Jeremy Bamber Forum

OFF TOPIC => Off Topic => Topic started by: Caroline on February 28, 2015, 02:44:AM

Title: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on February 28, 2015, 02:44:AM
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!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2015, 03:31:AM
as far as i can russia is only defending it selelf
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on February 28, 2015, 09:03:AM
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!
I agree, it's often said Russians don't understand democracy, at the moment they appear to be proving that.  Hopefully this morning's news about the killing of a prominent  government opposition leader may wake them up to the danger of Putin's behaviour.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on February 28, 2015, 09:04:AM
Russia have been rumbling on for years. On my last flight over that country,the passenger plane I was travelling in,was escorted either side of the craft,by two fighter jets because of being in their air-space.It was,and felt rather intimidating as the pilot had to remain silent for the 3 odd hours it took to fly over the country.He wasn't allowed to make contact of any sort to anyone as we headed towards Orly airport.
Gorbachov was the best leader they had.He was more " human ".
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on February 28, 2015, 09:12:AM
Russia have been rumbling on for years. On my last flight over that country,the passenger plane I was travelling in,was escorted either side of the craft,by two fighter jets because of being in their air-space.It was,and felt rather intimidating as the pilot had to remain silent for the 3 odd hours it took to fly over the country.He wasn't allowed to make contact of any sort to anyone as we headed towards Orly airport.
Gorbachov was the best leader they had.He was more " human ".
Putin is ex KGB as Gorbachov is but they seem very different, it's my guess Putin ticks quite a few boxes on the Bob Hare checklist.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on February 28, 2015, 09:55:AM
Putin is ex KGB as Gorbachov is but they seem very different, it's my guess Putin ticks quite a few boxes on the Bob Hare checklist.





I've always though the guy an unknown quantity.Mad as a hatter,eyes close together,just a power crazy idiot like " fat chops " in China.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2015, 10:41:AM
it cant be established that putin did ok hes the most likely suspect be someone else could of done it
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on February 28, 2015, 11:25:AM
it cant be established that putin did ok hes the most likely suspect be someone else could of done it
I agree nugs, we don't know, it seems Russia is becoming a lawless country anyway.  Interesting they are trying to blame the killing on someone from his own side but must say it sounds pretty fishy to me.  Putin appears to wield massive power, he really seems to be a dictator in all but name, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2015, 11:33:AM
i think it could be somone from his own side i dont see what putin would have to gain i mean he knows that fingers are going to point at him.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on February 28, 2015, 12:27:PM
i think it could be somone from his own side i dont see what putin would have to gain i mean he knows that fingers are going to point at him.

I don't think he cares.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on February 28, 2015, 12:40:PM
i think it could be somone from his own side i dont see what putin would have to gain i mean he knows that fingers are going to point at him.
It could be anyone that's true but Putin isn't a guy I'd want as an enemy.   :'(
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2015, 01:13:PM
i dont think hes nearly as bad as hes made out to be the west paints ebveryone it falls out with as the next hitler.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on February 28, 2015, 03:01:PM
What are Russian military planes doing in our territories? They send them her unannounced, and twice there have been near-collisions with Dansh passenger planes. WTF are they doing here? I have heard they send them to England too.

I  think Putin is stark raving mad and he IS up to something. We´ll see.

BTW, what´s with his discrimination of gay people? He is nuts.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Mr. Gee on February 28, 2015, 03:58:PM
What are Russian military planes doing in our territories? They send them her unannounced, and twice there have been near-collisions with Dansh passenger planes. WTF are they doing here? I have heard they send them to England too.

I  think Putin is stark raving mad and he IS up to something. We´ll see.

BTW, what´s with his discrimination of gay people? He is nuts.
Probably because he is not gay. He's probably quite miserable really? ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on February 28, 2015, 04:01:PM
i dont think hes nearly as bad as hes made out to be the west paints ebveryone it falls out with as the next hitler.




Billions of pounds worth of arms have been supplied to these dictatorship countries,including Russia,which have been supplied by-----------------guess who ? The UK. 
I don't hear Cameron making much noise over this latest shooting,or the poisoning of Litvinenko ( which happened in this country )
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on February 28, 2015, 04:02:PM
Mr Gee maybe he is gay but in denial. :)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on February 28, 2015, 04:12:PM
Probably because he is not gay. He's probably quite miserable really? ;D

I think he could be gay himself, but won´t admit it.

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/7/24/10/enhanced-buzz-15938-1374675317-19.jpg)

(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/putin-boro-sq.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Mr. Gee on February 28, 2015, 04:15:PM
Nah! All the gay people I have met have been quite nice.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on February 28, 2015, 04:43:PM
Nah! All the gay people I have met have been quite nice.

There are always exceptions.  ;)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on February 28, 2015, 04:53:PM
Narcissist. He's had a face-lift,hasn't he ? For his fancy piece who's a model or beauty queen.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jane on February 28, 2015, 04:54:PM
i dont think hes nearly as bad as hes made out to be the west paints ebveryone it falls out with as the next hitler.


Some people probably said the same of Hitler. He was said to have been kind to his mother and he loved his dog.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on February 28, 2015, 04:59:PM
I think he could be gay himself, but won´t admit it.

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/7/24/10/enhanced-buzz-15938-1374675317-19.jpg)

(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/putin-boro-sq.jpg)
Speaks for itself really, highly developed narcissistic at the least?
The people in Ukraine are losing everything they own, they're homes and possessions and he is allowing it to happen.  Don't believe he hasn't got the power to stop it if he wanted to. :(
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on February 28, 2015, 05:05:PM



Billions of pounds worth of arms have been supplied to these dictatorship countries,including Russia,which have been supplied by-----------------guess who ? The UK. 
I don't hear Cameron making much noise over this latest shooting,or the poisoning of Litvinenko ( which happened in this country )

Russia manufactures its own weapons.

Litvinenko's death is still much of a mystery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko_assassination_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko_assassination_theories)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on February 28, 2015, 05:09:PM
Narcissist. He's had a face-lift,hasn't he ? For his fancy piece who's a model or beauty queen.

He has had several plastic surgeries.
He´s a creep who has his opponents killed, I have no doubt he is behind it.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on February 28, 2015, 05:34:PM
He has had several plastic surgeries.
He´s a creep who has his opponents killed, I have no doubt he is behind it.




Of course he's behind it. His spies are all over the place." Russias enemies in Britain ".
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on February 28, 2015, 05:42:PM
He has had several plastic surgeries.
He´s a creep who has his opponents killed, I have no doubt he is behind it.

I don't believe so. Its part of the Russian culture and mentality it is very different from ours.

In the Russia they like their leader to appear strong and masculine also the Russian people criticise the government from the bottom up as opposed to use we criticize the government from the top down.
In Russia they blame the mayors and the local MPs not Putin. In the country we tend to blame Cameron for everything and no one else.

Mind you he dose not always act the tough guy


(http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/putin_piano1.jpg)

(http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/putins-puppy-name-contest.n.jpg)

(http://old.daps.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/21.jpg)




Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on February 28, 2015, 05:46:PM
I don't believe so. Its part of the Russian culture and mentality it is very different from ours.

In the Russia they like their leader to appear strong and masculine also the Russian people criticise the government from the bottom up as opposed to use we criticize the government from the top down.
In Russia they blame the mayors and the local MPs not Putin. In the country we tend to blame Cameron for everything and no one else.

Mind you he dose not always act the tough guy


(http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/putin_piano1.jpg)

(http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/putins-puppy-name-contest.n.jpg)

(http://old.daps.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/21.jpg)

Not sure which part of my post you disagree with - the plastic surgeries or the killing off opponents?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2015, 05:48:PM

Some people probably said the same of Hitler. He was said to have been kind to his mother and he loved his dog.

the curent government in the ukriane has members that actually do like hitler.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jan on February 28, 2015, 06:09:PM
Actually we as the public do not know the half of what has gone on in the Ukraine and we have let them down badly .We signed a treaty to protect them in return for them giving up nuclear weapons and yet we still don't hear what has happened and how many innocent people have died or lost their homes or their businesses. I know because my friend is from the Ukraine and her father has lost everything .
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on February 28, 2015, 06:34:PM
the curent government in the ukriane has members that actually do like hitler.





They wouldn't,if they had a taste of the West where anything goes.They'd soon change their minds.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on February 28, 2015, 07:45:PM
Actually we as the public do not know the half of what has gone on in the Ukraine and we have let them down badly .We signed a treaty to protect them in return for them giving up nuclear weapons and yet we still don't hear what has happened and how many innocent people have died or lost their homes or their businesses. I know because my friend is from the Ukraine and her father has lost everything .
Another place of human tragedy and suffering, think the world is very unstable t the moment.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Mr. Gee on February 28, 2015, 09:10:PM
Another place of human tragedy and suffering, think the world is very unstable t the moment.
All this killing going on around the world is deeply saddening.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on February 28, 2015, 09:16:PM
All this killing going on around the world is deeply saddening.
It is Mr Gee, I'm so thankful I was lucky enough to be born in this country.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on February 28, 2015, 09:43:PM
i dont think hes nearly as bad as hes made out to be the west paints ebveryone it falls out with as the next hitler.

I don't think he's as bad as he's made out to be - I think he's WORSE!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on February 28, 2015, 09:45:PM
What are Russian military planes doing in our territories? They send them her unannounced, and twice there have been near-collisions with Dansh passenger planes. WTF are they doing here? I have heard they send them to England too.

I  think Putin is stark raving mad and he IS up to something. We´ll see.

BTW, what´s with his discrimination of gay people? He is nuts.

I fully agree Alias, he has sent planes here too, the last time was just last week. I think he's up to something also. He is a power crazy nut-case with little man syndrome!!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jane on February 28, 2015, 10:08:PM
I fully agree Alias, he has sent planes here too, the last time was just last week. I think he's up to something also. He is a power crazy nut-case with little man syndrome!!



That's eyes at boob level to the uninitiated ;)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on February 28, 2015, 10:30:PM
I fully agree Alias, he has sent planes here too, the last time was just last week. I think he's up to something also. He is a power crazy nut-case with little man syndrome!!

Little man syndrome, spot on!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on February 28, 2015, 11:49:PM
  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.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 01, 2015, 01:03:AM

   Which wars of aggression have Russia started in the last 30 years?
 

Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
First Chechen war
Transnistria War
East Prigorodny Conflict
Second Chechen war
Tajikistan war
Invasion of Georgia


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 01, 2015, 02:40:AM
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
First Chechen war
Transnistria War
East Prigorodny Conflict
Second Chechen war
Tajikistan war
Invasion of Georgia
  To compare the Chechen conflicts with the wars of aggression launched by the west is ignoring the scope and scale of the wests invasions of sovereign territory. Russia involving itself in a civil war in a former republic is not really the same as our interventions.
    In the second Chechen war the Russians were fighting Islamist separatists, the sort that our governments arm and train to destabilise regimes that refuse to do our bidding.
    The conflicts in Georgia, Tajikistan, Transnistria and East Prigorodny were all civil wars/ inter ethnic conflicts in former soviet republics in the turmoil of the break up of the Soviet Union.
    All of these conflicts were on Russia's doorstep, were previously under Russian/Soviet influence and were inhabited by many ethnic Russians. They are in no way comparable to US/UK led invasions of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan nor the US invasions of Grenada and Panama. The funding and arming of "rebels" to overthrow democratically elected governments in Chile, where thousands were rounded up by the West's favourite military dictator (General Pinochet) in Santiago Stadium and shot. All of those conflicts merely scratch the surface of US/UK interventions.
   I must also have missed the Russians illegal rendition programme and secret prisons out of the reach of any legal jurisdiction(Guantanamo) where the evil Russians hold prisoners without even having to tell them what the charges or accusations against them actually are and routinely torture prisoners.
   Where also would all the overseas Russian military bases be hidden. The US have over 250,000 military personnel deployed worldwide.
   The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was by any fair measure somewhat more enlightened than what went on afterwards. During the Soviet occupation liberal attitudes prevailed and women went to university, were not forced to be veiled nor treated as chattel as they are in today's Afghanistan.
   For those who don't remember the Soviet occupation ended in 1989. Soviet forces fought alongside Afghan troops against US funded rebels. The US funded rebels or the "brave mujahideen" as they were invariably referred to on our nightly "Propaganda at 10" included such upstanding guys as Osama Bin Laden.
    So we funded these Islamist rebels to overthrow the Afghan Government. What could possibly go wrong? It's not as if any Islamist rebels hurt anyone is it, they're such nice guys. Except we all know what went disastrously, cataclysmically wrong and we still fund Islamist rebels in Syria.
    It is surely apparent to anyone paying real attention to world events over the years that our own Governments are the world's biggest warmongers, the numbers speak for themselves unfortunately. The ridiculous portrayal of events in Ukraine by our government cheerled as always by a media who couldn't see the WMD lies for what they were, or so we are led to believe, are a case in point. The reporting is bordering on hysterical and cares nothing for accuracy. The only remit, or so it seems is the "daily two minute hate" of Putin.
    To compare Russian aggression with US aggression and to then conclude that Russians are more aggressive on the world stage is to ignore every single piece of evidence.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 01, 2015, 03:12:AM
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
First Chechen war
Transnistria War
East Prigorodny Conflict
Second Chechen war
Tajikistan war
Invasion of Georgia

And the recent invasion of the Ukraine - Russia are trying to prove some kind of point but I think they have an 'end game' in mind. Europe needs to keep a close eye on this guy!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 01, 2015, 09:31:AM
  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.
I agree the US and to an extent the UK are far from innocent and have no doubt caused and are still causing mayhem in the Middle East just as they did in South America back in the 70s and 80s but I cannot see how that turns ex KGB Putin into a saint, he has his own axes to grind and I don't doubt he's grinding away.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 01, 2015, 12:42:PM
  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.







Hence why we're not doing much shouting.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: tyler on March 01, 2015, 01:17:PM
Im going to upset the apple cart and admit that I actually like Putin and think he is brilliant. He has done so much for his country and his people. Are you sure you are not all being led by what is written in the MSM? It seems to me,that Putin is his own man. He can see what is going on in the west and clearly doesn't want to be part of the so called 'New World Order'. He is intelligent enough to know that the wars that the US and ourselves have started have nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with money and the control of oil. Indeed,he has told President Obama "tell your citizens that 9/11 was a was a false flag,or I will.I have the evidence to prove it". Imo warmonger Bush was far more dangerous than Putin.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 01, 2015, 01:19:PM
Hello tyler I agree with you but thought it safer to keep my thoughts to myself but hey ho safety in numbers ;D :-*
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: tyler on March 01, 2015, 01:39:PM
Hello tyler I agree with you but thought it safer to keep my thoughts to myself but hey ho safety in numbers ;D :-*
Gosh Susan,I didnt expect anyone to agree with me - thank you! I dont care what people think of my opinion,all I know is that I am entitled to one and so I voiced it  :P
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jan on March 01, 2015, 01:51:PM
what Putin does in his own country is up to him and his people.

Here is one fact.From a witness .

Murderers and rapists are given a choice in Russia . Jail or fight in Ukraine.

When the ukranians got the upper hand at one point the soldiers  tried to flee back to Russia and were shot by the Russians on the border.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 01, 2015, 02:41:PM
  To compare the Chechen conflicts with the wars of aggression launched by the west is ignoring the scope and scale of the wests invasions of sovereign territory. Russia involving itself in a civil war in a former republic is not really the same as our interventions.
    In the second Chechen war the Russians were fighting Islamist separatists, the sort that our governments arm and train to destabilise regimes that refuse to do our bidding.
    The conflicts in Georgia, Tajikistan, Transnistria and East Prigorodny were all civil wars/ inter ethnic conflicts in former soviet republics in the turmoil of the break up of the Soviet Union.
    All of these conflicts were on Russia's doorstep, were previously under Russian/Soviet influence and were inhabited by many ethnic Russians. They are in no way comparable to US/UK led invasions of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan nor the US invasions of Grenada and Panama. The funding and arming of "rebels" to overthrow democratically elected governments in Chile, where thousands were rounded up by the West's favourite military dictator (General Pinochet) in Santiago Stadium and shot. All of those conflicts merely scratch the surface of US/UK interventions.
   I must also have missed the Russians illegal rendition programme and secret prisons out of the reach of any legal jurisdiction(Guantanamo) where the evil Russians hold prisoners without even having to tell them what the charges or accusations against them actually are and routinely torture prisoners.
   Where also would all the overseas Russian military bases be hidden. The US have over 250,000 military personnel deployed worldwide.
   The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was by any fair measure somewhat more enlightened than what went on afterwards. During the Soviet occupation liberal attitudes prevailed and women went to university, were not forced to be veiled nor treated as chattel as they are in today's Afghanistan.
   For those who don't remember the Soviet occupation ended in 1989. Soviet forces fought alongside Afghan troops against US funded rebels. The US funded rebels or the "brave mujahideen" as they were invariably referred to on our nightly "Propaganda at 10" included such upstanding guys as Osama Bin Laden.
    So we funded these Islamist rebels to overthrow the Afghan Government. What could possibly go wrong? It's not as if any Islamist rebels hurt anyone is it, they're such nice guys. Except we all know what went disastrously, cataclysmically wrong and we still fund Islamist rebels in Syria.
    It is surely apparent to anyone paying real attention to world events over the years that our own Governments are the world's biggest warmongers, the numbers speak for themselves unfortunately. The ridiculous portrayal of events in Ukraine by our government cheerled as always by a media who couldn't see the WMD lies for what they were, or so we are led to believe, are a case in point. The reporting is bordering on hysterical and cares nothing for accuracy. The only remit, or so it seems is the "daily two minute hate" of Putin.
    To compare Russian aggression with US aggression and to then conclude that Russians are more aggressive on the world stage is to ignore every single piece of evidence.

Excellent post Gringo.  I agree entirely.  If the USA and its allies had not spent billions in arming and supporting so called "muhajadin freedom fighters" in their efforts to destroy the democratic and progressive government of Afganistan (supported by the Soviet Union at the invitation of that government) we would not be now faced with the same "freedom fighters" attacking us.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 01, 2015, 02:45:PM
He can see what is going on in the west and clearly doesn't want to be part of the so called 'New World Order'. He is intelligent enough to know that the wars that the US and ourselves have started have nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with money and the control of oil. ". Imo warmonger Bush was far more dangerous than Putin.

I agree.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 01, 2015, 04:15:PM
Excellent post Gringo.  I agree entirely.  If the USA and its allies had not spent billions in arming and supporting so called "muhajadin freedom fighters" in their efforts to destroy the democratic and progressive government of Afganistan (supported by the Soviet Union at the invitation of that government) we would not be now faced with the same "freedom fighters" attacking us.


Im going to upset the apple cart and admit that I actually like Putin and think he is brilliant. He has done so much for his country and his people. Are you sure you are not all being led by what is written in the MSM? It seems to me,that Putin is his own man. He can see what is going on in the west and clearly doesn't want to be part of the so called 'New World Order'. He is intelligent enough to know that the wars that the US and ourselves have started have nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with money and the control of oil. Indeed,he has told President Obama "tell your citizens that 9/11 was a was a false flag,or I will.I have the evidence to prove it". Imo warmonger Bush was far more dangerous than Putin.
  Unfortunately Neil our media are so craven and complicit that the questions that should be asked by a truly free press are conspicuous by their absence.
    What passes as reporting world events in our media is nothing more than a Government press release and bears little or no resemblance to actual events. Memories are as long as the news cycle because surely someone in a free press should be wondering whatever became of those jolly mujahideen that we helped overthrow and form a government in Afghanistan.
    Reports from Ukraine are so lacking in balance that they come across as nothing more than the propaganda that they are. The accusations of a Russian invasion are laughable. Not one piece of evidence, pictures, satellite images are shown of any russian troops or equipment crossing into Ukraine. The Ukrainian Army plus various ragtag militia are shelling their own citizens who want nothing to do with the coup installed Kiev government.
    The eastern regions are largely ethnic Russian and if they want closer ties with Russia then why should anyone say otherwise. It is a civil war in Ukraine, one in which Ukrainian government conscripted boys are shelling their own citizens. Russia hasn't invaded and if they had then I am sure that there would be lots of evidence of this Russian invasion. Our government has to pretend that Russia is being aggressive in order to have one of our "humanitarian interventions" and people are seriously still falling for it.
     If the Russians were really to invade Ukraine they would be in Kiev inside 48 hours. Despite the ridiculous provocations of the US/EU Russia have in fact been the only grown ups on the world stage and have resisted responding militarily, instead choosing diplomacy, and in the process have made our supposed statesmen look like warmongering fools.
    Sergey Lavrov makes Hague and Kerry look out of their depth. But Hague and Kerry are just the paid stooges of vested interests rather than servants of the publics interest, something made apparent by their appetite for war.
    Tyler, I think there are many who would agree with you about Putin. Cameron, Obama, Bush, Blair et al are not a patch on Putin. Our leaders look like the weak placemen that they are in comparison. Putin serves Russia's interests and our leaders serve the interests of the corporations, bankers and rich elite.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 01, 2015, 04:19:PM
  Unfortunately Neil our media are so craven and complicit that the questions that should be asked by a truly free press are conspicuous by their absence.
    What passes as reporting world events in our media is nothing more than a Government press release and bears little or no resemblance to actual events. Memories are as long as the news cycle because surely someone in a free press should be wondering whatever became of those jolly mujahideen that we helped overthrow and form a government in Afghanistan.
    Reports from Ukraine are so lacking in balance that they come across as nothing more than the propaganda that they are. The accusations of a Russian invasion are laughable. Not one piece of evidence, pictures, satellite images are shown of any russian troops or equipment crossing into Ukraine. The Ukrainian Army plus various ragtag militia are shelling their own citizens who want nothing to do with the coup installed Kiev government.
    The eastern regions are largely ethnic Russian and if they want closer ties with Russia then why should anyone say otherwise. It is a civil war in Ukraine, one in which Ukrainian government conscripted boys are shelling their own citizens. Russia hasn't invaded and if they had then I am sure that there would be lots of evidence of this Russian invasion. Our government has to pretend that Russia is being aggressive in order to have one of our "humanitarian interventions" and people are seriously still falling for it.
     If the Russians were really to invade Ukraine they would be in Kiev inside 48 hours. Despite the ridiculous provocations of the US/EU Russia have in fact been the only grown ups on the world stage and have resisted responding militarily, instead choosing diplomacy, and in the process have made our supposed statesmen look like warmongering fools.
    Sergey Lavrov makes Hague and Kerry look out of their depth. But Hague and Kerry are just the paid stooges of vested interests rather than servants of the publics interest, something made apparent by their appetite for war.
    Tyler, I think there are many who would agree with you about Putin. Cameron, Obama, Bush, Blair et al are not a patch on Putin. Our leaders look like the weak placemen that they are in comparison. Putin serves Russia's interests and our leaders serve the interests of the corporations, bankers and rich elite.

Another excellent post gringo.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 01, 2015, 05:12:PM
Gosh Susan,I didnt expect anyone to agree with me - thank you! I dont care what people think of my opinion,all I know is that I am entitled to one and so I voiced it  :P




Good for you tyler.I admire you for that.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on March 01, 2015, 05:21:PM
Im going to upset the apple cart and admit that I actually like Putin and think he is brilliant. He has done so much for his country and his people. Are you sure you are not all being led by what is written in the MSM? It seems to me,that Putin is his own man. He can see what is going on in the west and clearly doesn't want to be part of the so called 'New World Order'. He is intelligent enough to know that the wars that the US and ourselves have started have nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with money and the control of oil. Indeed,he has told President Obama "tell your citizens that 9/11 was a was a false flag,or I will.I have the evidence to prove it". Imo warmonger Bush was far more dangerous than Putin.

I'm sure Vladimir is no angel.  However this view does strike a chord with me.  Always love reading your posts Tyler.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on March 01, 2015, 06:46:PM
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!

I've thought along these lines too.  The way that the news is portrayed over here, I feel a person is naturally drawn towards this kind of view.  But I get the feeling that the way news is probably portrayed in other places, a person could be drawn to an opposing view that seems equally valid. 

Not sure if this is the best example to back up my theory but Nigel Farage recently gave a speech at a conservative event in the US, which also featured Sarah Palin.

Quote
Criticising Mr Obama's Middle East policy as being insufficiently forceful had been a reliable applause line at the conference throughout the day, so there was a certain amount of unease in those gathered when Mr Farage came at the topic from a different angle.
"The time has come to assess whether an interventionist foreign policy has been successful," he said. "We've actually inflamed and stoked the fire of militant Islam by doing what we've done."

His words were a sharp contrast to Ms Palin's remarks just 40 minutes earlier.
"Aside from God almighty, what is the only force strong enough to keep this barbaric tide at bay?" she asked. "It's the red, white and blue; it's the United States military."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31629863

I have no doubt that US opinion will be divided regarding American foreign policy but I feel a sense of unease that many American people probably take the view that they are some kind of 'world police'.  The point I'm trying to make is that the US & UK news corporations will spin news and the Russians are probably doing similar.  It's hard to know what is fact and what is distorted or false flag.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 01, 2015, 09:00:PM
I've thought along these lines too.  The way that the news is portrayed over here, I feel a person is naturally drawn towards this kind of view.  But I get the feeling that the way news is probably portrayed in other places, a person could be drawn to an opposing view that seems equally valid. 

Not sure if this is the best example to back up my theory but Nigel Farage recently gave a speech at a conservative event in the US, which also featured Sarah Palin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31629863

I have no doubt that US opinion will be divided regarding American foreign policy but I feel a sense of unease that many American people probably take the view that they are some kind of 'world police'.  The point I'm trying to make is that the US & UK news corporations will spin news and the Russians are probably doing similar.  It's hard to know what is fact and what is distorted or false flag.

Hi Roch,

Of course I know we are often told what the powers that be want us to know, but as you allude to; it is a feature of all politics and a tactic used world wide. Only time will tell if this little DICKtator is up to something but people who question his morality and his politics - end up dead.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on March 01, 2015, 10:09:PM
Hi Roch,

Of course I know we are often told what the powers that be want us to know, but as you allude to; it is a feature of all politics and a tactic used world wide. Only time will tell if this little DICKtator is up to something but people who question his morality and his politics - end up dead.

One way to look at it is this.  If Putin does away with his own political opponents - he looks bad.  I suppose it could be argued that he reduces internal opposition to himself due to the fear factor.  But this would probably be in direct proportion to external opposition, which would probably rise?

So, if you wanted to stoke up external opposition to Putin - you could assasinate one of his political opponents? 

There is something strange going on, with these apparent Russian planes buzzing our airspace etc.   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 02, 2015, 12:22:AM
One way to look at it is this.  If Putin does away with his own political opponents - he looks bad.  I suppose it could be argued that he reduces internal opposition to himself due to the fear factor.  But this would probably be in direct proportion to external opposition, which would probably rise?

So, if you wanted to stoke up external opposition to Putin - you could assasinate one of his political opponents? 

There is something strange going on, with these apparent Russian planes buzzing our airspace etc.
  It is unlikely that Putin had anything to do with the killing of Nemtsov. He has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an act. Putin enjoys massive popularity in Russia and there is no effective opposition to him so why the need to kill his opponents.
    The Russian planes buzzing our airspace is not even worth reporting. NATO forces planes constantly fly near to Russian airspace. It is a game they all indulge in to test each others readiness and the fact that this is being reported as Russian aggression shows just how desperate the Western powers are to stoke the public into war readiness.
    In effect what is being reported is that Russian planes flew in international airspace and were near to British airspace. So what!! US/UK planes tend to drop an awful lot of bombs when they actually violate other countries airspace.
    The facts really do speak for themselves. Our governments have invaded, bombed and overthrown governments the world over whilst allying themselves with the most despotic, human rights abusing, terrorist sponsoring regimes on the planet. It is preposterous beyond belief that we can do business and ally ourselves with Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia!!) whilst claiming to defend human rights and promote democracy. We sell "crowd control equipment" to the Bahrain regime in order to brutally put down the demonstrations calling for more democracy there, whilst claiming to support democracy campaigners in other countries. It seems we have a horse in every race no matter where the race is but our choice seems to depend more on shared interests than ethics or humanitarianism.
     But still some believe the lies and justifications given by our bought and paid for politicians for every "humanitarian intervention". That anyone can compare alleged "Russian aggression" unfavourably with our own governments military aggression shows a gullibility that is staggering.
    Our leaders are warmongering psychopaths and the list of our wars and interventions is testament to that unfortunate truth. The ongoing crime scene of the Middle East is a shocking indictment of our leaders ravenous appetite for war based on economic interests and built on demonstrable lies. Putin didn't start any of those did he. In fact it was Putin who prevented the bombing of Syria at the UN, in yet another conflict being stoked by US/UK, who are currently arming and funding the Islamist terrorists.
    Until UK and US citizens wake up in sufficient numbers and oust the war mongerers and demand a foreign policy that is both ethical and in line with all of our interests, not the interests of a few criminals, then we should be grateful that Putin and Russia are acting as a bulwark against the war criminals that are our current leaders.
       
   
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2015, 01:47:AM
One way to look at it is this.  If Putin does away with his own political opponents - he looks bad.  I suppose it could be argued that he reduces internal opposition to himself due to the fear factor.  But this would probably be in direct proportion to external opposition, which would probably rise?

So, if you wanted to stoke up external opposition to Putin - you could assasinate one of his political opponents? 

There is something strange going on, with these apparent Russian planes buzzing our airspace etc.

He denies it and people believe him (I don't), yes, there are planes buzzing around here and Alias confirms it has happened in Denmark too. I think he's seeing how far he can go and is basically sticking up two fingers to anyone who would question him. I don't trust him (although I don't trust Cameron either!).
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2015, 01:50:AM
Perhaps I just have trust issues where politicians are concerned?  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 02, 2015, 09:16:AM
Perhaps I just have trust issues where politicians are concerned?  ;D ;D ;D ;D





I have too. >:(
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 02, 2015, 09:22:AM
He denies it and people believe him (I don't), yes, there are planes buzzing around here and Alias confirms it has happened in Denmark too. I think he's seeing how far he can go and is basically sticking up two fingers to anyone who would question him. I don't trust him (although I don't trust Cameron either!).
  The whole Russian planes buzzing our airspace is a concoction by NATO countries to ready the public for war. NATO and Russian planes routinely buzz each others airspace and it is not even deemed worthy of reporting. There is nothing unusual in these actions. What is unusual is that suddenly these are being sold as Russian aggression.
     Putin and Russia have so far resisted the bait in Ukraine and in their desperation to paint Putin as a dangerous megalomaniac our very own dangerous megalomaniacs are having to resort to desperate means, hence the sudden spike in reporting these non events.
     The whole world and it's dog knows that it is NATO planes that are the clear threat to world peace not Russian planes. This is self evident from observation over the 30 years or more. Take a look at our "statesmen" and listen to them. Take a look at the world and see which countries have the most foreign bases and mass troop presences in other countries and it isn't Russia.
     We were lied to in order to justify the war crime of Iraq.
     We were lied to in order to justify the bombing of Libya.
     In fact every war that we have involved ourselves in over the last 30 years or more has been based on half truths and outright lies. Why would anyone believe the same people when they call for yet another war using the same lies?
      It is an affront to our intelligence that our politicians have the temerity to attempt to convince us that Russian planes flying in international airspace, but a bit near to national airspace, is aggression which needs dealing with whilst the wars that we are involved in and started are peacekeeping humanitarian missions; albeit always in countries that have lots of exploitable natural resources, although this fact is no doubt coincidental.
      The US/UK are a clear threat to world order and the launching of wars of aggression by these state terrorists has to be stopped. It appears that enough of the populace of these countries are still willing to buy into the narratives being sold to them by these self serving lickspittle quislings. Unfortunately until enough people in the US/UK wake up and oust the war mongerers then nothing will change and it is sad that the best hope for restraining our governments aggressive intentions is a strong Russia.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 02, 2015, 11:00:AM
Another brilliantly explained post,Gringo.
I was mortified when we went to Iraq as there was clearly no need to interfere into how Saddam Hussein was running his country.
Also Afghanistan,which I thought was utter madness to try and win a war with a bunch of savages.
Our interference in such countries has got to be blamed on our half-cocked Intelligence at GCHQ.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 02, 2015, 11:03:AM
  The whole Russian planes buzzing our airspace is a concoction by NATO countries to ready the public for war. NATO and Russian planes routinely buzz each others airspace and it is not even deemed worthy of reporting. There is nothing unusual in these actions. What is unusual is that suddenly these are being sold as Russian aggression.
     Putin and Russia have so far resisted the bait in Ukraine and in their desperation to paint Putin as a dangerous megalomaniac our very own dangerous megalomaniacs are having to resort to desperate means, hence the sudden spike in reporting these non events.
     The whole world and it's dog knows that it is NATO planes that are the clear threat to world peace not Russian planes. This is self evident from observation over the 30 years or more. Take a look at our "statesmen" and listen to them. Take a look at the world and see which countries have the most foreign bases and mass troop presences in other countries and it isn't Russia.
     We were lied to in order to justify the war crime of Iraq.
     We were lied to in order to justify the bombing of Libya.
     In fact every war that we have involved ourselves in over the last 30 years or more has been based on half truths and outright lies. Why would anyone believe the same people when they call for yet another war using the same lies?
      It is an affront to our intelligence that our politicians have the temerity to attempt to convince us that Russian planes flying in international airspace, but a bit near to national airspace, is aggression which needs dealing with whilst the wars that we are involved in and started are peacekeeping humanitarian missions; albeit always in countries that have lots of exploitable natural resources, although this fact is no doubt coincidental.
      The US/UK are a clear threat to world order and the launching of wars of aggression by these state terrorists has to be stopped. It appears that enough of the populace of these countries are still willing to buy into the narratives being sold to them by these self serving lickspittle quislings. Unfortunately until enough people in the US/UK wake up and oust the war mongerers then nothing will change and it is sad that the best hope for restraining our governments aggressive intentions is a strong Russia.

Another excellent post gringo.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 02, 2015, 01:12:PM
So gringo, do you think the two near-collisions with Danish passenger planes are made up?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2015, 02:16:PM
Im going to upset the apple cart and admit that I actually like Putin and think he is brilliant. He has done so much for his country and his people. Are you sure you are not all being led by what is written in the MSM? It seems to me,that Putin is his own man. He can see what is going on in the west and clearly doesn't want to be part of the so called 'New World Order'. He is intelligent enough to know that the wars that the US and ourselves have started have nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with money and the control of oil. Indeed,he has told President Obama "tell your citizens that 9/11 was a was a false flag,or I will.I have the evidence to prove it". Imo warmonger Bush was far more dangerous than Putin.

They said the same about Hitler and we know how that ended!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 02, 2015, 02:47:PM
They said the same about Hitler and we know how that ended!

Putin is not Hitler, not even close.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 02, 2015, 03:11:PM
all thses comparisons to hitler are way over the top putin hasn't gassed 6 million people.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 02, 2015, 03:12:PM
all thses comparisons to hitler are way over the top putin hasn't gassed 6 million people.

Very true nugnug.


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 02, 2015, 03:19:PM
So gringo, do you think the two near-collisions with Danish passenger planes are made up?
  Not made up but exaggerated for effect, Alias. The buzzing of each others airspace and territorial waters is all tit for tat and has always happened.
     Nato planes and ships carry out manoeuvres near to Russian airspace and waters and the Russians do likewise. It has always gone on and the reporting of it, as if it is unusual, shows the agendas of those doing the reporting.
      Describing the encounters as near collisions is just hyperbole, again to exaggerate the "threat" which in truth is non existent.
      The evidence is all around for anyone to see Alias and is best measured by our military presence in countries throughout the world compared to Russian troops.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2015, 03:53:PM
all thses comparisons to hitler are way over the top putin hasn't gassed 6 million people.

Neither had Hitler until he actually did.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2015, 03:54:PM
Putin is not Hitler, not even close.

I believe he has the potential to be just as bad.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 02, 2015, 04:01:PM
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!
  First of all, Caroline there simply is no invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There is a civil war where the Ukrainian Army are shelling their own citizens and the civilians are fighting against government forces. Quite a number of those civilians are ethnic Russian but apart from bluster and accusations there is zero evidence of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. In these days of satellite imagery and everyone having cameras it seems somewhat incongruous that there is not a single picture of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine.
    Secondly Russia cannot stick to a ceasefire agreement as they are not firing in the first place unless someone can find these phantom Russian troops. There are protocols in the agreement regarding the permanent monitoring of the Russian/Ukraine border but nothing about Russians sticking to any ceasefire. Why do you think that is?
     The increase in Russian defence spending that you refer to probably requires some context so I will happily oblige.
     US defence spending in 2012 and 2013 was 640 and 680 billion dollars respectively.
     Russian defence spending 2012 and 2013 was 90 and 87 billion dollars respectively.
     Using those figures as a guide who do you think has designs on world conquest?
     It should also be noted that Russian defence spending is exactly that( defence spending) while the US budget looks more like attack spending and given both of these countries record over the years, it is reasonable to conclude that US defence spending is a euphemism for war chest.
     The comparisons with Hitler would be more apt applied to our own leaders. It is they who are invading and bombing countries in a never ending cycle of wars.
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 02, 2015, 04:08:PM
I believe he has the potential to be just as bad.

the western backed dictatorship in the Ukraine actually love hitler.

western Ukraine collaborated with the nazis took part in the holocaust.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2015, 04:09:PM
  First of all, Caroline there simply is no invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There is a civil war where the Ukrainian Army are shelling their own citizens and the civilians are fighting against government forces. Quite a number of those civilians are ethnic Russian but apart from bluster and accusations there is zero evidence of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. In these days of satellite imagery and everyone having cameras it seems somewhat incongruous that there is not a single picture of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine.
    Secondly Russia cannot stick to a ceasefire agreement as they are not firing in the first place unless someone can find these phantom Russian troops. There are protocols in the agreement regarding the permanent monitoring of the Russian/Ukraine border but nothing about Russians sticking to any ceasefire. Why do you think that is?
     The increase in Russian defence spending that you refer to probably requires some context so I will happily oblige.
     US defence spending in 2012 and 2013 was 640 and 680 billion dollars respectively.
     Russian defence spending 2012 and 2013 was 90 and 87 billion dollars respectively.
     Using those figures as a guide who do you think has designs on world conquest?
     It should also be noted that Russian defence spending is exactly that( defence spending) while the US budget looks more like attack spending and given both of these countries record over the years, it is reasonable to conclude that US defence spending is a euphemism for war chest.
     The comparisons with Hitler would be more apt applied to our own leaders. It is they who are invading and bombing countries in a never ending cycle of wars.
   

Well, lets just wait and see.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 02, 2015, 04:47:PM
Well, lets just wait and see.
   It is surely better to look at the undeniable evidence of Western aggression and draw your conclusions from facts on the ground rather than repeating the baseless rhetoric from already discredited journalists and politicians.
    You based your Hitler comparison on assertions that have no basis in fact or are so out of context as to be meaningless.
    What makes you so confident that Putin is the threat when the evidence of Western complicity and aggression is literally all around you. You are being taken in by propaganda when there is ample information, that is a matter of record and not disputed, which contradicts the official US/UK narrative.

   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Mr. Gee on March 02, 2015, 05:26:PM
I ain't worried. ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 02, 2015, 07:33:PM
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fthe-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine%2F5371554&ei=m7r0VK3LDcWvU8vdgZAM&usg=AFQjCNF_ZCXpj3PHagtVp5LehzllDoD-2Q&sig2=tsiKvvTRvzOf7O8ntGbXpA&bvm=bv.87269000,d.d24&cad=rja

im more worried about this lot than putin.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2015, 07:49:PM
   It is surely better to look at the undeniable evidence of Western aggression and draw your conclusions from facts on the ground rather than repeating the baseless rhetoric from already discredited journalists and politicians.
    You based your Hitler comparison on assertions that have no basis in fact or are so out of context as to be meaningless.
    What makes you so confident that Putin is the threat when the evidence of Western complicity and aggression is literally all around you. You are being taken in by propaganda when there is ample information, that is a matter of record and not disputed, which contradicts the official US/UK narrative.

   

Sorry Gringo, I don't see conspiracies around every corner but nor do I believe that politicians work with the best interests of the people in mind. I think they are ALL the same and Puntin is no less corrupt than the rest. Obviously western politicians have a vested interest in making him look bad but he doesn't need their help.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 02, 2015, 08:00:PM
a group of neo nazis topple a democratically elected government in the government in the Ukraine and hes the bad guy for trying to stop them.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 02, 2015, 08:50:PM
Sorry Gringo, I don't see conspiracies around every corner but nor do I believe that politicians work with the best interests of the people in mind. I think they are ALL the same and Puntin is no less corrupt than the rest. Obviously western politicians have a vested interest in making him look bad but he doesn't need their help.
  The facts speak for themselves, Caroline. The wars , invasions, bombing missions, illegal renditions, military bases, defence spending that dwarfs all lead to the inevitable conclusion that far from being as bad as each other, our leaders are leagues ahead of Putin and Russia in terms of evil. Are you aware of all of our foreign military adventures in comparison to Russia? How do you conclude that each is as bad as the other? Saying Putin is bad but offering no evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion merely shows the power of propaganda.
     Nothing I have said in this thread is conspiracy, I have given cold hard facts and it is difficult not to conclude that our leaders are much madder and badder than Putin.The invasions, bombings etc. are not conspiracy theories; they are true and it is also not conspiracy that our military, along with the US, are spread all over the world, but especially in resource rich countries.
    It is not conspiracy that the Russians are not embroiled in wars throughout the world. Calling out our leaders propaganda is not conspiracy, it is something we all should do.
   

     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 03, 2015, 11:10:AM
 The  Molotov/Ribbentrop pact is worth a read.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 03, 2015, 04:29:PM
https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1gOM6YKcMKI&h=uAQFsecy6
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 03, 2015, 04:33:PM
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnpilger.com%2Farticles%2Fwhy-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue&h=7AQHVKWsZ
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 03, 2015, 09:05:PM
  First of all, Caroline there simply is no invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There is a civil war where the Ukrainian Army are shelling their own citizens and the civilians are fighting against government forces. Quite a number of those civilians are ethnic Russian but apart from bluster and accusations there is zero evidence of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. In these days of satellite imagery and everyone having cameras it seems somewhat incongruous that there is not a single picture of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine.
    Secondly Russia cannot stick to a ceasefire agreement as they are not firing in the first place unless someone can find these phantom Russian troops. There are protocols in the agreement regarding the permanent monitoring of the Russian/Ukraine border but nothing about Russians sticking to any ceasefire. Why do you think that is?
     The increase in Russian defence spending that you refer to probably requires some context so I will happily oblige.
     US defence spending in 2012 and 2013 was 640 and 680 billion dollars respectively.
     Russian defence spending 2012 and 2013 was 90 and 87 billion dollars respectively.
     Using those figures as a guide who do you think has designs on world conquest?
     It should also be noted that Russian defence spending is exactly that( defence spending) while the US budget looks more like attack spending and given both of these countries record over the years, it is reasonable to conclude that US defence spending is a euphemism for war chest.
     The comparisons with Hitler would be more apt applied to our own leaders. It is they who are invading and bombing countries in a never ending cycle of wars.
   

That's just simply not true.

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GUe62fXalRc/0.jpg)

Like in the Crimea the Russian military entered just without official insignia so they could not be spotted officially.

Many pro-Russian fighters cross the boarder into Russia to be trained and equipped by the Russian military.

Proxy/Puppet states have already been established the Ukraine/Russia border in the region is de-facto non existent
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya_(confederation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya_(confederation))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2015, 01:01:AM
That's just simply not true.

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GUe62fXalRc/0.jpg)

Like in the Crimea the Russian military entered just without official insignia so they could not be spotted officially.

Many pro-Russian fighters cross the boarder into Russia to be trained and equipped by the Russian military.

