the world is such a mess.

FDR and Truman mismanaged the end of WWII and the Communist takeover of China while European countries mishandled their former colonies and there are still repercussions to this day. many are like Obama and refuse to learn from history.  Europe won't do anything unless there is a strong American leader who is leading the way. By the time Obama is gone who knows how much additional damage will be done so the successor will have a lot of things on his plate.  If Hillary were to win then you can expect more of the same and the World is screwed.  While someone else would be better- better doesn't necessarily mean great.  It is better to get kicked in the ass than have someone sodomize you but neither is preferable.  The wisest men who ran for the Presidency the past decade were not nominated by the Republican party- Gingrich and Giuliani.  Only time will tell who they pick this time around.



   

  Ha Ha more fact free opinionated drivel. I will respond to this fairy tale later. It's cool but could do with more dragons