Proxy/Puppet states have already been established the Ukraine/Russia border in the region is de-facto non existent
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya_(confederation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya_(confederation))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic)
   It simply is true though David. Where is the picture from so we can actually discuss the authenticity of it? If it is from Crimea then Russian troops have always been there because there are military bases there. The truth is that our governments have offered no evidence of Russian troops entering Ukraine and you posting an unattributed picture isn't evidence either.
    Where and when is this picture allegedly from? If you believe that Russia has invaded Ukraine then I've got a bridge you might be interested in. It seems odd that the evidence which eludes our own intelligence services is nonetheless available to you.
    I suspect that there will be as much mileage in this invasion claim of yours that there was in your rather dismal list of alleged Russian aggression earlier in the thread. You didn't respond to the reply that I gave  so am I now to assume that you accept that Russia has not launched any wars of aggression in the last thirty years or so? and that the US/UK have?
     Remember also that being involved in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government of the time is not viewed the same as invading a country in an aggressive war.
    If you don't know the difference read up on Nuremberg. International law and precedent regards a war of aggression as the ultimate war crime.   
    The fact that some Russians cross the border to fight in the civil war is hardly surprising and nor is it evidence of a Russian invasion. The east of Ukraine is largely ethnic Russian and there are many Russians with family in the east who are under bombardment from government forces. A civil war is raging in Ukraine between the east and west and it is clear that the eastern provinces will not accept rule from the current government in Kiev.
    Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia and if you understood any of the history and ethnic make up of Crimea then you would not be at all surprised by this. The coup in Kiev brought to power the sort of people that the east of the country would never accept and the country inevitably descended into turmoil. 
     I could give you lots of examples of UK citizens fighting in civil wars throughout history but no-one would claim that this is evidence of a UK invasion. When UK citizens fought in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War would that constitute an invasion by the UK? Are British jihadists in Syria evidence of a UK invasion of Syria? I could go on but I am sure you can fill the gaps in yourself.
     There simply is no Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Minsk agreement acknowledges this implicitly. You are swallowing hook line and sinker the propaganda being fed to you by the same media that have been shown to be dishonest and lacking even a modicum of intellectual curiosity time and time again.
     The same media that tried and convicted Christopher Jeffries and many others using innuendo and gossip are now employing the same method to convict Putin of pretty much everything bad happening around the world. Evidence is what matters not gossip. Rather than an unattributed picture can you post any evidence of the Russian invasion. Do you honestly think that the Ukrainian Army would not have been overrun within days if the Russians actually did invade? If you honestly believe that the Ukrainian Army could engage an invading Russian Army in a war of attrition rather than being brushed aside in days then you are mistaken.   
     The usual suspects are pushing for war yet again but this time against a nuclear superpower so there really are WMD.
     We have our own problems at home with our megalomaniac politicians and unsolved murders and should probably care more about putting our own house in order rather than concerning ourselves with Putin and Russia.
     Nemtsov is a fine example of this. Nemtsov had between 1 and 5% support in Russia and was barely even a fringe figure. His party has no MP's in the Duma and has not had any for 13 years. He was Yeltsin's DPM and was largely reviled in Russia for being party to the looting of Russia's natural resources during the chaotic reign of Yeltsin when a few criminals became billionaires. He has been described as "Opposition Leader" when nothing could be further from the truth. The Communist Party is by far the largest opposition in Russia to Putin's United Russia. Calling Nemtsov "Opposition Leader" is akin to calling Nick Griffin "Opposition Leader". If Nick Griffin were shot outside the House of Commons and the Russian press started blaming Cameron and talking of Griffin as a political rival you would think them bonkers and you would be right. But we are expected to believe that Putin had a political nobody murdered in full view outside the Kremlin.
 
   
       
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 04, 2015, 03:07:AM

You didn't respond to the reply that I gave  so am I now to assume that you accept that Russia has not launched any wars of aggression in the last thirty years or so? and that the US/UK have?
     

No! I did not reply because you come up with a large amount of conspiracy nut nonsense no offence.

Russia Invaded Georgia in 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War)

I mentioned other conflicts but you distorted the information to suit your narrative.

Russia has not officially invaded or declared war on Ukraine no but its fighting a proxy by supplying and training the ethnic Russians in Ukraine that want pro Russian government.

I have no problem with what Russia is doing its in their national interests . The USA cant do and don't want anything to do with it.


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2015, 04:51:PM
No! I did not reply because you come up with a large amount of conspiracy nut nonsense no offence.

Russia Invaded Georgia in 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War)

I mentioned other conflicts but you distorted the information to suit your narrative.

Russia has not officially invaded or declared war on Ukraine no but its fighting a proxy by supplying and training the ethnic Russians in Ukraine that want pro Russian government.

I have no problem with what Russia is doing its in their national interests . The USA cant do and don't want anything to do with it.
   You will be able to point out the "conspiracy nut nonsense" then won't you?
    You will obviously be able to clarify the information I gave on the conflicts that you mentioned given my claimed distortions. You listed a number of conflicts/civil wars in former Soviet Republics which you attempted to claim were Russian aggression. If you think I distorted the narrative then point out how.
     All you have done so far is list some conflicts, without context, posted an unattributed undated picture and linked to a wiki page as proof of Russian invasions/aggression. I pointed out that all the conflicts were in former Soviet Republics, which is true, involved many ethnic Russians and were local civil wars on their doorstep. Which part of that is distorted? Look at a world map David, then compare and contrast the presence of Russian/US troops in other countries. The only ones believing conspiracy nut stories are those that still believe the narrative being fed to them by proven liars. 
   
     You seem confused as to whether Russia has invaded Ukraine or not, first claiming that they had, and posting a picture of some tanks by way of proof, but then claiming that the invasion is by proxy. Your belief that the US can't and won't have anything to do with it flies in the face of all the evidence.Obama, Kerry, McCain, Biden and Victoria Nuland have had plenty to say about Ukraine and arming the Ukrainian Army. There are realms of evidence of US complicity in Ukraine and you need to read more sources if you believe that they have no interest.
     No offence to you either David but your understanding of world affairs is lacking in any balance or awareness of how our own countries actions are viewed by the vast majority of the world. You could do with looking through a different lens occasionally.
     Anyway,when and where is the picture of the tanks from? You claimed it proved a Russian invasion and then failed to back it up, instead just deriding anything else as conspiracy without actually pointing out any.
     Do you believe that the Russian involvement in Georgia was a war of aggression?
     How about the US/UK invasion of Iraq?
     The answer to the last two questions incidentally is no and yes, in that order, to anyone with an unbiased understanding. If your answers are yes and no then you seriously need to learn more before you engage in debate on the matter, no offence.
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 04, 2015, 06:31:PM
   You will be able to point out the "conspiracy nut nonsense" then won't you?
    You will obviously be able to clarify the information I gave on the conflicts that you mentioned given my claimed distortions. You listed a number of conflicts/civil wars in former Soviet Republics which you attempted to claim were Russian aggression. If you think I distorted the narrative then point out how.
     All you have done so far is list some conflicts, without context, posted an unattributed undated picture and linked to a wiki page as proof of Russian invasions/aggression. I pointed out that all the conflicts were in former Soviet Republics, which is true, involved many ethnic Russians and were local civil wars on their doorstep. Which part of that is distorted? Look at a world map David, then compare and contrast the presence of Russian/US troops in other countries. The only ones believing conspiracy nut stories are those that still believe the narrative being fed to them by proven liars. 
   
     You seem confused as to whether Russia has invaded Ukraine or not, first claiming that they had, and posting a picture of some tanks by way of proof, but then claiming that the invasion is by proxy. Your belief that the US can't and won't have anything to do with it flies in the face of all the evidence.Obama, Kerry, McCain, Biden and Victoria Nuland have had plenty to say about Ukraine and arming the Ukrainian Army. There are realms of evidence of US complicity in Ukraine and you need to read more sources if you believe that they have no interest.
     No offence to you either David but your understanding of world affairs is lacking in any balance or awareness of how our own countries actions are viewed by the vast majority of the world. You could do with looking through a different lens occasionally.
     Anyway,when and where is the picture of the tanks from? You claimed it proved a Russian invasion and then failed to back it up, instead just deriding anything else as conspiracy without actually pointing out any.
     Do you believe that the Russian involvement in Georgia was a war of aggression?
     How about the US/UK invasion of Iraq?
     The answer to the last two questions incidentally is no and yes, in that order, to anyone with an unbiased understanding. If your answers are yes and no then you seriously need to learn more before you engage in debate on the matter, no offence.
     

How exactly do you define a war of aggression?

If you define it as a military invasion of a state regardless of political situations then Both Iraq 2003 and Georgia 2008 would be wars of aggression.

Russia had its reasons for invading Georgia and the US had its reasons for invading Iraq. Therefore can both be considered not wars of aggression.

I would define a war of aggression as a state invading another state for no reason other than to obtain power conquest and motivated by accumulation of land and resources. By that definition

German Invasion of Poland
USSR invasion of Finland
USSR invasion of Afganistan
Iraqi Invasion of Iran
Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
Egypt and Syria invading Israel in six day war
USA invading Canada in 1812
to name a few


As for Russian military presence in Ukraine is proven beyond all doubt - Russia may not consider the Soil to be Ukraine so can easily deny it.

http://www.newsweek.com/nemtsovs-evidence-russian-troops-ukraine-taken-police-310997 (http://www.newsweek.com/nemtsovs-evidence-russian-troops-ukraine-taken-police-310997)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-ukraine-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0LZ2FV20150303 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-ukraine-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0LZ2FV20150303)

Russian troops in Ukraine, Ukranian buildings are behind them its undeniable
(http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/2668d3f5-fd0a-4c1e-917d-21edd73367af.img)

Russian military in Ukrainian street - undeniable
(http://media2.intoday.in/indiatoday/images/stories//2014March/troops-650_030114093116.jpg)

Russian troops outside Ukranian police station - Undeniable
(http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/492*328/030214b11TENSIONS%204.jpg)

Russian T-90 tank in Ukrainian street - road marking street signs are Ukrainian - Undeniable   
(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/news/201409/n_71153_1.jpg)

Russian 'Aid' convoy  ::)
(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9687149.ece/alternates/w1024/Russian-aid-convoy-1.jpg)

Russian T-90 Tank in a street in Donetsk -Undeniable 
(http://static.tnn.epi.vn/Uploaded/quynhanh/2015_02_02/pro-russian_separatists_ride_on_a_tank_in_donetsk_february_1_2015_CPSS.jpg?width=840)


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2015, 08:58:PM
How exactly do you define a war of aggression?

If you define it as a military invasion of a state regardless of political situations then Both Iraq 2003 and Georgia 2008 would be wars of aggression.

Russia had its reasons for invading Georgia and the US had its reasons for invading Iraq. Therefore can both be considered not wars of aggression.

I would define a war of aggression as a state invading another state for no reason other than to obtain power conquest and motivated by accumulation of land and resources. By that definition

German Invasion of Poland
USSR invasion of Finland
USSR invasion of Afganistan
Iraqi Invasion of Iran
Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
Egypt and Syria invading Israel in six day war
USA invading Canada in 1812
to name a few


As for Russian military presence in Ukraine is proven beyond all doubt - Russia may not consider the Soil to be Ukraine so can easily deny it.

http://www.newsweek.com/nemtsovs-evidence-russian-troops-ukraine-taken-police-310997 (http://www.newsweek.com/nemtsovs-evidence-russian-troops-ukraine-taken-police-310997)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-ukraine-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0LZ2FV20150303 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-ukraine-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0LZ2FV20150303)

Russian troops in Ukraine, Ukranian buildings are behind them its undeniable
(http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/2668d3f5-fd0a-4c1e-917d-21edd73367af.img)

Russian military in Ukrainian street - undeniable
(http://media2.intoday.in/indiatoday/images/stories//2014March/troops-650_030114093116.jpg)

Russian troops outside Ukranian police station - Undeniable
(http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/492*328/030214b11TENSIONS%204.jpg)

Russian T-90 tank in Ukrainian street - road marking street signs are Ukrainian - Undeniable   
(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/news/201409/n_71153_1.jpg)

Russian 'Aid' convoy  ::)
(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9687149.ece/alternates/w1024/Russian-aid-convoy-1.jpg)

Russian T-90 Tank in a street in Donetsk -Undeniable 
(http://static.tnn.epi.vn/Uploaded/quynhanh/2015_02_02/pro-russian_separatists_ride_on_a_tank_in_donetsk_february_1_2015_CPSS.jpg?width=840)
   A war of aggression is a clearly understood concept. A war of aggression is one that is waged that is not in self defence. What do you think the WMD claims in Iraq were about? They were to give legal cover by attempting to obtain UNSC approval. Even asking me what I consider a war of aggression to be shows a remarkable naivety. It is a well defined concept. Your definition shows you are out of your depth. I did advise you read up on Nuremberg earlier and if you had you wouldn't ask such silly questions.
    Your new list of wars of aggression is comical. How do you come up with this stuff? Do you just write the first wars that come into your head, because there seems little else that connects them all.
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 04, 2015, 09:43:PM
   A war of aggression is a clearly understood concept. A war of aggression is one that is waged that is not in self defence. What do you think the WMD claims in Iraq were about? They were to give legal cover by attempting to obtain UNSC approval. Even asking me what I consider a war of aggression to be shows a remarkable naivety. It is a well defined concept. Your definition shows you are out of your depth. I did advise you read up on Nuremberg earlier and if you had you wouldn't ask such silly questions.
    Your new list of wars of aggression is comical. How do you come up with this stuff? Do you just write the first wars that come into your head, because there seems little else that connects them all.
   

I disagree - Its important we both understand how we define the term, No conflict is straight forward.
I'm not to concerned about Nuremberg it was a show trial.

Saddam Hussein got himself in sh*t by his actions after 9/11 thou he had nothing to do with it.
Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the USA to remove Saddam as they hated the guy

http://youtu.be/gvntaL3nxEw (http://youtu.be/gvntaL3nxEw)
 
However he had WMD and used WMD against innocent people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack)

Saddam Hussein was a snake I am glad he is gone it was Bush Senior that should have removed him 1991. It was a failure of the global community to allow him to be in power so long. Nevertheless Both Iraq and Afghanistan where given ultimatums to avoid the war but refused to accept them. The Taliban where told if they handed over Osama and other key members war would be avoided. Saddam Hussein and his inner circle was told to leave Iraq or face war. 


My new list of wars of aggression is comical? fair enough your entitled to your opinion now please give me reasons why you think each of those wars where not wars of aggression  ::)

I look forward to you explaining a just and valid reason for each of them  ::)

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2015, 11:31:PM
I disagree - Its important we both understand how we define the term, No conflict is straight forward.
I'm not to concerned about Nuremberg it was a show trial.

Saddam Hussein got himself in sh*t by his actions after 9/11 thou he had nothing to do with it.
Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the USA to remove Saddam as they hated the guy

http://youtu.be/gvntaL3nxEw (http://youtu.be/gvntaL3nxEw)
 
However he had WMD and used WMD against innocent people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack)

Saddam Hussein was a snake I am glad he is gone it was Bush Senior that should have removed him 1991. It was a failure of the global community to allow him to be in power so long. Nevertheless Both Iraq and Afghanistan where given ultimatums to avoid the war but refused to accept them. The Taliban where told if they handed over Osama and other key members war would be avoided. Saddam Hussein and his inner circle was told to leave Iraq or face war. 


My new list of wars of aggression is comical? fair enough your entitled to your opinion now please give me reasons why you think each of those wars where not wars of aggression  ::)

I look forward to you explaining a just and valid reason for each of them  ::)
  A war of aggression is a clearly defined and understood concept as I have already pointed out. How about we agree a war of aggression is what everybody else understands it to be, ie. a war launched that is not in self defence. What is difficult about that?
    As for your list, the reason it is comical is that there is no common thread running through them and therefore it is just an arbitrary list of some wars/conflicts.
    You list USSR invasion of Afghanistan as a war of aggression despite it being pointed out, more than once, that the Soviet military were there at the invitation of the Afghan government to help fight the foreign backed Islamist rebels. Or do you believe this to be conspiracy nut nonsense. Do you not know this because there is no other explanation for your bizarre claim that this constitutes a war of aggression.
    Border disputes are also not considered to necessarily be wars of aggression so some others on your list would not really be considered such.
    You also claim that the US invasion of Iraq could be considered not to be a war of aggression because the US "had its reasons for invading Iraq". You also claim that Saddam was given ultimatums to avoid the war and that the world community had failed in allowing Saddam to keep power for so long. By your reasoning we'd best get on quick sharp removing the Saudi, Qatari, Bahrain regimes to mention just a few. In fact the list of tyrannical regimes is long and dismal but that old pesky international law prevents us from launching wars to change regimes. Would you appreciate foreign involvement in our country just because some more powerful countries decided that your government should be changed. It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government, not the whim of some self appointed world police.
    Your grasp of international law is as sketchy as your understanding of world affairs. It is illegal under international law to launch a war for regime change and I would be interested to hear the US reasons for this war because the one they gave(WMD) turned out to be deliberate lies although you apparently believe it still. Read Colin Powell's retraction of his speech at the UN and then get back to me on whether you still believe the US genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
    The Iraq invasion of Iran was definitely a war of aggression but we didn't say too much about that at the time because we were arming and encouraging Saddam and Iraq at the time. America even sold Iraq virus cultures and helped them produce mustard gas. They also gave the co-ordinates of the Iranian military positions to Iraq knowing that they would be attacked with chemical weapons. Watch Galloway at the US Senate hearings and you might learn something about American complicity.
   Would you care to explain how "Saddam got himself in shit by his actions after 9/11 even though he had nothing to do with it"? and what on earth that even means. And you believe that Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the US to remove Saddam....
   Those naive and gullible CIA spooks were mugged off by a bunch of Iraqi defectors. You are giving far too much credit to the Iraqi defectors. The evidence was fabricated by the US, and the Iraqi defectors were simply useful stooges and to believe otherwise is incredible.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2015, 11:47:PM
How exactly do you define a war of aggression?

If you define it as a military invasion of a state regardless of political situations then Both Iraq 2003 and Georgia 2008 would be wars of aggression.

Russia had its reasons for invading Georgia and the US had its reasons for invading Iraq. Therefore can both be considered not wars of aggression.

I would define a war of aggression as a state invading another state for no reason other than to obtain power conquest and motivated by accumulation of land and resources. By that definition

German Invasion of Poland
USSR invasion of Finland
USSR invasion of Afganistan
Iraqi Invasion of Iran
Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
Egypt and Syria invading Israel in six day war
USA invading Canada in 1812
to name a few


As for Russian military presence in Ukraine is proven beyond all doubt - Russia may not consider the Soil to be Ukraine so can easily deny it.

http://www.newsweek.com/nemtsovs-evidence-russian-troops-ukraine-taken-police-310997 (http://www.newsweek.com/nemtsovs-evidence-russian-troops-ukraine-taken-police-310997)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-ukraine-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0LZ2FV20150303 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-ukraine-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0LZ2FV20150303)

Russian troops in Ukraine, Ukranian buildings are behind them its undeniable
(http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/2668d3f5-fd0a-4c1e-917d-21edd73367af.img)

Russian military in Ukrainian street - undeniable
(http://media2.intoday.in/indiatoday/images/stories//2014March/troops-650_030114093116.jpg)

Russian troops outside Ukranian police station - Undeniable
(http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/492*328/030214b11TENSIONS%204.jpg)

Russian T-90 tank in Ukrainian street - road marking street signs are Ukrainian - Undeniable   
(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/news/201409/n_71153_1.jpg)

Russian 'Aid' convoy  ::)
(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9687149.ece/alternates/w1024/Russian-aid-convoy-1.jpg)

Russian T-90 Tank in a street in Donetsk -Undeniable 
(http://static.tnn.epi.vn/Uploaded/quynhanh/2015_02_02/pro-russian_separatists_ride_on_a_tank_in_donetsk_february_1_2015_CPSS.jpg?width=840)
  Your pictures are a piss take by the way. Instead of posting more unattributed undated pictures we need to verify the ones you already have posted. Given that a picture of an Aid Convoy counts to you as evidence of invasion I am not sure that you set the bar high enough.
     The picture of the Russian Troops outside a police station, I would assume to be from Crimea but without clarification from you as to the authenticity, locations and dates of these pictures then you have offered nothing that shows evidence of a Russian invasion. If it is from Crimea then you need to accept the fact that Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia and there really is no doubt that this is the will of the Crimean people.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 12:11:AM
  A war of aggression is a clearly defined and understood concept as I have already pointed out. How about we agree a war of aggression is what everybody else understands it to be, ie. a war launched that is not in self defence. What is difficult about that?
    As for your list, the reason it is comical is that there is no common thread running through them and therefore it is just an arbitrary list of some wars/conflicts.
    You list USSR invasion of Afghanistan as a war of aggression despite it being pointed out, more than once, that the Soviet military were there at the invitation of the Afghan government to help fight the foreign backed Islamist rebels. Or do you believe this to be conspiracy nut nonsense. Do you not know this because there is no other explanation for your bizarre claim that this constitutes a war of aggression.
    Border disputes are also not considered to necessarily be wars of aggression so some others on your list would not really be considered such.
    You also claim that the US invasion of Iraq could be considered not to be a war of aggression because the US "had its reasons for invading Iraq". You also claim that Saddam was given ultimatums to avoid the war and that the world community had failed in allowing Saddam to keep power for so long. By your reasoning we'd best get on quick sharp removing the Saudi, Qatari, Bahrain regimes to mention just a few. In fact the list of tyrannical regimes is long and dismal but that old pesky international law prevents us from launching wars to change regimes. Would you appreciate foreign involvement in our country just because some more powerful countries decided that your government should be changed. It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government, not the whim of some self appointed world police.
    Your grasp of international law is as sketchy as your understanding of world affairs. It is illegal under international law to launch a war for regime change and I would be interested to hear the US reasons for this war because the one they gave(WMD) turned out to be deliberate lies although you apparently believe it still. Read Colin Powell's retraction of his speech at the UN and then get back to me on whether you still believe the US genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
    The Iraq invasion of Iran was definitely a war of aggression but we didn't say too much about that at the time because we were arming and encouraging Saddam and Iraq at the time. America even sold Iraq virus cultures and helped them produce mustard gas. They also gave the co-ordinates of the Iranian military positions to Iraq knowing that they would be attacked with chemical weapons. Watch Galloway at the US Senate hearings and you might learn something about American complicity.
   Would you care to explain how "Saddam got himself in shit by his actions after 9/11 even though he had nothing to do with it"? and what on earth that even means. And you believe that Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the US to remove Saddam....
   Those naive and gullible CIA spooks were mugged off by a bunch of Iraqi defectors. You are giving far too much credit to the Iraqi defectors. The evidence was fabricated by the US and the Iraqi defectors simply useful stooges and to believe otherwise is incredible.


Oh whatever... I could give you detailed explanations on many things you mentioned. But what's the point your too opinionated and emotionally invested.

"It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government" Try explaining that to the tens of thousands of Iraqis massacred in the 1991 uprisings. How can you enforce a law if you don't remove or stop those breaking it in the first place?

I don't find having a pointless debate with someone who wont capitulate or lacks critical thinking skills very enjoyable. Facts and reasoning don't get through your skull they probably don't even get passed your tinfoil hat.  ::)


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 05, 2015, 12:45:AM

Oh whatever... I could give you detailed explanations on many things you mentioned. But what's the point your too opinionated and emotionally invested.

"It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government" Try explaining that to the tens of thousands of Iraqis massacred in the 1991 uprisings. How can you enforce a law if you don't remove or stop those breaking it in the first place?

I don't find having a pointless debate with someone who wont capitulate or lacks critical thinking skills very enjoyable. Facts and reasoning don't get through your skull they probably don't even get passed your tinfoil hat.  ::)
  I doubt you could give a detailed explanation as you haven't so far.
    What do the 1991 Iraqi uprisings have to do with anything. How does this change the fact that our internal politics is our business and it is not some foreign superpower's responsibility to intervene on anyone's behalf without invitation. The hundreds of thousands dead should have made everyone realise by now that war and invasion is rarely the correct response and causes bigger problems than it solves.
    Your conspiracy nut and tin foil hat jibes merely show the paucity of your own reasoning and critical thinking skills. I asked for verification of your pictures and rather than responding with dates, locations you just resort to name calling.
    You offered no response to anything and claiming that you could respond but won't because my skull is too thick is childish. With spelling as poor as yours I wouldn't be calling anyone thick.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Patti on March 05, 2015, 12:55:AM
Can we draw a line with this please....
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 05, 2015, 12:35:PM
  A war of aggression is a clearly defined and understood concept as I have already pointed out. How about we agree a war of aggression is what everybody else understands it to be, ie. a war launched that is not in self defence. What is difficult about that?
    As for your list, the reason it is comical is that there is no common thread running through them and therefore it is just an arbitrary list of some wars/conflicts.
    You list USSR invasion of Afghanistan as a war of aggression despite it being pointed out, more than once, that the Soviet military were there at the invitation of the Afghan government to help fight the foreign backed Islamist rebels. Or do you believe this to be conspiracy nut nonsense. Do you not know this because there is no other explanation for your bizarre claim that this constitutes a war of aggression.
    Border disputes are also not considered to necessarily be wars of aggression so some others on your list would not really be considered such.
    You also claim that the US invasion of Iraq could be considered not to be a war of aggression because the US "had its reasons for invading Iraq". You also claim that Saddam was given ultimatums to avoid the war and that the world community had failed in allowing Saddam to keep power for so long. By your reasoning we'd best get on quick sharp removing the Saudi, Qatari, Bahrain regimes to mention just a few. In fact the list of tyrannical regimes is long and dismal but that old pesky international law prevents us from launching wars to change regimes. Would you appreciate foreign involvement in our country just because some more powerful countries decided that your government should be changed. It would be our own task to overthrow /change our own government, not the whim of some self appointed world police.
    Your grasp of international law is as sketchy as your understanding of world affairs. It is illegal under international law to launch a war for regime change and I would be interested to hear the US reasons for this war because the one they gave(WMD) turned out to be deliberate lies although you apparently believe it still. Read Colin Powell's retraction of his speech at the UN and then get back to me on whether you still believe the US genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD.
    The Iraq invasion of Iran was definitely a war of aggression but we didn't say too much about that at the time because we were arming and encouraging Saddam and Iraq at the time. America even sold Iraq virus cultures and helped them produce mustard gas. They also gave the co-ordinates of the Iranian military positions to Iraq knowing that they would be attacked with chemical weapons. Watch Galloway at the US Senate hearings and you might learn something about American complicity.
   Would you care to explain how "Saddam got himself in shit by his actions after 9/11 even though he had nothing to do with it"? and what on earth that even means. And you believe that Iraqi defectors fabricated evidence to help convince the US to remove Saddam....
   Those naive and gullible CIA spooks were mugged off by a bunch of Iraqi defectors. You are giving far too much credit to the Iraqi defectors. The evidence was fabricated by the US, and the Iraqi defectors were simply useful stooges and to believe otherwise is incredible.

Another excellent and incisive post Gringo.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 05, 2015, 12:36:PM
  Your pictures are a piss take by the way. Instead of posting more unattributed undated pictures we need to verify the ones you already have posted. Given that a picture of an Aid Convoy counts to you as evidence of invasion I am not sure that you set the bar high enough.
     The picture of the Russian Troops outside a police station, I would assume to be from Crimea but without clarification from you as to the authenticity, locations and dates of these pictures then you have offered nothing that shows evidence of a Russian invasion. If it is from Crimea then you need to accept the fact that Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia and there really is no doubt that this is the will of the Crimean people.

Again, a totally fair assessment.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 05, 2015, 01:19:PM
 I'm amazed at the knowledge Gringo has on the subject and also admire his stance.
What we have now in this country ( terrorism ) is a result in our interference in other countries such as Iraq,where only Saddam knew his own people,so therefore we had no right whatsoever in interfering, invading and capturing a man who was no threat to us. The excuse being WMD's. Blair should have been a subject of war crimes and treated as the criminal that he was/is,as it was his power-crazy ideas that have created the terrorist movement that we now have.

Exactly the same applies to Russia.Keep out. Their business with the Ukraine,is exactly that and not ours. Our excuse being " humanitarian ". Who's got the right to argue with a man who has the might of China on his side ? It would be suicidal for us to interfere with what we see as a humanitarian crisis,which would be nothing like the crisis that we'd face.
We,as a country,should learn from past mistakes------------Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 05, 2015, 01:24:PM
I'm amazed at the knowledge Gringo has on the subject and also admire his stance.
What we have now in this country ( terrorism ) is a result in our interference in other countries such as Iraq,where only Saddam knew his own people,so therefore we had no right whatsoever in interfering, invading and capturing a man who was no threat to us. The excuse being WMD's. Blair should have been a subject of war crimes and treated as the criminal that he was/is,as it was his power-crazy ideas that have created the terrorist movement that we now have.
Exactly the same applies to Russia.Keep out. Their business with the Ukraine,is exactly that and not ours. Our excuse being " humanitarian ". Who's got the right to argue with a man who has the might of China on his side ? It would be suicidal for us to interfere with what we see as a humanitarian crisis,which would be nothing like the crisis that we'd face.
We,as a country,should learn from past mistakes------------Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

I agree with you Lookout on everything you say.  Tony Blair in particular has a lot to answer for.  The lives lost and others ruined as a result of the invasion of Iraq, under totally false pretences, were totally unnecessary and in my view criminal.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 05, 2015, 01:34:PM
I agree with you Lookout on everything you say.  Tony Blair in particular has a lot to answer for.  The lives lost and others ruined as a result of the invasion of Iraq, under totally false pretences, were totally unnecessary and in my view criminal.




Absolutely,ngb. Imagine if he was in charge now ? It really doesn't bear thinking that the " silly little man " would be throwing his weight around over the Ukraine.
As far as I'm concerned,Russia isn't a threat to us,so let's keep it that way by keeping our nose's out of their politics and how they run their own country.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 05, 2015, 01:35:PM
Lookout good post with which I agree Gringo has been making some fabulous posts of late.  Well done to him.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 02:38:PM



Absolutely,ngb. Imagine if he was in charge now ? It really doesn't bear thinking that the " silly little man " would be throwing his weight around over the Ukraine.
As far as I'm concerned,Russia isn't a threat to us,so let's keep it that way by keeping our nose's out of their politics and how they run their own country.

Why people actually decided to elect Blair a third time is beyond me  ???
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 05, 2015, 03:01:PM
David guess the majority of voters thought Blair was the best out of a bad bunch :'(
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 05, 2015, 03:05:PM
Why people actually decided to elect Blair a third time is beyond me  ???




That's just it.They saw him as a " Tin God ". ::) The Aggressor,which suits a lot of the population of this country---------sadly. Those with nothing between their ears I might add.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 04:31:PM
I agree with you Lookout on everything you say.  Tony Blair in particular has a lot to answer for.  The lives lost and others ruined as a result of the invasion of Iraq, under totally false pretences, were totally unnecessary and in my view criminal.

The execution of the war and pre planning led to many of the problems after. But removing Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do. They should have taken him out in 1991.

300,000 Bodies in mass graves scattered around the dessert

estimated between 80,000 to 200,000 civilians killed in the 1991 uprisings against him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq)

Destruction of entire towns
http://youtu.be/O7bY8aovjuw (http://youtu.be/O7bY8aovjuw)

It was a criminal government the likes of Hitler and Stalin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFseD4B3aFg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFseD4B3aFg)

His sons even fed people to lions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nb8h6d7l3U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nb8h6d7l3U)

http://youtu.be/5Y8wN911rMc (http://youtu.be/5Y8wN911rMc)

Iv read extensively on the Baathist rule of Iraq its very interesting due to sheer criminality of it.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 05, 2015, 04:36:PM
The execution of the war and pre planning led to many of the problems after. But removing Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do. They should have taken him out in 1991.

300,000 Bodies in mass graves scattered around the dessert

estimated between 80,000 to 200,000 civilians killed in the 1991 uprisings against him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq)

Destruction of entire towns
http://youtu.be/O7bY8aovjuw (http://youtu.be/O7bY8aovjuw)

It was a criminal government the likes of Hitler and Stalin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFseD4B3aFg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFseD4B3aFg)

His sons even fed people to lions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nb8h6d7l3U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nb8h6d7l3U)

http://youtu.be/5Y8wN911rMc (http://youtu.be/5Y8wN911rMc)

Iv read extensively on the Baathist rule of Iraq its very interesting due to sheer criminality of it.

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.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 05, 2015, 04:43:PM
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.
I agree however although |I was against the 1st war in 1991 I do believe that once in Iraq the US let down the Iraqi opposition when they encouraged them to go for Saddam and then withdrew leaving them exposed to appalling abuse and murder by Saddam and his troops.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 05, 2015, 04:48:PM
I agree however although |I was against the 1st war in 1991 I do believe that once in Iraq the US let down the Iraqi opposition when they encouraged them to go for Saddam and then withdrew leaving them exposed to appalling abuse and murder by Saddam and his troops.

That is a fair point Maggie. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 06:07:PM
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.

The only way a regime change could happen without foreign intervention is if some of his generals attempted to get rid of him. The Iraqi military could not be opposed by the people if using such callous methods simply just sending in Jets and Helicopters to drop gas on people.

There where uprisings in 1988 and he just bombed them with chemical weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack)

But if you look at the timeline of events from 9/11 till the invasion of Iraq without any hindsight bias you can understand why the US decided to remove him. However in my view they should have and could have done it alone without our support.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 05, 2015, 06:27:PM
The only way a regime change could happen without foreign intervention is if some of his generals attempted to get rid of him. The Iraqi military could not be opposed by the people if using such callous methods simply just sending in Jets and Helicopters to drop gas on people.

There where uprisings in 1988 and he just bombed them with chemical weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack)

But if you look at the timeline of events from 9/11 till the invasion of Iraq without any hindsight bias you can understand why the US decided to remove him. However in my view they should have and could have done it alone without our support.

So do you believe the USA has the right to be the policeman of the world?  The USA has an appalling history of illegal intervention to further what their administration believes is in their interest.  Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Nicaragua and Grenada spring to mind.  There is certainly no moral imperitive behind their actions -they have no problem in supporting and propping up the most vile regimes when it suits them.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 06:58:PM
So do you believe the USA has the right to be the policeman of the world?  The USA has an appalling history of illegal intervention to further what their administration believes is in their interest.  Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Nicaragua and Grenada spring to mind.  There is certainly no moral imperitive behind their actions -they have no problem in supporting and propping up the most vile regimes when it suits them.

A Nation like the USA should provide the majority of military means to prevent genocide and contain rouge states yes as it has the power to do so.

Are you saying it was right for the USA to do nothing to prevent the Rwandan genocide when it could have been prevented.

Are you saying it was wrong for the USA to help us during WW2?

The US was already in Vietnam before the conflict the south Vietcong wanted them their. The US had military instalments in Vietnam from ww2 it was communist insurgency that got the states involved. Same with south Korea they asked the US to help them and they did then it was China that threw the Americans out North Korea.

To be pragmatic the major economies are all globalized now everything has a ripple effect. Isolationism is more or less impossible.



 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 05, 2015, 07:23:PM
A Nation like the USA should provide the majority of military means to prevent genocide and contain rouge states yes as it has the power to do so.

Are you saying it was right for the USA to do nothing to prevent the Rwandan genocide when it could have been prevented.

Are you saying it was wrong for the USA to help us during WW2?

The US was already in Vietnam before the conflict the south Vietcong wanted them their. The US had military instalments in Vietnam from ww2 it was communist insurgency that got the states involved. Same with south Korea they asked the US to help them and they did then it was China that threw the Americans out North Korea.

To be pragmatic the major economies are all globalized now everything has a ripple effect. Isolationism is more or less impossible.

I do not accept your assessment of the USA as a benign world uncle.  The USA's involvement in Vietnam was solely to prop up a corrupt and extremely unpleasant administration in the south.  They used as a pretext the Bay of Tonkin "incident" which was a classic false flag con.  Fortunately the USA met its match and were driven out in 1975.  Vietnam was then liberated, by the very people who had driven out the French occupiers, but many lives were lost, including American lives, totally needlessly.

Of course I am not saying that the USA should not have joined the war alongside the UK, USSR and the other allies.  If you have forgotten Japan launched a preemptive strike against Pearl Harbor.  WW2 was a war against terrifying and almost unbelievable evil.   

Military action, save in clear self defence, should only be taken with UN approval.  That is why the UN was formed.   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 05, 2015, 07:40:PM
I do not accept your assessment of the USA as a benign world uncle.  The USA's involvement in Vietnam was solely to prop up a corrupt and extremely unpleasant administration in the south.  They used as a pretext the Bay of Tonkin "incident" which was a classic false flag con.  Fortunately the USA met its match and were driven out in 1975.  Vietnam was then liberated, by the very people who had driven out the French occupiers, but many lives were lost, including American lives, totally needlessly.

Of course I am not saying that the USA should not have joined the war alongside the UK, USSR and the other allies.  If you have forgotten Japan launched a preemptive strike against Pearl Harbor.  WW2 was a war against terrifying and almost unbelievable evil.   

Military action, save in clear self defence, should only be taken with UN approval.  That is why the UN was formed.   
Absolutely Neil, the USA treat the UN with contempt. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 07:59:PM
Military action, save in clear self defence, should only be taken with UN approval.  That is why the UN was formed.   

Ideally yes. But the world is not ideal

But if you have a despot like Saddam violating international law the way he was how do you stop him from doing so? Breaking international law to remove someone else breaking international law that's a bit of a dilemma, Putting theory over practise don't always work
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 05, 2015, 09:33:PM
Ideally yes. But the world is not ideal

But if you have a despot like Saddam violating international law the way he was how do you stop him from doing so? Breaking international law to remove someone else breaking international law that's a bit of a dilemma, Putting theory over practise don't always work
  You may be happy with the US being the world police but you have to understand that the vast majority of people in the world are not. In fact the majority of the world see the US as the biggest threat to world peace.
     The UN while far from ideal and in need of much reform is still the only route to authorise military action. Most of the problem with the UN is that the US often bend it to their will by economic bullying of smaller countries, or use their veto to prevent any action against allies of theirs. The US veto is wielded disproportionately especially where Israel is concerned.
     The US government cannot decide who is or isn't a despot who needs removing and surely if you thought it through you would realise that. Their alliance with Saudi Arabia makes anything they have to say about human rights abuses and lack of democratic freedoms elsewhere redundant. You cannot take seriously anyone who can ally with the Saudis and claim simultaneously to support democracy and human rights. It is truly beyond satire.
     Decisions about serious international affairs that affect the world cannot be left to whoever a half informed brainwashed US electorate elect as their President and surely this point shouldn't need debating. It is self evident that it is intolerable for one countries leaders to bend the world to their own will.
     If the UN and international law are insufficient to solve the world's problems then reform them but starting wars and invading countries only ever makes things worse.   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 05, 2015, 09:45:PM
  You may be happy with the US being the world police but you have to understand that the vast majority of people in the world are not. In fact the majority of the world see the US as the biggest threat to world peace.
     The UN while far from ideal and in need of much reform is still the only route to authorise military action. Most of the problem with the UN is that the US often bend it to their will by economic bullying of smaller countries, or use their veto to prevent any action against allies of theirs. The US veto is wielded disproportionately especially where Israel is concerned.
     The US government cannot decide who is or isn't a despot who needs removing and surely if you thought it through you would realise that. Their alliance with Saudi Arabia makes anything they have to say about human rights abuses and lack of democratic freedoms elsewhere redundant. You cannot take seriously anyone who can ally with the Saudis and claim simultaneously to support democracy and human rights. It is truly beyond satire.
     Decisions about serious international affairs that affect the world cannot be left to whoever a half informed brainwashed US electorate elect as their President and surely this point shouldn't need debating. It is self evident that it is intolerable for one countries leaders to bend the world to their own will.
     If the UN and international law are insufficient to solve the world's problems then reform them but starting wars and invading countries only ever makes things worse.   
The Saudis are appalling and America calling them their alies is a total disgrace. The US have sold their soul for oil.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 09:56:PM
  You may be happy with the US being the world police but you have to understand that the vast majority of people in the world are not. In fact the majority of the world see the US as the biggest threat to world peace.
     The UN while far from ideal and in need of much reform is still the only route to authorise military action. Most of the problem with the UN is that the US often bend it to their will by economic bullying of smaller countries, or use their veto to prevent any action against allies of theirs. The US veto is wielded disproportionately especially where Israel is concerned.
     The US government cannot decide who is or isn't a despot who needs removing and surely if you thought it through you would realise that. Their alliance with Saudi Arabia makes anything they have to say about human rights abuses and lack of democratic freedoms elsewhere redundant. You cannot take seriously anyone who can ally with the Saudis and claim simultaneously to support democracy and human rights. It is truly beyond satire.
     Decisions about serious international affairs that affect the world cannot be left to whoever a half informed brainwashed US electorate elect as their President and surely this point shouldn't need debating. It is self evident that it is intolerable for one countries leaders to bend the world to their own will.
     If the UN and international law are insufficient to solve the world's problems then reform them but starting wars and invading countries only ever makes things worse.   

In an ideal world no but unfortunately that's the case. Many people are too dumb for their own democracy but that's how it is  :(
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 05, 2015, 09:59:PM
The Saudis are appalling and America calling them their alies is a total disgrace. The US have sold their soul for oil.
  Yes and probably the world's most prolific sponsors of terrorism too Maggie. The Saudis are the worst, in a packed field, of despotic US and UK allies.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 05, 2015, 10:13:PM
In an ideal world no but unfortunately that's the case. Many people are too dumb for their own democracy but that's how it is  :(
  Yes and that's what we need to change. At the moment Putin and Russia are doing all they can to stop the megalomaniacs in our governments and it is ironic that they are criticized for this by the very people who should inform themselves enough to stop voting for the warmongers themselves.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2015, 10:28:PM
  Yes and that's what we need to change. At the moment Putin and Russia are doing all they can to stop the megalomaniacs in our governments and it is ironic that they are criticized for this by the very people who should inform themselves enough to stop voting for the warmongers themselves.

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.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 06, 2015, 11:14:AM
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 !!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 06, 2015, 11:20:AM
Lookout yes mind our own business for a change ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 06, 2015, 10:38:PM
as far as i can russia is only defending it selelf

Stealing land from another country because Russia wanted the ports is defending itself?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 06, 2015, 10:44:PM
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.   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 06, 2015, 10:55:PM
  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. 

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 06, 2015, 10:59:PM
exept no democracy has been establishd.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 06, 2015, 11:01:PM
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
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 06, 2015, 11:22:PM
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.



Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 12:00:AM

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.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 07, 2015, 12:17:AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 07, 2015, 12:31:AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 07, 2015, 12:38:AM
   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.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 07, 2015, 01:13:AM
   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.



   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 07, 2015, 03:31:AM
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.
     
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 07, 2015, 03:35:AM
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 ::) ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 04:52:AM
  Ha Ha more fact free opinionated drivel. I will respond to this fairy tale later. It's cool but could do with more dragons ::) ::)

I'm afraid what Scip has written is very much non-fiction. The only dragons where the fact fire breathing dragons that will reduce your tinfoil hat to dust  8)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 05:05:AM
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.

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.

Reason and factual history prevails! Way to go skip  8)

(http://media.giphy.com/media/Dwc3NCB3feQfK/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 07, 2015, 01:40:PM
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fdaily%2Fintelligencer%2F2015%2F02%2Frepublicans-still-denying-bush-lied-about-iraq.html&ei=YP_6VKfpO-rp7AbdmIG4BA&usg=AFQjCNGCHVxgKiInmh5aEp3fRx-6bBlcjA&sig2=jNrjo6r6PRpRKeC4Xf1HZg&bvm=bv.87611401,d.ZGU
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 02:44:PM
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fdaily%2Fintelligencer%2F2015%2F02%2Frepublicans-still-denying-bush-lied-about-iraq.html&ei=YP_6VKfpO-rp7AbdmIG4BA&usg=AFQjCNGCHVxgKiInmh5aEp3fRx-6bBlcjA&sig2=jNrjo6r6PRpRKeC4Xf1HZg&bvm=bv.87611401,d.ZGU

Bush did not lie, Chemical weapons where found buried in the desert in 2006

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918 (http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918)

Iraqi disarmament crisis was real and Saddam did not comply with 1991 ceasefire deal. Facilities where preserved and chemical weapons where buried in the desert some where handed over to give the impression of compliance.

From August 1992 to early 2001, Coalition pilots had flown 153,000 sorties over southern Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998))


IRAQ'S RECONSTITUTION OF ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM
By David Albright and Khidhir Hamza
Arms Control Today, Vol. 28, No. 7
 October 1998

Quote
Iraq has provided few credible indications that its nearly three-decade quest for nuclear weapons has ended. Since its invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, however, Iraq has had an extremely difficult time making any progress in building nuclear weapons. The economic sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council after the invasion disrupted many vital imports, particularly for Iraq's uranium enrichment program. The allied bombing campaign destroyed many of its key nuclear facilities.

The subsequent, highly intrusive inspections mandated by the Security Council and carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team in cooperation with the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) exposed and destroyed vast amounts of nuclear equipment and materials. In the process, the inspections uncovered a long-standing and determined clandestine nuclear weapons program, despite Iraqi denials until 1995 that such a program existed. Currently, essentially all of Iraq's pre-Gulf War nuclear facilities and equipment have been eliminated or converted to non-proscribed purposes under periodic Action Team inspections. But Iraq retains its nuclear cadres and its extensive knowledge and experience built up before the Gulf War. Moreover, some key unanswered questions remain about Iraq's effort to build the nuclear weapon itself-called "weaponization" here-and to build a gas centrifuge enrichment program t!!o enrich uranium for weapons purposes.

Since the war, Iraq is suspected of having made progress on a number of bottlenecks in its weapons program, at least those which could be done with little chance of detection by inspectors. These activities include design work, laboratory efforts, subcomponent production, and the operation of test machines. If the inspection system becomes ineffective, Iraq could reconstitute major aspects of its nuclear weapons program that would likely be discovered under the current inspection regime, a combination of historical investigations and an on-going monitoring and verification (OMV) system. Even under the OMV regime, Iraq's illicit acquisition of plutonium or highly enriched uranium (HEU) from the former Soviet Union would be very difficult to detect. Because of this and other weaknesses, the OMV system needs improvement to be effective in deterring and detecting Iraq's banned activities.

There are few alternatives. A nuclear-armed Iraq would be extremely dangerous. Nuclear weapons would aid Saddam Hussein in ensuring his own survival and increasing his regional power. If he detonated a nuclear explosive underground, the international community, and in particular the United States, may not risk intervention, particularly if definitive information about the size of Iraq's nuclear arsenal is lacking.

Essential to any discussion about about Iraq or the OMV system are estimates of the time needed for Iraq to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Such an assessment requires a thorough understanding of Iraq's pre-war program and reasonable inferences about its activities after the war. This article attempts to summarize this discussion and outline some of the most important scenarios of how Iraq may reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. In addition, this article looks at a neglected part of the entire inspection process, namely improving methods to reduce the risk posed by the Iraqi nuclear scientists. There is wide agreement about their central importance to any Iraqi attempt to reconstitute its nuclear program. Yet, little has been done to reduce the threat they pose.

Acquiring a Safeguarded Fuel Cycle

Since its inception in the early 1970s, Iraq's nuclear weapons program has depended on deception and determination. Originally, the plan, which one of us (Hamza) authored, was to acquire a complete nuclear fuel cycle able to produce and separate plutonium. The plan focused on the foreign acquisition of complete nuclear facilities with training in their use conducted in the supplier country.

During the 1970s, Iraq concentrated on acquiring nuclear facilities overseas that would have been under IAEA safeguards, since Iraq had signed the nuclear Non--Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. Nonetheless, Iraq reckoned it could defeat the safeguards at these facilities or secretly build undeclared duplicate facilities.

In 1976, Iraq succeeded in buying from France a 40-megawatt materials test -reactor called the Tammuz-1 reactor, or Osiraq reactor, that ran on weapons-grade uranium fuel. In 1979, Iraq established a radiochemical laboratory, equipped through a contract with the Italian company SNIA-Techint, suitable for laboratory research on reprocessing. It also acquired a fuel fabrication plant from Italy that was suitable for making natural uranium targets for secret irradiation in the Osiraq reactor.

Iraqi teams calculated that the Osiraq reactor could conservatively produce about 5 kilograms to 7 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year. This value could be higher or lower depending on how the targets were arranged in the reactor; it also depended on the frequency of visits by IAEA inspectors and French personnel. The Iraqis believed that the safeguards on the reactor, which would have included periodic inspections and surveillance cameras, could have been defeated. Prior to visits by IAEA inspectors and French personnel, Iraq planned to pull out the unsafeguarded targets. Iraq had also developed plans to defeat the cameras.

Before Iraq could illicitly produce any plutonium and put the IAEA's safeguards to the test, however, Israel bombed the reactor in June 1981, shortly before the reactor was scheduled to go into operation. The radiochemical laboratory and fuel fabrication plant were not bombed. Later, the fabrication facility was used to produce unsafeguarded targets which were irradiated in a Russian-supplied research reactor to produce plutonium. The reactor also irradiated bismuth targets to make polonium-210, a material used in beryllium-polonium neutron initiators which trigger the nuclear explosion. Material from the targets was extracted in the Italian radiochemical laboratory, which was expanded in the early 1980s.

Iraq Goes Underground

Following the bombing of the Osiraq reactor, Iraq decided to: (1) replace the Osiraq reactor or to develop a heavy water or enriched uranium reactor and associated plutonium separation capability; and (2) develop a uranium enrichment production capacity.

Iraq tried to replace the Osiraq reactor, but by 1985, it realized that it could not buy a replacement. Before the bombing, Iraq had developed plans and purchased some minor items for a 20- to 40-megawatt heavy water natural uranium reactor. After delays in buying a replacement reactor, Iraq decided to pursue this reactor project again. In the late 1980s, however, it put its plans on hold, facing resource limitations. But Iraq continued its efforts to learn how to separate plutonium from irradiated fuel and to make heavy water. Depending on the success of the enrichment programs, Iraq may have reconstituted the nuclear reactor project.

Even before the Israeli bombing of the Osiraq reactor, Iraqi scientists had been evaluating the development of uranium enrichment technologies. However, Iraq has declared that a decision by the Iraqi leadership to pursue these options came after the June 1981 bombing. An Iraqi evaluation finished in 1981 concluded that electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) was the most appropriate technology for Iraq and that gaseous diffusion was the next most appropriate option. Gaseous diffusion was planned to produce low--enriched uranium (LEU) which could be used as a feedstock for EMIS, dramatically increasing overall HEU production in EMIS separators. If EMIS was unsuccessful, the plan called for expanding the gaseous diffusion facility to produce HEU directly. At the time, gas centrifuge technology was viewed as too difficult to accomplish. (See below.)

EMIS

The goal of the EMIS program was to build two production units, each able to achieve 15 kilograms per year of weapons-grade uranium using natural uranium feed. Iraqi estimates of the HEU output using LEU feed (enriched to 2.5 percent uranium-235) vary between roughly 25 kilograms and 50 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium per year. The variation reflects different plant designs and performance uncertainties.

After several years of research and development work of mixed success, Iraq nonetheless started in 1987 to build its first EMIS production facility at Tarmiya, north of Baghdad. Also in late 1987, Iraq decided to build a replica of Tarmiya at Al Sharqat, about 200 kilometers northwest of Baghdad. This facility, which was built by Iraqis only, was originally viewed as a second production site that would come into operation roughly at the same time as Tarmiya. In the late 1980s, this plan was modified to one where Al Sharqat would operate after Tarmiya was finished. Iraq also sought unsafeguarded LEU on the international market during the late 1980s. However, it has declared that its search was half-hearted and unsuccessful. Whether this declaration is complete is unclear. As of 1997, the Action Team had not pursued this issue further.

The EMIS program faced repeated delays and technical problems, and by the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Tarmiya was at least a year behind schedule. At that time, Tarmiya was not expected to produce its first goal quantity of weapons-grade uranium, or 15 kilograms, until at least 1992, assuming that the plant would function well and that a stock of LEU would be used. If natural uranium was used, the date for the production of the first goal quantity would have been 1993 or later.

Because of the large size of EMIS facilities, few expect Iraq to try to secretly rebuild its EMIS production facilities. In addition, it still has to overcome several technical problems, including problems in vacuum technology and ion sources, before its separators would work properly. Armed with a stock of LEU, however, Iraq could produce 15 kilograms per year of weapons-grade uranium with a facility about one-third the size of Tarmiya.

Enrichment Options

By 1987 or 1988, when it became apparent to the Iraqi leadership that the gaseous diffusion program was not progressing well, Iraq decided to de-emphasize this effort. It instead concentrated on chemical enrichment as a source of LEU feedstock for the EMIS program. By 1990, Iraq had made little progress in building a chemical enrichment plant. However, both programs could be reconstituted, although substantial technical challenges would need to be overcome before Iraq could operate production-scale facilities.

After the cancellation of the gaseous diffusion program, the team started to work on gas centrifuges. The team had already been transferred from the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center to a new site on the northern edge of Baghdad near Rashdiya, later named the Engineering Design Center (EDC). This change reflected a change of authority from the Atomic Energy Establishment to the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization.

This group managed to acquire extensive overseas cooperation in designing and building gas centrifuges, so much so that inspectors have characterized the assistance as key to progress in the centrifuge program.

Despite such help, at the time of the Gulf War, Iraq was still a few years from an operating plant able to produce goal quantities of weapons-grade uranium, declared by the centrifuge program as 1,000 centrifuges producing 10 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium per year. Because of the relatively small size of a gas centrifuge program and the extensive progress made before the war, Iraq is viewed as likely to reconstitute its gas centrifuge program.

Weaponization

Iraq's effort to produce a nuclear explosive started in the mid-1980s. Under a 1988 plan, Iraq intended to have its first weapon by the summer of 1991, based on an implosion design. Iraq had worked on developing the capability to make fissile material for many years prior to this date, and Iraq has explained that the decision at that particular time reflected the expectation that domestically produced HEU would become available within a few years. Iraq intended that its nuclear weapons would be put on ballistic missiles. Iraq faced many problems in trying to reduce and ruggedize its design to fit on top of a ballistic missile.

Questions remain about the status of Iraq's weaponization program at the time of the allied bombing campaign in January 1991, when most activities were halted. Nevertheless, the Action Team inspectors have concluded that with the accelerated effort under the crash program, Iraq could have finished a nuclear explosive design by the end of 1991, if certain technical problems were overcome. However, it would have needed longer to prove a design for the Al Hussein missile. This missile, for example, would have required a warhead with a diameter of 70 centimeters to 80 centimeters, much smaller than the diameter of the design nearing completion that had a diameter of about 120 centimeters.

Iraq was also planning to build a nuclear test site, called the Al Sahara Project. At the time of the allied bombing campaign, Iraq had picked candidate sites in southwest Iraq but it had not performed a site investigation. In addition, according to a senior Iraqi nuclear official, Iraq did not plan to conduct a test before it had accumulated a few nuclear weapons. Iraq has stated that it planned to develop confidence in its weapon designs through an extensive experimental testing program that stopped short of a full-scale nuclear test.

Crash Program

By the time Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq still lacked an indigenous source of fissile material; its enrichment plants were still far away from producing HEU. In mid-August 1990, the Iraqi leadership ordered the diversion of its stock of safeguarded HEU fuel. Iraq's initial plan was to extract the HEU from the fuel, further enrich a portion of it, and build a nuclear weapon. The goal was to execute this plan within six months, although by the time of the allied bombing campaign in mid-January 1991 which stopped the effort, Iraq had fallen several months behind. A nuclear warhead for a ballistic missile would have taken significantly longer.

Reconstitution

Iraq has denied trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program after the Gulf War, although Iraqi documents suggest otherwise, at least for the period right after the war. Documents dated early June 1991 but finished several weeks earlier, called for salvaged equipment for processing safeguarded HEU fuel to be moved from the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center to Tarmiya. Only in late May did the first inspection team show up at Tarmiya, unknowingly halting any Iraqi effort to reconstitute these projects there.

Determining whether Iraq has conducted any proscribed nuclear activities since the Gulf War remains a thorny problem for the Action Team and UNSCOM. Little evidence has surfaced since the defection in August 1995 of General Hussein Kamel, then head of the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law), suggesting that Iraq has been conducting secret nuclear weapons work. Given the nature of the Iraqi regime, however, few accept that it has given up its nuclear weapons ambitions. Iraq's persistence in weakening inspections and hiding equipment, information and materials over the past seven years at great cost in lost oil revenue has only intensified suspicions about its intentions.

There is no simple answer to how much Iraq has accomplished in its nuclear weapons program since 1991 or how quickly Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons in the future. Below, we consider several important -scenarios by which Iraq could build nuclear weapons. These estimates assume that the activities are carried to fruition without being discovered by the inspectors.

What Iraq Still Has

Iraq has demonstrated many times in the past seven years that it will make great sacrifices to preserve its basic resources for its weapons program. Nonetheless, vast amounts of equipment, materials and facilities have been destroyed by the inspectors. There are no known facilities working on nuclear weapons. The IAEA routinely says it has no evidence that banned activities are happening. However, an IAEA statement that it found "no evidence of any activity" does not mean that it has "evidence for no activity." This distinction is important.

Iraq is known to have kept its nuclear weapon teams together following the Gulf War. These teams are kept together by force and intimidation. They appear not to be significantly reduced in size or number from before the Gulf War. Many of these scientists are now in "unreal career paths," according to one Action Team inspector, and could be quickly redirected to nuclear weapons activities, if a decision were made to do so. Iraq has a relatively complete set of documents, despite its frequent protestations to the contrary. It has undoubtedly continued since the war collecting relevant data, reports and information throughout the world. Travel by Iraqis and Internet access have continued.

Following the Gulf War, Iraq established a program at its universities to train a new generation of nuclear scientists and provide more advanced instruction to members of the program. The new scientists are viewed as more loyal to the regime and may apply their expertise only in Iraq, further inhibiting defections. Many key nuclear scientists also gained experience and confidence after the war by rebuilding Iraq's civil industries. Nuclear scientists were instrumental in putting oil refineries, telephone exchanges and power stations back into operation under adverse conditions.

We believe that Iraqi scientists have been conducting theoretical design work and small-scale research and development in a wide range of proscribed areas since inspections began. Iraq may have also modified non-banned items that would be useful for small-scale research and development (R&D) and manufacturing work. Small numbers of such items may have been smuggled from abroad. Nonetheless, extensive progress by Iraqi scientists has been likely hampered by poor working conditions and the IAEA's and UNSCOM's intense scrutiny of the Iraqi program and facilities (and the difficulty in smuggling in key items, or items in sufficient quantity, from abroad).

However, these hardships should not disguise an important cultural shift in the nuclear program. In a new era of international sanctions, intense scrutiny and a lack of funds, new and more ruthless management teams are likely to emerge. The lack of accomplishments prior to the Gulf War, frequently exposed by the inspectors, will drive the new program to correct old mistakes and be more self-reliant and productive. Iraq's core assets are the seasoned and well-experienced cadre. These scientists can be expected to create more focused and productive programs at a reduced cost, size and visibility.

Post-War Weaponization

Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was unable to achieve its goal of making a nuclear explosive or weapon. This weakness inhibited its ability to take advantage of the safeguarded HEU fuel before the start of the allied bombing campaign. Iraq probably has focused on making sure it would not be so limited again, if it were presented with a new supply of plutonium or HEU. It is difficult to detect small-scale weaponization work, such as high explosive lenses, uranium metallurgy and neutron initiators-even under the most intrusive inspection regimes. Based on our own assessment conducted in mid-1997, we concluded that in early January 1991 Iraq was within a few months to a year of building a nuclear explosive. Building a weapon able to be mounted to a ballistic missile would have required more time.

After the war, scientists in the weaponization program worked six days a week, eight hours per day. They had time to resolve several theoretical design issues they could not properly evaluate during the crash program. They conducted a range of theoretical activities, such as computer simulations of the atomic explosion. They also worked on more advanced explosives for the device. These activities led to a much better understanding of nuclear explosives and their behavior.Iraq worked on small-scale experiments to improve its knowledge of particular components. It may have smuggled in subcomponents, machine tools and other items. Technicians could have continued to improve their skills in making uranium components by using surrogate materials. Iraq has worked on improving the design of high-explosive lenses and its ability to make them.

A special problem for Iraq is the neutron initiator. Its pre-war design was based on beryllium and polonium-210, a highly radioactive material with a half-life of about one year. Any polonium-210 Iraq may have successfully hidden from inspectors would have decayed away by now. Because Iraq obtained its polonium by irradiating bismuth targets in its research reactor, which is now defunct, it cannot produce more. Thus, Iraq needs a new type of neutron generator, and one likely candidate is a pulsed neutron generator based on tritium and deuterium. Iraq obtained several pulsed tritium-deuterium generators that are used in the oil exploration industry. One of the "oil well logging" devices could be suitable to trigger a nuclear explosive. Iraq also had established a program before the war to build its own pulsed neutron generator, but this program did not progress very far.

One of us (Hamza) was involved in an attempt in 1991 to create an off-shore company in Jordan to produce tritium-deuterium generators. The company would have produced these generators for the oil industry, but in secret; it would also have produced miniaturized neutron generators for use in Iraqi nuclear weapons. The company would have depended on the involvement of an East European expert with long experience in building such devices. This expert was not told the true purpose of the company, but he said that a civilian endeavor could no longer be done in Iraq because of the UN sanctions. Hamza pulled out of the project when Iraq stated that he could not take his family with him to Jordan. He believes that the company was never built in Jordan.

Assuming that Iraq has done nothing on weaponization since the Gulf War, we estimate that Iraq may need more than a year to reconstitute its program and finish a device, absent the fissile material. However, this scenario appears unlikely. The more likely scenario is that Iraq has made progress since the war, although the extent of progress is difficult to judge. Our conclusion is that Iraq could make a nuclear device within two to 12 months after deciding to do so, assuming it acquired sufficient fissile material. We also believe that the more probable time is closer to two months if HEU is obtained. The lower bound of two months includes the time needed to make components out of HEU and conduct any final testing of the device. The design would probably be an implosion system. However, Iraq was working on a gun-type device before the war, but it did not emphasize this design because of an anticipated scarcity of HEU. After the war, this design could have been perfected. If plutonium were obtained, Iraq would likely need more time, but still less than 12 months, to build a modified implosion device. Because the estimated time to complete a device is less than a year, likely considerably less than a year, the emphasis must remain on preventing Iraq from acquiring fissile material.

Our assessment appeared to be confirmed by Scott Ritter, an UNSCOM inspector who resigned in August 1998. He said that UNSCOM had intelligence information which indicates that Iraq has components necessary for three nuclear weapons, lacking only the fissile material. However, Ritter's statement has been challenged as unsubstantiated by UNSCOM, IAEA and U.S. officials. At least three of the four sources Ritter cited as the basis for his information have disputed Ritter's account, according to IAEA and U.S. officials.

Procurement of Fissile Material

Iraq denies ever making any attempt to procure fissile material abroad after the war. It also denies any serious attempt to do so before the war. Iraq has readily admitted, at least after Kamel's defection, that it received many offers for fissile material from abroad. One senior official said in 1996 that in the last 10 years, Iraq had received over 200 offers of everything from red mercury to fissile material to complete nuclear weapons. He insisted that Iraq had turned down every offer.

One offer, however, is being investigated by the Action Team. This offer, described in summary in a one-page document found at Kamel's farm after his defection, was purported to be by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's gas centrifuge program. An intermediary approached Iraqi intelligence in October 1990 with the following offer: Khan was prepared to give Iraq project designs for a nuclear bomb and to provide assistance in enriching uranium and building a nuclear weapon. He would also ensure any requirements of materials from Western European countries through a company Khan owns in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. He requested a preliminary technical meeting to discuss the documents that he was willing to sell.

However, a meeting with Khan directly was not possible at that time, given the situation. An alternative of setting up a meeting with an intermediary, who had good relations with the Iraqi intelligence agents, was mentioned as a possibility. Iraqi intelligence officials believed the motive was money. Both the Pakistani government and Khan vehemently deny any such offer. Whether or nor Khan was involved, the -Iraqis took this offer as genuine. Iraq's statement that it rejected this offer appears credible.

One of us (Hamza) knew of this offer at the time, and believes Iraq would not have pursued it. This type of offer would have given those involved too much knowledge and control over highly secret nuclear programs. What if they talked? Pakistan has had close relations with the United States. If the offer was a scam, large amounts of money could be at risk.

Despite these cases, we know of no evidence that Iraq has procured plutonium or HEU overseas since the war. But concern remains that Iraq may have already attempted to do so in the former Soviet Union. We cannot exclude the possibility that it has already obtained fissile material there. Nonetheless, preventing Iraq from acquiring nuclear explosive material abroad, particularly in Russia and former Soviet republics, remains a difficult but absolutely essential goal.

Gas Centrifuge Program

The gas centrifuge enrichment process is the most critical of the technologies Iraq pursued to make fissile material domestically. This type of activity is difficult to detect under the current OMV system. Before the war, Iraq made substantial progress in mastering the operation and construction of a variety of gas centrifuge designs. It also acquired illegally a large number of highly classified gas centrifuge design, operation and manufacturing documents from German centrifuge experts.

Suspicions remain that gas centrifuge activity resumed after the war at Rashdiya. Little verified information exists for activities at Rashdiya after the war. It was not bombed at all during the war, and it was not inspected until the summer of 1991, and then only in a cursory manner. Iraq has declared that in March 1991, it started bringing evacuated equipment and materials back to Rashdiya, but had not finished reconstituting its program by the time it accepted the UN Security Council Resolution 687 (the Gulf War cease-fire resolution) in April. Iraq says that it did not resume any centrifuge work at Rashdiya or elsewhere after the war.

Nevertheless, questions remain about why Iraq decided to hide Rashdiya's existence. Although Iraq chose to tell the inspectors about many of the centrifuge pro-gram's accomplishments and the existence of other unknown centrifuge sites, it decided not to reveal Rashdiya or the extent of foreign assistance. Iraq continued to deny the importance of Rashdiya even after defectors had identified the site in 1991. Iraq came clean about Rashdiya and the extent of foreign assistance only after Kamel's defection in 1995, when exposure was certain.

Iraq also continues to maintain that all centrifuge program reports and progress reports were destroyed during the bombing or after the war. This statement is viewed by the Action Team as non-credible because documents from the rest of the Iraqi nuclear programs continue to surface. The collection of papers from Kamel's farm also included several tons of maraging steel and large quantities of carbon fiber, both key materials in making gas centrifuges. The inspectors did not know that Iraq still had this material. Whether some was used in small-scale R&D activities is unknown. In addition, Iraq may have acquired more such materials. An Iraqi official has bragged to inspectors that overseas procurement of maraging steel is no problem.

Iraq could have made progress in the following areas. It could have improved its ability to make centrifuge components to high tolerances, an absolute must for the successful operation of centrifuges and a difficult problem for Iraqi industry. Centrifuge experts could have expanded their theoretical and "hands-on" knowledge of single machines or a few hooked together by pipes into a cascade. Iraq may have also procured illicitly more machine tools to make centrifuge components. Despite this progress, Iraq would still face formidable challenges in making significant progress toward building a facility able to make kilo-grams of weapons-grade uranium annually. It would also need to acquire a stock of -uranium hexafluoride, a demanding task.

We consider two cases, which both assume that Iraq has not started to build a centrifuge facility, whose goal capacity is taken as 10 kilograms per year of weapons-grade uranium. These cases also assume that Iraq may opt for a simpler centrifuge design that is easier to build and requires materials and equipment that are less controlled internationally.

The first case posits that Iraq needs to procure manufacturing equipment, build a manufacturing plant, conduct additional testing of the centrifuge design, produce uranium hexafluoride and manufacture 1,000 to 2,000 centrifuges. We estimate that Iraq would need about three to seven years to accomplish this set of tasks and produce its first 10 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium. The second case assumes that Iraq just needs to manufacture the centrifuges in sufficient number, having finished all necessary testing and procurement of materials and equipment. In this case, Iraq would need an estimated two to three years to bring the plant into operation and produce its first 10 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium. In brief, Iraq would need at least a few years to construct and operate a clandestine gas centrifuge enrichment plant. Because Iraq would need to procure several key items a!!broad, the inspection system needs to have a strong export-import focus in order to have a better chance of detecting Iraq's procurement efforts.

Focus on Iraqi Scientists

The Action Team realized soon after inspections started the importance of identifying and interviewing key Iraqi nuclear scientists. Most key scientists have been identified. Over a hundred are periodically interviewed by the Action Team. However, this process is inadequate in obtaining necessary information or ensuring early warning if these scientists are engaged in prohibited activities.

Most of the scientists are virtual -prisoners. They live in fear of their government's punishments if they do or say anything outside the limits imposed by it. Even if they manage to leave, their families are held hostage with the possibility of terrible reprisals against them if they reveal any significant information. Currently, Iraqi scientists are interviewed in the presence of government security officials. This arrangement gives the Iraqi regime control over what the scientists can say and provides an easy way to control the information flowing to the inspectors. One of us (Hamza) was told that in case the inspectors found out his former role as head of the weaponization program, he was not to make himself available to inspectors. If he was forced to talk to them, he was instructed to claim not to remember anything about what he did.

On one inspection, the other author (Albright) was able to interview Iraqi scientists only in groups or in the presence of a "minder." One-to-one contacts usually involved pleasantries or being pulled aside to be "fed a line." In one case, the head of the gas centrifuge program tried to convince him that the first gas centrifuge facility would have taken years to finish.

Typically, the interviews are video-taped by the Iraqis. These tapes provide the Iraqis with a means to analyze in detail the information that is revealed in those sessions, any mistakes that are made, and the underlying knowledge and strategy of the inspectors. The genesis of this interviewing process dates to the beginning of inspections. One inspector said that it did not occur to the inspectors to do it any other way. "We just did not think about it," he added.

At least, the inspectors need to have the right to interview the scientists without their "minders," particularly under the OMV program. Ideally, such interviews should be conducted in another country. An alternative is to conduct the interviews in a secure room, which for example exists at the Baghdad Verification and Monitoring Center.

Getting the Scientists Out

A better solution is to create a method to allow Saddam's cadre of knowledgeable nuclear weapon scientists and their families to leave Iraq safely. With years of valuable experience before the war, Iraq's nuclear weapon experts are both a valuable and necessary asset to implement a decision to seek nuclear weapons. If the key scientists leave, Iraq may be unable to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

A practical method to implement this proposal is for the United States to link its support for lifting sanctions to Iraq agreeing to allow certain scientists and their families to leave Iraq. Such a method would avoid the need for Security Council agreement and permit the United States to name the scientists it wants out.

Would any scientists leave Iraq voluntarily? There is a growing recognition that many of the nuclear experts are not committed to remaining in this highly repressive police state. Most of the experts were arbitrarily assigned to the nuclear weapons program after returning from overseas education. After suffering years of hardships created by sanctions, many scientists and their families could be expected to leave. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the former nuclear weapon scientists have been identified through captured Iraqi documents and Action Team inspections. The resettlement of just a few dozen key scientists would devastate Saddam's ability to rebuild his nuclear weapons program.

Key to the success of this initiative is protecting the scientists and their families from retaliation. The United States would be a possible resettlement country, because it can provide adequate protection against Saddam's agents if he decides to violate Security Council resolutions. The Security Council would also need to assign the -Action Team and UNSCOM the task of investigating any suspected retaliation against family members in Iraq. In the event of retaliation, the Security Council must be ready to punish Iraq decisively.

The scientists would need to be provided economic support until they could find adequate employment. Any costs during this resettlement process could be collected from Iraq, just as the costs of UNSCOM and Action Team inspections are taken from proceeds of Iraqi oil sales. For their part, these experts would commit not to work in any weapons of mass destruction program and agree to host government or Action Team monitoring to ensure that they are not violating their commitment or secretly helping Saddam to rebuild his military programs.

Time is running out to deprive Saddam of his most valuable remaining nuclear weapons asset. If successful, this initiative could nip an Iraqi nuclear weapons program in the bud. The alternative is letting the nuclear cadre, intimidated by Saddam, remain in Iraq, awaiting the inevitable orders to reconstitute the nuclear weapons program or train the next generation of nuclear weapons experts.

Conclusion

Ensuring that Iraq does not build nuclear weapons will require vigilance. The chance of Iraq building nuclear weapons in secret depends critically on the effectiveness of the OMV system. If inspections become ineffective, even if sanctions remain, Iraq's chance of success will be unacceptably high. Iraq has developed a deep understanding of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the entire inspection system. It appears to have a strategy to weaken inspections at will. Although a robust and constantly improving inspection system is necessary to detect and thwart Iraq's proscribed nuclear activities, Security Council enforcement of the inspections, backed up by U.S. and British willingness to use military force, will remain vital to the future effectiveness of inspections.

The OMV needs improvement, including a more system-wide approach to its design and deployment. More environmental monitoring in Iraq is needed. Improved cooperation on detecting illicit imports into Iraq is also increasingly vital, as the sanctions become less effective. International efforts to improve controls over fissile material in the former Soviet Union must receive a higher priority. With a strengthened, enforced OMV program, Iraq is far less likely to build nuclear weapons in secret. If key Iraqi scientists are brought to the West, Saddam Hussein may find it difficult to succeed in building nuclear weapons for many years.

Ultimately, the goal of the inspections in Iraq is to buy time, in hopes that the regime will either change or give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. A highly confrontational inspection system has little chance of lasting for decades in any country. It is a tribute to the Security Council, and in particular the United States, that the inspections have lasted this long. But the system of stringent inspections must remain effective at least as long as the current regime persists on its noncooperative path. The stakes are high. A nuclear-armed Iraq could haunt the world for decades, and make the accomplishment of Middle East peace a dream of the past.



Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 07, 2015, 03:05:PM
from the horses mouth.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOSN-Kku_rFE&ei=ZhP7VKSjF-iV7AaS64G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNGyyfDEgvIeGMzfErTbjII0tEoBWA&sig2=sO0QiMF-fu8--MUnb3cJIg&bvm=bv.87611401,d.ZGU
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 07, 2015, 03:38:PM
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fpolitics%2Ftony-blair-and-iraq-the-damning-evidence-8563133.html&ei=FBv7VMXWJZLV7AbOkoGgDA&usg=AFQjCNF2xT0Sbada2cUC4s_F2-mVcFq-mg&sig2=hFZ8bs57VNk8ux7Ix6EQWA&bvm=bv.87611401,d.ZGU
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 04:00:PM
from the horses mouth.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOSN-Kku_rFE&ei=ZhP7VKSjF-iV7AaS64G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNGyyfDEgvIeGMzfErTbjII0tEoBWA&sig2=sO0QiMF-fu8--MUnb3cJIg&bvm=bv.87611401,d.ZGU

That was from 2004. Get up to date

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 07, 2015, 04:28:PM
exept no democracy has been establishd.

That´s right - now we have IS and the caliphate..... Bet the Iraqis and their neighbours are super happy about that!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 07, 2015, 04:46:PM
Bush did not lie, Chemical weapons where found buried in the desert in 2006

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918 (http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918)

Iraqi disarmament crisis was real and Saddam did not comply with 1991 ceasefire deal. Facilities where preserved and chemical weapons where buried in the desert some where handed over to give the impression of compliance.

From August 1992 to early 2001, Coalition pilots had flown 153,000 sorties over southern Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998))


IRAQ'S RECONSTITUTION OF ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM
By David Albright and Khidhir Hamza
Arms Control Today, Vol. 28, No. 7
 October 1998

the us defence department is hardly an unbiased or credible source.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 07, 2015, 04:56:PM
the us defence department is hardly an unbiased or credible source.

It is certainly not.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 07, 2015, 06:05:PM
That was from 2004. Get up to date

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq)
  You are all over the place and appear to not know what you think.
     Scipio's bullshit, as shown by the extensive and transparent Zogby poll, is believed only by Republicans and war apologists. The rest of the world and it's dog knows that Iraq was and still is a disaster, as was Afghanistan and Libya. To claim otherwise flies in the face of the evidence before everyone's eyes every day. Do you honestly believe the "war on terror" been a success?
     Has Islamic terrorism increased or decreased since the "war on terror" started?
     Your new sidekick has just repeated the same discredited lies from the same discredited liars. Your links are as funny as your pictures. The US state dept. is not an unbiased source. Scipio's polls are laughable, lacking even the basic explanations of methodology, sampling etc. I suspect that these details are over your head anyway as it is unlikely that your knowledge of statistics and the need to weight samples is any better than your "knowledge" of world affairs, which appears to be whatever the government and their shills in the media tell you.
    Read the Zogby poll for yourself and get back to me with reasons why you dispute those findings. You won't, and nor will scipio, because you couldn't discredit them which is why you ignore them and then use diversion.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 07, 2015, 06:09:PM
I'm afraid what Scip has written is very much non-fiction. The only dragons where the fact fire breathing dragons that will reduce your tinfoil hat to dust  8)
   Why do think these views are a majority view only amongst American Republicans?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 07, 2015, 07:59:PM
  You are all over the place and appear to not know what you think. Your cheerleading of scipio after your previous brushes with him make you look like a sycophant and pathetic.
     Scipio's bullshit, as shown by the extensive and transparent Zogby poll, is believed only by Republicans and war apologists. The rest of the world and it's dog knows that Iraq was and still is a disaster, as was Afghanistan and Libya. To claim otherwise flies in the face of the evidence before everyone's eyes every day. Do you honestly believe the "war on terror" been a success?
     Has Islamic terrorism increased or decreased since the "war on terror" started?
     Your new sidekick has just repeated the same discredited lies from the same discredited liars. Your links are as funny as your pictures. The US state dept. is not an unbiased source. Scipio's polls are laughable, lacking even the basic explanations of methodology, sampling etc. I suspect that these details are over your head anyway as it is unlikely that your knowledge of statistics and the need to weight samples is any better than your "knowledge" of world affairs, which appears to be whatever the government and their shills in the media tell you.
    Read the Zogby poll for yourself and get back to me with reasons why you dispute those findings. You won't, and nor will scipio, because you couldn't discredit them which is why you ignore them and then use diversion.

You are playing games with polls to try to pretend that the majority of Iraqis are mad that Saddam is gone.  The people upset Saddam is gone are mainly the Sunni minority who were profiting from Saddam's reign.

The fact that the Iraqi government has done a poor job against ISIS doesn't mean it isn't a democratic government it just means it's military and government is not waging an effective military campaign against ISIS.

The Iraqi military fought well with US airpower, US personnel training them and making sure they were properly supplied and with US personnel making the battle plans.  When Obama completed a full pull out  this ended and the Iraqi government failed to follow through with adequate supply and training. They have yet to build an effective airforce instead of promoting the best military commanders have appointed for political reasons.  The repercussions will be felt in the elections. That is how a democracy works.

Instead of arming the Kurds and taking real efforts to stem ISIS Obama is doing token things because he is unwilling to do what is necessary.   

The hilarious thing is that you cheer Russia stealing land and say they are just defending themselves and attack the US which is not taking land but rather trying to help other countries and the World.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 07, 2015, 08:13:PM
I am sick and tired of hearing Americans claim that they are "helping" other countries! America is doing what it is doing because they want to control oil states.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 11:02:PM
You are playing games with polls to try to pretend that the majority of Iraqis are mad that Saddam is gone.  The people upset Saddam is gone are mainly the Sunni minority who were profiting from Saddam's reign.

The fact that the Iraqi government has done a poor job against ISIS doesn't mean it isn't a democratic government it just means it's military and government is not waging an effective military campaign against ISIS.

The Iraqi military fought well with US airpower, US personnel training them and making sure they were properly supplied and with US personnel making the battle plans.  When Obama completed a full pull out  this ended and the Iraqi government failed to follow through with adequate supply and training. They have yet to build an effective airforce instead of promoting the best military commanders have appointed for political reasons.  The repercussions will be felt in the elections. That is how a democracy works.

Instead of arming the Kurds and taking real efforts to stem ISIS Obama is doing token things because he is unwilling to do what is necessary.   

The hilarious thing is that you cheer Russia stealing land and say they are just defending themselves and attack the US which is not taking land but rather trying to help other countries and the World.

Even more hilarious he wrote it was 'comical' when I said the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was a war of aggression  ??? think this guys gone too far down the rabbit hole
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 11:10:PM
I am sick and tired of hearing Americans claim that they are "helping" other countries! America is doing what it is doing because they want to control oil states.

Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon that gassed anyone he didn't like. glad he got the noose

http://youtu.be/wDHwvmZXyro (http://youtu.be/wDHwvmZXyro)

There is no Oil in Afghanistan Vietnam or South Korea its not always to do with oil
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 07, 2015, 11:28:PM
  You are all over the place and appear to not know what you think.
 

What on earth is a sycophant?

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 07, 2015, 11:38:PM
What on earth is a sycophant?
A person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on March 08, 2015, 11:05:AM
Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon that gassed anyone he didn't like. glad he got the noose

http://youtu.be/wDHwvmZXyro (http://youtu.be/wDHwvmZXyro)

There is no Oil in Afghanistan Vietnam or South Korea its not always to do with oil





What had Saddam done to us ? Was he the aggressor ? No---------------we were,and look at the result,retaliation in the form of on-going terrorism. WE have created an unsafe country.
What he did in his OWN country to his OWN people was entirely his business and NO concern of anyone else's,least of all OURS.
Blair barged into Iraq,without thought for our servicemen/women and the forethought of how his own country would suffer because of his tin-pot ideas of WMD's,which was to my mind an excuse to show off his own position in politics.What a silly LITTLE man.What a criminal,who has escaped the courts for his criminal actions.
If anything had happened to my grandson when he was in Iraq,I'd have held Blair responsible for his war crimes.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 08, 2015, 02:53:PM
What on earth is a sycophant?


Even more hilarious he wrote it was 'comical' when I said the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was a war of aggression  ??? think this guys gone too far down the rabbit hole
   So you can't comprehend and are unable to use a dictionary. I did not say that the Iraq invasion of Kuwait wasn't a war of aggression, I said your list was comical. You are so far out of your depth here that I don't know why I am bothering but here goes anyway.
     You listed a number of random wars/conflicts which involved Russia and that was basically the one common thread between them. You needed it explaining to you what a "war of aggression" is after you had boldly put forward your comical list.
     Your opinion has swayed between believing that the US are right in acting as the world police to accepting that they are not the benign Uncle Sam of folklore but are an aggressive nation acting in the interests of a few. However you believed that nothing could be done about this.
     You are now back to justifying the US actions again.
     So you can't spell, can't comprehend, don't know how to use a dictionary and your opinions change with the wind. A couple of synonyms for sycophant are flatterer and hanger on. Your "go scipio" posts, or whatever it said, after your previous run ins with him showed you to be exactly that.
      Given that I have had to explain to you the meaning of a common English word, criticism from you about my knowledge and understanding of world affairs can hardly be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 08, 2015, 03:01:PM
A person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage.

Or to give it it's more common definition; an ar*e licker!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 08, 2015, 04:03:PM
   So you can't comprehend and are unable to use a dictionary. I did not say that the Iraq invasion of Kuwait wasn't a war of aggression, I said your list was comical. You are so far out of your depth here that I don't know why I am bothering but here goes anyway.
     You listed a number of random wars/conflicts which involved Russia and that was basically the one common thread between them. You needed it explaining to you what a "war of aggression" is after you had boldly put forward your comical list.
     Your opinion has swayed between believing that the US are right in acting as the world police to accepting that they are not the benign Uncle Sam of folklore but are an aggressive nation acting in the interests of a few. However you believed that nothing could be done about this.
     You are now back to justifying the US actions again.
     So you can't spell, can't comprehend, don't know how to use a dictionary and your opinions change with the wind. A couple of synonyms for sycophant are flatterer and hanger on. Your "go scipio" posts, or whatever it said, after your previous run ins with him showed you to be exactly that.
      Given that I have had to explain to you the meaning of a common English word, criticism from you about my knowledge and understanding of world affairs can hardly be taken seriously.

indeed I don't agree with Scipio on the Bamber case but that don't mean I have to disagree with him on world affairs. I was the one that began defending the USA then Scipo was the only one that came to back up my position. I was thinking of explaining and typing allot of information for you but decided it was not worth my time as you would just move the goalpost or just ignore it. Then to find Scipio had explained the Iraq situation precisely and accurate more or less how I would have put it so I praised his effort.

When it comes to your opinion about me gringo
 
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/cf/b0/f4cfb0879bdff9af620b433215e654f5.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 08, 2015, 04:06:PM
   So you can't comprehend and are unable to use a dictionary. I did not say that the Iraq invasion of Kuwait wasn't a war of aggression, I said your list was comical. You are so far out of your depth here that I don't know why I am bothering but here goes anyway.
     You listed a number of random wars/conflicts which involved Russia and that was basically the one common thread between them. You needed it explaining to you what a "war of aggression" is after you had boldly put forward your comical list.
     Your opinion has swayed between believing that the US are right in acting as the world police to accepting that they are not the benign Uncle Sam of folklore but are an aggressive nation acting in the interests of a few. However you believed that nothing could be done about this.
     You are now back to justifying the US actions again.
     So you can't spell, can't comprehend, don't know how to use a dictionary and your opinions change with the wind. A couple of synonyms for sycophant are flatterer and hanger on. Your "go scipio" posts, or whatever it said, after your previous run ins with him showed you to be exactly that.
      Given that I have had to explain to you the meaning of a common English word, criticism from you about my knowledge and understanding of world affairs can hardly be taken seriously.

Harsh... but fair!

 ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 08, 2015, 04:21:PM
indeed I don't agree with Scipio on the Bamber case but that don't mean I have to disagree with him on world affairs. I was the one that began defending the USA then Scipo was the only one that came to back up my position. I was thinking of explaining and typing allot of information for you but decided it was not worth my time as you would just move the goalpost or just ignore it. Then to find Scipio had explained the Iraq situation precisely and accurate more or less how I would have put it so I praised his effort.

When it comes to your opinion about me gringo
 
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/cf/b0/f4cfb0879bdff9af620b433215e654f5.jpg)
  You were "thinking about typing a lot of information"  ;D ;D
     I "would ignore it or move the goalposts". Hmmm where to begin.
     You have previously posted a list and some pictures which you are unable to verify, not knowing dates, locations or anything about them for that matter. I asked you for clarification of these in order to discuss the "evidence" that you put forward and you were unwilling/unable to do so. Your list of wars was addressed by in detail. You have nothing to come back with, because you are so ill informed, and then resort to ad hom attacks on me.
     In summary, I have addressed every point that you have put forward and all you have done is attempt to insult my intelligence from a ,quite frankly, weak position.
     Scipio's precise explanation of the Iraq war is just a repeat of the lies told at the time to justify intervention. Those lies are now so discredited that only the deluded and war apologists repeat them now.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 08, 2015, 04:50:PM
  You were "thinking about typing a lot of information"  ;D ;D
     I "would ignore it or move the goalposts". Hmmm where to begin.
     You have previously posted a list and some pictures which you are unable to verify, not knowing dates, locations or anything about them for that matter. I asked you for clarification of these in order to discuss the "evidence" that you put forward and you were unwilling/unable to do so. Your list of wars was addressed by in detail. You have nothing to come back with, because you are so ill informed, and then resort to ad hom attacks on me.
     In summary, I have addressed every point that you have put forward and all you have done is attempt to insult my intelligence from a ,quite frankly, weak position.
     Scipio's precise explanation of the Iraq war is just a repeat of the lies told at the time to justify intervention. Those lies are now so discredited that only the deluded and war apologists repeat them now.

(http://replygif.net/i/1126.gif)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 08, 2015, 04:59:PM
David is that you still laughing at my post Manson/Bronson  hahahahahaha
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 08, 2015, 05:08:PM
David is that you still laughing at my post Manson/Bronson  hahahahahaha

lol  ;D

on a serious note where does Manson/Bronson say Jeremy is guilty?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 08, 2015, 05:18:PM
David I had the information sent to me by email it was Charles Bronson who stated this in an interview but I was asked not to reveal my source.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 08, 2015, 05:43:PM
David I had the information sent to me by email it was Charles Bronson who stated this in an interview but I was asked not to reveal my source.  Sorry.

then we don't really know if its true  :(  Bronson to my understanding is isolated and not allowed to mix with others
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 09, 2015, 12:31:AM
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.
   There are no lies from me and if there are then I have no doubt that you can highlight them for me.
    To claim that Bush didn't lie about the intelligence agency assessments is a generous interpretation. It is well known now that the politicians misrepresented the intelligence and told outright lies. Dr. David Kelly the UN weapons inspector, who was outed as the source to the BBC's Andrew Gilligan, claimed that politicians had "sexed up" the intelligence and made claims that were unsupported by the intelligence. He was found dead in a bizarre supposed suicide. Imagine a Russian scientist claiming that Putin was lying about such an issue and outing his lies and then turning up dead. What would you make of that?
      Mobile chemical labs and the 45 minutes to launch WMD claims are and were supported by nothing. Colin Powell's speech to the UN has become infamous for the amount of lies and deceptions it contains. Colin Powell himself has said since that his speech would be a "blot on his record". Most people regard this as lying funnily enough.
    Your recollections are just wrong scipio. Everyone did not know that Iraq were in violation of the Disarmament protocols  (not a ceasefire agreement). The US at the time were pushing for war whatever the intelligence said. If you still believe this utterly discredited shit then there is no hope for you. The "sexed up" intelligence was an attempt by the US to gain legal cover from the UN for their war but it was going ahead anyway.
   When you say "it was thought" and that "there was an expectation" you fail to clarify by whom. These are not the kind of statements and intelligence that justify invading another country.
   Did you research the Zogby poll and compare it to the polls that you posted and is that why you haven't discussed them further?
   The PIPA poll that you linked to simply has no credibility. It is funded by the likes of the Rockefeller foundation and The Ploughshares Fund. The "advisors" to these funders of PIPA are packed with white American conservatives and lots of military men as well as John Kerry. The polling was carried out on behalf of CNN and USA Today and was carried out by the Pan Arab Research Centre. The Pan Arab Research Centre is owned by M. A. Kharafi and Sons. It is fair to say that the Kharafi's have extensive interests elsewhere and that they cannot be seen as impartial.
    The poll by PIPA, in summary, was commissioned by two biased American "news" channels. The polling organisation used was a group whose funding comes from supporters and sponsors of US aggression. The polling itself was carried out by an organisation with extensive commercial interests which call into question their impartiality. It is not worth the paper it is written on and is simply self serving and not an attempt to genuinely gauge Iraqi opinions. It is an attempt at justification by the very vested interests who sponsored it in the first place.
    "Getting rid of Saddam to establish a democracy was a very good thing". If they had got rid of Saddam for this reason it would be illegal under international law though wouldn't it? And who decides that it is a very good thing because there are millions of Iraqis who would disagree, but no doubt the mighty scipio would be able to tell them that they are all biased idiots who refuse to accept the evidence fabricated by the perpetrators themselves.
   
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 09, 2015, 04:58:PM
   There are no lies from me and if there are then I have no doubt that you can highlight them for me.
    To claim that Bush didn't lie about the intelligence agency assessments is a generous interpretation. It is well known now that the politicians misrepresented the intelligence and told outright lies. Dr. David Kelly the UN weapons inspector, who was outed as the source to the BBC's Andrew Gilligan, claimed that politicians had "sexed up" the intelligence and made claims that were unsupported by the intelligence. He was found dead in a bizarre supposed suicide. Imagine a Russian scientist claiming that Putin was lying about such an issue and outing his lies and then turning up dead. What would you make of that?
      Mobile chemical labs and the 45 minutes to launch WMD claims are and were supported by nothing. Colin Powell's speech to the UN has become infamous for the amount of lies and deceptions it contains. Colin Powell himself has said since that his speech would be a "blot on his record". Most people regard this as lying funnily enough.
    Your recollections are just wrong scipio. Everyone did not know that Iraq were in violation of the Disarmament protocols  (not a ceasefire agreement). The US at the time were pushing for war whatever the intelligence said. If you still believe this utterly discredited shit then there is no hope for you. The "sexed up" intelligence was an attempt by the US to gain legal cover from the UN for their war but it was going ahead anyway.
   When you say "it was thought" and that "there was an expectation" you fail to clarify by whom. These are not the kind of statements and intelligence that justify invading another country.
   Did you research the Zogby poll and compare it to the polls that you posted and is that why you haven't discussed them further?
   The PIPA poll that you linked to simply has no credibility. It is funded by the likes of the Rockefeller foundation and The Ploughshares Fund. The "advisors" to these funders of PIPA are packed with white American conservatives and lots of military men as well as John Kerry. The polling was carried out on behalf of CNN and USA Today and was carried out by the Pan Arab Research Centre. The Pan Arab Research Centre is owned by M. A. Kharafi and Sons. It is fair to say that the Kharafi's have extensive interests elsewhere and that they cannot be seen as impartial.
    The poll by PIPA, in summary, was commissioned by two biased American "news" channels. The polling organisation used was a group whose funding comes from supporters and sponsors of US aggression. The polling itself was carried out by an organisation with extensive commercial interests which call into question their impartiality. It is not worth the paper it is written on and is simply self serving and not an attempt to genuinely gauge Iraqi opinions. It is an attempt at justification by the very vested interests who sponsored it in the first place.
    "Getting rid of Saddam to establish a democracy was a very good thing". If they had got rid of Saddam for this reason it would be illegal under international law though wouldn't it? And who decides that it is a very good thing because there are millions of Iraqis who would disagree, but no doubt the mighty scipio would be able to tell them that they are all biased idiots who refuse to accept the evidence fabricated by the perpetrators themselves.
   
   

Producing evidence that the intelligence communities were wrong doesn't in any way establish Bush lied.

You are the one lying by trying to pretend that the World's intelligence agencies didn't judge what they did and instead pretending Bush simply made it up.

You also lied about the polls regarding the attitudes of the people of Iraq.  I post how the people of Iraq support deposing Saddam.  A majority of Iraqis support such even though the transition has been rough just like the transition from Socialism to Capitalism in the Iron curtain was rough but deemed worth it.   Instead of being honest and producing the results of such polls you resort to polls of whether their life is hard and try to pretend that such polls mean that Iraqis didn't want Saddam overthrown. You are biased and dishonest.

You already have little credibility but you further diminish any chance of having any when you praise Russian aggression and misrepresent Russian invasions of other countries as reasonable self-defense actions.  Invading Georgia and Ukraine wasn't self-defense.  Invading a country to annex ports is not reasonable self-defense actions.  If it is then that means the US can invade any country it desires to steal ports for our vessels.

You are an apologist for Russian aggression and ridiculously attack the US as being an aggressor.  You have things completely backwards and remind me of the Marxist apologists during the Cold War who loved the USSR and defended everything it did while trashing the West and Capitalism.     

indeed a great number of people like you tried suggesting ISIS wasn't so bad and the West was intentionally distorting about them in order to justify invading sovereign nations.  ISIS is running wild trying to wipe out the non-Muslim populations of the land they occupy, brutalizing any Muslims who stand up to them and destroying historic treasures.  They are barbarians the World was not making up things to justify taking action.  Despite these real horrors the World is not taking action in earnest because the leaders of the World don't care enough to do what is necessary.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 09, 2015, 05:05:PM
a partly agrea with you it was actully bill clintons lie bush just repeated it wether he knew what he was saying was untrue or not well that cant be proven ethere way.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Real Justice on March 09, 2015, 07:30:PM
then we don't really know if its true  :(  Bronson to my understanding is isolated and not allowed to mix with others
The Krays and Me - Blood, Honour and Respect. Doing ...read his Book or google the link?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 09, 2015, 08:45:PM
Producing evidence that the intelligence communities were wrong doesn't in any way establish Bush lied.

You are the one lying by trying to pretend that the World's intelligence agencies didn't judge what they did and instead pretending Bush simply made it up.

You also lied about the polls regarding the attitudes of the people of Iraq.  I post how the people of Iraq support deposing Saddam.  A majority of Iraqis support such even though the transition has been rough just like the transition from Socialism to Capitalism in the Iron curtain was rough but deemed worth it.   Instead of being honest and producing the results of such polls you resort to polls of whether their life is hard and try to pretend that such polls mean that Iraqis didn't want Saddam overthrown. You are biased and dishonest.

You already have little credibility but you further diminish any chance of having any when you praise Russian aggression and misrepresent Russian invasions of other countries as reasonable self-defense actions.  Invading Georgia and Ukraine wasn't self-defense.  Invading a country to annex ports is not reasonable self-defense actions.  If it is then that means the US can invade any country it desires to steal ports for our vessels.

You are an apologist for Russian aggression and ridiculously attack the US as being an aggressor.  You have things completely backwards and remind me of the Marxist apologists during the Cold War who loved the USSR and defended everything it did while trashing the West and Capitalism.     

indeed a great number of people like you tried suggesting ISIS wasn't so bad and the West was intentionally distorting about them in order to justify invading sovereign nations.  ISIS is running wild trying to wipe out the non-Muslim populations of the land they occupy, brutalizing any Muslims who stand up to them and destroying historic treasures.  They are barbarians the World was not making up things to justify taking action.  Despite these real horrors the World is not taking action in earnest because the leaders of the World don't care enough to do what is necessary.
   Everybody knows that the US and UK governments lied to go to war. To misrepresent this as intelligence failures is mendacious. The number of intelligence agents who have spoken since and at the time make it quite clear that the politicians deliberately exaggerated the intelligence. They asked for intelligence that would justify war. Any following of these events at the time made clear that the US was pushing for war at the UN. It wasn't other countries that had hundreds of thousands of troops massed ready to invade and bomb Iraq before war had supposedly been decided upon.
     Were the US military there just in case? or do you think that they were going to war whatever the world thought? The US were wrong to invade Iraq and this is not even disputed by anyone informed.
    To claim that the Russians are the aggressors on the world stage is ignoring the evidence in front of you.
    You are self evidently a war apologist and your understanding of the Ukraine conflict has clearly been fed to you by the US State Dept. You may be stupid enough to believe in US exceptionalism but the rest of us see the US as world bullies. The reason that they can act in this way on the world stage is because there are enough gullible, brainwashed and half informed voters to allow it. You are obviously among their number.
    Your attacks are so ridiculous that you have to put words into my mouth by claiming that I am an ISIS apologist. The wars that you support created ISIS. Without the Iraq invasion, the bombing of Libya and the US funding of Islamist rebels in Syria ISIS would not even exist. US interventions cause far more harm than good and the evidence for this is all around.
     Regarding the polls, I put forward to you a number of facts which you have just ignored. I know that it is because those truths are uncomfortable for you and that you have no reply so you just fall back on your usual tactic when faced with uncomfortable truths by resorting to ad hom attacks and calling people liars. Tell me where I lied about the polls. The ones you posted were carried out by demonstrably biased parties and if you dispute my findings then do so with your own evidence to refute what I said. If you cannot do so don't worry you can just call me a liar without actually bothering to point out any lies.
     I may have little credibility with you but that is to be expected with someone like you and I would have more cause to be concerned if you regarded me credible. Your arrogance in believing that you are the final word on each and every subject is staggering to behold, especially from someone so ill informed. 
     I watched Fox News last night for an hour or so(I know!!) and the bias and hysteria is a sight to behold and then it occurred to me that it was like listening to the News by Scip :o :o.
    The views on Iran and the Middle East in general are so lacking in balance and nuance that they are beyond satire.
    Your views are Iraq, Iran, Russia etc. are shared by a small minority of the world and most of those are American Republican supporters. The rest of the world view the US as the number 1 threat to world peace.
    Do yourself a favour and do a search on " biggest threat to world peace poll" if you disbelieve me or think I am lying. I did that search and lots of polls came up and they were consistent in their findings. There are lots to choose from and the polling took place over lots of countries.
     Who do you think the world views as the biggest threat then Scip? Could it be Russia or perhaps Iran?
     Funnily enough they were not even close so you have much work to do. The biggest threat by a considerable margin was the US so it appears that the world is full of people with little credibility who are biased and dishonest. Either that or horror of horrors you are a self aggrandising half informed war apologist. Even in America the US tied for third place with North Korea as biggest threat to world peace.
     Your on the wrong side of the argument scip, but that's nothing new to you :o
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 09, 2015, 09:40:PM
The wars that you support created ISIS.   

Correction, The incompetent Iraqi army is responsible for ISIS
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 09, 2015, 09:43:PM
Correction, The incompetent Iraqi army is responsible for ISIS
  Who trained the incompetent Iraqi Army?
     Not that your summary is correct, but if it was, the incompetence of the Iraqi Army can be laid directly at the US door.
     You're not very good at this are you?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 09, 2015, 09:59:PM
  Who trained the incompetent Iraqi Army?
     Not that your summary is correct, but if it was, the incompetence of the Iraqi Army can be laid directly at the US door.
     You're not very good at this are you?

The Iraqi army was responsible for state security and it failed. Half the Iraqi army joined ISIS the other half ran away like cowards.

As for WMD how about a former Iraqi airforce general is that a reliable enough source for you?

http://youtu.be/nrSl30UIPRs?t=10s (http://youtu.be/nrSl30UIPRs?t=10s)



Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 09, 2015, 10:13:PM
Correction, The incompetent Iraqi army is responsible for ISIS

That's why ISIS was able to take over swaths of Iraq it is not what enabled ISIS to commence operations though. It started in Syria which gringo is intentionally ignoring.  ISIS was able to flourish in Syria because the World chose to let a dictator remain in power and this for him to he maintained power in select areas and ceding power to Islamic fundamentalists in another.  The World did nothing to establish a sane democratic government in Syria so now it is split among 2 different horrible regimes one of which is invading its neighbors.

I'm no fan of the Iraqi government but at least it is not a threat to their neighbors and not brutalizing its own people.   It failute to adequately defend its people from a foreign threat is the most serious criticism to level.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 09, 2015, 10:25:PM
yes they are brutlising people.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVi93Hf5UQXAAw2MnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1425968631/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.amnestyusa.org%2four-work%2fcountries%2fmiddle-east-and-north-africa%2firaq/RK=0/RS=cWeMsl3wydhNXf_I02dFTrAwfMI-
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 09, 2015, 10:44:PM
That's why ISIS was able to take over swaths of Iraq it is not what enabled ISIS to commence operations though. It started in Syria which gringo is intentionally ignoring.  ISIS was able to flourish in Syria because the World chose to let a dictator remain in power and this for him to he maintained power in select areas and ceding power to Islamic fundamentalists in another.  The World did nothing to establish a sane democratic government in Syria so now it is split among 2 different horrible regimes one of which is invading its neighbors.

I'm no fan of the Iraqi government but at least it is not a threat to their neighbors and not brutalizing its own people.   It failute to adequately defend its people from a foreign threat is the most serious criticism to level.
  Far from ignoring Syria I have mentioned it a number of times. Your analysis could have been written by the US State Dept. The US funded and armed rebels in Syria. Even NATO admit that Assad has the support of the majority of Syria, which is a secular state under Assad. He may be far from perfect but ISIS are much worse.
     However much you would like to deny it, ISIS are the direct result of US interference. Had the US not invaded Iraq and disbanded the Army in their de-baathication of Iraq then ISIS and Al Qaeda would never have had a presence there. The US unleashed the chaos and there are those in the US now calling for yet more war against Iran. Needless to say it is Republicans like McCain and the usual war mongering suspects.
      Had the US not interfered in Syria, by pretending that the rebels that they supported in Syria were in any way representative of what the Syrians themselves want, then ISIS would not now be swarming all over the Middle East.
      Your lack of nuance and context in your ill informed analysis is embarrassing. Why do you think the majority of the world stands against your wars? Why do you think that by a considerable margin the rest of the world sees the US as the biggest threat to world peace?, even the brainwashed US public put themselves at joint third with North Korea.
      Does none of this tell you anything or are you that blind and arrogant that you cannot consider the possibility that the US are the biggest danger to the planet?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 09, 2015, 10:55:PM
That's why ISIS was able to take over swaths of Iraq it is not what enabled ISIS to commence operations though. It started in Syria which gringo is intentionally ignoring.  ISIS was able to flourish in Syria because the World chose to let a dictator remain in power and this for him to he maintained power in select areas and ceding power to Islamic fundamentalists in another.  The World did nothing to establish a sane democratic government in Syria so now it is split among 2 different horrible regimes one of which is invading its neighbors.

I'm no fan of the Iraqi government but at least it is not a threat to their neighbors and not brutalizing its own people.   It failute to adequately defend its people from a foreign threat is the most serious criticism to level.

In Syria we have a religious civil war. 40% of Syrians back Assad they are all more or less non sunni muslim or Christian.

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/PieChart13Dec.jpg (http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/PieChart13Dec.jpg)

The pro Assad are a unity of minorities that don't want Sunni rule. I cant see how the world could have done anything, To go in and create a democracy and expect the emotions of hatred to just go away?

Democracy is fairly stable in Muslim countries when the population is predominantly one sect of Islam. for example and Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait and Iran (to some degree) all have a predominante religion.

In Syria like with Iraq the Sunnis will vote for the Sunni candidiate and the Shia will vote for their Shia candidate more or less. Hopefully things will change.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 09, 2015, 11:04:PM
Everybody knows that the US and UK governments lied to go to war. To misrepresent this as intelligence failures is mendacious. The number of intelligence agents who have spoken since and at the time make it quite clear that the politicians deliberately exaggerated the intelligence. They asked for intelligence that would justify war. Any following of these events at the time made clear that the US was pushing for war at the UN. It wasn't other countries that had hundreds of thousands of troops massed ready to invade and bomb Iraq before war had supposedly been decided upon.
     Were the US military there just in case? or do you think that they were going to war whatever the world thought? The US were wrong to invade Iraq and this is not even disputed by anyone informed.
    To claim that the Russians are the aggressors on the world stage is ignoring the evidence in front of you.
    You are self evidently a war apologist and your understanding of the Ukraine conflict has clearly been fed to you by the US State Dept. You may be stupid enough to believe in US exceptionalism but the rest of us see the US as world bullies. The reason that they can act in this way on the world stage is because there are enough gullible, brainwashed and half informed voters to allow it. You are obviously among their number.
    Your attacks are so ridiculous that you have to put words into my mouth by claiming that I am an ISIS apologist. The wars that you support created ISIS. Without the Iraq invasion, the bombing of Libya and the US funding of Islamist rebels in Syria ISIS would not even exist. US interventions cause far more harm than good and the evidence for this is all around.
     Regarding the polls, I put forward to you a number of facts which you have just ignored. I know that it is because those truths are uncomfortable for you and that you have no reply so you just fall back on your usual tactic when faced with uncomfortable truths by resorting to ad hom attacks and calling people liars. Tell me where I lied about the polls. The ones you posted were carried out by demonstrably biased parties and if you dispute my findings then do so with your own evidence to refute what I said. If you cannot do so don't worry you can just call me a liar without actually bothering to point out any lies.
     I may have little credibility with you but that is to be expected with someone like you and I would have more cause to be concerned if you regarded me credible. Your arrogance in believing that you are the final word on each and every subject is staggering to behold, especially from someone so ill informed. 
     I watched Fox News last night for an hour or so(I know!!) and the bias and hysteria is a sight to behold and then it occurred to me that it was like listening to the News by Scip :o :o.
    The views on Iran and the Middle East in general are so lacking in balance and nuance that they are beyond satire.
    Your views are Iraq, Iran, Russia etc. are shared by a small minority of the world and most of those are American Republican supporters. The rest of the world view the US as the number 1 threat to world peace.
    Do yourself a favour and do a search on " biggest threat to world peace poll" if you disbelieve me or think I am lying. I did that search and lots of polls came up and they were consistent in their findings. There are lots to choose from and the polling took place over lots of countries.
     Who do you think the world views as the biggest threat then Scip? Could it be Russia or perhaps Iran?
     Funnily enough they were not even close so you have much work to do. The biggest threat by a considerable margin was the US so it appears that the world is full of people with little credibility who are biased and dishonest. Either that or horror of horrors you are a self aggrandising half informed war apologist. Even in America the US tied for third place with North Korea as biggest threat to world peace.
     Your on the wrong side of the argument scip, but that's nothing new to you :o
   


You are incapable of telling the truth about anything it is hilarious.

The intelligence officials confirm that the intelligence consensus was Iraq still had WMD programs.  You can't produce evidence to the contrary because you are full of crap.

The US military was in Saudi Arabia for years to defend it from Iraq and enforce the no fly zones that were imposed as a result of Iraq's aggression.  The US and UK militaries deployed in force after it became clear Iraq would never fully comply with its obligations. It was even selling oil on the black market to fund military projects that were thought to be WMD related.

You no doubt are one of the same clowns who insisted the US and Uk were doing this to steal Iraq's oil.  What did the US and UK get out of the war?  Why would they lie what benefit was there in war?  The only benefit of getting rid of Saddam was getting rid of a dictator who was a threat to his neighbors.  There was nothing else in it for the US and UK.  The motivation they gave is the motivation they had- to get rid of a threat who they thought had WMDs that's it.

The US didn't fund ISIS this is just another of your pathetic lies.  Everything you post is the complete opposite of reality which is why you praise Russian aggression of stealing lands because they want the ports.

You are like the Soviet propagandists who would trash the West and Capitalism.  It is all complete BS, you know it but don't care about the truth. 

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 09, 2015, 11:16:PM

You are incapable of telling the truth about anything it is hilarious.

The intelligence officials confirm that the intelligence consensus was Iraq still had WMD programs.  You can't produce evidence to the contrary because you are full of crap.

The US military was in Saudi Arabia for years to defend it from Iraq and enforce the no fly zones that were imposed as a result of Iraq's aggression.  The US and UK militaries deployed in force after it became clear Iraq would never fully comply with its obligations. It was even selling oil on the black market to fund military projects that were thought to be WMD related.

You no doubt are one of the same clowns who insisted the US and Uk were doing this to steal Iraq's oil.  What did the US and UK get out of the war?  Why would they lie what benefit was there in war?  The only benefit of getting rid of Saddam was getting rid of a dictator who was a threat to his neighbors.  There was nothing else in it for the US and UK.  The motivation they gave is the motivation they had- to get rid of a threat who they thought had WMDs that's it.

The US didn't fund ISIS this is just another of your pathetic lies.  Everything you post is the complete opposite of reality which is why you praise Russian aggression of stealing lands because they want the ports.

You are like the Soviet propagandists who would trash the West and Capitalism.  It is all complete BS, you know it but don't care about the truth.

Scip check out what Gringo said when this thread began

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.

And he has the audacity the call us ill informed lol
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 09, 2015, 11:19:PM
The Iraqi army was responsible for state security and it failed. Half the Iraqi army joined ISIS the other half ran away like cowards.

As for WMD how about a former Iraqi airforce general is that a reliable enough source for you?

http://youtu.be/nrSl30UIPRs?t=10s (http://youtu.be/nrSl30UIPRs?t=10s)
  I can't believe your still here and can only assume that you don't read the posts. You were shown to be out of your depth long ago.
     The Iraqi Army was disbanded by the Coalition Provisional Authority. There is lots of information on this and it is described as a blunder even by the US's own intelligence assessments. A new army was formed from scratch by the Paul Bremer who had supreme authority of the CPA. The new army was armed and trained by the US. These decisions were taken against the advice of the US military and CIA chief.
     The Iraqi army formed, armed and trained by the US turned out to be not very good and to have loyalties that differed from the US. Who could possibly have predicted that? Well apart from anyone informed and all of the intelligence assessments, military and CIA advice of the time.
     To be honest I couldn't be arsed watching your latest supposed evidence of Iraqi WMD, largely because I know that it will not be evidence. There were no WMD, the world knows that now. The weapons inspectors at the time said there were no WMD, weapons inspectors and intelligence agents have spoken of the distortions of the politicians to present conjecture as hard fact and misrepresent the intelligence to push for war.
    Millions around the world marched against war for the reasons that are becoming apparent now. All of this turmoil was predictable and predicted by many. The supporters of war denied that turmoil would be unleashed and now blame others for it. Stop embarrassing yourself and go and have a read up
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 09, 2015, 11:29:PM

You are incapable of telling the truth about anything it is hilarious.

The intelligence officials confirm that the intelligence consensus was Iraq still had WMD programs.  You can't produce evidence to the contrary because you are full of crap.

The US military was in Saudi Arabia for years to defend it from Iraq and enforce the no fly zones that were imposed as a result of Iraq's aggression.  The US and UK militaries deployed in force after it became clear Iraq would never fully comply with its obligations. It was even selling oil on the black market to fund military projects that were thought to be WMD related.

You no doubt are one of the same clowns who insisted the US and Uk were doing this to steal Iraq's oil.  What did the US and UK get out of the war?  Why would they lie what benefit was there in war?  The only benefit of getting rid of Saddam was getting rid of a dictator who was a threat to his neighbors.  There was nothing else in it for the US and UK.  The motivation they gave is the motivation they had- to get rid of a threat who they thought had WMDs that's it.

The US didn't fund ISIS this is just another of your pathetic lies.  Everything you post is the complete opposite of reality which is why you praise Russian aggression of stealing lands because they want the ports.

You are like the Soviet propagandists who would trash the West and Capitalism.  It is all complete BS, you know it but don't care about the truth.
  Funny that the rest of the world doesn't see things your way. You have convinced no-one that the US have good intentions. More and more people are waking to the fact that the US is a threat to the world. Your lies are falling on deaf ears.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 09, 2015, 11:29:PM
In Syria we have a religious civil war. 40% of Syrians back Assad they are all more or less non sunni muslim or Christian.

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/PieChart13Dec.jpg (http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/PieChart13Dec.jpg)

The pro Assad are a unity of minorities that don't want Sunni rule. I cant see how the world could have done anything, To go in and create a democracy and expect the emotions of hatred to just go away?

Democracy is fairly stable in Muslim countries when the population is predominantly one sect of Islam. for example and Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait and Iran (to some degree) all have a predominante religion.

In Syria like with Iraq the Sunnis will vote for the Sunni candidiate and the Shia will vote for their Shia candidate more or less. Hopefully things will change.

We didn't do enough to arm and train the moderate rebels and to actively help them.  Even though using ground troops sucks because it results in casualties it is necessary for an effective campaign.  If we told Assad we would invade to get rid of him unless he went peacefully and were serious then I don't think he would have pulled a Saddam and ran to hide in a hole in the ground he would have chosen life in exile.

We could then have helped the Free Syrians set up a government and promise a democracy for all.  The Islamists didn't want that so would have resisted but it would just have been a repeat of the failure of Al Quaeda in Iraq. 

Instead ISIS killed a lot of the moderates and worse have been heavily funded by rich Muslims and have become even richer as they loot the areas they take over.

The West ignored ISIS instead of actively taking efforts to squash them.

Gringo is lying about our finding of rebels allowing ISIS to grow in power it was are lack of support that allowed it:

"The moderate rebels in Syria called on Washington to send heavier artillery for months even before ISIS gained ground last summer. That aid never made it to the battlefield. And when ISIS bulldozed the border between Iraq and Syria in June, the rebels in Aleppo had to fight on multiple fronts, against Assad, ISIS and al-Nusra, with dwindling resources.

Recipients of U.S. lethal aid told IBTimes in interviews that the U.S. set them up for failure.

“The U.S. support was not enough for the rebels in the North to be strong and defeat the Islamic groups,” said Oussama Abu Zayd, one of the main advisers and an active member of Harakat Hazzm, adding that many moderate rebels defected to extremist organizations because they had more money. “They have millions of dollars from donors.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-backed-moderate-syrian-rebels-north-defect-obama-strategy-set-back-1839604

Each day we sit on our hands the larger the problem grows and ultimately the larger the military force that defeats them will have to be.

A sizable military force should be at the Iraqi border preventing any resupply form Syria and to prevent retreating into Syria they could be the anvil.  The hammer would be other forces to encircle the ISIS fighters.  You surround them and force them to either give up or you go after them and kill them.

Without Western forces this will take a lot more time and effort.

That won't be the end of course someone needs to go into Syria to clean them up. Just dropping some bombs from the air isn't going to do it.

The more established they become the larger the force they can field and the more effort it is going to take to defeat them completely.

Even if Iraq eventually manages to recapture its land without Western military power it doesn't end the ISIS threat because they will still have a large swath in Syria.  Someone needs to invade Syria to clean the out.  Sooner or later someone has to do it.  The longer you wait the bigger the task becomes.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 09, 2015, 11:32:PM
  Funny that the rest of the world doesn't see things your way. You have convinced no-one that the US have good intentions. More and more people are waking to the fact that the US is a threat to the world. Your lies are falling on deaf ears.

You are delusional that you think most in the World think as you do.

You are little more than the modern rendition of a Cold War Soviet sympathizing Marxist.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 12:11:AM
Scip check out what Gringo said when this thread began

And he has the audacity the call us ill informed lol

His ilk I have dealt with before here are the atypical things they argue:

The UN should not have intervened to save North Korea we should have allowed them to be swallowed up by North Korea, all of Korea would be in great shape then.

The US should not have helped the Afghan rebels we should have let the Soviets take over.  Our funding of the rebels prevented the Soviets from making it into a modern nation and enabled them to remain backwards. After the Soviets left US funded rebels became the Taliban and Al Qaeda (of course the Taliban movement came from Pakistan and the Arab contingent in Afghanistan (that became Al Qaeda was very small, not recruited by us they went on their own and were not funded by the US) 

In 1990 the US told Saddam it was ok to annex Iraq and set Saddam up so we could then attack him.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 to steal its oil

The funny thing is that they accuse the West of horrible human rights violations and yet anytime there are severe human rights violations going on they defend the people doing it or blame the west for creating such groups though we didn't.

Revisionist like Zinn and Chomsky help spread such crap to the masses. In College one class I took was on the Cold war.  The Iron curtain fell as I was starting high school so was over for a number of years by the time I was in college.   My Cold War professor was a prominent revisionist and one of the things he insisted was that the US went to War in Vietnam in order to establish a place for Japanese goods to be sold so that the US would not have to keep buying Japanese goods and could correct the trade deficit we had with them.  Of course no evidence was put forth to support such assertions.  All the evidence lead to trying to prevent the spread of Communism not capitalist motives to turn Vietnam into a trading partner for Japan or anyone else.

Oh and of course I forgot the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, we blew up the WTC so we could invade Afghanistan and we also allowed Japan to bomb Pearl harbor unmolested so that they could do more damage so that the American public would be more angry....

Gringo was trashing Fox news.  The only time I watch Fox is when Watters goes on the street to interview people.  Former Tonight Show Host Jay Leno used to do that too in a segment called Jaywalking.  It is amazing just how ignorant people are about current events and history- it is funny to watch but so sad at the same time.







Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 10, 2015, 01:12:AM
You are delusional that you think most in the World think as you do.

You are little more than the modern rendition of a Cold War Soviet sympathizing Marxist.
  Far from being delusional, I am in line with all polling on the matter. The US is seen as the biggest threat to world peace. Can you point me to polling which challenges this conclusion.
    You are the delusional one here if you believe that world opinion supports the US.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 01:55:AM
  Far from being delusional, I am in line with all polling on the matter. The US is seen as the biggest threat to world peace. Can you point me to polling which challenges this conclusion.
    You are the delusional one here if you believe that world opinion supports the US.

Thanks for reinforcing how delusional you are.  You see to think opinion polls establish facts when by definition they are opinion polls.

Those people who think the US is a threat to World Peace are extremely ignorant and biased.  At one point a majority of people thought the Earth was flat and if polled would have asserted such.  Just because a majority believed that doesn't make it true.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 10, 2015, 02:45:AM
Thanks for reinforcing how delusional you are.  You see to think opinion polls establish facts when by definition they are opinion polls.

Those people who think the US is a threat to World Peace are extremely ignorant and biased.  At one point a majority of people thought the Earth was flat and if polled would have asserted such.  Just because a majority believed that doesn't make it true.

You mean it's not? :o - you'll be saying there's no Santa Claws next!  ;) 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 02:51:AM
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he ordered officials to start work on taking control of Crimea weeks before a referendum which, the Kremlin has asserted until now, prompted the region's annexation from Ukraine.

"This was on the night of Feb. 22 through to Feb. 23. We finished around 7 in the morning. And, while saying goodbye, I told all the colleagues: 'We have to start the work on Crimea's return into Russia'."

In the months since, Putin has adjusted his account of what happened. He initially denied Russian troops were providing security for the referendum, but later acknowledged special forces had been deployed.

 Russian soldiers who took part have been given state medals with the citation "For returning Crimea", which give the starting date of the operation as Feb. 20, before Yanukovich was ousted.


http://news.yahoo.com/putin-says-plan-crimea-hatched-referendum-140644857.html


People were intimidated to vote for the referendum and anyone against it was driven out. Even now people can't speak freely, anyone who even dares to voice displeasure is persecuted.  There was a recent article about people tattletaling to the government like in the Soviet era anytime someone says something negative about Russia taking over even if just complaining about the poor economy. Peopel are beaten and even jailed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/16/the-crimea-exodus-has-begun.html


In the meantime religious groups have been persecuted as well:

Odesa, Ukraine - Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March, religious groups there – aside from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) – are facing persecution, and restrictions on their ministry.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/4/faith-in-the-time-of-annexation-a-tough-choice-for/#ixzz3TwhSWKeE

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/11/10/roman-catholic-religious-forced-to-leave-crimea-by-end-of-year/

Some businesses were taken over by the government and here is what happened to the rest:

http://ukraine.setimes.com/en_GB/articles/uwi/features/2015/01/28/feature-02

All the BS about ethnic Russians being persecuted by the new Ukrainian government was shear nonsense drummed up by the Russian propaganda machine.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 02:53:AM
You mean it's not? :o - you'll be saying there's no Santa Claws next!  ;)

Sorry to burst your bubble but in a few weeks the Easter bunny won't be around either.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 09:25:AM
You are delusional that you think most in the World think as you do.

You are little more than the modern rendition of a Cold War Soviet sympathizing Marxist.

That may be the most terrible insult in the USA Scipio, but in the UK Europe I think you will find that more nuanced and balanced political views prevail.  Very many who were not marxists, as well as many who were (the left being far stronger here than in the US)  opposed US policy throughout the Cold War.

Red baiting has been a core weapon of the American right wing for many years.  It does not further the argument.

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 10, 2015, 02:37:PM
Thanks for reinforcing how delusional you are.  You see to think opinion polls establish facts when by definition they are opinion polls.

Those people who think the US is a threat to World Peace are extremely ignorant and biased.  At one point a majority of people thought the Earth was flat and if polled would have asserted such.  Just because a majority believed that doesn't make it true.
   It was you who brought up the fact that I was delusional to believe that most of the world agreed with my view of the US. I pointed you to polling to show my belief was correct. What the opinion polls establish is that it is a fact that world opinion is in line with my views. That was the point at issue and you raised it, not me.
     The polls may not establish as a fact that the US are the biggest threat, but they certainly verify that world opinion sees it this way. You dismiss it by calling the world delusional and biased. You are an arrogant deluded fool.
     Are you also delusional for introducing polls into this thread in the first place?, with your ridiculous PIPA poll earlier which you claimed proved that Iraqis agreed that it was a good thing that Saddam had gone.
     You are an apologist for war criminals and not even consistent in your idiocy.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 02:57:PM
   It was you who brought up the fact that I was delusional to believe that most of the world agreed with my view of the US. I pointed you to polling to show my belief was correct. What the opinion polls establish is that it is a fact that world opinion is in line with my views. That was the point at issue and you raised it, not me.
     The polls may not establish as a fact that the US are the biggest threat, but they certainly verify that world opinion sees it this way. You dismiss it by calling the world delusional and biased. You are an arrogant deluded fool.
     Are you also delusional for introducing polls into this thread in the first place?, with your ridiculous PIPA poll earlier which you claimed proved that Iraqis agreed that it was a good thing that Saddam had gone.
     You are an apologist for war criminals and not even consistent in your idiocy.

You call UN sanctioned operations against a guy who invaded his neighbors and gassed his own people war criminals while praising Russian aggression.  That is like attacking the Western Allies as war criminals while praising Stalin's aggression.  It is what is inconsistent and irrational. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 03:28:PM
You call UN sanctioned operations against a guy who invaded his neighbors and gassed his own people war criminals while praising Russian aggression.  That is like attacking the Western Allies as war criminals while praising Stalin's aggression.   It is what is inconsistent and irrational.

Are you referring to WW2?  If so you have a very warped view of history.  The USSR lost over 20 million of its citizens in the war and was our staunch ally in the battle against Axis evil. 

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 04:13:PM
Are you referring to WW2?  If so you have a very warped view of history.  The USSR lost over 20 million of its citizens in the war and was our staunch ally in the battle against Axis evil.

Far from being a staunch ally the Soviets were simply allies because Germany decided to invade. 

Stalin did many things Hitler did such as persecuted Jews but did even worse starving millions of Ukrainians and other ethnics to death.  Stalin did things to his own people that Hitler only did to foreigners.  Since Hilter killed more Jews and did so in a more systematic fashion his actions are highlighted while people ignore those of Stalin.

Stalin was responsible for WWII beginning.  Germany was scared to start a 2 front war in 1939 because Germany was not on a footing to fight such a war.  The USSR formed a secret non-aggression pact with Germany.  They agreed to divide Poland and other areas of Europe.  Moreover the Soviets agreed to supply Germany with oil and food.  This enabled Germany to invade Poland and start WWII.  The Soviets invaded 16 days later on the 17th of September and committed the katyn Massacre.

Hitler wanted Germany and the West to maul one another and then he planned to swoop in and defeat both after both were exhausted.  The US, and much of the World in fact, stopped trading with Germany and the US began supplying the Allies.  While the US was busy supplying the allies the USSR was busy trading with the Nazis providing oil and foodstuffs.

After invading Poland the Soviets invaded Finland, next they invaded the Baltic Republics and Rumania. Stalin was busy taking more territory than Hitler until France was occupied. That was when Stalin's plan backfired.  Far from the Allies and Germans fighting a protracted War of Attrition like during WWI where both were exhausted, Germany rapidly routed the Allies and was in firm control of Western Europe.

The only fighting directly against the Allies in 1940 after France was naval and some air engagements and fighting in Africa.  In late 1940 the Nazis invaded the Balkans next.  In 1941 came the invasion of the USSR and that event is what caused the USSR to change sides.  It was because the Nazis invaded the USSR otherwise the Soviets would simply have stayed secret partners with the Nazis.

Even though the Soviets became an Ally and signed a pact saying they would not seek territorial aggrandizement they did so anyway.  With our help they were able to rebuild their industrial power and the Red Army then raped and pillaged its way across Europe.  Everything industrial was stripped from the land they "liberated".

3 key tenets of the Charter they signed were:

1) no territorial gains were to be sought
2) territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples living on such land
3) all people had a right to self-determination

The USSR attacked Rumania and Finland annexing land from both, annexed the Baltic Republics and annexed land from Poland without regard to the desires of those living there.  The Germans were forced out of Eastern Priussia and the land given to their Polish puppet state.  Puppet states were established in all the lands they "liberated". They repressed the inhabitants of those lands they were supposed to be liberating.  Ukraine wanted independence.  Instead of respecting self-determination the people were brutally repressed.       

I know all about the history of WWII and Stalin ad I thus know that your portrayal is not reality but rather what Soviet Propaganda presented and some people choose to eat up either because of ignorance or bias.

 
 



   

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 10, 2015, 04:39:PM
As an American, you were obviously brought up to see both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the greatest of evils.
There is certainly a case for that, with Stalin's regime actually killing far more people than Hitler's. Although Hitler's regime brought about the holocaust, attempting to eradicate an entire race.

From a British perspective, we tend to see the Soviets role as allies during that time and point to things like their liberation of Auschwitz as a measure.

So maybe it's just a perspective thing?  :-\
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 04:41:PM
Far from being a staunch ally the Soviets were simply allies because Germany decided to invade. 

Stalin did many things Hitler did such as persecuted Jews but did even worse starving millions of Ukrainians and other ethnics to death.  Stalin did things to his own people that Hitler only did to foreigners.  Since Hilter killed more Jews and did so in a more systematic fashion his actions are highlighted while people ignore those of Stalin.

Stalin was responsible for WWII beginning.  Germany was scared to start a 2 front war in 1939 because Germany was not on a footing to fight such a war.  The USSR formed a secret non-aggression pact with Germany.  They agreed to divide Poland and other areas of Europe.  Moreover the Soviets agreed to supply Germany with oil and food.  This enabled Germany to invade Poland and start WWII.  The Soviets invaded 16 days later on the 17th of September and committed the katyn Massacre.

Hitler wanted Germany and the West to maul one another and then he planned to swoop in and defeat both after both were exhausted.  The US, and much of the World in fact, stopped trading with Germany and the US began supplying the Allies.  While the US was busy supplying the allies the USSR was busy trading with the Nazis providing oil and foodstuffs.

After invading Poland the Soviets invaded Finland, next they invaded the Baltic Republics and Rumania. Stalin was busy taking more territory than Hitler until France was occupied. That was when Stalin's plan backfired.  Far from the Allies and Germans fighting a protracted War of Attrition like during WWI where both were exhausted, Germany rapidly routed the Allies and was in firm control of Western Europe.

The only fighting directly against the Allies in 1940 after France was naval and some air engagements and fighting in Africa.  In late 1940 the Nazis invaded the Balkans next.  In 1941 came the invasion of the USSR and that event is what caused the USSR to change sides.  It was because the Nazis invaded the USSR otherwise the Soviets would simply have stayed secret partners with the Nazis.

Even though the Soviets became an Ally and signed a pact saying they would not seek territorial aggrandizement they did so anyway.  With our help they were able to rebuild their industrial power and the Red Army then raped and pillaged its way across Europe.  Everything industrial was stripped from the land they "liberated".

3 key tenets of the Charter they signed were:

1) no territorial gains were to be sought
2) territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples living on such land
3) all people had a right to self-determination

The USSR attacked Rumania and Finland annexing land from both, annexed the Baltic Republics and annexed land from Poland without regard to the desires of those living there.  The Germans were forced out of Eastern Priussia and the land given to their Polish puppet state.  Puppet states were established in all the lands they "liberated". They repressed the inhabitants of those lands they were supposed to be liberating.  Ukraine wanted independence.  Instead of respecting self-determination the people were brutally repressed.       

I know all about the history of WWII and Stalin ad I thus know that your portrayal is not reality but rather what Soviet Propaganda presented and some people choose to eat up either because of ignorance or bias.

 
 



   

You are a historical revisionist Scipio.  Your post is so riddled with fsalsehoods that it will take time to demolish them all.  I would never denigrate the sacrifices of any of our wartime allies, uncluding the USA.  For you to distort the role of the USSR in WW2 and to show the contempt for the sacrifices made its people is quite simply beyond the pale.  The USSR suffered more than any of the other allies and its hard fought successes on the Eastern Front enabled the Axis to be defeated totally, shortening the war by years (if it could in fact have been won) and saving many lives of the other allied countries.   

You claim to be an expert.  You are not, you are a mouthpiece for the nauseating filth which spews forth from far right  elements in the USA.   

I will answer in following posts your specific assertions.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 04:42:PM
As an American, you were obviously brought up to see both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the greatest of evils.
There is certainly a case for that, with Stalin's regime actually killing far more people than Hitler's. Although Hitler's regime brought about the holocaust, attempting to eradicate an entire race.

From a British perspective, we tend to see the Soviets role as allies during that time and point to things like their liberation of Auschwitz as a measure.

So maybe it's just a perspective thing?  :-\

Utter rubbish.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 10, 2015, 04:48:PM
Utter rubbish.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 10, 2015, 04:49:PM
Just 10 million people in it. It seems.  :-\
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 04:58:PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html)

Those figures are grossly exaggerated

Hitler 11 million estimate
Stalin 20 Million estimate
Mao 40 Million estimate
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 10, 2015, 05:00:PM
Those figures are grossly exaggerated

Hitler 11 million estimate
Stalin 20 Million estimate
Mao 40 Million estimate

Well okay. But in any event, NGB's 'UTTER RUBBISH', is well ....... 'utter rubbish'.

Just sayin'  ???
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 05:03:PM
Well okay. But in any event, NGB's 'UTTER RUBBISH', is well ....... 'utter rubbish'.

Just sayin'  ???

Yes its a well established fact that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, almost double
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 10, 2015, 05:05:PM
Yes its a well established fact that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, almost double

Thank you, I thought I was going mad.  :P
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: petey on March 10, 2015, 05:07:PM
Well okay. But in any event, NGB's 'UTTER RUBBISH', is well ....... 'utter rubbish'.

Just sayin'  ???

All statistics are open to interpretation and whichever spin you wish to put on them.

You could argue that Hitler killed approximately 11 million non-combatants, whereas Stalin only killed 8-9 million non combatants, thus making Hitler worse.........
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:10:PM


Far from being a staunch ally the Soviets were simply allies because Germany decided to invade. 

Stalin was responsible for WWII beginning.   Germany was scared to start a 2 front war in 1939 because Germany was not on a footing to fight such a war.  The USSR formed a secret non-aggression pact with Germany.   In 1941 came the invasion of the USSR and that event is what caused the USSR to change sides.  It was because the Nazis invaded the USSR otherwise the Soviets would simply have stayed secret partners with the Nazis.




To suggest that the USSR was responsible for WW2 takes American anti-communism to new depths!  Even Churchill never claimed what you have, and he was certainly no fan of communism!

In the 1930s the USSR recognised the increasing threat arising from Hitler's expansionist vision.  The Soviet government and people were bitterly hostile topwards the Nazis.  The communists in Germany were the first group to be persecuted by the Nazis, with its leading members sent to concentration camps and the Communist Party itself brutally suppressed.  The USSR was ill prepared for war.  It tried repeatedly to negotiate defence treaties with Britain and France but was rejected.  In order to buy time the non aggression pact with Germany was signed.  The Soviet government had no illusions that this would last, they knew (because Hitler had made it no secret) that sooner of later the Nazis would attempt to annexe large parts of the Soviet Union.  The period between the signing of the treaty and the invasition of the USSR was used to enable a massive rearmament programme to be undertaken.  It also enabled much heavy industry to be moved to greater safety beyond the Urals.

The Soviet government were taken by surprise by the invasion on 22nd June 1941, but only because they thought it would take place later. Of course that resulted in the USSR joining the war and becoming allies with the UK and the Commonwealth countries.  At that time of course the USA was not involved.  It was neutral.  It entered the war against Japan as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7th December 1941.  It only entered the war against Germany following Hitler's declaration of war against the USA on 11th December 1941.  There was of course a very strong isolationist trend in the USA, which only changed as a result of Pearl Harbor. 

That is enough for one post.  I will challenge the rest of the garbage in your post later.

     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:10:PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html)

The Daily Mail!  That's all right then.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 10, 2015, 05:13:PM
The Daily Mail!  That's all right then.

Haha, maybe. It seems okay when quoting a Bamber story though.  :-\
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:16:PM
Those figures are grossly exaggerated

Hitler 11 million estimate
Stalin 20 Million estimate
Mao 40 Million estimate

Hitler was responsible for far more deaths than 11 million.  Over 20 million Soviet citizens alone died as a result of WW2.

I am not here to defend all of Stalin's actions, far from it (that is a separate discussion) but the figures for deaths in the USSR during that period are inflated by the inclusion of famine victims and are in any event magnified by those with a particular view of history.

   
 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:17:PM
Well okay. But in any event, NGB's 'UTTER RUBBISH', is well ....... 'utter rubbish'.

Just sayin'  ???

We will just have to disagree.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:18:PM
Haha, maybe. It seems okay when quoting a Bamber story though.  :-\

Not for me.  I can't stand the paper.

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:20:PM
Yes its a well established fact that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, almost double

It's no surprise that you should take that view.  You and Scipio are a great team (except of course when it comes to Jeremy Bamber).  ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 05:25:PM
All statistics are open to interpretation and whichever spin you wish to put on them.

You could argue that Hitler killed approximately 11 million non-combatants, whereas Stalin only killed 8-9 million non combatants, thus making Hitler worse.........

That's rubbish. all the estimates are innocent people or prisoners of war.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 10, 2015, 05:28:PM
That's rubbish. all the estimates are innocent people or prisoners of war.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/
Think this is interesting reading
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:33:PM


Stalin did many things Hitler did such as persecuted Jews.   Stalin did things to his own people that Hitler only did to foreigners.  Since Hilter killed more Jews and did so in a more systematic fashion his actions are highlighted while people ignore those of Stalin.

   

This is another outrageous calumny against the USSR.  Until Russian revolution anti jewish pogroms were common, in particular in the Ukraine.  One of the first decrees of the new Soviet government was to outlaw antisemitism.  There were never again anti jewish pogroms, save of course for those sanctioned by the Nazis in the Soviet territory they occupied from 1941.  In the USSR jews occupied senior positions in the government, the Communist Party and in the armed forces. 

It really beggars belief that not only do you suggest that the USSR had a policy of killing jews but they actually killed more jews than the 6 million generally accepted as the number of jews killed by the Nazis!

You need some serious re-education - and not by some rabid right wing American institution!

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 05:44:PM
This is another outrageous calumny against the USSR.  Until Russian revolution anti jewish pogroms were common, in particular in the Ukraine.  One of the first decrees of the new Soviet government was to outlaw antisemitism.  There were never again anti jewish pogroms, save of course for those sanctioned by the Nazis in the Soviet territory they occupied from 1941.  In the USSR jews occupied senior positions in the government, the Communist Party and in the armed forces. 

It really beggars belief that not only do you suggest that the USSR had a policy of killing jews but they actually killed more jews than the 6 million generally accepted as the number of jews killed by the Nazis!

You need some serious re-education - and not by some rabid right wing American institution!

 

The USSR was not an anti-Semitic state no. But Stalin being extremely paranoid did have his moments and did purge Jews for being Jews
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 05:47:PM
As an American, you were obviously brought up to see both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the greatest of evils.
There is certainly a case for that, with Stalin's regime actually killing far more people than Hitler's. Although Hitler's regime brought about the holocaust, attempting to eradicate an entire race.

From a British perspective, we tend to see the Soviets role as allies during that time and point to things like their liberation of Auschwitz as a measure.

So maybe it's just a perspective thing?  :-\

No my perspective is from being a historian who has studied every facet of WWII for a long time including many foreign historical sources.

Most Americans are not taught everything that Stalin did and not taught that Stalin had initially been allied with Germany. 

The full outline of things I just presented is objective fact not a viewpoint of what happened.

The British and FDR regimes didn't want to fight the Soviets so praised Stalin and didn't reveal we essentially made a pact with someone as bad as Hitler.  Some historians refuse to be honest because they are biased in favor of Marxism or the USSR while others want to protect the Allied actions of betraying the Poles and many of our ideals because we lacked the stomach to do anything about Stalin.

I'm not afraid of real history.  I like Churchill I own books he wrote about history and thing he wrote quite well but there are still things that must be faced such as he didn't want to simply give up the entire British Empire immediately so naturally supported Soviet efforts to take the Baltics and other support on the basis that the same logic being used against the Soviets could be used to justify the British Empire being liberated.

I'm  not one who is willing to sugarcoat history the simple reality is that the Allies especially the US was willing to compromise our values to avoid doing what was right.  That resulted in the Iron Curtain problems which still have implications today, has major implications in Korea and especially large implications in China. The people of China have suffered for many decades under Communist rule and still do so.  China has a mixed economy so it not a threat from the standpoint of invading neighbors to spread Communist but still has a tolitarian regime so the people are not free.  Most people don't particularly care but if we actually did what was necessary to prevent the Communist of China takeover the world would be quite different.

The US didn't care enough about China to help though our leaders only cared enough to stop Japanese aggression in China.

If you truly study history in depth you will find that the simple things published in history textbooks leave a great deal out.  Part of that is that is because a textbook is just supposed to prove a very broad overview unless it is a book exclusively to a very confined issue or point in time. 

In grammar school we learned about Greece and Rome and the foundations of the Western Civilization then it leads up to Medieval Europe and eventually US history.  I'm more interested in World history.  I took electives in High School about other history such as Russian History. In College I took courses on Japan, China, and various European countries particularly Germany. The German courses were mainly about specific eras such as one on the unification leading up to WWI, one on Weimar, another on the Third Reich and another post War Germany.  There is a huge difference when you concentrate on a specific period as opposed to getting a broad overview.  The Chinese courses were mainly about Mao's China. Japan covered the Tokugawa period to WWII so provided the formation of modern Japan without being able to go into the depth of courses like Weimar that covered only a short period of time.

This is where independent reading is so important.  These kinds of courses provide a good foundation to enable further learning on subjects.

The overview I provided of Stalin's actions are just the tip of iceberg but provides an accurate summary of things.

It is sheer fantasy that the USSR was doing anything to help the Allies before it was invaded by Germany and all of its actions after being invaded were for the profit of Stalin not the Soviet People.  He didn't care about the Soviet people and sacrificed them for his own purposes.  It wasn't just bad Soviet tactics and German skill that resulted in so many Soviet casualties.  Stalin didn't care about the losses and forced actions that resulted in high casualties.  He even had his own men shoot soldiers who refused to follow orders.

Hitler did some of the same things in that he virtually never allowed German forces to withdraw and when he did finally allow it then it was often too late.  Leaders had to either violate orders to save their men risking being killed by Hitler or to stand their ground and get captured.  German prisoners were often killed just like Soviets often were or ended up being worked to death as slave labor. 

Being a soldier is never easy but the Soviet and German forces had the worst political leaders and thus were in the worst of circumstances.  Hitler decided it was better for Germany to be destroyed than to surrender. Early on his stand your ground orders were seen by him as logical.  He thought if they fought hard knowing they can't retreat his forces would prevail and early on that sometimes happened.  But one the Allies began their counter offensives it never worked.  Hitler became like those cultists who would rather have their followers die than to simply give up the cult and let them survive.

Stalin only cared about land and sacrificed over 100,000 men just for the prestige of taking Berlin. People who want to praise Stalin are doing so for motives other than to realistically evaluate his leadership.   

           

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 05:54:PM
The USSR was not an anti-Semitic state no. But Stalin being extremely paranoid did have his moments and did purge Jews for being Jews

I agree, there were some examples of individuals being persecuted towards the end of the Stalin era.  This was based upon the somewhat paranoid view that jews might have divided loyalty in relation to the newly formed state of Israel.   Kruschev exposed some of these examples in his famous speech in 1956 to the 20th congress of the Communist Party.  The new government renounced this antisemitism and jews remained in leading positions in all sectors of Soviet society.

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 06:00:PM
No my perspective is from being a historian who has studied every facet of WWII for a long time including many foreign historical sources.

Most Americans are not taught everything that Stalin did and not taught that Stalin had initially been allied with Germany. 

The full outline of things I just presented is objective fact not a viewpoint of what happened.

The British and FDR regimes didn't want to fight the Soviets so praised Stalin and didn't reveal we essentially made a pact with someone as bad as Hitler.  Some historians refuse to be honest because they are biased in favor of Marxism or the USSR while others want to protect the Allied actions of betraying the Poles and many of our ideals because we lacked the stomach to do anything about Stalin.

I'm not afraid of real history.  I like Churchill I own books he wrote about history and thing he wrote quite well but there are still things that must be faced such as he didn't want to simply give up the entire British Empire immediately so naturally supported Soviet efforts to take the Baltics and other support on the basis that the same logic being used against the Soviets could be used to justify the British Empire being liberated.

I'm  not one who is willing to sugarcoat history the simple reality is that the Allies especially the US was willing to compromise our values to avoid doing what was right.  That resulted in the Iron Curtain problems which still have implications today, has major implications in Korea and especially large implications in China. The people of China have suffered for many decades under Communist rule and still do so.  China has a mixed economy so it not a threat from the standpoint of invading neighbors to spread Communist but still has a tolitarian regime so the people are not free.  Most people don't particularly care but if we actually did what was necessary to prevent the Communist of China takeover the world would be quite different.

The US didn't care enough about China to help though our leaders only cared enough to stop Japanese aggression in China.

If you truly study history in depth you will find that the simple things published in history textbooks leave a great deal out.  Part of that is that is because a textbook is just supposed to prove a very broad overview unless it is a book exclusively to a very confined issue or point in time. 

In grammar school we learned about Greece and Rome and the foundations of the Western Civilization then it leads up to Medieval Europe and eventually US history.  I'm more interested in World history.  I took electives in High School about other history such as Russian History. In College I took courses on Japan, China, and various European countries particularly Germany. The German courses were mainly about specific eras such as one on the unification leading up to WWI, one on Weimar, another on the Third Reich and another post War Germany.  There is a huge difference when you concentrate on a specific period as opposed to getting a broad overview.  The Chinese courses were mainly about Mao's China. Japan covered the Tokugawa period to WWII so provided the formation of modern Japan without being able to go into the depth of courses like Weimar that covered only a short period of time.

This is where independent reading is so important.  These kinds of courses provide a good foundation to enable further learning on subjects.

The overview I provided of Stalin's actions are just the tip of iceberg but provides an accurate summary of things.

It is sheer fantasy that the USSR was doing anything to help the Allies before it was invaded by Germany and all of its actions after being invaded were for the profit of Stalin not the Soviet People.  He didn't care about the Soviet people and sacrificed them for his own purposes.  It wasn't just bad Soviet tactics and German skill that resulted in so many Soviet casualties.  Stalin didn't care about the losses and forced actions that resulted in high casualties.  He even had his own men shoot soldiers who refused to follow orders.

Hitler did some of the same things in that he virtually never allowed German forces to withdraw and when he did finally allow it then it was often too late.  Leaders had to either violate orders to save their men risking being killed by Hitler or to stand their ground and get captured.  German prisoners were often killed just like Soviets often were or ended up being worked to death as slave labor. 

Being a soldier is never easy but the Soviet and German forces had the worst political leaders and thus were in the worst of circumstances.  Hitler decided it was better for Germany to be destroyed than to surrender. Early on his stand your ground orders were seen by him as logical.  He thought if they fought hard knowing they can't retreat his forces would prevail and early on that sometimes happened.  But one the Allies began their counter offensives it never worked.  Hitler became like those cultists who would rather have their followers die than to simply give up the cult and let them survive.

Stalin only cared about land and sacrificed over 100,000 men just for the prestige of taking Berlin. People who want to praise Stalin are doing so for motives other than to realistically evaluate his leadership.   

         

Oh no, another one!  Another steaming heap of revionist crap.  Your blinkered view of the supreme benevolent role of the USA and your rabid anti- communism are the themes which underpin everything you write. 

Once again I will have to respond to your points.  I have not finished dealing with the last one yet.  I am busy for much of tomorrow but will do what I can.

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 06:01:PM
This is another outrageous calumny against the USSR.  Until Russian revolution anti jewish pogroms were common, in particular in the Ukraine.  One of the first decrees of the new Soviet government was to outlaw antisemitism.  There were never again anti jewish pogroms, save of course for those sanctioned by the Nazis in the Soviet territory they occupied from 1941.  In the USSR jews occupied senior positions in the government, the Communist Party and in the armed forces. 

It really beggars belief that not only do you suggest that the USSR had a policy of killing jews but they actually killed more jews than the 6 million generally accepted as the number of jews killed by the Nazis!

You need some serious re-education - and not by some rabid right wing American institution!

1) your bias sees to have caused your reading comprehension skills have fallen to waste.  I clearly stated Hitler killed more Jews and that is why his persecution is highlighted while Stalin's is ignored.

2) Both before and after the War Jews were persecuted by Stalin

3) Historians actually believe that the 6 million figure cited to Germany is wrong.  Nazi records and population figures from the areas do not support 6 million Jews being killed.  The figure has no actual evidentiary support.  We will never have any way to know the actual figures considering the huge population movements during the War. There is no need to inflate them though even if only 3.5 million Jews were killed, which is much more supportable of a figure, that is still an enormous number and doesn't somehow render the Nazis less evil. 

I consider contests over who killed more to be quite worthless. All mass murderers are evil and all mass murders are horrible tragedies.  To try saying one is worse than another and therefore try to defend one as less evil than another is silly.

The simple truth is that Stalin agreed to split various parts of Eastern Europe with Germany knowing the West would go to War with Germany and wanting that war to happen.  The Soviets continued trading with Germany providing much needed oil for their war machine. The World's largest producer and exporter of oil in that era was the US which enacted an embargo. Trying to pretend that Stalin was a great Ally and great guy is a complete waste of time.  It is rubbish.

 

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 06:06:PM
The British and FDR regimes didn't want to fight the Soviets so praised Stalin and didn't reveal we essentially made a pact with someone as bad as Hitler.  Some historians refuse to be honest because they are biased in favor of Marxism or the USSR while others want to protect the Allied actions of betraying the Poles and many of our ideals because we lacked the stomach to do anything about Stalin.
     

Churchill did put plans in motion to deal with Stalin (operation unthinkable) but I think everyone was glad the war was over with. Stalin died 7 years later so that's a good enough outcome for me
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 10, 2015, 06:08:PM
Churchill did put plans in motion to deal with Stalin (operation unthinkable) but I think everyone was glad the war was over with. Stalin died 7 years later so that's a good enough outcome for me

It was unthinkable, and would not have succeeded.

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 06:13:PM
It was unthinkable, and would not have succeeded.


Indeed, Russia is unconquerable
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 06:16:PM
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/
Think this is interesting reading

Population records prior to WWII and post WWII reveal that something on the order of 50 million people living in the lands that were part of the USSR in 1945 had died during WWII or after WWII as a result of Soviet punishment.  The punished people include those who wanted freedom such as those in Ukraine, political opponents and people thought to have cooperated with the Germans. People in these classes were killed both during and after WWII.

More than 21 million Soviet troops died in the field-some who were shot by Soviet forces and some of the force was made up from people living in land other than land the Germans managed to capture.  It is estimated 20 million civilians died but some of these were a result of Stalin's actions though there is no way to tell how many.  There is no way to know how many were tossed in gulags after the war as opposed to during.  No way to know how many civilians died at Soviet hands.  We just can tell that more of the population is missing than the official casualty estimates account for.   The Soviets intentionally didn't publish any population records until the 1960s because of this.  Soviet archive records opened after the fall of the USSR only provide limited answers.

People seem to be hung on on the numbers.  I don't care about the exact numbers the known numbers are sufficiently large to say that Stalin was horrible and his subjects suffered under his rule.  He helped start WII on purpose and only fought against Germany after Germany turned on him.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 06:28:PM
2) Both before and after the War Jews were persecuted by Stalin

3) Historians actually believe that the 6 million figure cited to Germany is wrong.  Nazi records and population figures from the areas do not support 6 million Jews being killed.  The figure has no actual evidentiary support.  We will never have any way to know the actual figures considering the huge population movements during the War. There is no need to inflate them though even if only 3.5 million Jews were killed, which is much more supportable of a figure, that is still an enormous number and doesn't somehow render the Nazis less evil. 
 

Comparing Hitler and Stalins persecution of Jews is like comparing chalk and cheese. Stalin treated Jews the same as he treated all other people (Very Badly)

Your figures for the Jewish victims of the Nazi's are incorrect. Its estimated at 5.5 Million.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 06:35:PM
More than 21 million Soviet troops died in the field

That's incorrect. The Russian Military archives say 8.4 million soviet servicemen but western historians have speculated it could possibly be as high as 14 million. Considering the USSR always used to whitewash any records that made it look bad
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: petey on March 10, 2015, 06:47:PM
That's rubbish. all the estimates are innocent people or prisoners of war.

I won't try and argue with you, but on this point I feel that your response to my message is clearly erroneous.

My main point is that statistics can be skewed depending on the purpose of the author. If you disagree with this point, then that is more worrying.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 10, 2015, 07:03:PM
Population records prior to WWII and post WWII reveal that something on the order of 50 million people living in the lands that were part of the USSR in 1945 had died during WWII or after WWII as a result of Soviet punishment.  The punished people include those who wanted freedom such as those in Ukraine, political opponents and people thought to have cooperated with the Germans. People in these classes were killed both during and after WWII.

More than 21 million Soviet troops died in the field-some who were shot by Soviet forces and some of the force was made up from people living in land other than land the Germans managed to capture.  It is estimated 20 million civilians died but some of these were a result of Stalin's actions though there is no way to tell how many.  There is no way to know how many were tossed in gulags after the war as opposed to during.  No way to know how many civilians died at Soviet hands.  We just can tell that more of the population is missing than the official casualty estimates account for.   The Soviets intentionally didn't publish any population records until the 1960s because of this.  Soviet archive records opened after the fall of the USSR only provide limited answers.

People seem to be hung on on the numbers.  I don't care about the exact numbers the known numbers are sufficiently large to say that Stalin was horrible and his subjects suffered under his rule.  He helped start WII on purpose and only fought against Germany after Germany turned on him.
I'm not hung on numbers, don't need to be, every death is a tragedy to someone but thought it was interesting as it is the most recent in depth calculation  :-\
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 07:05:PM
I won't try and argue with you, but on this point I feel that your response to my message is clearly erroneous.

My main point is that statistics can be skewed depending on the purpose of the author. If you disagree with this point, then that is more worrying.

Bare in mind Stalin had a much longer reign and ruled over a larger population most of the time.

civilians and POWs that died as a result of the laws and policies being enforced - Is that a fair definition?

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 07:16:PM
Indeed, Russia is unconquerable

Not even close to true.

Russia had no reserves left the only men not under arms were people unfit for service.  They even began using women for military jobs.   Russia was having a problem finding enough people for industrial and agricultural jobs.  As soon as the war ended huge numbers of soldiers were released from service and sent to work because the economy was so bad.  Without lend lease help they were stuck doing everything on their own, lend-lease provide large amounts of food and fuel.  People always only look at military equipment that was provided and then say lend-lease wasn't significant. Ignored is that the bulk of lend-lease aid was tools, fuel, and raw materials.  This was was was needed most badly and was the most significant impact from lend-lease.  The aid stopped immediately at the end of the war.

The Russians were testing out wooden planes because but for the aluminum we supplied they would not have been able to build the planes they ended up building.

US and UK forces DID NOT outnumber German forces to the same ration that the Soviets outnumbered German forces.  Germany devoted most airpower against the West so let the Soviets control the skies.

In the various engagements even though they had full control of the skies and outnumbered the Germans in greater ratios than the west ever did, the Soviets incurred far more casualties than the West.  The West had  winning casualty rate.  That means the West inflicted more casualties than suffered.  The Soviets had a losing rate.  They suffered more casualties than they inflicted.

The West had a much larger air-force than the Soviets.  The aircraft was vastly superior to Soviet aircraft.  Britain and the US were developing jets during the War but the war ended before they were used in earnest.  The first Soviet Jet was developed later as the result of stolen technology.  The US had atomic weapons that could have been used on the USSR.  It was year slater again through stolen technology the Soviets developed the bomb.

Since Soviet forces suffered substantially more casualties against outnumbered Germans lacking air support then obviously they would suffer many more casualties against a Western force larger than the German force which would have been able to establish air superiority.  The ground attack aircraft the Soviet shad would have been easily shot down by Western forces and they provided a major amount of the damage against German forces.

Lendlease was responsible for 2/3 of the Soviet aviation gas supply.  That cut alone would severely curtail the flying abilities of the Soviets.  None of these things are ever considered.

If we fought the Soviets conventionally we would have suffered casualties to be sure but the Soviets would not have been able to prevail.  They would have suffered huge losses that they would not have been able to make up because there were no men left to try drawing from.

Stalin knew this, knew about the atomic bomb and would have capitulated to Western demands rather than risk war.  He knew the economic might and military might of the West and that he could not prevail.  That is why he refused to officially take part in North Korea.  Soviet planes that did take part had no markings.  He wasn't willing to fight the West.

Operation unthinkable was simply a contingency plan.  There are always military contingency plans.  it was just in case war did happen with the USSR. 
 
Hitler wasn't the idiot that people like to pretend.  He became crazy at the end and was a lousy commander in that he would not allow his military commanders to do what they wanted- which is good because that would have prolonged the war.  Germany could have defeated the USSR Hitler wasn't insane.  If it wasn't for Lend-lease the Soviets would have to have signed a peace deal with Germany ceding a large amount of territory.  But for out efforts there would have been a stalemate, the stalemate he expected the West to have with Germany and Stalin feared the West was going to steal his idea wait in the shadows and after both sides were exhausted to swoop in.

At the end of 1941 Hitler had good reason to think the War in the USSR was winding down and would soon be over with the USSR suing for peace and giving up large swaths of land.  Not only were millions of Soviet forces killed or captured, the main areas of Soviet industrial might had been taken. Ukraine accounted for most of the explosives production and a land taken also accounted for a large amount of food production.  Industry was in a shambles.  Hitler underestimated the ability of the US to supply the Soviets so they could continue fielding a viable force.  Finding more men to stick in uniform is one thing.
because so many former Soviet citizens were under German occupation they were forced to use men from the interior of the USSR as replacements. 

Feeding them, providing them with equipment and ammunition was a problem.  The US provided machine tools and other equipment to outfit factories beyond the reach of German forces.  There was little industry in the region at the time of the German invasion were provided a lot of materials they used to rebuild industrially.  The  manpower to produce aluminum, steel and other metals needed for production of tanks, planes and guns would reduce the pool of men available for military service and working in factories to produce such items.  The finished weapons provided were a stopgap to be used as the Allies helped the USSR to build factories. So we helped them to build factories and provided them with raw materials for those factories to use.  We provided them with railroad equipment and most of the trucks they used so that they could transport materials to the forces in the field.  We also accounted for 2/3 of their aviation gas and the materials used by them for ammunition.  Hitler expect them to run out of ammo and have to surrender because he knocked out most of their ammunition production.  He had no idea we would be both willing and able to more than make up for the loss. 

Anyone who knows about military matters will tell you logistics are the key and that is what no one looks at.

But for the West the USSR would have capitulated and basically would have been an Asian power.  To be sure Stalin would have spent years rebuilding to one day renew the war to try to take the lands back but it is doubtful Germany would have been able to be dislodged at that point. 

The West saw such a huge Germany as a major threat so didn't let that happen and supplied the Soviets and simultaneously built up their own forces to help defeat Hitler.

On the History channel Website we had a huge debate over Unthinkable where all the forces of each side were listed and took into account atomic power and took into account the Soviet economy less lend-lease and it was quite clear that the Soviets could not go toe to toe with the West if there had been a war.  Stalin never would have gone to war though the West could have gotten a much better peace deal without needing to go to war.




Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jane on March 10, 2015, 07:25:PM
I won't try and argue with you, but on this point I feel that your response to my message is clearly erroneous.

My main point is that statistics can be skewed depending on the purpose of the author. If you disagree with this point, then that is more worrying.



Of course they can. Authors, on behalf of the victors will probably wish to "blur" any atrocities done in their name. Authors for the vanquished will probably wish to expose/magnify them..................not that I'm undermining ANY atrocity. We Brits, down the years, have certainly shown ourselves as being rather less than squeaky clean.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 07:44:PM
That's incorrect. The Russian Military archives say 8.4 million soviet servicemen but western historians have speculated it could possibly be as high as 14 million. Considering the USSR always used to whitewash any records that made it look bad

Soviet archives opened up after the fall of the USSR provide losses only in the 1942-45 period.  The losses during 1941 are just guesses and typically undercounted guesses though we can't be sure.  the ones usually whitewashed.  There clearly were on the order of over 10 million (20 was a typo) irrevocable losses. It always depends on whether you want to count just those wars against Germany or the all endeavors including  the Soviet invasion of Finland.   

Mind you civilians did fight against Germany and against Soviets even so...  plus men from Poland and Eastern Europe fought alongside Soviets.  Even some Italians fought in the USSR though not in huge numbers.  So you have to be careful if trying to make a very specific point about casualties.

The USSR annexed property with 25 plus million inhabitants after the war.  The prewar population in 1939 was 165-167 million (it was inflated to 171 million by scared census takers) in 1959 it was 208.8 million.  That is only growth of 41.8 million over 20 years.  At least 25 million of that was added by annexing lands with people on it so in fact it was only growth of at best 17 million over 20 years.  114.8 million were female and only 94 million male.  20 million more females is pretty substantial.  If the census were taken right at the end of the war it would have been even more lopsided.  The Germans were just as brutal against women as men.  Civilian men were killed more than women but not in such lopsided numbers.  Most of the difference in the gap between male and female would have to be attributable to military service, partisan service and actions of Stalin.



 


 

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 07:47:PM
Not even close to true.

Russia had no reserves left the only men not under arms were people unfit for service.  They even began using women for military jobs.   Russia was having a problem finding enough people for industrial and agricultural jobs.  As soon as the war ended huge numbers of soldiers were released from service and sent to work because the economy was so bad.  Without lend lease help they were stuck doing everything on their own, lend-lease provide large amounts of food and fuel.  People always only look at military equipment that was provided and then say lend-lease wasn't significant. Ignored is that the bulk of lend-lease aid was tools, fuel, and raw materials.  This was was was needed most badly and was the most significant impact from lend-lease.  The aid stopped immediately at the end of the war.

The Russians were testing out wooden planes because but for the aluminum we supplied they would not have been able to build the planes they ended up building.

US and UK forces DID NOT outnumber German forces to the same ration that the Soviets outnumbered German forces.  Germany devoted most airpower against the West so let the Soviets control the skies.

In the various engagements even though they had full control of the skies and outnumbered the Germans in greater ratios than the west ever did, the Soviets incurred far more casualties than the West.  The West had  winning casualty rate.  That means the West inflicted more casualties than suffered.  The Soviets had a losing rate.  They suffered more casualties than they inflicted.

The West had a much larger air-force than the Soviets.  The aircraft was vastly superior to Soviet aircraft.  Britain and the US were developing jets during the War but the war ended before they were used in earnest.  The first Soviet Jet was developed later as the result of stolen technology.  The US had atomic weapons that could have been used on the USSR.  It was year slater again through stolen technology the Soviets developed the bomb.

Since Soviet forces suffered substantially more casualties against outnumbered Germans lacking air support then obviously they would suffer many more casualties against a Western force larger than the German force which would have been able to establish air superiority.  The ground attack aircraft the Soviet shad would have been easily shot down by Western forces and they provided a major amount of the damage against German forces.

Lendlease was responsible for 2/3 of the Soviet aviation gas supply.  That cut alone would severely curtail the flying abilities of the Soviets.  None of these things are ever considered.

If we fought the Soviets conventionally we would have suffered casualties to be sure but the Soviets would not have been able to prevail.  They would have suffered huge losses that they would not have been able to make up because there were no men left to try drawing from.

Stalin knew this, knew about the atomic bomb and would have capitulated to Western demands rather than risk war.  He knew the economic might and military might of the West and that he could not prevail.  That is why he refused to officially take part in North Korea.  Soviet planes that did take part had no markings.  He wasn't willing to fight the West.

Operation unthinkable was simply a contingency plan.  There are always military contingency plans.  it was just in case war did happen with the USSR. 
 
Hitler wasn't the idiot that people like to pretend.  He became crazy at the end and was a lousy commander in that he would not allow his military commanders to do what they wanted- which is good because that would have prolonged the war.  Germany could have defeated the USSR Hitler wasn't insane.  If it wasn't for Lend-lease the Soviets would have to have signed a peace deal with Germany ceding a large amount of territory.  But for out efforts there would have been a stalemate, the stalemate he expected the West to have with Germany and Stalin feared the West was going to steal his idea wait in the shadows and after both sides were exhausted to swoop in.

At the end of 1941 Hitler had good reason to think the War in the USSR was winding down and would soon be over with the USSR suing for peace and giving up large swaths of land.  Not only were millions of Soviet forces killed or captured, the main areas of Soviet industrial might had been taken. Ukraine accounted for most of the explosives production and a land taken also accounted for a large amount of food production.  Industry was in a shambles.  Hitler underestimated the ability of the US to supply the Soviets so they could continue fielding a viable force.  Finding more men to stick in uniform is one thing.
because so many former Soviet citizens were under German occupation they were forced to use men from the interior of the USSR as replacements. 

Feeding them, providing them with equipment and ammunition was a problem.  The US provided machine tools and other equipment to outfit factories beyond the reach of German forces.  There was little industry in the region at the time of the German invasion were provided a lot of materials they used to rebuild industrially.  The  manpower to produce aluminum, steel and other metals needed for production of tanks, planes and guns would reduce the pool of men available for military service and working in factories to produce such items.  The finished weapons provided were a stopgap to be used as the Allies helped the USSR to build factories. So we helped them to build factories and provided them with raw materials for those factories to use.  We provided them with railroad equipment and most of the trucks they used so that they could transport materials to the forces in the field.  We also accounted for 2/3 of their aviation gas and the materials used by them for ammunition.  Hitler expect them to run out of ammo and have to surrender because he knocked out most of their ammunition production.  He had no idea we would be both willing and able to more than make up for the loss. 

Anyone who knows about military matters will tell you logistics are the key and that is what no one looks at.

But for the West the USSR would have capitulated and basically would have been an Asian power.  To be sure Stalin would have spent years rebuilding to one day renew the war to try to take the lands back but it is doubtful Germany would have been able to be dislodged at that point. 

The West saw such a huge Germany as a major threat so didn't let that happen and supplied the Soviets and simultaneously built up their own forces to help defeat Hitler.

On the History channel Website we had a huge debate over Unthinkable where all the forces of each side were listed and took into account atomic power and took into account the Soviet economy less lend-lease and it was quite clear that the Soviets could not go toe to toe with the West if there had been a war.  Stalin never would have gone to war though the West could have gotten a much better peace deal without needing to go to war.

What your saying about the Red army strength after defeating Germany is total garbage. Operation Unthinkable was declared 'unfeasible' by the British high command due to the soviet numerical troop advantage of 4:1 and a tank advantage of 2:1 not to mention the colossal war industry the soviets had created out of range of any American/British bombers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 09:42:PM
What your saying about the Red army strength after defeating Germany is total garbage. Operation Unthinkable was declared 'unfeasible' by the British high command due to the soviet numerical troop advantage of 4:1 and a tank advantage of 2:1 not to mention the colossal war industry the soviets had created out of range of any American/British bombers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable)

The Soviet industry that you claim was colossal was a substantially lower output than before the war let and significantly lower than US output. Atomic weapons used over any area of the USSR presented  a substantial threat.

The Soviet's outnumbered Germany tankwise 10:1 and had air supremacy on top of numerical advantage in Infantry and artillery and still suffered huge casualties.  Thanks to lend-lease aid the USSR produced 137,273 planes from 1941-1945 with 125,000 built before VE Day while the USA produced over 300,000.  This obviously doesn't even take into account UK production. US production was severely curtailed as the war ended or the figure would have been even higher.

The US Army Aircorps (forerunner of the Air Force) fielded 75,000 planes at peak strength (including a large number of heavy bombers) and the US Navy fielded another 22-25,000.  The US Navy alone had more airpower than the airforces of just about every nation. So the US alone had over 100,000 aircraft to deploy.  This doesn't count the Commonwealth squadrons available. How many German aircraft were they accustomed to facing? About 2500 most of which didn't have enough fuel to operate much from mid 1944 on.  Their aircraft losses were tremendous despite outnumbering the Germans in the air heavily.

The West would have established aircraft Supremacy and the 2:1 advantage in tanks would have been worthless.  Western Tank doctrine was much more effective anyway which is why losses were much less than those suffered by the Soviets.

The Germans were jealous of American Artillery which they considered the best.  The US had a much better artillery force than the Soviets.

The Allies supplied another 15,000 planes to the Soviets most them superior to Soviet models which is why at any given time 18-25% of combat planes on the front lines were of Western origin. Throughout 1942 and 1943 Stalin kept begging for more Western fighters because Soviet domestic supply (despite lend-lease) was unable to meet the need given the casualties incurred.  In 1944 Despite the Allied bombing campaign the Germans exceed the Soviets by producing 40,593 aircraft compared to 40,300 that the Soviets produced.  Because of the bombing campaign  they had to have smaller, more dispersed facilities.

US production of steel dwarfed that of the USSR.  SO did production of just about everything.

Soviet strength is 1945 at the end of the war was around 15,000 tanks, 25,000 aircraft and 9 million men in the ground forces.

End of April 1945
Total US Army 8.3 million
Army Ground Forces 6 million, 10,000 tanks
Army Air Force 2.3 million, 75,000 plus planes

Naval figures:
Marine Corps 485,000 10,000 plus planes, 500 tanks
US Navy 3.4 million 1000 combat vessels, 28,000 planes
Merchant Marine 215,000- 6000 vessels

Note that these do not include French forces or Commonwealth Forces. Which had over 10,000 planes.

It is a myth that the Soviets could have defeated the West if they went head to head at the end of WWII.  Neither side was willing to engage in the costs associated with such a war.  The Soviets though would not have risked war over Poland or other issues the Western Allies could have been much more loyal.

   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 10, 2015, 09:57:PM
The Soviet industry that you claim was colossal was a substantially lower output than before the war let and significantly lower than US output. Atomic weapons used over any area of the USSR presented  a substantial threat.

The Soviet's outnumbered Germany tankwise 10:1 and had air supremacy on top of numerical advantage in Infantry and artillery and still suffered huge casualties.  Thanks to lend-lease aid the USSR produced 137,273 planes from 1941-1945 with 125,000 built before VE Day while the USA produced over 300,000.  This obviously doesn't even take into account UK production. US production was severely curtailed as the war ended or the figure would have been even higher.

The US Army Aircorps (forerunner of the Air Force) fielded 75,000 planes at peak strength (including a large number of heavy bombers) and the US Navy fielded another 22-25,000.  The US Navy alone had more airpower than the airforces of just about every nation. So the US alone had over 100,000 aircraft to deploy.  This doesn't count the Commonwealth squadrons available. How many German aircraft were they accustomed to facing? About 2500 most of which didn't have enough fuel to operate much from mid 1944 on.  Their aircraft losses were tremendous despite outnumbering the Germans in the air heavily.

The West would have established aircraft Supremacy and the 2:1 advantage in tanks would have been worthless.  Western Tank doctrine was much more effective anyway which is why losses were much less than those suffered by the Soviets.

The Germans were jealous of American Artillery which they considered the best.  The US had a much better artillery force than the Soviets.

The Allies supplied another 15,000 planes to the Soviets most them superior to Soviet models which is why at any given time 18-25% of combat planes on the front lines were of Western origin. Throughout 1942 and 1943 Stalin kept begging for more Western fighters because Soviet domestic supply (despite lend-lease) was unable to meet the need given the casualties incurred.  In 1944 Despite the Allied bombing campaign the Germans exceed the Soviets by producing 40,593 aircraft compared to 40,300 that the Soviets produced.  Because of the bombing campaign  they had to have smaller, more dispersed facilities.

US production of steel dwarfed that of the USSR.  SO did production of just about everything.

Soviet strength is 1945 at the end of the war was around 15,000 tanks, 25,000 aircraft and 9 million men in the ground forces.

End of April 1945
Total US Army 8.3 million
Army Ground Forces 6 million, 10,000 tanks
Army Air Force 2.3 million, 75,000 plus planes

Naval figures:
Marine Corps 485,000 10,000 plus planes, 500 tanks
US Navy 3.4 million 1000 combat vessels, 28,000 planes
Merchant Marine 215,000- 6000 vessels

Note that these do not include French forces or Commonwealth Forces. Which had over 10,000 planes.

It is a myth that the Soviets could have defeated the West if they went head to head at the end of WWII.  Neither side was willing to engage in the costs associated with such a war.  The Soviets though would not have risked war over Poland or other issues the Western Allies could have been much more loyal.

 

Your making the same error of judgment that Hitler and Napoleon made that is underestimating Russia. The sheer size and the formidable winter make it more or less impossible.  The hole idea of turning on the USSR after the war is rather stupid, The fact Stalin died in 1953 is good enough for me
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 10:24:PM
Your making the same error of judgment that Hitler and Napoleon made that is underestimating Russia. The sheer size and the formidable winter make it more or less impossible.  The hole idea of turning on the USSR after the war is rather stupid, The fact Stalin died in 1953 is good enough for me

You are ignoring that if Germany had fought the USSR alone the Soviets would have lost, ignoring US Industrial might which accounted for over 60 percent of the entire World's industrial production during WWII, that Western losses were much more mild than Soviet losses so the West had a larger reserve population, the significant of the atomic bomb, superiority of Western tactics and equipment and the great numerical advantage of Western airpower.

You are also ignoring that Stalin would not have gone to war with the west simply to occupy Eastern Europe if push came to shove. Resolve would have carried the day war wasn't necessary.  In a war though the Soviets would have lost that is why they were always worried during the Cold War numbers don't ensure victory.  In 1991 the 4th largest military in the World armed with Soviet equipment and using Soviet tactics got routed.  The forces tried to fought but were simply outclassed on every level.  They lost thousands of tanks while inflicting miniscule casualties on the UN forces.  This sent shockwaves through the Russian military. No one expected the Iraqis to be able to prevail but the World didn't expect less than 3 days of fighting to result in such severe losses.

In 2003 some fought but most forces ended up running away after coming under attack.  Those that fought had no better success than they did in 1991. 

The Red Army would have inflicted losses on the West, it would not have been as lopsided as in Iraq but no where near what the West would have inflicted on the Red Army.  Stalin had no delusions about such nor did the military leaders who even admitted that without Lend-lease they could not have prevailed. Stalin wasn't stupid, he knew the propaganda he was putting out was false.  He was cold and calculating.   

Poland didn't become free in 1953 the Iron Curtain didn't begin to crack until 1989.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 10, 2015, 10:40:PM
Since the topic is what a great Ally he was something that may or may not be of interest is that  he refused to allow US bombers to be based in the Far East to fly against Japan and refused to assist against Japan in any way until the end of the war when it was decided to help in order to pilfer what they could from Manchuria, seize islands and to seize to North Korea.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 11, 2015, 12:28:AM
You are ignoring that if Germany had fought the USSR alone the Soviets would have lost, ignoring US Industrial might which accounted for over 60 percent of the entire World's industrial production during WWII, that Western losses were much more mild than Soviet losses so the West had a larger reserve population, the significant of the atomic bomb, superiority of Western tactics and equipment and the great numerical advantage of Western airpower.

You are also ignoring that Stalin would not have gone to war with the west simply to occupy Eastern Europe if push came to shove. Resolve would have carried the day war wasn't necessary.  In a war though the Soviets would have lost that is why they were always worried during the Cold War numbers don't ensure victory.  In 1991 the 4th largest military in the World armed with Soviet equipment and using Soviet tactics got routed.  The forces tried to fought but were simply outclassed on every level.  They lost thousands of tanks while inflicting miniscule casualties on the UN forces.  This sent shockwaves through the Russian military. No one expected the Iraqis to be able to prevail but the World didn't expect less than 3 days of fighting to result in such severe losses.

In 2003 some fought but most forces ended up running away after coming under attack.  Those that fought had no better success than they did in 1991. 

The Red Army would have inflicted losses on the West, it would not have been as lopsided as in Iraq but no where near what the West would have inflicted on the Red Army.  Stalin had no delusions about such nor did the military leaders who even admitted that without Lend-lease they could not have prevailed. Stalin wasn't stupid, he knew the propaganda he was putting out was false.  He was cold and calculating.   

Poland didn't become free in 1953 the Iron Curtain didn't begin to crack until 1989.

That's simply not true. The Germans only had one shot at defeating the USSR and failed, By January 1942 Germany had no chance of winning after being bushed back, Germany could only afford a short summer Blitzkreig campaign.

apart from numbers and statistics you must consider these factors

1. The German army behaved utterly barbaric towards the Russians that considered them liberators at first, this created vast soviet partisan groups deep behind German lines that would sabotage train tracks and blow up supply trains plus ensure the soviet people did not collaborate with the occupying force.

2. Hitler promoted himself to supreme commander a position he was not competent for plus he was becoming dependent on drugs that would effect his decisions

3. He sacked very good and able members of the Wehrmacht like Guderian and Von Manstein who where behind the early victories.





Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 11, 2015, 12:33:AM
Well, all this had kind of gotton out of hand! Still think Putin is an arse though :)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 11, 2015, 12:59:AM
Well, all this had kind of gotton out of hand! Still think Putin is an arse though :)
So do I.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 11, 2015, 01:54:AM
So do I.

 :)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 11, 2015, 03:58:AM
That's simply not true. The Germans only had one shot at defeating the USSR and failed, By January 1942 Germany had no chance of winning after being bushed back, Germany could only afford a short summer Blitzkreig campaign.

apart from numbers and statistics you must consider these factors

1. The German army behaved utterly barbaric towards the Russians that considered them liberators at first, this created vast soviet partisan groups deep behind German lines that would sabotage train tracks and blow up supply trains plus ensure the soviet people did not collaborate with the occupying force.

2. Hitler promoted himself to supreme commander a position he was not competent for plus he was becoming dependent on drugs that would effect his decisions

3. He sacked very good and able members of the Wehrmacht like Guderian and Von Manstein who where behind the early victories.

As the saying goes amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics.

In the spring of 1942 the Germans mauled the Soviets and only after lend-lease started to kick in did the tables begin to turn.  Explain how the Soviets would have done on their own without any aid when they lost all their chemical works in Ukraine. They had to conserve artillery shells until they were supplied by the West with finished shells, casings and powder.  Their powder works in Ukraine that accounted for the bulk of their production was gone.

Three quarters of all iron ore and manganese was in Ukraine.  Coal production fell dramatically as well.  They even lost a sizable amount of its arable land and crops.  But perhaps most significantly



These were the Soviet losses throughout the war are you trying to tell me the majority of these losses were in 1941?  They lost their ass in 1941 but they still lost a lot in subsequent years as well.

Losses throughout the war:
Tanks 83,500
SP guns 13,000
AC- 37,500
Trucks 351,800
Aircraft about 125,000

Through Lend lease the Soviets were provided with:

22 million artillery shells/bombs, nearly 1 billion shell casings, 317,000 tons of explosive materials and 103,000 tons of toluene.  The Soviets manufactured 116,000 tons of toluene during the war and 600,000 tons of explosive materials in part using materials obtained through Lend-Lease.  So but for Lend Lease they would have had less than half the ammunition supply they had.  Lend-lease accounted for a great percentage of their ammunition supply during the darkest hours their production picked up after they started getting territory back. 


Lend lease sent the equipment to build and outfit numerous refineries Theses refineries accounted for 5% of crude production and 20% of cracking ability.  20% might not sound like that much but it is significant.  Technical assistance was rendered with their own existing refineries as well there is no way to measure what the result was but it had to be something.     

According to Feeding the Bear, Lend-lease provided production equipment and fuel additives that raised the capacity of Soviet aviation fuel output from 110,00 metric tons in 1941 to 1.67 million metric tons in 1944. There is no way the Soviets ever would have remotely approached this capacity without the US assistance. In the meantime this production was less than half of their total supply, Lend Lease delivered 59% of aviation fuel outright. 3/4 of their aviation fuel used during the war was attributable to Lend-Lease. Obviously since their production didn't ramp up until late in the war the overwhelming majority of what they used in 1942 and 1943 was from Lend-lease.

Of course they would not have needed as much aviation fuel without lend lease because they would not have had as many aircraft or bombs.  Some of the most vital components of Soviet aircraft were supplied through Lend-Lease such as 45% of copper and 55% of Aluminum came from Lend-Lease.  Copper is used in wiring in aircraft among other things and aluminum is used for both the plane itself and also the engine (tank engines too).  Certainly losing over half of such vital raw materials would seriously curtail production.  This doesn’t even take into account the tools for construction of aircraft that the US provided (the US provided 30% of Soviet machine tools and they were more advanced than Soviet tooling) and other raw materials provided.  Aircraft provided via Lend-lease accounted for a significant percentage of the aircraft used on the front lines.  They never would have achieved air Supremacy without both Lend-Lease and the Allied Air campaign causing Germany to keep the bulk of the Luftwaffee protecting the homeland. The Germany military with strong air support facing the less well supplied Soviet military would have meant no ability of the Soviet forces to advance.  Lendlease even accounted for a great deal of the USSR's railroad equipment and trucks (over 350,000 trucks provided).  This doesn't even take into account all the food that was provided- canned food so would feed troops in the field.

The great advances the Soviets made were enabled by Lend-lease and the Allied effort siphoning off the bulk of Germany's airpower and 40% of their ground forces.  A sizable amount of German production went to the Kreigsmarine, V2 rockets to use on the UK and anti-aircraft artillery to defend from the bombing campaign.  The largest amount of their ammunition production went to...AAA shells.  The Germans would have been able to devote more production to use against rhe USSR but for the air campaign and would have produced far more than they did historically and despite the air campaign they still produced more aircraft than the USSR which was getting tons of help through lend-lease.

I always love the crap about how the war was won in 1942 before lend-lease kicked in.  That is why it took till 1945 for the war to end...

The Allies combined outnumbered Germany in every category from population to soldiers to production by huge margins.  It still took nearly a year after Overlord for Germany to fall.  Germany was bombed to hell, lost their oil supplies so had little fuel and sill took a long time to be defeated. The Soviets would have been stuck in a stalemate with Germany outside of Moscow and would have eventually sued for peace.

The only reason that didn't happen is because if the Allies allowed Germany to consolidate its gains then it would have been an even bigger threat and taken even greater effort to deal with.  The Allies thus chose to help the USSR with Lend-lease aid so they could defeat Germany together so the effort was less than would have otherwise been required if going it alone.

The Western Allies could have defeated Germany without Soviet help but it would have required a larger effort and taken longer thus the bomb would have been used on Germany.  Germany was spared mainly because by the time the bomb was ready for use the war was won. 

VonManstein was arguably the best German General of the war but not a miracle worker.  Logistics win wars, tacticians only help speed up victory or slow defeat. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 11, 2015, 04:51:AM
A post I wrote years ago while debating WWII:

The major problems facing the Soviet forces when the Germans invaded is they expanded from 1.5 million to 5 million in such a short period of time that they lacked a lot of proper equipment and also training.  The Soviets had a lot of old and obsolete equipment in their ranks but much of this was thinned out during the first year of the war.  They also had very poor maintenance so plenty of this equipment was not even fully operational.  Since they were in the midst of reform and decided to concentrate tanks in armored units a lot of men were in transit.  Many were separated from their vehicles and had no idea where they were supposed to go or where their vehicles were.  Even the General Staff had no idea where some of the units were, or even destined for. This makes things rather difficult to run a war.   

To make it worse Stalin’s purges got rid of the most capable soldiers at all levels so not even they top leadership had many skilled personnel.  Political commissars had to give permission for the movements of units.  Apart from them being slow in making decisions communication took some time traveling from the front to them and vice versa.  Worse yet, they tried to attack everything, and in war if you attack everything, you attack nothing. There is also an old Russian saying that goes "try to catch many rabbits, and you catch none;" certainly fitting of the Soviets' counterattack. The Soviet method of defense was mono-dimensional: hold ground at all cost, which was an ineffective response to the German blitz. This made it easy for the Germans to flank then surround the Red Army, resulting in enormous losses of men and machine for the Soviets.

Even before the Soviets changed their fighting methods the chance for large scale captures on the order of those that occurred July-October were nearly impossible.  By November the Germans had overextended their supply lines and could not perform any major sweeping maneuvers.  Without major improvement to their logistics system they had little hope of pressing into the USSR any further.  They progressed a little bit further in 1942 but not to any large degree.  They simply didn’t have the logistics for it.  Part of this can be attributed to the scorched earth policy. Another is that they failed to truly attempt to win over the disaffected population.  Some looked at the Germans as liberators at first but the Germans failed to nurse this and try to use it to their advantage.  This is a blunder of the first order.  The net result is that unless they built a lot more railways close to the fronts and stockpiled supplies on large scale and had large numbers of trucks to move the supplies along with the troops they would have little chance of success moving further.  As they moved they would have to expand the tracks.  It would take years for Germany to retool their economy to be able to do this if at all.  This means as far as the Germans were concerned they were stuck fighting on a front that had little chance of advancing. They could counter attack and move around a bit but no sweeping movements like in the years passed. 

The Soviets had just taken a big hit.  By the year’s end they lost territory that accounted for a lot of their industrial and agricultural products.  They lost 3/4 of their iron ore, coal and manganese production as well.  GNP was reduced by 1/3 overall. They lost lands with 50 million people on them if you count those occupied in the Baltics, Finland and Poland so they went from 190 million down to 140 million.  Due to the prior wars women accounted for a higher percentage of the population. In 1942 steel production had fallen to 8 million ton compared with 18 million before the war.  In the 1930s the Soviets began to build plants east of the Urals.  Some of these plants were built with American help and many were built using American designs. These plants were more efficient than the older ones in Europe but there were not enough to account for a lot of production and worse not a large population base where they were built.  Thus they still relied on the older less efficient plants until the war.  The loss of those plants forced them to rely on the new ones and they even built more of them.  They had to force a lot of people to move near them and forced 12 hour shifts on all workers.  This enabled to Soviets to continue to produce weapons.  Moscow was a major industrial center as well and production there continued. 

In 1942 some major issues developed.  One was that these plants were so far from the front.  This was the plan so they would not be within German bomber range but distance hurts both ways.  Most rail traffic from the East was routed through Moscow.  Many believe that if Moscow was lost the Soviets would have been unable to get equipment to the fronts any longer.  Even with Moscow under Soviet control it took some time for items to reach the front line and it was a large front.  The best way to express things is by building stocks of items on hand near the front and to move production to these stockpiles over time to keep them from being depleted.  Losing a lot of raw materials meant the Soviets were facing shortages though.  They were feeding hand to mouth.  The Soviets ordered long lists of raw materials from Lend-lease.  They also ordered a lot of planes so that they could use them until Soviet production was fully on line.  In 1942 they nursed their assets and thus had to conserve artillery shells and other equipment they were short on. 

The correspondence from Soviet leaders tends to indicate that by the end of 1942 they were in desperate need of raw materials or they would not be able to meet output requirements.  Indeed 55% of all aluminum used during the war came from the US. 45 percent of copper came from the US.  1/3 of all munitions came from the US.  1/3 or more of a huge number of raw materials came from the US.  Military weapons are built using machine tools. Roughly 30 percent of machine tools built during the entire war came from the US. The US provided enough steel to build 70,000 T-34 tanks. Since they didn't build anywhere near that many it means Lend-lease alone accounted for enough steel for all their medium tanks plus some to spare for other things.  It also means their entire domestic production was able to be used for other things.

There is no way to know how important the American contribution was in 1942 and 43.  In some 1942 months half of all munitions was coming from the US.  Suppose it took 1 month for munitions to reach solders from the time of being manufactured.  This means one month from the time used there could have been some type of shortage. We don’t know what the actual transit time to each area of the front nor do we know exact expenditures of each area so it is impossible to predict the exact time that there may have been a shortage. American production averaged out to certain numbers but at the time of delivery might have accounted for an even larger percentage of materials available at that time.  That being the case aid could have been downright instrumental at times.

To provide an illustration take the following into consideration.  The US stopped producing artillery shells because they had a surplus of shells and Congress cut off funding to save money.  The army burned through their stocks in 1944 and there was a shell shortage.  This certainly hurt the army’s progress.  While the US Army had relatively accurate fire and the best artillery during the war, the Soviets relied on numbers.  They had over 100,000 artillery weapons by the end of the war.  They launched massive bombardments and relied on the number of shells not on accurate fire. They thus burned through a lot of ammo.  Losing 1/3 of munitions would certainly reduce the number of shells stocked.  The US accounted for a large percentage of the materials used by the Soviets for their own shell production so the loss actually would have been more substantial than just a third.

In terms of equipment the Soviets would have had problems with transportation if not for Lend-Lease.   Domestic production was only perhaps 250,000 and the US provided more than double this amount of motor vehicles.  Moreover 90 percent of trains and rails were from the allies.  Since the factories were mostly in Eastern Russia railways were vital to moving equipment.  Railways were also vital to building up forces. The Soviets spent months sending units to Kursk for example.  The Soviets learned their mistake of launching an offensive along the entire front and learned to pinprick and stagger attacks at different times to keep the Germans off balance.  They also needed a lot of replacements given their high casualties and these were sent by rail and truck.  After supplies were unloaded from the rail they were brought to the troops by truck.  Trucks were extremely important for not only supplying the men but transporting them around.  Soldiers who march long distances are not very valuable in combat. Marches wear men down and make them much less effective.  Also the distance that can be covered is much less.  The USSR is huge and to say the rails and trucks were not significant would be crazy.  In order to advance all the way to Germany they needed transportation than they were able to produce.  The further they moved West the further from the Ural factories.  The German rails were constantly running throughout the war to supply their forces that was why they were targeted by Allied air power.   

The USSR was really at peak production given the manpower they had. As time goes on experienced workers get faster but there was little opportunity to build more plants and use even more workers.  Men were much more important in the military and as the war went on more and more men were pulled from work into the military.  By the end of the war 80% of agricultural workers and more than half of factory workers were women. It would have been really difficult for the USSR to have expanded the workforce and production too much more.  The upshot of this is that if the USSR needed to produce something else it would have had to stop producing something else in favor of the new item.  For example if the Soviets needed to build a lot more trains and railroad rails that would have meant less workers to build tanks and less steel to use on tanks as well because the steel was being used on the trains and rails.  If they wanted to build more trucks that too would have used resources that historically had been allocated to something else.  They would have needed to devote more to steel production and mining of metals which in turn would lower the resources for finished products.

As soon as the Soviets recovered land they pressed the men living in such territory into military service. That was how they fed the voracious manpower appetite of the Red Army.  But for Lend-lease though they would not have been able to liberate the lands when they did and thus would not have been able to press such men into service. They would have been forced to conserve their assets.  That in turn would have meant stalemate, they would not have been able to do anything besides hold their ground.  Since Germany lacked the logistics to get into Moscow and beyond again that means stalemate. 

Hitler wanted the USSR to sue for peace and give up the territory already won there was no actual intention to drive to the Urals he knew it wasn't possible and the land most valuable is what was already conquered.  If Stalin didn't receive help from the Allies no way he would have continued the war he would simply have agreed to peace, tried to rebuild and hoped he could eventually rebuild enough to resume the war and liberate the lost land.

While Germany would have to station troops on the border with the USSR just in case they would not have needed to leave 60% and thus when the Allies did decide to invade Europe Germany would have more forces to use and this means the Allies would have to devote more forces than they did historically.  This is why they wanted to keep the USSR in the war.  Stalin feared the Allies were providing lend lease aid in order to use his strategy of getting Germany and the USSR to exhaust one another so kept demanding they open the second front ASAP.  He periodically threatened to sue for peace if we didn't.

 

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 11, 2015, 07:41:AM
I'm not surprised that it took two years to write.  ???  :D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 11, 2015, 08:38:AM
Well, all this had kind of gotton out of hand! Still think Putin is an arse though :)

I don't ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 15, 2015, 10:34:PM
Now Putin is missing. Very odd for a head of state.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 16, 2015, 02:03:AM
Now Putin is missing. Very odd for a head of state.

Yes, I also heard that but wouldn't the news make more of it? Lets hope he's not in a 'bunker' somewhere!!  :o :o ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 16, 2015, 02:06:AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kremlin-wont-comment-report-putin-missing-moscow-n323961
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 16, 2015, 04:46:PM


I still have to reply to some of the crap posted on this thread.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 16, 2015, 06:36:PM
Now Putin is missing. Very odd for a head of state.

He's back!  :)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 16, 2015, 08:02:PM
He's back!  :)

Shite!  ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 16, 2015, 08:29:PM

I still have to reply to some of the crap posted on this thread.
  You and me both NGB :o
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 16, 2015, 08:48:PM
Shite!  ;D

It might not be him though - the evil West might have kidnapped him and implanted an imposter  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 17, 2015, 02:45:AM

I still have to reply to some of the crap posted on this thread.

You should read this book

http://www.amazon.com/The-Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design/dp/1591148065

and if you don't want to bother then consider:

"In August, Stalin decided on an agreement with Hitler. A non-aggression pact with Germany assured the Soviet Union tangible advantages. The Soviets would recover eastern Poland, which had formerly belonged to Imperial Russia. The Germans pledged support in the USSR's claims on Bessarabia and agreed to define Eastern Europe's Baltic and Balkan states as belonging to the Soviet "sphere of interest."

Germany was preparing to invade Poland in case a territorial dispute and related grievances defied peaceful settlement. England and France supported Poland. Stalin reasoned that were he to conclude a military compact with the West, the powerful coalition would probably discourage Hitler from war.

A German-Soviet non-aggression pact, however, would give Hitler a free hand to invade Poland. England, as Poland's ally, would declare war on Germany, drag a reluctant France into the conflagration, and Italy would rush to Hitler's side. The Soviet formula for national security rested with aggravating the conflicting interests among the "imperialist" nations and maintaining neutrality as these states expended their resources in a prolonged struggle.

Stalin had defined the premise during his March 10, 1939, speech in Moscow:

Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally "in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents.2
On August 23, 1939, the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was in Moscow. He and Molotov signed the historic German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The following evening, Stalin hosted prominent members of the Soviet Political Bureau in his apartment. Among the dinner guests were Molotov, Voroshilov, Lavrenti P. Beria and Nikita Khrushchev.

Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time. The Soviet premier described the treaty with Germany as a game of "who outwits whom."3 He concluded that the Soviet Union held the advantage both morally and militarily. A few months later, the Soviet Foreign Office explained Stalin's decision in a telegram to its embassy in Tokyo: "The ratifying of our treaty with Germany was dictated by the need for a war in Europe."4

On August 25, 1939, the Swiss periodical Revue de droit international published the text of a speech Stalin delivered on August 19 to a closed session of the Political Bureau in Moscow. He was quoted as follows:

It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out.5
In November, Stalin responded in Pravda that the Swiss article was a "heap of lies."6 (The Russian researcher T. S. Bushuyevoy discovered Stalin's original text in the former Soviet archives in 1994; it conformed to the Swiss version.)

The Soviets seized a generous portion of Eastern Europe only days before France's surrender. In September and October 1939, the Soviet government had negotiated permission with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to establish military bases at their Baltic ports. In June 1940, Molotov reproached the Lithuanian prime minister, Anastas Merkys, for the alleged poor security provided the Soviet garrison; a Red Army soldier had supposedly been bushwhacked. On June 14, Molotov presented Lithuania's foreign minister with an ultimatum demanding reinforcement of the Soviet military contingent to prevent further "provocation." The diminutive republic acquiesced.

Similar ultimatums were presented to Latvia and Estonia. On the 21st, the Baltic states were declared Soviet republics, following sham elections. Molotov told the Lithuanian foreign minister on June 30, "Now we're convinced more than ever that the brilliant comrade Lenin was not wrong in asserting that World War II will bring us to power in Europe, just as World War I helped us to power in Russia."11

When Moscow presented its demand on June 23 to reoccupy Bessarabia, the formerly Russian eastern province of Romania, Ribbentrop pledged Germany's support. He asked only that the sovereignty of Romania's remaining territory be respected, to safeguard the Reich's economic interests.

Apologists for the USSR, and they abound among historians and sociologists in democratic countries, excuse these Soviet land grabs as defensive measures. The threat of potential German aggression supposedly compelled Moscow to extend the USSR's frontiers to blunt the impetus of a German offensive. The premise ignores the fact that the Soviet operations in the Baltic and into Bessarabia occurred opposite a virtually undefended German border. Four German infantry divisions and six militia divisions protected the demarcation line shared with the Soviet Union. Two were transferred to the western front in June."

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html


These works simply confirm what I learned years ago in College about Stalin.  There are many works that reveal the truth if one actually cares to learn the truth.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 21, 2015, 05:36:PM
Now Putin is saying that Russia using the nuclear bomb is not out of the question.
Such a great guy!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 21, 2015, 06:23:PM
Sorry, too lazy to translate this myself, so I put it through Google Translate.
http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE2597883/ruslands-ambassadoer-truer-danmark-med-angreb-med-atommissiler/#!ditpolitiken-1

Russian Ambassador threatens Denmark with attack with nuclear missiles
In an opinion piece comes the Russian ambassador to Denmark with a stark warning over NATO cooperation
Threat. The planet's most controversial man in the past year, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already soldiers into the Ukrainian land, but also NATO countries can be attacked, warns that large country in the east. - Photo: Pavel Golovkin (Archive) / AP

Threat. The planet's most controversial man in the past year, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already soldiers into the Ukrainian land, but also NATO countries can be attacked, warns that large country in the east. - Photo: Pavel Golovkin (Archive) / AP

If someone would think that Denmark's relations with Russia could become more strained, there may be cause for reconsideration.

In an opinion piece in Jyllands-Posten Saturday warned the Russian ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, that Denmark will be the target of a possible Russian nuclear attack if we join NATO missile defense.

"I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the US-led missile defense. If this happens, the Danish warships targets for Russian nuclear missiles ".

"Denmark will be part of the threat to Russia. It will be less peaceful, and relations with Russia will be damaged. Of course it is your decision - I would just remind you that I will lose both money and security, "said Mikhail Vanin Jyllands-Posten.

READ Also Europe extends sanctions against Russia

Furthermore it mentions ambassador to Russia at the same time have missiles, "as guaranteed penetrate the future global missile defense system."

Crossing inspires wonder and anger among Danish politicians. Among them is Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard (R), despite the talk of attack calls for calm.

"If he has decided in this direction, it is obviously unacceptable. Russia knows very well that Nato's missile defense is defensive and not against them. We disagree with Russia on many important things, but it is important that the tone between us does not escalate, "said Martin Lidegaard Jyllands-Posten.

SF's defense spokesman and former foreign minister, Holger K. Nielsen, who himself is opposed to missile defense, is puzzled and says to the newspaper that "it is a crazy opinion that Denmark should be a target for Russian missiles".
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2015, 08:41:PM
Now Putin is saying that Russia using the nuclear bomb is not out of the question.
Such a great guy!
  The media are just making trouble, Alias. The reports a few days ago were talking about Putin even though he had said nothing, nor been seen. It is almost as if the media have an agenda at the moment. Whatever Putin does or even doesn't say is reported as news and people are being propagandised to see Russia and Putin as the enemy when really the enemies are much closer to home.
     It is Russia and Putin who have done the most to avoid conflict and there is much more to the whole story than is being told by western media at the moment. The facts do speak for themselves, and when you take away all the opinion and comment, US/UK, NATO aggression is the threat, not Russian aggression.
      Have a quick search on US NATO first use policy and you will find that they have always refused to sign up to a no first use(NFS) policy. Russia also have dropped this pledge in 1993. The reports about what  Putin allegedly said is nothing more than hot air. We have the same policy and therefore you could equally credibly report that the US/UK haven't ruled out using nuclear weapons. It is not a story, it's propaganda.
     The facts on the ground are that US has by some distance more armed forces in other countries than any other nation.I would confidently hazard that it has dropped more bombs since WW2 than the rest of the world combined. The bombing campaign in the Vietnam war accounted for a massive 7.6 million tons of ordnance being dropped. To put some context on this figure, it is three times the total amount of ordnance dropped during the entire second world war.
      Only one country ever in the history of the world has used a nuclear bomb( not once but twice) and that country is obviously the US.
      The invasions, wars and bombing campaigns of recent years have all been initiated by US/UK and have caused an untold number of deaths(murders), horrific injuries, millions of refugees and terrorists running amok in the Middle East. The US with it's dreams of world domination based on the belief of "American exceptionalism" has created chaos the world over and are self evidently the worlds biggest threat.
      The US/UK, NATO and EU are interfering and fomenting unrest in Ukraine and have been from the beginning. The anti Putin propaganda from the media and government became hysterical some time ago and we really should be asking far more searching questions of our own leaders, especially after Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than swallowing whatever is fed us as truth.
      If we didn't know before Iraq that our governments were willing to lie to launch an aggressive war and if we were still unaware that our media were incapable/unwilling to ask the questions that we expect from an effective and honest media, surely we know now.
       Putin is not a threat to world peace, US/UK, NATO are.
       Why else would the US need to spend 640 billion dollars compared to Russias 90 billion if not for aggression. If Russia really want to act aggressively on the world stage they need to up their arms spending.
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on March 21, 2015, 09:01:PM
  The media are just making trouble, Alias. The reports a few days ago were talking about Putin even though he had said nothing, nor been seen. It is almost as if the media have an agenda at the moment. Whatever Putin does or even doesn't say is reported as news and people are being propagandised to see Russia and Putin as the enemy when really the enemies are much closer to home.
     It is Russia and Putin who have done the most to avoid conflict and there is much more to the whole story than is being told by western media at the moment. The facts do speak for themselves, and when you take away all the opinion and comment, US/UK, NATO aggression is the threat, not Russian aggression.
      Have a quick search on US NATO first use policy and you will find that they have always refused to sign up to a no first use(NFS) policy. Russia also have dropped this pledge in 1993. The reports about what  Putin allegedly said is nothing more than hot air. We have the same policy and therefore you could equally credibly report that the US/UK haven't ruled out using nuclear weapons. It is not a story, it's propaganda.
     The facts on the ground are that US has by some distance more armed forces in other countries than any other nation.I would confidently hazard that it has dropped more bombs since WW2 than the rest of the world combined. The bombing campaign in the Vietnam war accounted for a massive 7.6 million tons of ordnance being dropped. To put some context on this figure, it is three times the total amount of ordnance dropped during the entire second world war.
      Only one country ever in the history of the world has used a nuclear bomb( not once but twice) and that country is obviously the US.
      The invasions, wars and bombing campaigns of recent years have all been initiated by US/UK and have caused an untold number of deaths(murders), horrific injuries, millions of refugees and terrorists running amok in the Middle East. The US with it's dreams of world domination based on the belief of "American exceptionalism" has created chaos the world over and are self evidently the worlds biggest threat.
      The US/UK, NATO and EU are interfering and fomenting unrest in Ukraine and have been from the beginning. The anti Putin propaganda from the media and government became hysterical some time ago and we really should be asking far more searching questions of our own leaders, especially after Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than swallowing whatever is fed us as truth.
      If we didn't know before Iraq that our governments were willing to lie to launch an aggressive war and if we were still unaware that our media were incapable/unwilling to ask the questions that we expect from an effective and honest media, surely we know now.
       Putin is not a threat to world peace, US/UK, NATO are.
       Why else would the US need to spend 640 billion dollars compared to Russias 90 billion if not for aggression. If Russia really want to act aggressively on the world stage they need to up their arms spending.
     

No, the Russian ambassador in Denmark actually said that it wouldn´t be impossible that Russia would nuke us. He doesn´t just go out and say something like that on his own.
The Danish foreign minister is out reacting to this - he is not the media.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on April 09, 2015, 07:19:PM
at the end amerca cant even bring democracy to amerca the idea they can bring it to anywhere else is laughable.

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.democracynow.org%2F2008%2F10%2F9%2Fgreg_palast_on_vote_rigging_and&ei=RMImVZ3vE8bxUu_rgagN&usg=AFQjCNFFfLqnhw1uw82ekzbJ3VflzkzVRQ&sig2=lP7k0wVsdias8ZShjGmtxA&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d24
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on April 09, 2015, 08:04:PM
at the end amerca cant even bring democracy to amerca the idea they can bring it to anywhere else is laughable.

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.democracynow.org%2F2008%2F10%2F9%2Fgreg_palast_on_vote_rigging_and&ei=RMImVZ3vE8bxUu_rgagN&usg=AFQjCNFFfLqnhw1uw82ekzbJ3VflzkzVRQ&sig2=lP7k0wVsdias8ZShjGmtxA&bvm=bv.90491159,d.d24

It is all about power, but they (we) call it "bringing democracy".
That said, somehow I feel better about "our side" having the power, we might lose it soon enough.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: mertol22 on May 31, 2015, 12:03:AM
If the Nazis had taken Russia  its almost certain I may not be here now, one Golden rule stick to it and live don't mess with Russia  , remember and remember well in Earths history to the last 30 seconds only the USA have used nuclear weapons in a war Russia have launched none.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on May 31, 2015, 12:52:AM
If the Nazis had taken Russia  its almost certain I may not be here now, one Golden rule stick to it and live don't mess with Russia  , remember and remember well in Earths history to the last 30 seconds only the USA have used nuclear weapons in a war Russia have launched none.

Yet.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on May 31, 2015, 10:47:AM
It's our support for the Ukraine which is the stumbling block now. I wish this country would keep out of the politics,etc of other countries and at least learn lessons from past UNNECESSARY wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.Where did that get us ? Stop sending funds abroad,as invariably they end up in the hands of corrupt governments and terrorists. Will this country ever learn ?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Alias on June 04, 2015, 01:51:AM
Yet.
Let´s give them the benefit of the doubt - personally I like that better than suspicion in advance. In gereral in all aspects of life.
Personally I am more scared of ISIS who have no values it seems. Thugs, we need to stop that.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on June 19, 2015, 10:10:PM
here is a good documentary on Russian soldiers In Ukraine.

Selfie Soldiers: Russia Checks in to Ukraine
"As the conflict in Ukraine continues, so too does Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denial of any Russian involvement. But a recent report from think tank the Atlantic Council used open source information and social media to find evidence of Russian troops across the border"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso)

Also a Russian state news channel said they could turn the USA into 'Radioactive Ash'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkMT_oLempE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkMT_oLempE)

Still got your head buried in the sand Gringo?  ::)

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on June 21, 2015, 10:13:AM
Putin the windbag. Looking somewhat puffy around the gills lately.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on June 23, 2015, 08:27:PM
here is a good documentary on Russian soldiers In Ukraine.

Selfie Soldiers: Russia Checks in to Ukraine
"As the conflict in Ukraine continues, so too does Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denial of any Russian involvement. But a recent report from think tank the Atlantic Council used open source information and social media to find evidence of Russian troops across the border"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso)

Also a Russian state news channel said they could turn the USA into 'Radioactive Ash'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkMT_oLempE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkMT_oLempE)

Still got your head buried in the sand Gringo?  ::)
  If you rely on sources like this in order to form your judgement on geopolitical matters then it is no surprise that you are so ill informed.
     In fact the comments about the first video are more illuminating than the video itself. You're not very good at this are you? Your arguments have so far consisted of nothing more than posting links to dubious videos which you appear to take as undisputed truth without questioning obvious things first, like the source for starters. Can't you form your own opinion?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on June 24, 2015, 07:03:PM
  If you rely on sources like this in order to form your judgement on geopolitical matters then it is no surprise that you are so ill informed.
     In fact the comments about the first video are more illuminating than the video itself. You're not very good at this are you? Your arguments have so far consisted of nothing more than posting links to dubious videos which you appear to take as undisputed truth without questioning obvious things first, like the source for starters. Can't you form your own opinion?

(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lol_ricky_gervais.gif)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: mertol22 on July 19, 2015, 10:25:PM
Let´s give them the benefit of the doubt - personally I like that better than suspicion in advance. In gereral in all aspects of life.
Personally I am more scared of ISIS who have no values it seems. Thugs, we need to stop that.
IS  are going to be wiped out soon including women and children blitzed in heavy air attacks , that's what war is one dirty mess, Russia  need to be loked at  but no more one day you might need them , should IS bring war to their soil expect Russia to begin carpet bombing without any NATO or UN clearance, likewise Israel  they will remove countries if need be Israel  have more bomb shelters than anyone else.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on July 20, 2015, 12:26:AM
IS  are going to be wiped out soon including women and children blitzed in heavy air attacks , that's what war is one dirty mess, Russia  need to be loked at  but no more one day you might need them , should IS bring war to their soil expect Russia to begin carpet bombing without any NATO or UN clearance, likewise Israel  they will remove countries if need be Israel  have more bomb shelters than anyone else.

They will have to put troops on the ground to get rid of ISIS. strategic bombing can only soften a target
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: mertol22 on July 20, 2015, 09:56:PM
They will have to put troops on the ground to get rid of ISIS. strategic bombing can only soften a target
There are other ways  some very dirty  mainly  ensure all drinking water is contaminated, destroy all food supplies destroy hospitals and schools, training camps, destroy the oilfield they have encircle and wait for them to starve to death,
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on August 18, 2015, 05:16:PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31962644
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on September 29, 2015, 05:10:PM
Video allegedly banned in USA:  Putin discussing USA and ISIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykb5sxTl1Rw
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on September 29, 2015, 05:22:PM
Video allegedly banned in USA:  Putin discussing USA and ISIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykb5sxTl1Rw
Hi Roch we should have kept our noses out of Lybia, and Iraq.
The west have stirred a hornets nest imo.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on September 29, 2015, 05:25:PM
In fact every where the west gets involved we leave behind a disaster.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on September 29, 2015, 05:35:PM
It may not be to our taste, but the fact is sometimes dictatorship works.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on September 29, 2015, 05:38:PM
In fact every where the west gets involved we leave behind a disaster.
I find it hard to believe the Arab spring just happened in one country after another, imo there was meddling by the west and they got more than they bargained for.
The minute these awful facist dictators were toppled the man made countries created by the west collapsed and all the old differences and grievances came to the fore again.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on September 30, 2015, 12:08:PM
It may not be to our taste, but the fact is sometimes dictatorship works.





I agree buddy. Each to their own. We should leave well alone.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on September 30, 2015, 04:19:PM
Hi Roch we should have kept our noses out of Lybia, and Iraq.
The west have stirred a hornets nest imo.

ISIS started in Syria. ISIS was able to penetrate into Iraq because of the inept response from the Iraqi government. That the US didn't provide more aid to Iraq to stop ISIS right away rests entirely on Obama's shoulders.  He refused to leave any US troops and refused to do anything beyond drop a few meaningless bombs.

The West wanted Assad gone but no such countries actually stepped up to get rid of him.  They left the Syrians to fend for themselves just like the World left Poland to fend for itself in 1939 when attacked by Germany and the USSR.  War was declared against Germany but no one actually did anything to save Poland. The US is one of the few countries willing to actually put our blood and treasure on the line for human rights- we did so in Iraq until Obama came to power and Obama changed things drastically.

The US didn't just bomb Iraq and leave the Iraqi's on their own to form a new government.  We provided security while they organized a democratic government and even after that government was formed we stayed there to fight against the extremists who were terrorizing the population. Part and parcel of carrying the fight ourselves to the enemy with the Iraqi forces subordinate was to prevent the Iraqi forces from committing atrocities. It wasn't simply because the Iraqi forces could not fight without us.

Instead of remaining there to make sure the progress continued  in a positive way Obama acted like Europe often acts and withdrew completely saying leave them to their own devices.  The West criticized Assad and said he had to go but no one had the guts to remove him and install a government that the Syrian population would back.  No one wanted to put in the effort that is required.  The result of that is that ISIS was able to establish and grow unfettered and no one did crap despite all the atrocities.  They didn't just brutalize the entire population- which is bad enough in terms of human rights violations but they wiped out the Christian populations of every area they entered. They killed them or forced them to leave. What did the West and UN do in the face of this?  Nothing.  It is way worse than what supposedly happened in the former Yugoslavia but no one acted.  Why not?  Because the leaders and populations of most countries don't care enough about protecting others to put their blood and treasure on the line they are all talk no action and Obama is one of them.

The West saw an opportunity to get rid of a dictator in Libya who in the past was pretty horrible but in recent times wasn't causing much trouble.  He gave up his WMD programs and fell in line.  But it was perceived as a chance for some payback so they bombed his forces but refused to go in with ground forces to secure the land so anarchy followed.

At this point the West feels some guilt and is taking in some refugees but still is unwilling to provide aid to stop the refugees from fleeing.  You would think that they would finally realize it is better to defeat ISIS and make it safe for the people to go back to their homes instead of go to other countries but nope.  Instead they are going to allow Russia to prop up Assad and hope that they defeat ISIS even while still saying Assad must go.

The US is the only Western Country where the population actually would have supported ground forces being used against ISIS.  The rest of the West doesn't care enough.  Our leader though was exactly like his European counterparts all mouth no brains or guts.

Obama and his counterparts are so stupid they actually think it is a good idea to let Iran spread it's power and eventually get a nuclear weapon. The stupidity of those in charge is mind boggling.  Instead of nipping problems in the bud they wait until all hell breaks loose and the result is that it is much more difficult and costly when action is finally taken.



Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2015, 04:28:PM
It may not be to our taste, but the fact is sometimes dictatorship works.


Buddy, I'm inclined to agree. In so many cases, where people are suddenly given their freedom after being confined by rigid rules, they have no idea how to be.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on September 30, 2015, 04:39:PM

Buddy, I'm inclined to agree. In so many cases, where people are suddenly given their freedom after being confined by rigid rules, they have no idea how to be.

Crime in the UK would be much lower if there were some brutal dictator running things but would you prefer living with no freedom and state sponsored brutality instead of the current crime rate?

Those brutalized by Saddam's rule were much more happy to be living in post Saddam Iraq despite the attacks coming from terrorists that supplanted the attacks from Saddam's forced.  Naturally those who were prosperous under Saddam because they were part of those doing the brutalizing and exploiting the majority preferred the existing system. 

I would not want to live under a dictator, I can't fault others who feel the same way. ISIS is an oligarchy which is simply a form of dictatorship as was Taliban rule.  Living under their rule is absolutely horrible.   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on September 30, 2015, 04:57:PM
ISIS started in Syria. ISIS was able to penetrate into Iraq because of the inept response from the Iraqi government. That the US didn't provide more aid to Iraq to stop ISIS right away rests entirely on Obama's shoulders.  He refused to leave any US troops and refused to do anything beyond drop a few meaningless bombs.

The West wanted Assad gone but no such countries actually stepped up to get rid of him.  They left the Syrians to fend for themselves just like the World left Poland to fend for itself in 1939 when attacked by Germany and the USSR.  War was declared against Germany but no one actually did anything to save Poland. The US is one of the few countries willing to actually put our blood and treasure on the line for human rights- we did so in Iraq until Obama came to power and Obama changed things drastically.

The US didn't just bomb Iraq and leave the Iraqi's on their own to form a new government.  We provided security while they organized a democratic government and even after that government was formed we stayed there to fight against the extremists who were terrorizing the population. Part and parcel of carrying the fight ourselves to the enemy with the Iraqi forces subordinate was to prevent the Iraqi forces from committing atrocities. It wasn't simply because the Iraqi forces could not fight without us.

Instead of remaining there to make sure the progress continued  in a positive way Obama acted like Europe often acts and withdrew completely saying leave them to their own devices.  The West criticized Assad and said he had to go but no one had the guts to remove him and install a government that the Syrian population would back.  No one wanted to put in the effort that is required.  The result of that is that ISIS was able to establish and grow unfettered and no one did crap despite all the atrocities.  They didn't just brutalize the entire population- which is bad enough in terms of human rights violations but they wiped out the Christian populations of every area they entered. They killed them or forced them to leave. What did the West and UN do in the face of this?  Nothing.  It is way worse than what supposedly happened in the former Yugoslavia but no one acted.  Why not?  Because the leaders and populations of most countries don't care enough about protecting others to put their blood and treasure on the line they are all talk no action and Obama is one of them.

The West saw an opportunity to get rid of a dictator in Libya who in the past was pretty horrible but in recent times wasn't causing much trouble.  He gave up his WMD programs and fell in line.  But it was perceived as a chance for some payback so they bombed his forces but refused to go in with ground forces to secure the land so anarchy followed.

At this point the West feels some guilt and is taking in some refugees but still is unwilling to provide aid to stop the refugees from fleeing.  You would think that they would finally realize it is better to defeat ISIS and make it safe for the people to go back to their homes instead of go to other countries but nope.  Instead they are going to allow Russia to prop up Assad and hope that they defeat ISIS even while still saying Assad must go.

The US is the only Western Country where the population actually would have supported ground forces being used against ISIS.  The rest of the West doesn't care enough.  Our leader though was exactly like his European counterparts all mouth no brains or guts.

Obama and his counterparts are so stupid they actually think it is a good idea to let Iran spread it's power and eventually get a nuclear weapon. The stupidity of those in charge is mind boggling.  Instead of nipping problems in the bud they wait until all hell breaks loose and the result is that it is much more difficult and costly when action is finally taken.
I don't agree with you war only causes more human suffering, Obama was right not to send in ground forces, interference by the west has caused most of thr trouble in the middle east imo.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on September 30, 2015, 05:21:PM

Buddy, I'm inclined to agree. In so many cases, where people are suddenly given their freedom after being confined by rigid rules, they have no idea how to be.
The west cobbled together tribes to make countries after the 1st and 2nd WW, we were happy for them to be kept in control by cruel dictators, once the dictators fall as in Yugoslavia old resentments come to the fore again. 
We meddled in many countries in the empire which led to wars after independence, however dreadful it is people have a right to choosing their own destiny ie. governments and cultures and way of life just as we have worked our own out over hundreds of years.
Keeping people down only causes more trouble in the long run..  We fought many wars over hundreds of years before we sorted out our borders and became more tolerant and democratic.  War is never an answer imo, Europe paid a heavy price for war and ,any who served in the II WW became pacifists after their experience serving in the services. The US doesn't understand this because they are a young country in comparison and have never suffered with a war on their own soil, they prefer to fight their wars in other people's countries.  imo
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2015, 06:32:PM
Crime in the UK would be much lower if there were some brutal dictator running things but would you prefer living with no freedom and state sponsored brutality instead of the current crime rate?

Those brutalized by Saddam's rule were much more happy to be living in post Saddam Iraq despite the attacks coming from terrorists that supplanted the attacks from Saddam's forced.  Naturally those who were prosperous under Saddam because they were part of those doing the brutalizing and exploiting the majority preferred the existing system. 

I would not want to live under a dictator, I can't fault others who feel the same way. ISIS is an oligarchy which is simply a form of dictatorship as was Taliban rule.  Living under their rule is absolutely horrible.

I DO take your point. Your last sentence may well be an understatement.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Jane on September 30, 2015, 06:39:PM
The west cobbled together tribes to make countries after the 1st and 2nd WW, we were happy for them to be kept in control by cruel dictators, once the dictators fall as in Yugoslavia old resentments come to the fore again. 
We meddled in many countries in the empire which led to wars after independence, however dreadful it is people have a right to choosing their own destiny ie. governments and cultures and way of life just as we have worked our own out over hundreds of years.
Keeping people down only causes more trouble in the long run..  We fought many wars over hundreds of years before we sorted out our borders and became more tolerant and democratic.  War is never an answer imo, Europe paid a heavy price for war and ,any who served in the II WW became pacifists after their experience serving in the services. The US doesn't understand this because they are a young country in comparison and have never suffered with a war on their own soil, they prefer to fight their wars in other people's countries.  imo

Maggie, I hear what you're saying but I just don't think there's "a one size fits all" answer. NOT going to war when necessary allows people like Hitler free rein. How else was he going to be stopped?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on September 30, 2015, 06:55:PM
Maggie, I hear what you're saying but I just don't think there's "a one size fits all" answer. NOT going to war when necessary allows people like Hitler free rein. How else was he going to be stopped?
I know what you are saying and it's difficult to disagree with you.  Most people who are pacifists argue that war and killing innocent civilians is never acceptable whatever the provocation and everything can be eventually sorted out by talking.. 
There is the argument that Hitler could have been stopped earlier, that the British and others knew he was building up an army in the Rhineland even though Germany was not allowed to have an army after the first war.  Countries turned a blind eye because they believed he would attack Russia not Europe. 
I think the majority Europe is far more aware that waging war in another country is wrong and because the US has never suffered a war on their land, have never experienced the bombing and devastation Europe suffered in the last war, they do not know what it's like to lose thousands of civilians to such attacks, bombing raids etc. and cannot grasp the true horror of war first hand.  Because of this they are generally more willing to argue in defence of war and ground troops etc.
The Vietnam war shook America with the huge death toll of their service personnel but that is not the same as endless bombing and destruction of their own homes and the death of their childen in their own country.....  imo
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 04:35:PM
I know what you are saying and it's difficult to disagree with you.  Most people who are pacifists argue that war and killing innocent civilians is never acceptable whatever the provocation and everything can be eventually sorted out by talking.. 
There is the argument that Hitler could have been stopped earlier, that the British and others knew he was building up an army in the Rhineland even though Germany was not allowed to have an army after the first war.  Countries turned a blind eye because they believed he would attack Russia not Europe. 
I think the majority Europe is far more aware that waging war in another country is wrong and because the US has never suffered a war on their land, have never experienced the bombing and devastation Europe suffered in the last war, they do not know what it's like to lose thousands of civilians to such attacks, bombing raids etc. and cannot grasp the true horror of war first hand.  Because of this they are generally more willing to argue in defence of war and ground troops etc.
The Vietnam war shook America with the huge death toll of their service personnel but that is not the same as endless bombing and destruction of their own homes and the death of their childen in their own country.....  imo

58,000 is not a huge death toll.  The North Vietnamese used terrorist tactics against South Vietnam.  They did some of the same things the Taliban are doing.  They killed thousands of teachers and other members of the intelligentsia. They kidnapped people from villages to force them to fight.  They killed anyone who opposed them. The US aid was to end this and to some extent it did bu only after we wiped out the Vietcong. The RVN was defeated in 1975 by a conventional invasion by North Vietnam.  The Chinese and Soviets poured equipment into North Vietnam, helped them build a massive conventional force and the US in contrast abided by the 1973 peace terms.  We stopped giving them military aid, fuel etc.  They launched a limited invasion to see if the US would respond.  We failed to use out air power to route them like we could have done and we failed to provide fuel, weapons etc.  The test was for a simple reason they didn't want to lose their entire military to us. Our inaction convinced North Vietnam we would not respond to a large scale invasion.  They launched it and they took over South Vietnam.  The only thing the US did was fly out those that we could and took in any refugees who could manage to escape on their own.  They took over and brutalized the population of South Vietnam, took their wealth and freedom.  Undoubtedly they would have been bette roff under RVN rule but no one would take a stand to help them.  The only reason the DRV had the power to take over was because China and the Soviets supplied them with so many weapons or they never would have been able to do it.  Today Vietnam has a mixed economy but that doesn't help those they robbed, killed, or brutalized and they still have a tolitarian government today not a democracy.

When one side is using force the only way to counter it is with force of your own.  If we didn't stand up in Korea then the people of South Korea would be just as miserable as those in North Korea.  The same troublemakers who armed North Vietnam armed North Korea and blessed their invasion.  Because we aided South Korea those in South Korea live in a very prosperous country with a strong democratic government.

The difference between what happened in Korea and Vietnam is that in 1950 we refused to allow the North to take over while in 1975 we allowed North Vietnam to invade with impunity.  The ones who suffered from that decision were those living in South Vietnam.   

People can make up any garbage they want at its core what it amounted to was the leaders of the US government didn't feel like spending more of our blood and treasure for the benefit of the people living in South Vietnam.

Just like the Allies stabbed the Poles in the back and refused force the USSR to allow the Free Poles to take over in Poland after WWII.  The Free Poles even fought to liberate France and in exchange they got sold out. The USSR was allowed to steal land from Poland that they took over in 1941 when they carved up Poland with Germany and started the whole mess and the Allies allowed it.

When the country being subjugated is some country other than yours it is easy to say who cares about them- let them live under a horrible regime with no freedoms too bad for them. 

That's really what it amount to- people saying too bad for the Syrians and Iraqis coming under ISIS rule and too bad for the Syrians being brutalized by Assad.  We the World who pledged to stop human rights violations will do nothing because we don't want to spend the effort involved.

We will stand by as Russia helps Assad stay in power by brutalizing and killing those who want democracy and will stand by as Isis kills people and to make it see like we do have a heart what we will do is take in refugees if they can manage to survive to make it to the West- that is how we will be charitable.

Evil wins when good men do nothing.  Putin and other bad men are doing things but the good men are doing token things that amount to nothing.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 01, 2015, 04:50:PM
58,000 is not a huge death toll.  The North Vietnamese used terrorist tactics against South Vietnam.  They did some of the same things the Taliban are doing.  They killed thousands of teachers and other members of the intelligentsia. They kidnapped people from villages to force them to fight.  They killed anyone who opposed them. The US aid was to end this and to some extent it did bu only after we wiped out the Vietcong. The RVN was defeated in 1975 by a conventional invasion by North Vietnam.  The Chinese and Soviets poured equipment into North Vietnam, helped them build a massive conventional force and the US in contrast abided by the 1973 peace terms.  We stopped giving them military aid, fuel etc.  They launched a limited invasion to see if the US would respond.  We failed to use out air power to route them like we could have done and we failed to provide fuel, weapons etc.  The test was for a simple reason they didn't want to lose their entire military to us. Our inaction convinced North Vietnam we would not respond to a large scale invasion.  They launched it and they took over South Vietnam.  The only thing the US did was fly out those that we could and took in any refugees who could manage to escape on their own.  They took over and brutalized the population of South Vietnam, took their wealth and freedom.  Undoubtedly they would have been bette roff under RVN rule but no one would take a stand to help them.  The only reason the DRV had the power to take over was because China and the Soviets supplied them with so many weapons or they never would have been able to do it.  Today Vietnam has a mixed economy but that doesn't help those they robbed, killed, or brutalized and they still have a tolitarian government today not a democracy.

When one side is using force the only way to counter it is with force of your own.  If we didn't stand up in Korea then the people of South Korea would be just as miserable as those in North Korea.  The same troublemakers who armed North Vietnam armed North Korea and blessed their invasion.  Because we aided South Korea those in South Korea live in a very prosperous country with a strong democratic government.

The difference between what happened in Korea and Vietnam is that in 1950 we refused to allow the North to take over while in 1975 we allowed North Vietnam to invade with impunity.  The ones who suffered from that decision were those living in South Vietnam.   

People can make up any garbage they want at its core what it amounted to was the leaders of the US government didn't feel like spending more of our blood and treasure for the benefit of the people living in South Vietnam.

Just like the Allies stabbed the Poles in the back and refused force the USSR to allow the Free Poles to take over in Poland after WWII.  The Free Poles even fought to liberate France and in exchange they got sold out. The USSR was allowed to steal land from Poland that they took over in 1941 when they carved up Poland with Germany and started the whole mess and the Allies allowed it.

When the country being subjugated is some country other than yours it is easy to say who cares about them- let them live under a horrible regime with no freedoms too bad for them. 

That's really what it amount to- people saying too bad for the Syrians and Iraqis coming under ISIS rule and too bad for the Syrians being brutalized by Assad.  We the World who pledged to stop human rights violations will do nothing because we don't want to spend the effort involved.

We will stand by as Russia helps Assad stay in power by brutalizing and killing those who want democracy and will stand by as Isis kills people and to make it see like we do have a heart what we will do is take in refugees if they can manage to survive to make it to the West- that is how we will be charitable.

Evil wins when good men do nothing.  Putin and other bad men are doing things but the good men are doing token things that amount to nothing.
Of course it's not right for anyone to be subjugated to living under cruel dictators but the establishment of the west thought it was fine until it had served their purpose and these dictators became a threat to the west via nuclear weapons etc. Thy had to be removed and as usual it was the ordinary people who suffered and are still suffering and most of the establishment would turn a blind eye to their suffering even now if normal decent people had not refused to accept it.  The people in Syria. Iraq etc. are suffering appallingly and those managing to get out are refugees, not migrants they are in fear of their lives and in fear for the lives of their children...  we should welcome them and give them places of safety as they are human beings like ourselves.

If 58,000 isn't a big death toll then why did the US make such a fuss about it?  I am sure many more vietcong and ordinary Vietnamese people died anyway as is always the way.  People in the US have no idea what it's like to have foreign troops in their land it is much easier to fight wars in other peoples countries.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 04:54:PM
The west cobbled together tribes to make countries after the 1st and 2nd WW, we were happy for them to be kept in control by cruel dictators, once the dictators fall as in Yugoslavia old resentments come to the fore again. 
We meddled in many countries in the empire which led to wars after independence, however dreadful it is people have a right to choosing their own destiny ie. governments and cultures and way of life just as we have worked our own out over hundreds of years.
Keeping people down only causes more trouble in the long run..  We fought many wars over hundreds of years before we sorted out our borders and became more tolerant and democratic.  War is never an answer imo, Europe paid a heavy price for war and ,any who served in the II WW became pacifists after their experience serving in the services. The US doesn't understand this because they are a young country in comparison and have never suffered with a war on their own soil, they prefer to fight their wars in other people's countries.  imo

Taking your claims at face value the US should have refused to aid the Allies in WWI and II and should have left things up to the people of Europe.  Even before our military involvement we were providing weapons, fuel and food to the Allies to allow them to fight.  If we didn't provide such aid then WWI would basically have ended in a standstill.  WWII could have been even worse than it was because Germany would have hand more land and power. As it is Germany and Japan would never would have been defeated without American aid anyway.

In the meantime you are comparing past European colonization with modern world efforts to establish democratic governments which are 2 different things.  European colonization was about exploitation of the resources and people of the colonies.  When the cost began to exceed the gains they fled.  Europeans government still have the same mindset.  They are interested today only in economic profits.  They can't wait to do business in Iran so want the sanctions lifted and don't care how horrible the government is just like they didn't care how horrible Saddam was and did so much business with him. 

The only country consistently willing to spill our blood and treasure for liberty is the US but our leaders are schizophrenic because we have elections and different leaders at different times.  If we take the lead and do it some other countries are then willing to get involved and help as well but only if we take the lead and do the bulk of the work.  That is why the US is called the leader of the free world.  When the leader of the free world is lead by morons like Obama the Free World does nothing and evil prevails.

 

 

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 01, 2015, 04:57:PM
Taking your claims at face value the US should have refused to aid the Allies in WWI and II and should have left things up to the people of Europe.  Even before our military involvement we were providing weapons, fuel and food to the Allies to allow them to fight.  If we didn't provide such aid then WWI would basically have ended in a standstill.  WWII could have been even worse than it was because Germany would have hand more land and power. As it is Germany and Japan would never would have been defeated without American aid anyway.

In the meantime you are comparing past European colonization with modern world efforts to establish democratic governments which are 2 different things.  European colonization was about exploitation of the resources and people of the colonies.  When the cost began to exceed the gains they fled.  Europeans government still have the same mindset.  They are interested today only in economic profits.  They can't wait to do business in Iran so want the sanctions lifted and don't care how horrible the government is just like they didn't care how horrible Saddam was and did so much business with him. 

The only country consistently willing to spill our blood and treasure for liberty is the US but our leaders are schizophrenic because we have elections and different leaders at different times.  If we take the lead and do it some other countries are then willing to get involved and help as well but only if we take the lead and do the bulk of the work.  That is why the US is called the leader of the free world.  When the leader of the free world is lead by morons like Obama the Free World does nothing and evil prevails.

 

 
The US is the worst offender scipio you cannot claim the high ground on this. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 05:10:PM
Of course it's not right for anyone to be subjugated to living under cruel dictators but the establishment of the west thought it was fine until it had served their purpose and these dictators became a threat to the west via nuclear weapons etc. Thy had to be removed and as usual it was the ordinary people who suffered and are still suffering and most of the establishment would turn a blind eye to their suffering even now if normal decent people had not refused to accept it.  The people in Syria. Iraq etc. are suffering appallingly and those managing to get out are refugees, not migrants they are in fear of their lives and in fear for the lives of their children...  we should welcome them and give them places of safety as they are human beings like ourselves.

If 58,000 isn't a big death toll then why did the US make such a fuss about it?  I am sure many more vietcong and ordinary Vietnamese people died anyway as is always the way.  People in the US have no idea what it's like to have foreign troops in their land it is much easier to fight wars in other peoples countries.

The Vietnam anti-war crowd made a big deal about it. Popular fiction is that they got us to withdraw from Vietnam but the reality we did some of our heaviest fighting while the anti-war crowd was sounding off. We left Vietnam only after a Peace Treaty was signed.

What pisses many off is that the US did nothing in 1975 to save the RVN.  Our airpower could have crippled the North Vietnamese invasion like we did in past invasion attempts.  Our deaths were for nothing because we didn't do anything to protect them in 1975. 

Many are pissed off about Iraq for the same reason.  Our efforts to establish stability in Iraq were for nothing because Obama withdrew and has done nothing to help get rid of Isis. He won't even arm the Kurds. 

It would be the equivalent of withdrawing from Europe in 1945, allowing the Nazis to come to power again, taking over Europe and this time saying we won't do anything.  Those who lost loved ones fighting the Nazis would be pissed that the loss was ultimately for nothing.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on October 01, 2015, 05:12:PM
The US is the worst offender scipio you cannot claim the high ground on this.

I agree.  The drivel posted about Vietnam really winds me up.  Fortunately the heroic Vietnamese forces defeated the might of the USA and that was a cause for celebration the world over .  I remember the final victory in 1975 very well - I was in hospital at the time and it really cheered me up.  The USA acted like the criminal gangsters they have so often been in the international arena, but they got a good hiding for once.

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on October 01, 2015, 05:13:PM
The Vietnam anti-war crowd made a big deal about it. Popular fiction is that they got us to withdraw from Vietnam but the reality we did some of our heaviest fighting while the anti-war crowd was sounding off. We left Vietnam only after a Peace Treaty was signed.

What pisses many off is that the US did nothing in 1975 to save the RVN.  Our airpower could have crippled the North Vietnamese invasion like we did in past invasion attempts.  Our deaths were for nothing because we didn't do anything to protect them in 1975. 

Many are pissed off about Iraq for the same reason.  Our efforts to establish stability in Iraq were for nothing because Obama withdrew and has done nothing to help get rid of Isis. He won't even arm the Kurds. 

It would be the equivalent of withdrawing from Europe in 1945, allowing the Nazis to come to power again, taking over Europe and this time saying we won't do anything.  Those who lost loved ones fighting the Nazis would be pissed that the loss was ultimately for nothing.

The Scipio world view from the far right american perspective!  Fortunately many of us in Eurpoe, possibly the majority, hold a very different view.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 05:30:PM
The US is the worst offender scipio you cannot claim the high ground on this.

Nonsense. What economic gain did the US get from WWI? The US spent a bundle on our own military efforts and ended up paying for much of the materials given to other countries, the only country to pay back its WWI debt was Finland. 

WWII was even worse we wrote off most of the lend lease bills requiring countries to pay cents on the dollar.  Our own expenditures were so high that we had a massive national debt for the first time and had to raise income taxes to very high level.

The whole reason Japan attacked us is because we stopped selling oil, rubber etc to Japan and we were the largest supplier of such in the World.  We enacted the embargo because we didn't like their abuses in China and stopped supplying them with anything they could use in their war effort.   This is the complete opposite of how Europe acted at that time.

The UK and France divied up the Ottoman Empire after WWI to enjoy the economic spoils.  What did the US take over and steal the resources from?

After WWII the US loaned money to Europe to allow Europe to rebuild themselves as opposed to taking Europe satellite nations totally dependent upon us for manufactured goods and resources.  The same is true of Japan, and South Korea.  We did such a good job the US went from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation. We didn't create markets to sell our good in like Europe did.

The US didn't install puppet regimes either was established democratic elected governments in Germany, Japan and South Korea just like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Did the US take over the oil resourced of Iraq?  Nope we let them contract with European oil companies. We didn't impose any obligations.

Some Europeans live in some fantasy World where they try to make themselves feel better with the notion the US economically benefited from the wars we have engaged in, in the name of democracy but such is pure fantasy. Economically these wars have cost us considerable amounts. Our post WWII efforts to rebuild our allies have been so successful we went from being a net exporter to importer.  That is the complete opposite of taking financial advantage of conquests.

     

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 05:39:PM
I agree.  The drivel posted about Vietnam really winds me up.  Fortunately the heroic Vietnamese forces defeated the might of the USA and that was a cause for celebration the world over .  I remember the final victory in 1975 very well - I was in hospital at the time and it really cheered me up.  The USA acted like the criminal gangsters they have so often been in the international arena, but they got a good hiding for once.

 

Posts like this really make me wonder about you.  You sound like a communist or someone else who can't stand the US and immaturely is happy when others suffer.

The North Vietnamese didn't defeat the US.  The US military left Vietnam in 1973.  The extent of our military presence was Marine Security guards at the embassy and a handful of paper pushers. 

For years they terrorized South Vietnamese people.  They invaded and killed South Vietnamese.  The few Americans were able to leave.  Cheering communists killing non-communist Vietnamese, stealing their property and brutalizing them is what someone with mental problems would do.

Are you also mad that the North Koreans were prevented form establishing communist control over the entire Peninsula?  I know liberals, communist sympathizers who feel exactly that way they absurdly suggest South Korea would be better off under North Korean control.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on October 01, 2015, 05:50:PM
Posts like this really make me wonder about you. [No need to wonder!] You sound like a communist or someone else who can't stand the US [What if I am?]  and immaturely is happy when others suffer.[I certainly am not happy when others suffer, which is why I have consistently opposed US foreign policy]  
The North Vietnamese didn't defeat the US.  The US military left Vietnam in 1973.  The extent of our military presence was Marine Security guards at the embassy and a handful of paper pushers.  [The US was soundly thrashed, as you well know]
For years they terrorized South Vietnamese people.  They invaded and killed South Vietnamese. [Utter rubbish.  The terrorising was conducted by the US and their puppets in the South.  The liberating forces had massive support of the people of Vietnam, both in the North and the South]  The few Americans were able to leave.  Cheering communists killing non-communist Vietnamese, stealing their property and brutalizing them is what someone with mental problems would do. [I agree, but it did not happen]
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 05:53:PM
The Scipio world view from the far right american perspective!  Fortunately many of us in Eurpoe, possibly the majority, hold a very different view.

Those who hold such views are quite ignorant.  In a debate over the facts you will be exposed as such quite easily.  But then again the same people who hold these views are the ones who don't care at all that the entire Christian population is being killed or driven out of Syria and Iraq.  It's too bad for them. The US helping establish democracy is called human rights abuses is your bizzarro World and the actions of groups like Isis heroic.  It is really mind boggling that people can hold such irrational views but that helps people to sleep at night...

Some people are so immature they can't stand it that the UK is no longer the World's major power.  They can't stand it knowing that that without US aid the UK could not have done anything to liberate Europe.  They can't stand it that the US is so much stronger than other nations.  They are so jealous of the US they want to pretend the worst about the US.

It's the ultimate immaturity to praise killers just because one is so anti-US that anytime one does something the US is against that one applauds it.  I have a friend who was a Vietnamese Boat child and he has a different take because the invasion actually affect him.  It's easy for heartless people to not care about things that don't affect them.

It's even more immature to pretend they defeated a US military that wasn't even there.  It's just as bogus as the claims that ISIS defeated the US military in Iraq though our military wasn't there.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 01, 2015, 06:04:PM
Those who hold such views are quite ignorant.  In a debate over the facts you will be exposed as such quite easily.  But then again the same people who hold these views are the ones who don't care at all that the entire Christian population is being killed or driven out of Syria and Iraq.  It's too bad for them. The US helping establish democracy is called human rights abuses is your bizzarro World and the actions of groups like Isis heroic.  It is really mind boggling that people can hold such irrational views but that helps people to sleep at night...

Some people are so immature they can't stand it that the UK is no longer the World's major power.  They can't stand it knowing that that without US aid the UK could not have done anything to liberate Europe.  They can't stand it that the US is so much stronger than other nations.  They are so jealous of the US they want to pretend the worst about the US.

It's the ultimate immaturity to praise killers just because one is so anti-US that anytime one does something the US is against that one applauds it.  I have a friend who was a Vietnamese Boat child and he has a different take because the invasion actually affect him.  It's easy for heartless people to not care about things that don't affect them.

It's even more immature to pretend they defeated a US military that wasn't even there.  It's just as bogus as the claims that ISIS defeated the US military in Iraq though our military wasn't there.
It is irrational to accuse people who don't like US meddling in the world of not caring about humanity, it is the US meddling which has caused so many problems and so much blood shed in the world the fact that they cause trouble and then try to fix it again to their own advantage is recognised by many.  People have a right to their own self determination and if they had been allowed to have that much of what is happening now would not have occurred.
US only care about countries who have something they want ie  a foothold in the region or oil....  no doubt about that.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 06:38:PM
"Posts like this really make me wonder about you. You sound like a communist or someone else who can't stand the US"

No need to wonder! What if I am?

That bias would explain the irraitional claims.

"and immaturely is happy when others suffer."
I certainly am not happy when others suffer, which is why I have consistently opposed US foreign policy

Saving people from horrible dictators stops suffering.  What you espouse increases suffering. Your bias against the US results in viewing things the complete opposite of reality. 

The communists took power in North Vietnam by force they were not elected in fair elections.  They have never held a single fair election they have bogus elections where the only choices they have are communists.  They took over South Vietnam by force not by any legitimate method.   

"The North Vietnamese didn't defeat the US.  The US military left Vietnam in 1973.  The extent of our military presence was Marine Security guards at the embassy and a handful of paper pushers."

The US was soundly thrashed, as you well know

This is where you bias comes into play you hate the US so much you WISH we were thrashed and since we weren't you will just pretend it.

The US never lost a battle and the casualties inflicted on the enemy were always considerably higher than we lost.

The Vietcong were wiped out.  The only Vietcong units that remained were in name only they named some  North Vietnamese units Vietcong regiments. They were simply NVA units with such designation. 

They gave up on the idea of relying on the Vietcong and launched numerous conventional attacks in 1971-72 all of which were decisively defeated. The RVN forces thrashing the NVA with the aid of our airpower and planners. The casualties suffered by the RVN forces was way less than they were inflicting.  That was why the North Vietnamese eventually agreed to the Peace deal. They coudl not make any progress all their attacks were beaten back with high losses.

They used the post peace deal to build a massive conventional force.  They were no longer fighting so no longer suffering losses.  They were training men and were being supplied by the USSR and China.  The military aid during this period was more than during the war period combined the Chinese aid in particular skyrocketed.  This was a direct violation of the Treaty but they didn't care.  The US abided by it thus stopped providing fuel, ammunition etc.  Instead of helping the RVN ot keep pace we simply stuck to the deal.

When the DRV attacked we should have countered because the treaty was null at that point.  But we stuck by it and left them high and dry.  Then a general invasion was launched including with tanks and refugees filled the roads preventing the RVN units form being able to get to where they needed to go.  They had fuel issues anyway.  US airpower could have cut the attack apart like we did past conventional invasions which you ridiculously suggest amounted to us being thrashed.  I don't know how killing so many enemy and the feeling amounts to being thrashed...  In any event we did nothing and doing nothing is why they won they didn't defeat us we weren't there.

The South Vietnamese civilians were fleeing attackers not liberators.  They were filling choppers to get to the Philippines to get away from attackers not liberators.  They were being shot dead by attackers not liberators.  Those who remained after the takeover were brutalized by attackers not liberators. 

Your version is a fantasy version fashioned around your hatred of America instead of reality.


"For years they terrorized South Vietnamese people.  They invaded and killed South Vietnamese."

Utter rubbish.  The terrorising was conducted by the US and their puppets in the South.


You either know nothing about Vietnam or you are so biased you are unwilling to admit the truth about the terrorist campaign that was conducted in South Vietnam.  Tens of thousands of the intelligentsia were murdered to undermine the government and make it easier for the communists to take over.  When those efforts all failed they then resorted to conventional attacks which also failed.  Their success came after the US left and stopped aiding South Vietnam.  The people of South Vietnam did not welcome the attackers they fled from them and tried to resist though they failed.  They didn't try to resist because they wanted to be attacked.

You praise violence so long as the violence is in the name of communism, against people you don't like or simply harms US interests and the only harm to US interest that wound up being served by taking over South Vietnam was the harm caused to the people living there who we considered friends.     

So at its core you applaud killing and attacking people because they were friends of the US.  That's incredibly immature.

The liberating forces had massive support of the people of Vietnam, both in the North and the South

If that were the case the invasion would not have been necessary.  Moreover they would have welcomed the attackers instead of trying to repel them and fleeing.  Your version is pure fantasy but fantasy spread by communists and leftist who hate the US and thus couldn't care less about reality.


"The few Americans were able to leave.  Cheering communists killing non-communist Vietnamese, stealing their property and brutalizing them is what someone with mental problems would do."
I agree, but it did not happen

It did happen. The communists killed large numbers of people in South Vietnam from the late 1950s to 1973 and then again late 1974-76.  Those political enemies they didn't kill they imprisoned and they destroyed the economy of South Vietnam including taking resources owned by people for the government's use.   Communism failed and they changed to a mixed economy like China which still has massive government control and there is still only one party in control of Vietnam it is not a democracy but rather a communist oligarchy with far less freedoms than are present in democracies.

This brings us full circle to one of the points made earlier.  People not actually living under these horrible regimes think they are great. If you had to live under such regime then your views would be different. 

I'm too honest to admit that abandoning Poland and the RVN was ultimately a good thing for the people of such countries. They were abandoned out of selfishness not charity. That is the same reason no one is doing crap about ISI it is about being too selfish to do what is right.

If people want to be selfish that is their right but be truthful about it don't make up BS excuses.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2015, 07:04:PM
The US is the worst offender scipio you cannot claim the high ground on this.


how does the US make the worst offender? please elaborate
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2015, 07:06:PM
I agree.  The drivel posted about Vietnam really winds me up.  Fortunately the heroic Vietnamese forces defeated the might of the USA and that was a cause for celebration the world over .  I remember the final victory in 1975 very well - I was in hospital at the time and it really cheered me up.  The USA acted like the criminal gangsters they have so often been in the international arena, but they got a good hiding for once.

 

The South Vietnamese certainly where not celebrating.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 07:07:PM
It is irrational to accuse people who don't like US meddling in the world of not caring about humanity, it is the US meddling which has caused so many problems and so much blood shed in the world the fact that they cause trouble and then try to fix it again to their own advantage is recognised by many.  People have a right to their own self determination and if they had been allowed to have that much of what is happening now would not have occurred.
US only care about countries who have something they want ie  a foothold in the region or oil....  no doubt about that.

The US establishing democracies enables self-determination.  Attacking such efforts as being against self-determination is irrational.

The irrational views stem from refusing to face reality and instead looking at things through a biased prism that distorts.

The US should have allowed North Korea to swallow all of Korea, the US should have allowed the Communists to swallow all of Vietnam.  The US should have left dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of establishing democracies....

Did you know that there is a long history of there being 3 very different regions of Vietnam and that this is why the French had it divided into 3 regions.  Did you know that the British were the ones who helped the French to regain control of Vietnam from the Japanese the US wanted to establish an independent country but the UK sides with their French that they should be restored to help justify them keeping possessions as well.  Did you know that the communists used force to take control of North Vietnam and they were fighting not only the French but other Vietnamese.  Did you know they got their weapons from foreign communist forces.  The foreign intervention that enabled the killing is the same characters who armed North Korea and enabled the killing.   Did you know that when the French pulled out that the lower areas were under control of the Vietnamese.   Did you know that the communists launched terrorists attacks throughout Vietnam to destabilize the government and try to get people to stop supporting the government and to thus result in the government collapsing so the communists could take over.  Did you know that the plan was to weaken the government through these efforts then resort to conventional military attacks on government forces. Did you know that after these conventional attacks started is when the US moved in airpower to use against North Vietnam.  Did you know the first US ground forces were used to protect US air bases from attacks because the South Vietnamese forces were too busy fighting invaders to do so.  Did you know the US finally approved US ground forces to go on offensive operations against the North Vietnam because a lot of the South Vietnamese forces would run away when attacked and leave their equipment behind just like the Iraqis did with ISIS.  The US
had forces paired up with the RVN forces to stabilize them and train them better just like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We defended the population from the conventional attacks.  What we could not totally stop was the terrorist attacks only large military units from hurting the population. We took up defensive positions and freed up their forces to carry out offensive operations so they could try clearing enemy from their land. As they became more capable we reduced our ground units leaving them more responsibility for their own defense. 1970 forward we were in the supporting role almost exclusively. The major fighting was done by them with our forces simply helping with supply, training and air support. 

The ultimate argument of people critical of our policy is that we should have let the Chinese and Soviets sponsor a communist takeover.  They say we should have done the same in Korea instead of saving the ROK.  These are the same people who decided to do nothing in Syria and say we should just let Russia help Assad kill anyone who opposes his dictatorial rule. 

The intervention that causes all the problems is praised and welcomed instead of opposed.

The results of such is to support the evil and attack those who want to do good.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 01, 2015, 07:15:PM
The South Vietnamese certainly where not celebrating.

The ULTIMATE argument against US policy in Vietnam is that we should have let those armed by the  Soviets and Chinese takeover early on.  There would have been less bloodshed had we done so.  The same argument is made in Korea.  If we didn't intervene the war would have been over in 1950 and fewer people would have died.

People who don't know what is it like living under a tolitarian regime are saying that is preferable to the death that occurred.  The people in the ROK today would disagree. They are not happy their loved ones died but they feel it was worthwhile like we feel defeating the Nazis was worth the losses we suffered.

The people of the RVN were screwed not by our aid but by rather by us cutting off aid and abandoning them. That is what makes the whole effort in vain. We were no longer willing to help and that sealed their fate. If there is any moral to that story it is if you act you have to be willing to go the distance.

We pledged to support them if the Treaty was violated but didn't.  Hmm sounds familiar the West agreed to defend Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nukes- how did that end up...
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 01, 2015, 08:09:PM
The US establishing democracies enables self-determination.  Attacking such efforts as being against self-determination is irrational.

The irrational views stem from refusing to face reality and instead looking at things through a biased prism that distorts.

The US should have allowed North Korea to swallow all of Korea, the US should have allowed the Communists to swallow all of Vietnam.  The US should have left dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of establishing democracies....

Did you know that there is a long history of there being 3 very different regions of Vietnam and that this is why the French had it divided into 3 regions.  Did you know that the British were the ones who helped the French to regain control of Vietnam from the Japanese the US wanted to establish an independent country but the UK sides with their French that they should be restored to help justify them keeping possessions as well.  Did you know that the communists used force to take control of North Vietnam and they were fighting not only the French but other Vietnamese.  Did you know they got their weapons from foreign communist forces.  The foreign intervention that enabled the killing is the same characters who armed North Korea and enabled the killing.   Did you know that when the French pulled out that the lower areas were under control of the Vietnamese.   Did you know that the communists launched terrorists attacks throughout Vietnam to destabilize the government and try to get people to stop supporting the government and to thus result in the government collapsing so the communists could take over.  Did you know that the plan was to weaken the government through these efforts then resort to conventional military attacks on government forces. Did you know that after these conventional attacks started is when the US moved in airpower to use against North Vietnam.  Did you know the first US ground forces were used to protect US air bases from attacks because the South Vietnamese forces were too busy fighting invaders to do so.  Did you know the US finally approved US ground forces to go on offensive operations against the North Vietnam because a lot of the South Vietnamese forces would run away when attacked and leave their equipment behind just like the Iraqis did with ISIS.  The US
had forces paired up with the RVN forces to stabilize them and train them better just like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We defended the population from the conventional attacks.  What we could not totally stop was the terrorist attacks only large military units from hurting the population. We took up defensive positions and freed up their forces to carry out offensive operations so they could try clearing enemy from their land. As they became more capable we reduced our ground units leaving them more responsibility for their own defense. 1970 forward we were in the supporting role almost exclusively. The major fighting was done by them with our forces simply helping with supply, training and air support. 

The ultimate argument of people critical of our policy is that we should have let the Chinese and Soviets sponsor a communist takeover.  They say we should have done the same in Korea instead of saving the ROK.  These are the same people who decided to do nothing in Syria and say we should just let Russia help Assad kill anyone who opposes his dictatorial rule. 

The intervention that causes all the problems is praised and welcomed instead of opposed.

The results of such is to support the evil and attack those who want to do good.
I have my opinions, don't expect you to share them.

You simply don't understand what I am saying and chucking insults at me proves nothing.
Think we should agree to differ.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on October 02, 2015, 09:34:AM
The South Vietnamese certainly where not celebrating.

Most of them were.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on October 02, 2015, 09:41:AM


You really have a blinkered and distorted view of the role of the USA in the world since 1945.  I do not have time to answer your points, suffice it to say I do not agree with any of them.  You are on the far right of politics, even in US terms, and that is saying something!

As usual you insult those who disagree with you.  I do not insult you, I just say you are wrong.  That is my opinion, honestly held, based on years of reflection and careful analysis of facts, together with political activity.  I may be wrong, but I am not dishonest or insincere.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on October 02, 2015, 10:37:AM
usa cant establish democravcy in the usa how the hell they would anywhere else is beyound me.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 02, 2015, 11:59:AM
usa cant establish democravcy in the usa how the hell they would manage anywhere else is beyound me.
Like it  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 02, 2015, 04:00:PM

You really have a blinkered and distorted view of the role of the USA in the world since 1945.  I do not have time to answer your points, suffice it to say I do not agree with any of them.  You are on the far right of politics, even in US terms, and that is saying something!

As usual you insult those who disagree with you.  I do not insult you, I just say you are wrong.  That is my opinion, honestly held, based on years of reflection and careful analysis of facts, together with political activity.  I may be wrong, but I am not dishonest or insincere.

You have the distorted view not me.  You demonstrated that when you denied the USSR was responsibly for encouraging Germany to attack the West. The USSR carved up Eastern Europe with Germany ensuring the West would be at war with Germany.  He stated outright that his plan was to make both sides exhaust one another then swoop in. He swallowed half of Poland and the West did nothing they only went to war with Germany. His peace agreement with them ensured them their Eastern border was safe and permitted them to deploy most of their forces to invade France. Did he embargo Germany?  No he supplied Germany with food and fuel to help keep their war machine supplied so they could fight the West. These facts are all well known they were even known at the time.  Communist sympathizers have attempted to revise history and their fictional viewpoint is the precise one you push.

Your claim that most South Vietnamese welcomed the invaders is absurd but you do not make any effort to actually offer any proof.  You say you are too busy to be bothered which is what you said in the Stalin debate.

You claim to hate violence but you praised North Vietnam using violence to subjugate the people of South Vietnam and you cheered their attack on because you of amazing immaturity. It takes amazing immaturity to praise attacks because the attacks accomplish sticking a pen in the eye of the US and you can't stand the US so like a pen being stuck in our eye.  Not content with such you make up that this amounted to the US military being defeated and you are glad the US got defeated because you can't stand the US. 

You made up your own babble to make you feel better.  Your fictional account is that the US military was defeated and once driven out the Vietnamese population overthrew the government.  This is nonsense.
The US military left and the people of South Vietnam were scared that the US would not aid them if the peace treaty was broken. They were right to fear such because we didn't help them and they wanted us to help them. They didn't want a tolitarian government to send tanks and a million armed men in to take over their country.  They didn't rise up against the RVN government they actually found jobs in that government including military jobs.  Nor did welcome the population welcome these attackers with open arms. They fled the attackers and fled in such massive numbers that they blocked the roads preventing the military from being able to effectively respond.  They ran to the US embassy begging to be flown out of the country rather than to become subjugated by the communists. There were even physical struggles in an attempt to get inside the US compound.

The US wasn't harmed by the takeover. The few Americans there left.  The harm that fell was to the population that was stuck there and could not be flown out.  Your irrational hatred of the US results in you pretending this hurt the US and being gleeful of that but it didn't.  The takeover hurt the people of South Vietnam not the US. That was why the US government was willing to abandon them.  There was no strategic need to protect South Vietnam in 1975 there was solely a moral one. The US government was unwilling to take up the effort and left South Vietnam high and dry.  Your version which makes you feel good bears no semblance to reality.  It was invented in your mind to make you feel good because reality was too much to tolerate.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on October 02, 2015, 04:50:PM
Taking your claims at face value the US should have refused to aid the Allies in WWI and II and should have left things up to the people of Europe.  Even before our military involvement we were providing weapons, fuel and food to the Allies to allow them to fight.  If we didn't provide such aid then WWI would basically have ended in a standstill.  WWII could have been even worse than it was because Germany would have hand more land and power. As it is Germany and Japan would never would have been defeated without American aid anyway.

In the meantime you are comparing past European colonization with modern world efforts to establish democratic governments which are 2 different things.  European colonization was about exploitation of the resources and people of the colonies.  When the cost began to exceed the gains they fled.  Europeans government still have the same mindset.  They are interested today only in economic profits.  They can't wait to do business in Iran so want the sanctions lifted and don't care how horrible the government is just like they didn't care how horrible Saddam was and did so much business with him. 

The only country consistently willing to spill our blood and treasure for liberty is the US but our leaders are schizophrenic because we have elections and different leaders at different times.  If we take the lead and do it some other countries are then willing to get involved and help as well but only if we take the lead and do the bulk of the work.  That is why the US is called the leader of the free world.  When the leader of the free world is lead by morons like Obama the Free World does nothing and evil prevails.

 

 
You snot gobbler you supplied provisions at a cost.
UK were paying the US until about 2010 in reperation.
Meanwhile instan
1. Uk helped in your war in Korea. No charge
2. UK helped in your war in Iraq. No charge
3.UK helped in your war in Afghanistan. no charge.
You didn't give us anything we payed.
If it wasn't for pearl harbour you would not have become involved FACT.
You lot needed us.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 02, 2015, 05:35:PM
You snot gobbler you supplied provisions at a cost.
UK were paying the US until about 2010 in reperation.
Meanwhile instan
1. Uk helped in your war in Korea. No charge
2. UK helped in your war in Iraq. No charge
3.UK helped in your war in Afghanistan. no charge.
You didn't give us anything we payed.
If it wasn't for pearl harbour you would not have become involved FACT.
You lot needed us.


The UK didn't have to pay back the entire value of Lend-lease aid provided, a good deal was written off,  and the amount the UK was asked to pay back was much smaller than the sum provided.  The amount written off was paid for by the US taxpayer.  This was not unique to the UK the same happened with all Lend-lease aid- we drastically reduced the amount owed.  Most countries didn't even pay the reduced amounts in full. The loans we gave to the UK were for the lend lease items the UK needed for their economy.

"The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for. But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/comment/lendlease070110.pdf

I am the only one who seems to be aware of the facts.

As for the UK joining in the UN operations in Korea, Iraq and NATO operation in Afghanistan why should the US pay the UK for such efforts?  What resources were given to the US?  We used our own we didn't take resources from the UK.  What loans did you give us?  So there is no relevance at all to the issue at hand.

 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 02, 2015, 07:03:PM
Most of them were.

No they where not, they where begging the US to evacuate them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiyFF9qOls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiyFF9qOls)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 02, 2015, 07:11:PM

You really have a blinkered and distorted view of the role of the USA in the world since 1945.  I do not have time to answer your points, suffice it to say I do not agree with any of them.  You are on the far right of politics, even in US terms, and that is saying something!

As usual you insult those who disagree with you.  I do not insult you, I just say you are wrong.  That is my opinion, honestly held, based on years of reflection and careful analysis of facts, together with political activity.  I may be wrong, but I am not dishonest or insincere.

The far right in the US take a very isolationist stance on foreign matters and simply don't care. I don't understand your reasons for disliking the US. Both in South Vietnam and South Korea they came to the aid of an ally that asked for their help. Many people also fail to remember that the US army had a presence in Vietnam before the war even started, The French allowed them to built airforce bases there in WW2.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 03, 2015, 04:57:AM
The far right in the US take a very isolationist stance on foreign matters and simply don't care. I don't understand your reasons for disliking the US. Both in South Vietnam and South Korea they came to the aid of an ally that asked for their help. Many people also fail to remember that the US army had a presence in Vietnam before the war even started, The French allowed them to built airforce bases there in WW2.

The far left and far right both are isolationist in their views.  The far left and right disagree on social issues and economics. 

Even if one hates the US, it is irrational to applaud people being harmed because you perceive it as harming US interests.  The fake narrative was created by anti-American revisionists and socialists that the RVN wanted the communist takeover and that the US stood in the way of this nationalistic movement and that is the narrative NGB is pushing.

The US didn't want Indochina restored to French control but the UK and France got the US to relent. The US first choice was for China to take responsibility.

Popular history has it that Ho Chi Minh did a lot against the Japanese and aided the US a great deal but the reality is he did little and had only a few insignificant dealings with the US.

His rag tag communist forced declared independence though they took over control of just a few areas where the Japanese pulled out of because of their surrender.  The Japanese gave them their weapons and some even stayed on and trained them.  The Chinese took over these Northern areas on behalf of the allies and Ho's men fled. The Japanese remained in control of the South. Eventually the French forces were freed and the Chinese and Japanese left and the French took over Indochina. 

Vietnam was divided into 3 parts under French rule. This is because the people in the areas were so different. There were plenty of minorities as well. The notion of their being a single Vietnam was a complete fiction made up by revisionists it was a hodgepodge more like Yugoslavia. That is one of the reasons why China didn't want permanent responsibility for the area. 

There were many different groups that wanted independence. The communist killed the leaders of the groups and basically took control of all of them in such manner to turn it into a communist movement.

After the communist takeover of China the communists armed Ho (with a lot of the weapons they captured from the Nationalist forces that fled to Taiwan they left their weapons behind and is why they had many Western weapons) and that is when his followers began in earnest to fight the French.

The US provided military aid to the French. The French public got sick of it and decided to leave. That is when the US was asked by South Vietnam for direct aid. Popular fiction is that the US installed a puppet but that is not true we supplied the government that formed under the peace deal that resulted in the French leaving.  Nor is it true that the Vietcong was a South Vietnamese entity.  The organizers were all from North Vietnam they infiltrated into South Vietnam.  Until 1960 it was mainly a terrorist campaign.  Then it escalated into regiments and even division from North Vietnam operating there.  Some were NVA AKA North Vietnamese regulars.  Others were Vietcong regiments which the cadre (officers and noncoms) North Vietnamese soldiers and the rest were a mix of people who came from North Vietnam or were in South Vietnam already but were impressed into service willingly or unwillingly.

The Vietcong were absolutely decimated after the Tet Offensive.  Teh Tet offensive was a major conventional attack.  The counterattack from the US and RVN forces wiped out most of these forces.  The remainder of the cadre were largely killed during US counterinsurgency operations. The few Vietcong regiments that remained failed miserably in operations in 1970 and 1971 and basically after that they were discontinued.  They were reconstituted in name only by naming some units of the North Vietnamese Army Vietcong regiments.

Post Tet the ARVN units began to fight much better than in the past.  They essentially copied the US military- they even had Vietnamese Marines, Rangers etc.  They had some Americans helping lead them but began carrying on most of the fighting themselves with US airpower assisting them. The North Vietnamese suffered comparable casualties against them that the US inflicted.  The ARVN was suffering considerably less casualties than the enemy.   This meant there was a stalemate. This and US bombing of the North forced the to give up and agree to a peace deal.

In order to get South Vietnam to agree to peace Nixon secretly promised that if the treaty were violated we would assist them again. We stuck to the treaty and cut our aid to the RVN.   The USSR and China began providing much more aid than in the past particularly the Chinese they flooded Vietnam with weapons even tanks and planes.  They helped build a million man army.  They didn't do it for nothing. They did it to enable the communist government to take over all of Vietnam.

They knew from the past that US airpower would decimate their large scale attacks so they started out with a limited attack that the South Vietnamese was dealing with but they were low on fuel, ammunition and asked the US not only for such aid but for US airpower assistance.  Nixon was busy with Watergate and had no intention of going back because it would mean the need to stay committed forever like in Korea.  Vietnam had no strategic value that he deemed would warrant such commitment. So he rebuked the.  The Vietnamese saw the US refused to reengage and then launched a full scale invasion. Without US advice their planners responded ineptly. But even when they did know what to do try a counterattack fuel problems or refugees blocking the roads stood in their way.  Many soldiers went home to try to defend their home villages instead of staying with their units. Obviously they would be totally ineffective in small bands against a massive conventional force.   They managed to hold out longer than the French did against the Nazis but that's not much of a feat!

The US military was defeated fiction is just that a fiction.  The lesson enemies got from this is that eventually the US will tire and leave and then after the US is gone they can renew the struggle.  This is the strategy Saddam had in mind that is why he organized an insurgent force even before the invasion happened. He didn't expect to be caught and killed.  It's the strategy the terrorists in Iraq had in mind. It's the strategy the Taliban still have in mind. Of course the North Vietnamese had something the Taliban currently lacks.  The Taliban were initially supplied by Pakistan but their aid now is not from government entities but simply ordinary Pakistani extremists.  That's far different from the DRV being supplied by China and the USSR with heavy weapons.  They can still do damage to various villages and towns but have little hope of taking over all of Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on October 03, 2015, 10:08:AM
U.S.A - worrying ?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 03, 2015, 10:16:AM
U.S.A - worrying ?
Donald Trump?......  say no more  ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on October 03, 2015, 11:38:AM
No they where not, they where begging the US to evacuate them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiyFF9qOls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiyFF9qOls)

A tiny minority.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on October 03, 2015, 11:40:AM
The far left and far right both are isolationist in their views.  The far left and right disagree on social issues and economics. 

Even if one hates the US, it is irrational to applaud people being harmed because you perceive it as harming US interests.  The fake narrative was created by anti-American revisionists and socialists that the RVN wanted the communist takeover and that the US stood in the way of this nationalistic movement and that is the narrative NGB is pushing.

The US didn't want Indochina restored to French control but the UK and France got the US to relent. The US first choice was for China to take responsibility.

Popular history has it that Ho Chi Minh did a lot against the Japanese and aided the US a great deal but the reality is he did little and had only a few insignificant dealings with the US.

His rag tag communist forced declared independence though they took over control of just a few areas where the Japanese pulled out of because of their surrender.  The Japanese gave them their weapons and some even stayed on and trained them.  The Chinese took over these Northern areas on behalf of the allies and Ho's men fled. The Japanese remained in control of the South. Eventually the French forces were freed and the Chinese and Japanese left and the French took over Indochina. 

Vietnam was divided into 3 parts under French rule. This is because the people in the areas were so different. There were plenty of minorities as well. The notion of their being a single Vietnam was a complete fiction made up by revisionists it was a hodgepodge more like Yugoslavia. That is one of the reasons why China didn't want permanent responsibility for the area. 

There were many different groups that wanted independence. The communist killed the leaders of the groups and basically took control of all of them in such manner to turn it into a communist movement.

After the communist takeover of China the communists armed Ho (with a lot of the weapons they captured from the Nationalist forces that fled to Taiwan they left their weapons behind and is why they had many Western weapons) and that is when his followers began in earnest to fight the French.

The US provided military aid to the French. The French public got sick of it and decided to leave. That is when the US was asked by South Vietnam for direct aid. Popular fiction is that the US installed a puppet but that is not true we supplied the government that formed under the peace deal that resulted in the French leaving.  Nor is it true that the Vietcong was a South Vietnamese entity.  The organizers were all from North Vietnam they infiltrated into South Vietnam.  Until 1960 it was mainly a terrorist campaign.  Then it escalated into regiments and even division from North Vietnam operating there.  Some were NVA AKA North Vietnamese regulars.  Others were Vietcong regiments which the cadre (officers and noncoms) North Vietnamese soldiers and the rest were a mix of people who came from North Vietnam or were in South Vietnam already but were impressed into service willingly or unwillingly.

The Vietcong were absolutely decimated after the Tet Offensive.  Teh Tet offensive was a major conventional attack.  The counterattack from the US and RVN forces wiped out most of these forces.  The remainder of the cadre were largely killed during US counterinsurgency operations. The few Vietcong regiments that remained failed miserably in operations in 1970 and 1971 and basically after that they were discontinued.  They were reconstituted in name only by naming some units of the North Vietnamese Army Vietcong regiments.

Post Tet the ARVN units began to fight much better than in the past.  They essentially copied the US military- they even had Vietnamese Marines, Rangers etc.  They had some Americans helping lead them but began carrying on most of the fighting themselves with US airpower assisting them. The North Vietnamese suffered comparable casualties against them that the US inflicted.  The ARVN was suffering considerably less casualties than the enemy.   This meant there was a stalemate. This and US bombing of the North forced the to give up and agree to a peace deal.

In order to get South Vietnam to agree to peace Nixon secretly promised that if the treaty were violated we would assist them again. We stuck to the treaty and cut our aid to the RVN.   The USSR and China began providing much more aid than in the past particularly the Chinese they flooded Vietnam with weapons even tanks and planes.  They helped build a million man army.  They didn't do it for nothing. They did it to enable the communist government to take over all of Vietnam.

They knew from the past that US airpower would decimate their large scale attacks so they started out with a limited attack that the South Vietnamese was dealing with but they were low on fuel, ammunition and asked the US not only for such aid but for US airpower assistance.  Nixon was busy with Watergate and had no intention of going back because it would mean the need to stay committed forever like in Korea.  Vietnam had no strategic value that he deemed would warrant such commitment. So he rebuked the.  The Vietnamese saw the US refused to reengage and then launched a full scale invasion. Without US advice their planners responded ineptly. But even when they did know what to do try a counterattack fuel problems or refugees blocking the roads stood in their way.  Many soldiers went home to try to defend their home villages instead of staying with their units. Obviously they would be totally ineffective in small bands against a massive conventional force.   They managed to hold out longer than the French did against the Nazis but that's not much of a feat!

The US military was defeated fiction is just that a fiction.  The lesson enemies got from this is that eventually the US will tire and leave and then after the US is gone they can renew the struggle.  This is the strategy Saddam had in mind that is why he organized an insurgent force even before the invasion happened. He didn't expect to be caught and killed.  It's the strategy the terrorists in Iraq had in mind. It's the strategy the Taliban still have in mind. Of course the North Vietnamese had something the Taliban currently lacks.  The Taliban were initially supplied by Pakistan but their aid now is not from government entities but simply ordinary Pakistani extremists.  That's far different from the DRV being supplied by China and the USSR with heavy weapons.  They can still do damage to various villages and towns but have little hope of taking over all of Afghanistan.

A totally revisionist view of history.  You really do not have a clue.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on October 03, 2015, 03:26:PM
A totally revisionist view of history.  You really do not have a clue.
Bet he doesn't win many cases.
Judge would have dropped off listening to his long winded statements.
I repeat I do not believe he is a lawyer, or resides in the US.
How can he be up until the early hours all the time, unless of course he is unemployed, which he more than likely
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: jon on October 03, 2015, 05:12:PM
http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/?utm_content=buffer5eb49&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=bu
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 03, 2015, 05:23:PM
http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/?utm_content=buffer5eb49&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=bu
Thanks jon, nothing changes then....  meddle, meddle all people are disposable...
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on October 03, 2015, 07:22:PM
Hi Roch we should have kept our noses out of Lybia, and Iraq.
The west have stirred a hornets nest imo.

Hi Buddy.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 03, 2015, 09:36:PM
A totally revisionist view of history.  You really do not have a clue.

You are the one who subscribes to revisionist babble not me.  That is why you can't identify battles we lost
and are stuck making up that we were beaten by an invading force that attacked when we were no longer in Vietnam.

You wear political blinders that result in you cheering a Chinese/Soviet funded communist invasion that installed a non-democratic totalitarian government in control of all of Vietnam instead of just North Vietnam and thus harmed those living in South Vietnam not the US government or people.

This thread highlights that many couldn't care less about people living under totalitarian governments so long as it isn't them living under such governments and will even make up that they are better off under such totalitarian governments as an excuse to avoid helping them rather than to just admit the truth which is that they are too selfish to be willing to do so.

I prefer honesty- admit that you are unwilling to help don't piss on someone's leg and tell them it is raining. That is effectively what telling people they are better off under dictatorships amounts to.     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on October 03, 2015, 09:53:PM
You are the one who subscribes to revisionist babble not me.  That is why you can't identify battles we lost
and are stuck making up that we were beaten by an invading force that attacked when we were no longer in Vietnam.

You wear political blinders that result in you cheering a Chinese/Soviet funded communist invasion that installed a non-democratic totalitarian government in control of all of Vietnam instead of just North Vietnam and thus harmed those living in South Vietnam not the US government or people.

This thread highlights that many couldn't care less about people living under totalitarian governments so long as it isn't them living under such governments and will even make up that they are better off under such totalitarian governments as an excuse to avoid helping them rather than to just admit the truth which is that they are too selfish to be willing to do so.

I prefer honesty- admit that you are unwilling to help don't piss on someone's leg and tell them it is raining. That is effectively what telling people they are better off under dictatorships amounts to.     
Hope you aren't accusing me of not caring about people under dictatorships, that is not what I said at all.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 04, 2015, 12:51:AM
Bet he doesn't win many cases.
Judge would have dropped off listening to his long winded statements.
I repeat I do not believe he is a lawyer, or resides in the US.
How can he be up until the early hours all the time, unless of course he is unemployed, which he more than likely

I think he is a Lawyer but with too much time on his hands
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 04, 2015, 02:58:AM
Bet he doesn't win many cases.
Judge would have dropped off listening to his long winded statements.
I repeat I do not believe he is a lawyer, or resides in the US.
How can he be up until the early hours all the time, unless of course he is unemployed, which he more than likely

Judges decide legal motions mainly, juries handle the trying of facts. Motions are decided on the papers, oral arguments are essentially worthless. Judges make up their mind before oral arguments and don't change them as a result.   

I'm a real lawyer I have no reason to make it up. Facts are established by evidence to support such not the occupation of the person making the claim.

I especially have no reason to make up being in the US.  How does that help it's not as if everyone here loves America.

I am awake into the early hours of the morning but rarely post those hours because I am normally watching TV and people here are asleep or just waking up.  Sometimes I am doing things at the computer and will be here when people are posting early but that is usually weekends.   

The post I made at 4pm your time was 11am my time.  You currently are 5 hours ahead after Halloween it will jump to 6 hours ahead. 11am is when I got around to coming to this site that day.  That makes it doubtful I am in the US?

Where am I Mongolia?  Germany? Australia?  Maybe you think I am in the UK and using American English to fool people, though why would I need to?  This site is anonymous I don't need to say I am in a different country to keep my identity hidden.  What purpose would be served by it?

When you go that far off the deep-end into conspiracy theories that you think I am lying about what country I am from it undermines your entire line of reasoning and thought process.  You should quit while you are ahead saying you don't believe I am a lawyer to which I respond who cares. I don't care if people believe it or not I said it because if people ask about my background I have no problem answering. It doesn't mean squat whether people believe it or not such has nothing to do with the arguments I make and evidence I present.

Where I am from and what occupation I do won't change that the US left Vietnam after a peace deal was signed, that Nixon secretly promised to defend the RVN in the event the treaty is broken, that Nixon failed to live up to his promise, allowed the North Vietnamese invasion to to occur unmolested and as Saigon was falling evacuated thousands of Vietnamese to the Philippines but many more were left behind to face the wrath of the communists.  These are historical facts. My background doesn't have anything to do with them.  I know these historical facts because of my background- I am an American who took courses on the Cold War and Vietnam in college.  One of my professors was from the "Revisionist School" but he didn't force his views on us he explained the revisionist views and traditional views.  The particular revisionist arguments he subscribed to was that the US wanted to save South Vietnam from communist rule so that after the war was over they could open South Vietnam to Japanese trade so that Japan would sell to South Vietnam and that since such efforts failed Japan ended up selling to us instead creating the huge trade imbalances that followed the Vietnam War.  He could not point to anyone in the government who said they were trying to set up Vietnam to become a market for Japanese goods.  He could not point to anyone in the government who said they needed to open other markets anywhere in order to prevent a trade imbalance from blowing out of control with Japan. It's something these revisionists simply thought up themselves that they think deep down in secret this was the concerns. I was exposed to all sorts of schools of thought but at the end of the day I only believe what can be established with proof.

So I don't give a rat's ass that in his memoirs Dwight Eisenhower claimed the Chinese agreed to a cease fire in Korea because he threatened to use the atomic bomb and this scared them into capitulating.  I look at evidence.  The evidence is that the US didn't threaten China. Obscure remarks were passed to China through intermediaries that all options were on the table.  That's a far cry from threatening to nuke them if they don't quit.  Chinese sources reveal the government was not concerned about atomic bombs.  They were prepared to endure massive loss of life like they had endured at the hands of the Japanese. That is the thing about totalitarian governments they don't care about protecting their citizens they care about their politics only.

If the US actually nuked their main industrial areas that could have caught their attention and made them realize they totally underestimated the threat but it's a damn lie to say that they were in fear of being nuked and this is why they agreed to a cease fire.  Just because that was Eisenhower's opinion doesn't make it reality.  I care about reality not self-serving erroneous opinions.

   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on October 05, 2015, 10:40:AM
I think he is a Lawyer but with too much time on his hands






What--------in the States,you're joking ? They're " lawyer " mad.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 05, 2015, 04:50:PM

What--------in the States,you're joking ? They're " lawyer " mad.

maybe he has a bad reputation  ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on October 15, 2015, 11:08:AM
seems amerca is having trouble bringing democracy to itself.

http://www.gregpalast.com/gop-led-purge-threat-to-3-5-million-voters/
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 18, 2015, 12:41:PM
seems amerca is having trouble bringing democracy to itself.

http://www.gregpalast.com/gop-led-purge-threat-to-3-5-million-voters/


Greg Palast is a pure fantasist and fraud.

"On Why Greg Palast is Dangerous: "He often makes fantastic claims based on his 'Sam Spade' detective work", drational wrote, "and then (along with his many devotees) complains when Mainstream media in this country do not report his stories. Legitimate journalists have a responsibility not to mislead people."[23]"
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on October 18, 2015, 12:45:PM
where does that qaute come from.

he works for the bbc.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 18, 2015, 02:05:PM
where does that qaute come from.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast#Criticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast#Criticism)


he works for the bbc.

And? So did Jimmy Saville  ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2015, 06:49:PM
palast isnt the only source though.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on February 28, 2016, 05:23:PM
   In light of events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya, does anyone still buy into the ridiculous narrative of Russian aggression being fed to us by our thoroughly discredited media?
   Since this thread was started world events have moved on somewhat. The lies of the US/UK and NATO countries have been exposed for all who want to see the truth, particularly in Syria where we are now openly siding with Islamist jihadi groups.
   Does anyone still believe that Russia is the problem rather than the solution?
   Had Russia not supported the Syrian Government and left it instead to US/NATO, does anyone believe that Syria would be better off?
   Have recent world events changed the minds/ opened the eyes of any posters?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on February 29, 2016, 07:30:AM
   In light of events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya, does anyone still buy into the ridiculous narrative of Russian aggression being fed to us by our thoroughly discredited media?

Your Still wearing the tinfoil hat then I take it. Considering since Putin has now admitted there being Russian troops in Ukraine, Plus anyone can visit Russian Social Media and see what is happening as Russian troops have uploaded photos and videos of the events. Thanks to Google Translator I was actually able to find this footage myself such as that of Russian troops taking Ukrainian soilders prisoner. Considering I don't even watch any major news networks and one can find the facts from the Russians themselves the only one peddling a rediculous narrative is yourself.

As for the Middle East Russia is helping an ally Assad this is nothing new good relations go way back. I've been telling people since 2013 that Assad is the Good guy in all this or to be pragmatic the best of a not so good bunch. Religious extremism in the Middle East will always cause mindless violence for aslong as the Religion exists. Radical Islam is a common enemy between Russia and the U.S.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on February 29, 2016, 11:57:AM
   In light of events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya, does anyone still buy into the ridiculous narrative of Russian aggression being fed to us by our thoroughly discredited media?
   Since this thread was started world events have moved on somewhat. The lies of the US/UK and NATO countries have been exposed for all who want to see the truth, particularly in Syria where we are now openly siding with Islamist jihadi groups.
   Does anyone still believe that Russia is the problem rather than the solution?
   Had Russia not supported the Syrian Government and left it instead to US/NATO, does anyone believe that Syria would be better off?
   Have recent world events changed the minds/ opened the eyes of any posters?

Your post is basically asking if people agree with you or if they are an idiot. Just so you know, you'll think I'm an idiot because I would never suggest that Russia was a solution to anything.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on February 29, 2016, 03:22:PM
   In light of events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya, does anyone still buy into the ridiculous narrative of Russian aggression being fed to us by our thoroughly discredited media?
   Since this thread was started world events have moved on somewhat. The lies of the US/UK and NATO countries have been exposed for all who want to see the truth, particularly in Syria where we are now openly siding with Islamist jihadi groups.
   Does anyone still believe that Russia is the problem rather than the solution?
   Had Russia not supported the Syrian Government and left it instead to US/NATO, does anyone believe that Syria would be better off?
   Have recent world events changed the minds/ opened the eyes of any posters?

I agree with you.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on February 29, 2016, 04:36:PM
   In light of events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya, does anyone still buy into the ridiculous narrative of Russian aggression being fed to us by our thoroughly discredited media?
   Since this thread was started world events have moved on somewhat. The lies of the US/UK and NATO countries have been exposed for all who want to see the truth, particularly in Syria where we are now openly siding with Islamist jihadi groups.
   Does anyone still believe that Russia is the problem rather than the solution?
   Had Russia not supported the Syrian Government and left it instead to US/NATO, does anyone believe that Syria would be better off?
   Have recent world events changed the minds/ opened the eyes of any posters?

i wish they would make there minds up are russia the problem or issis
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: John on February 29, 2016, 04:37:PM
   In light of events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya, does anyone still buy into the ridiculous narrative of Russian aggression being fed to us by our thoroughly discredited media?
   Since this thread was started world events have moved on somewhat. The lies of the US/UK and NATO countries have been exposed for all who want to see the truth, particularly in Syria where we are now openly siding with Islamist jihadi groups.
   Does anyone still believe that Russia is the problem rather than the solution?
   Had Russia not supported the Syrian Government and left it instead to US/NATO, does anyone believe that Syria would be better off?
   Have recent world events changed the minds/ opened the eyes of any posters?

Russian aggression or NATO aggression, there is little to choose between them.  Both are very capable of bombing civilians when it suits.

There is no easy solution to the Middle East and the Syrian crisis.  If Assad stays in power it is bad news but if he is removed it is still bad news and lots of people will die.  No wonder the Syrian civilians are getting the hell out!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on February 29, 2016, 11:41:PM
Your Still wearing the tinfoil hat then I take it. Considering since Putin has now admitted there being Russian troops in Ukraine, Plus anyone can visit Russian Social Media and see what is happening as Russian troops have uploaded photos and videos of the events. Thanks to Google Translator I was actually able to find this footage myself such as that of Russian troops taking Ukrainian soilders prisoner. Considering I don't even watch any major news networks and one can find the facts from the Russians themselves the only one peddling a rediculous narrative is yourself.

As for the Middle East Russia is helping an ally Assad this is nothing new good relations go way back. I've been telling people since 2013 that Assad is the Good guy in all this or to be pragmatic the best of a not so good bunch. Religious extremism in the Middle East will always cause mindless violence for aslong as the Religion exists. Radical Islam is a common enemy between Russia and the U.S.
[/color]
    So how do you see the US/UK, NATO, Turkey(our NATO allies), Saudi Arabia roles in Syria?
    How about the UK involvement with Saudi Arabia in the bombing causing international outrage in Yemen at the moment?
     The evidence, for those not blinded by nationalism, of western aggression is undeniable. The Russian intervention in Syria has exposed to all but the wilfully blind, that the UK/US and NATO are on the wrong side. We are attempting regime change quite openly now and still many are wearing blinkers.
     The truth is that Putin and Russia, along with Iran and Hezbollah, are all that stands to protect the  Christians, Druze, Yazidis, Shia and Alawite muslims plus various other minority groups(all protected under Assad's secular government) from the western sponsored jihadists. The supporting of jihadi groups and calls for Assad to go can only lead to one thing. A failed state and slaughter on a mass scale of non Wahhabists.
    The plans of the West have nothing to do with the benefit of the Syrian people and everything to do with serving vested interests. How else can anyone explain Western actions in Syria?
    We were lied to about WMD in Iraq which is now an anarchic state overrun by various islamist factions.
    We were lied to and misled about imminent slaughter and no fly zones in Libya which is now a failed state overrun by various Islamist factions.
    There is a saying, which that great orator of our time, Dubya, famously managed to mangle.
    "Fool me once, shame on you,
      fool me twice, shame on me"
     We are being lied to by the same people again about Syria and Ukraine, but ssh don't mention Yemen.
     Many it seems are willing to be fooled thrice.
     Ukraine has not been invaded, Russia don't need to invade since the east of the country is largely ethnic and pro Russian anyway.Some Russian soldiers being in Ukraine does not constitute an invasion. You really need to learn more and stop swallowing propaganda. By your metric the US has invaded Syria, given that they(the US) admit to having "forces embedded amongst the rebels", no doubt the nice fluffy moderate ones that the Pentagon insists, against all evidence, actually exist.
     The moderate terrorists seem to appear and disappear depending on the narrative that day.
     It was only in October that the Pentagon scrapped it's train and equip program after spending $500m and being left with four or five rebels remaining when the majority defected to Jabhat Al Nusra, along with their $500m of US arms and training. At this time it was declared that there were very few non jihadist rebels in Syria by Ashton Carter(US spokesman/propagandist)
     As soon as Russia started bombing however, according the US et al, moderate rebels were everywhere and the Russians and Assad were only targeting "moderates" and not ISIS.
     Quite what the fuck it has to do with US/UK, NATO, Saudi, Turkey etc. is left unexplained(can of worms best left unopened). They don't explain what their interest is in who governs a country that has nothing to do with them. It is absurd to be protesting on behalf of terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government. Russia are there to help the recognised Syrian government overcome a terrorist threat. That terrorist threat is openly supported by countries allied to us and has the aim of overthrowing a government that even NATO admit would likely win free and fair elections and would have done so at any time during this supposed civil war (In reality a US sponsored attempt at regime change ably assisted by the usual suspects).
     
   
    So called Russian aggression is in fact Russian response to Western aggression and standing up to NATO which is nothing more than cover for aggressive US foreign policy.
    At the moment Russia are a necessary bulwark against the destructive Western foreign policy in the Middle East and are preventing the destruction and break up of Syria by the terrorist proxies of US/Nato.
     US meddling in Ukraine is not even disputed. What is their interest there?
     That some are too blind to see that they are being fooled by the same propaganda by the same propagandists, but this time it is Russia who must be dealt with, shows their gullibility.
     Facts don't lie and for anyone in any doubt, take a look at a map.
     If you do please point out all of the foreign Russian bases and Russian forces abroad.
     Then look for all of the US bases and troops stationed around the world.
     If you still conclude that Russia is the aggressor then there is no hope for you
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 01, 2016, 01:06:AM
[/color]
    So how do you see the US/UK, NATO, Turkey(our NATO allies), Saudi Arabia roles in Syria?
    How about the UK involvement with Saudi Arabia in the bombing causing international outrage in Yemen at the moment?
     The evidence, for those not blinded by nationalism, of western aggression is undeniable. The Russian intervention in Syria has exposed to all but the wilfully blind, that the UK/US and NATO are on the wrong side. We are attempting regime change quite openly now and still many are wearing blinkers.
     The truth is that Putin and Russia, along with Iran and Hezbollah, are all that stands to protect the  Christians, Druze, Yazidis, Shia and Alawite muslims plus various other minority groups(all protected under Assad's secular government) from the western sponsored jihadists. The supporting of jihadi groups and calls for Assad to go can only lead to one thing. A failed state and slaughter on a mass scale of non Wahhabists.
    The plans of the West have nothing to do with the benefit of the Syrian people and everything to do with serving vested interests. How else can anyone explain Western actions in Syria?
    We were lied to about WMD in Iraq which is now an anarchic state overrun by various islamist factions.
    We were lied to and misled about imminent slaughter and no fly zones in Libya which is now a failed state overrun by various Islamist factions.
    There is a saying, which that great orator of our time, Dubya, famously managed to mangle.
    "Fool me once, shame on you,
      fool me twice, shame on me"
     We are being lied to by the same people again about Syria and Ukraine, but ssh don't mention Yemen.
     Many it seems are willing to be fooled thrice.
     Ukraine has not been invaded, Russia don't need to invade since the east of the country is largely ethnic and pro Russian anyway.Some Russian soldiers being in Ukraine does not constitute an invasion. You really need to learn more and stop swallowing propaganda. By your metric the US has invaded Syria, given that they(the US) admit to having "forces embedded amongst the rebels", no doubt the nice fluffy moderate ones that the Pentagon insists, against all evidence, actually exist.
     The moderate terrorists seem to appear and disappear depending on the narrative that day.
     It was only in October that the Pentagon scrapped it's train and equip program after spending $500m and being left with four or five rebels remaining when the majority defected to Jabhat Al Nusra, along with their $500m of US arms and training. At this time it was declared that there were very few non jihadist rebels in Syria by Ashton Carter(US spokesman/propagandist)
     As soon as Russia started bombing however, according the US et al, moderate rebels were everywhere and the Russians and Assad were only targeting "moderates" and not ISIS.
     Quite what the fuck it has to do with US/UK, NATO, Saudi, Turkey etc. is left unexplained(can of worms best left unopened). They don't explain what their interest is in who governs a country that has nothing to do with them. It is absurd to be protesting on behalf of terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government. Russia are there to help the recognised Syrian government overcome a terrorist threat. That terrorist threat is openly supported by countries allied to us and has the aim of overthrowing a government that even NATO admit would likely win free and fair elections and would have done so at any time during this supposed civil war (In reality a US sponsored attempt at regime change ably assisted by the usual suspects).
     
   
    So called Russian aggression is in fact Russian response to Western aggression and standing up to NATO which is nothing more than cover for aggressive US foreign policy.
    At the moment Russia are a necessary bulwark against the destructive Western foreign policy in the Middle East and are preventing the destruction and break up of Syria by the terrorist proxies of US/Nato.
     US meddling in Ukraine is not even disputed. What is their interest there?
     That some are too blind to see that they are being fooled by the same propaganda by the same propagandists, but this time it is Russia who must be dealt with, shows their gullibility.
     Facts don't lie and for anyone in any doubt, take a look at a map.
     If you do please point out all of the foreign Russian bases and Russian forces abroad.
     Then look for all of the US bases and troops stationed around the world.
     If you still conclude that Russia is the aggressor then there is no hope for you
   

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 01, 2016, 12:12:PM
[/color]
    So how do you see the US/UK, NATO, Turkey(our NATO allies), Saudi Arabia roles in Syria?
    How about the UK involvement with Saudi Arabia in the bombing causing international outrage in Yemen at the moment?
     The evidence, for those not blinded by nationalism, of western aggression is undeniable. The Russian intervention in Syria has exposed to all but the wilfully blind, that the UK/US and NATO are on the wrong side. We are attempting regime change quite openly now and still many are wearing blinkers.
     The truth is that Putin and Russia, along with Iran and Hezbollah, are all that stands to protect the  Christians, Druze, Yazidis, Shia and Alawite muslims plus various other minority groups(all protected under Assad's secular government) from the western sponsored jihadists. The supporting of jihadi groups and calls for Assad to go can only lead to one thing. A failed state and slaughter on a mass scale of non Wahhabists.
    The plans of the West have nothing to do with the benefit of the Syrian people and everything to do with serving vested interests. How else can anyone explain Western actions in Syria?
    We were lied to about WMD in Iraq which is now an anarchic state overrun by various islamist factions.
    We were lied to and misled about imminent slaughter and no fly zones in Libya which is now a failed state overrun by various Islamist factions.
    There is a saying, which that great orator of our time, Dubya, famously managed to mangle.
    "Fool me once, shame on you,
      fool me twice, shame on me"
     We are being lied to by the same people again about Syria and Ukraine, but ssh don't mention Yemen.
     Many it seems are willing to be fooled thrice.
     Ukraine has not been invaded, Russia don't need to invade since the east of the country is largely ethnic and pro Russian anyway.Some Russian soldiers being in Ukraine does not constitute an invasion. You really need to learn more and stop swallowing propaganda. By your metric the US has invaded Syria, given that they(the US) admit to having "forces embedded amongst the rebels", no doubt the nice fluffy moderate ones that the Pentagon insists, against all evidence, actually exist.
     The moderate terrorists seem to appear and disappear depending on the narrative that day.
     It was only in October that the Pentagon scrapped it's train and equip program after spending $500m and being left with four or five rebels remaining when the majority defected to Jabhat Al Nusra, along with their $500m of US arms and training. At this time it was declared that there were very few non jihadist rebels in Syria by Ashton Carter(US spokesman/propagandist)
     As soon as Russia started bombing however, according the US et al, moderate rebels were everywhere and the Russians and Assad were only targeting "moderates" and not ISIS.
     Quite what the fuck it has to do with US/UK, NATO, Saudi, Turkey etc. is left unexplained(can of worms best left unopened). They don't explain what their interest is in who governs a country that has nothing to do with them. It is absurd to be protesting on behalf of terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government. Russia are there to help the recognised Syrian government overcome a terrorist threat. That terrorist threat is openly supported by countries allied to us and has the aim of overthrowing a government that even NATO admit would likely win free and fair elections and would have done so at any time during this supposed civil war (In reality a US sponsored attempt at regime change ably assisted by the usual suspects).
     
   
    So called Russian aggression is in fact Russian response to Western aggression and standing up to NATO which is nothing more than cover for aggressive US foreign policy.
    At the moment Russia are a necessary bulwark against the destructive Western foreign policy in the Middle East and are preventing the destruction and break up of Syria by the terrorist proxies of US/Nato.
     US meddling in Ukraine is not even disputed. What is their interest there?
     That some are too blind to see that they are being fooled by the same propaganda by the same propagandists, but this time it is Russia who must be dealt with, shows their gullibility.
     Facts don't lie and for anyone in any doubt, take a look at a map.
     If you do please point out all of the foreign Russian bases and Russian forces abroad.
     Then look for all of the US bases and troops stationed around the world.
     If you still conclude that Russia is the aggressor then there is no hope for you
   

Well argued Gringo.  A very fair assessment.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 01, 2016, 01:03:PM
[/color]
    So how do you see the US/UK, NATO, Turkey(our NATO allies), Saudi Arabia roles in Syria?
    How about the UK involvement with Saudi Arabia in the bombing causing international outrage in Yemen at the moment?
     The evidence, for those not blinded by nationalism, of western aggression is undeniable. The Russian intervention in Syria has exposed to all but the wilfully blind, that the UK/US and NATO are on the wrong side. We are attempting regime change quite openly now and still many are wearing blinkers.
     The truth is that Putin and Russia, along with Iran and Hezbollah, are all that stands to protect the  Christians, Druze, Yazidis, Shia and Alawite muslims plus various other minority groups(all protected under Assad's secular government) from the western sponsored jihadists. The supporting of jihadi groups and calls for Assad to go can only lead to one thing. A failed state and slaughter on a mass scale of non Wahhabists.
    The plans of the West have nothing to do with the benefit of the Syrian people and everything to do with serving vested interests. How else can anyone explain Western actions in Syria?
    We were lied to about WMD in Iraq which is now an anarchic state overrun by various islamist factions.
    We were lied to and misled about imminent slaughter and no fly zones in Libya which is now a failed state overrun by various Islamist factions.
    There is a saying, which that great orator of our time, Dubya, famously managed to mangle.
    "Fool me once, shame on you,
      fool me twice, shame on me"
     We are being lied to by the same people again about Syria and Ukraine, but ssh don't mention Yemen.
     Many it seems are willing to be fooled thrice.
     Ukraine has not been invaded, Russia don't need to invade since the east of the country is largely ethnic and pro Russian anyway.Some Russian soldiers being in Ukraine does not constitute an invasion. You really need to learn more and stop swallowing propaganda. By your metric the US has invaded Syria, given that they(the US) admit to having "forces embedded amongst the rebels", no doubt the nice fluffy moderate ones that the Pentagon insists, against all evidence, actually exist.
     The moderate terrorists seem to appear and disappear depending on the narrative that day.
     It was only in October that the Pentagon scrapped it's train and equip program after spending $500m and being left with four or five rebels remaining when the majority defected to Jabhat Al Nusra, along with their $500m of US arms and training. At this time it was declared that there were very few non jihadist rebels in Syria by Ashton Carter(US spokesman/propagandist)
     As soon as Russia started bombing however, according the US et al, moderate rebels were everywhere and the Russians and Assad were only targeting "moderates" and not ISIS.
     Quite what the fuck it has to do with US/UK, NATO, Saudi, Turkey etc. is left unexplained(can of worms best left unopened). They don't explain what their interest is in who governs a country that has nothing to do with them. It is absurd to be protesting on behalf of terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government. Russia are there to help the recognised Syrian government overcome a terrorist threat. That terrorist threat is openly supported by countries allied to us and has the aim of overthrowing a government that even NATO admit would likely win free and fair elections and would have done so at any time during this supposed civil war (In reality a US sponsored attempt at regime change ably assisted by the usual suspects).
     
   
    So called Russian aggression is in fact Russian response to Western aggression and standing up to NATO which is nothing more than cover for aggressive US foreign policy.
    At the moment Russia are a necessary bulwark against the destructive Western foreign policy in the Middle East and are preventing the destruction and break up of Syria by the terrorist proxies of US/Nato.
     US meddling in Ukraine is not even disputed. What is their interest there?
     That some are too blind to see that they are being fooled by the same propaganda by the same propagandists, but this time it is Russia who must be dealt with, shows their gullibility.
     Facts don't lie and for anyone in any doubt, take a look at a map.
     If you do please point out all of the foreign Russian bases and Russian forces abroad.
     Then look for all of the US bases and troops stationed around the world.
     If you still conclude that Russia is the aggressor then there is no hope for you
   
I agree with the above, the west are the cause of most of the trouble in the world and we never seem to learn.
It seems crazy that after the apparent condemnation of the destruction of Iraq the west is at it again.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Real Justice on March 01, 2016, 01:22:PM
I agree with the above, the west are the cause of most of the trouble in the world and we never seem to learn.
It seems crazy that after the apparent condemnation of the destruction of Iraq the west is at it again.
Quite right Maggie, one only has to look at Tony Blair and his track record.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 01, 2016, 01:49:PM
Quite right Maggie, one only has to look at Tony Blair and his track record.
I agree but why only Toni Blair what about Bush and all those Hawks, they were the power base.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 01, 2016, 02:46:PM
i cant see that the west can take on putin and isis at the same time and hope to win surely you have to decide wich ones worse and they got to be isis.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 01, 2016, 03:20:PM
.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 01, 2016, 04:08:PM
Well argued Gringo.  A very fair assessment.

How much Crack Cocaine did you have to smoke while reading Gringos ramblings to conclude its a fair assessment?  Critisizing America for interventions yet supporting Russia when it does the exact same thing. Gringo enthusiastically points out the wrongdoings of the USA but when Russia does the exact same thing he paints a rosy picture finds excuses for Russia or goes into complete denial.



America Evil because its friendly with nondemocratic country, When Russia is friendly with nondemocratic country admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it invades Afghanistan - But Russia also invaded Afghanistan? admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it Invades Iraq, But when Russia invades Georgia admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it kills Islamists in Pakistan, But when Russia Kills Islamists in Chechnya admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it has done A B and C etc But  Russia is good because it has done A B and C etc

Gringo mentality in a nutshell







Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: susan on March 01, 2016, 04:20:PM
How much Crack Cocaine did you have to smoke while reading Gringos ramblings to conclude its a fair assessment?  Critisizing America for interventions yet supporting Russia when it does the exact same thing. Gringo enthusiastically points out the wrongdoings of the USA but when Russia does the exact same thing he paints a rosy picture finds excuses for Russia or goes into complete denial.



America Evil because its friendly with nondemocratic country, When Russia is friendly with nondemocratic country admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it invades Afghanistan - But Russia also invaded Afghanistan? admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it Invades Iraq, But when Russia invades Georgia admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it kills Islamists in Pakistan, But when Russia Kills Islamists in Chechnya admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it has done A B and C etc But  Russia is good because it has done A B and C etc

Gringo mentality in a nutshell

David
I think the opening of your post to ngb is rude and quite insulting he has every right to agree with Gringo without the aid of Crack or any other substance. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on March 01, 2016, 04:24:PM
Putin is corrupt.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: maggie on March 01, 2016, 04:49:PM
Putin is corrupt.
They're ALL corrupt imo Buddy but imo some are more corrupt than others.
 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 01, 2016, 04:49:PM
How much Crack Cocaine did you have to smoke while reading Gringos ramblings to conclude its a fair assessment?  

That is an offensive comment and I object to it.

Critisizing America for interventions yet supporting Russia when it does the exact same thing. Gringo enthusiastically points out the wrongdoings of the USA but when Russia does the exact same thing he paints a rosy picture finds excuses for Russia or goes into complete denial.

It is not exactly the same thing.  There is a fundamental difference between the interventions of Russia and those of the USA and its allies and that has been the case for many years.



America Evil because its friendly with nondemocratic country, When Russia is friendly with nondemocratic country admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it invades Afghanistan - But Russia also invaded Afghanistan?

The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan.  As wth Syria they were invited to give support by the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.  With Soviet support the Afghan government made huge progress.  This was thwarted and destroyed by the USA and its allies arming a bunch of fundamentalist nutters who later morphed into Al Quada and the Taliban.  They were of course "freedom fighters" then! 

admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it Invades Iraq, But when Russia invades Georgia admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it kills Islamists in Pakistan, But when Russia Kills Islamists in Chechnya admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it has done A B and C etc But  Russia is good because it has done A B and C etc

Gringo mentality in a nutshell

I do believe you actually believe this right wing rubbish you spout! 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on March 01, 2016, 04:57:PM
They're ALL corrupt imo Buddy but imo some are more corrupt than others.
Putin has spent millions on a holiday home, which no doubt he will retire to. I cannot believe that the Russian people have swallowed his deceit.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: buddy on March 01, 2016, 05:01:PM
Our politicians are not squeaky clean either.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 01, 2016, 05:27:PM
That is an offensive comment and I object to it.

Apologies if your sense of humor didn't register it

It is not exactly the same thing.  There is a fundamental difference between the interventions of Russia and those of the USA and its allies and that has been the case for many years.

American intervention = protect its interests and expand its influence

Russian intervention = protect its interests and expand its influence

I do believe you actually believe this right wing rubbish you spout!

I don't even subscribe to the left wing/right wing view of the world. I don't know why you assume I do.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 01, 2016, 07:00:PM
Putin has spent millions on a holiday home, which no doubt he will retire to. I cannot believe that the Russian people have swallowed his deceit.

that doesnt make him that much diffrent from any other world leader.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 01, 2016, 07:13:PM
How much Crack Cocaine did you have to smoke while reading Gringos ramblings to conclude its a fair assessment?  Critisizing America for interventions yet supporting Russia when it does the exact same thing. Gringo enthusiastically points out the wrongdoings of the USA but when Russia does the exact same thing he paints a rosy picture finds excuses for Russia or goes into complete denial.



America Evil because its friendly with nondemocratic country, When Russia is friendly with nondemocratic country admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it invades Afghanistan - But Russia also invaded Afghanistan? admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it Invades Iraq, But when Russia invades Georgia admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it kills Islamists in Pakistan, But when Russia Kills Islamists in Chechnya admit nothing deny everything avoid reality.

America Evil because it has done A B and C etc But  Russia is good because it has done A B and C etc

Gringo mentality in a nutshell








You have no idea what you are talking about.
  That you compare the US invasion of Iraq with Russia's intervention in Georgia shows how ill informed and brainwashed you are. Apart from anything else the aftermath of the supposed Russian invasions are nothing compared to the anarchy and failed states which are the hallmark of Western interventions. The differences between Iraq and Georgia were explained to you much earlier in this thread but it was clearly over your head. You have said nothing to rebut the previous points made and instead just resort to poorly spelt and grammatically incorrect insults while repeating the same discredited mantra.
       You are blinded by jingoism and obviously easily distracted from the crimes of your own government. Do as you're told and worry about Putin and Russia and Ukraine and don't concern yourself with what your own government is doing in your name.
    What do you think about the UK arms exports and training to Saudi Arabia, given the international outcry over the Saudi war crimes in Yemen? Why are you more outraged by Putin than your own government?
    Do you think, on the evidence available, that the US/UK have overtly or covertly armed and funded jihadists?
    Do you think, on the evidence available, that Russia has overtly or covertly armed and funded Islamist jihadists?
   
    Do you have nothing to say to defend US/UK et al and their invasion of Syria?
    Do you think that the Russian government lied to justify their intervention in Georgia?
    How about the US/UK governments? Did they lie to justify their intervention in Iraq?
    If you could answer the above questions honestly then you would know the difference between recent Russian and US/NATO interventions but you will offer no coherent argument and just resort to name calling because that's all you have.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on March 01, 2016, 08:10:PM
i cant say im a fan of ethere side really.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 01, 2016, 09:08:PM
  That you compare the US invasion of Iraq with Russia's intervention in Georgia shows how ill informed and brainwashed you are. Apart from anything else the aftermath of the supposed Russian invasions are nothing compared to the anarchy and failed states which are the hallmark of Western interventions. The differences between Iraq and Georgia were explained to you much earlier in this thread but it was clearly over your head. You have said nothing to rebut the previous points made and instead just resort to poorly spelt and grammatically incorrect insults while repeating the same discredited mantra.
       You are blinded by jingoism and obviously easily distracted from the crimes of your own government. Do as you're told and worry about Putin and Russia and Ukraine and don't concern yourself with what your own government is doing in your name.
    What do you think about the UK arms exports and training to Saudi Arabia, given the international outcry over the Saudi war crimes in Yemen? Why are you more outraged by Putin than your own government?
    Do you think, on the evidence available, that the US/UK have overtly or covertly armed and funded jihadists?
    Do you think, on the evidence available, that Russia has overtly or covertly armed and funded Islamist jihadists?
   
    Do you have nothing to say to defend US/UK et al and their invasion of Syria?
    Do you think that the Russian government lied to justify their intervention in Georgia?
    How about the US/UK governments? Did they lie to justify their intervention in Iraq?
    If you could answer the above questions honestly then you would know the difference between recent Russian and US/NATO interventions but you will offer no coherent argument and just resort to name calling because that's all you have.

America Evil because it has military bases in Germany and South Korea. But Russia is good so find excuses for Russian military bases in Armenia and Vietnam.

America Evil because it uses waterboarding to interrogate people, But Russia is good so ignore Russia poisons people with radioactive plutonium.

America Evil because its friendly with undemocratic Saudi Arabia. Ignore fact that Russia is friendly with undemocratic China because Russia is Good and America evil

Gringo logic in a nutshell
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 01, 2016, 11:48:PM
America Evil because it has military bases in Germany and South Korea. But Russia is good so find excuses for Russian military bases in Armenia and Vietnam.

America Evil because it uses waterboarding to interrogate people, But Russia is good so ignore Russia poisons people with radioactive plutonium.

America Evil because its friendly with undemocratic Saudi Arabia. Ignore fact that Russia is friendly with undemocratic China because Russia is Good and America evil

Gringo logic in a nutshell
  To address your points in order David,
    Seeing as you are comparing US and Russian military presence beyond their borders I will help flesh out your argument with the bits that you appear to have overlooked.
    The US has over 700 bases worldwide with a presence in 156 countries. A total of over 250,000 US military personnel are deployed outside the US.
    Russia has around 10 foreign bases and around 20,000 military personnel deployed abroad.
    Your argument seems to overlook this information as if it has no relevance. Does this added information   not matter to your "logic"?
    Your second point is equally lacking in context and detail. It's almost as if you realise that too many facts make your views look like ill informed tosh. Again I will help you with the details that you missed and attempt to add context to your rather limited view.
     The US did, as you correctly point out, waterboard people during interrogations. You forgot about the illegal rendition programme, the torture at Abu Ghraib, the ongoing outrage of Guantanamo bay.
     Google US torture and find out for yourself the extent of US torture during their so called "War on terror".
     You compare this to a spy being assassinated in murky circumstances. Even if you believe that the Russians killed Litvinenko, how do you compare the killing of a spy with mass torture and illegal rendition programmes? Are you seriously drawing a moral equivalence between Litvinenko's killing and industrial use of torture?
      Your comparison demonstrates the intellectual rigour that you apply to your "research".
      The best that can be said for the third point that you raise is that is equally as well thought through as your previous two and just shows the paucity of your reasoning skills.
      Saudi Arabia being an ally should be intolerable because of their role in supporting Islamist jihadists to overthrow secular Arab governments and their promotion worldwide of their own particularly extreme religious bigotry, Wahhabism. Again google it David and wise up. Saudi Arabia are also, as I previously pointed out to you, being condemned worldwide for their war crimes in Yemen. The UK is supporting those ongoing crimes with not just arms sales, but seconded British personnel deployed with the Saudi Forces.
      My problem, and everybody else's, with Saudi Arabia is not because of their lack of democracy. You just made that up because you had no defence to our support of the Saudis, so mention democracy and throw in China. You're not very good at this David and are way out of your depth.
     The final sentence of your poorly constructed supposed rebuttal simply highlights your poor understanding of the subject. After putting forward such "context free" facts and attempting to pass them off as a coherent argument makes you poorly qualified to pass judgement on the logic and reasoning skills of anyone.
     I think it is pretty clear whose logic is faulty.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 02, 2016, 04:51:AM
you're not very good at this David and are way out of your depth.
The final sentence of your poorly constructed supposed rebuttal simply highlights your poor understanding of the subject. After putting forward such "context free" facts and attempting to pass them off as a coherent argument makes you poorly qualified to pass judgement on the logic and reasoning skills of anyone.
I think it is pretty clear whose logic is faulty
 

I am reluctant to waste my time arguing with someone who denies facts of the situation, believes in or resorts to absurd conspiracies and has a inconsistent contradictory view of the world. Thus I tend to give you mocking or satirical answers

Seeing as you are comparing US and Russian military presence beyond their borders I will help flesh out your argument with the bits that you appear to have overlooked.
    The US has over 700 bases worldwide with a presence in 156 countries. A total of over 250,000 US military personnel are deployed outside the US.
    Russia has around 10 foreign bases and around 20,000 military personnel deployed abroad.
    Your argument seems to overlook this information as if it has no relevance. Does this added information   not matter to your "logic"?
    Your second point is equally lacking in context and detail. It's almost as if you realise that too many facts make your views look like ill informed tosh. Again I will help you with the details that you missed and attempt to add context to your rather limited view.
 

The US has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries. It has a military presence in over 150 countries it does not mean they have an actual base in those countries.  In 56 of all 150 countries, the U.S. has less than 10 active-duty personnel present.

Still far more than Russia, but you are under the impression that the US does this out of aggression, That is false, the US does what it does because it can, The US has the manpower and the wealth to create a military presence across the globe. Russia has fewer bases and less military power not because its good or the good guy but because it cannot match the United States, Russia does not have the population size, wealth or resources to create a military like the US does. If Russia did have the manpower and could afford to do so it would adopt a US style military strategy. And even if Russia did have the capability it would never build as many aircraft carries or foreign bases as the US because of Russias size and location it makes such a strategy unnecessary. Russia has Europe and Asia on its door steps already
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 03, 2016, 01:07:AM
I am reluctant to waste my time arguing with someone who denies facts of the situation, believes in or resorts to absurd conspiracies and has a inconsistent contradictory view of the world. Thus I tend to give you mocking or satirical answers

The US has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries. It has a military presence in over 150 countries it does not mean they have an actual base in those countries.  In 56 of all 150 countries, the U.S. has less than 10 active-duty personnel present.

Still far more than Russia, but you are under the impression that the US does this out of aggression, That is false, the US does what it does because it can, The US has the manpower and the wealth to create a military presence across the globe. Russia has fewer bases and less military power not because its good or the good guy but because it cannot match the United States, Russia does not have the population size, wealth or resources to create a military like the US does. If Russia did have the manpower and could afford to do so it would adopt a US style military strategy. And even if Russia did have the capability it would never build as many aircraft carries or foreign bases as the US because of Russias size and location it makes such a strategy unnecessary. Russia has Europe and Asia on its door steps already
    You are reluctant to enter into debate and instead resort to insult because you have no argument, as you have demonstrated. You talk of conspiracies incessantly but have as yet been unable to point out which parts of my posts are conspiracy theory, despite me asking you for clarification many times.
    You are too ill informed to enter into debate on the issue hence your insults.
    The point of the comparisons between Russian and US military presence outside of their own borders was as I stated in the post. I was adding facts and context to your puerile comparisons earlier and emphasizing that your comparisons were lacking the necessary details. Do you even read the reply before resorting to insults, or is it above your reading level?
    Given the amount of invasions and wars that the US has been and are involved in, I would be interested to hear how you have concluded that I am wrong to have the impression that the US acts out of aggression. You believe that the US has a large military presence "because it can" and because the US "has the manpower and the wealth".
     Are you serious? Is this your considered opinion as to why the US has such massive military presence abroad?How old are you David?, because this is an incredibly naive view.
      You think that the reason for the US having over a quarter of a million military personnel stationed abroad in over 150 countries and spending more on arms than the next nine largest spenders combined is because the US had to give all those people something to do, what with all that manpower.I wonder who came up with the ruse of invading and bombing lots of countries so they could use lots of this seemingly spare wealth. What a land of milk and honey the USA must be. 
      I hope that all those foreign people who have been slaughtered and their surviving families, all those people who were tortured as part of the US "war on terror" and the millions of displaced people realise that the US doesn't bomb and invade them out of aggression. What would give them that impression, David?
      They would have to be conspiracy nuts to believe that the US has any aggressive intent wouldn't they David?
       Unsurprisingly you failed to answer any of the questions asked of you so we'll try again.
       Seeing as you believe that there is some equivalence between Russia's actions in Georgia and US/UK action in Iraq do you consider that Putin lied in order to justify the Russian intervention in Georgia?
       Do you believe that the US and UK governments lied in order to justify their intervention in Iraq?
       In your opinion have Russia armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments? 
       How about the US, do you think that they have armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments?
       Answer those questions honestly and it should be obvious, even to one as myopic as you, that the US are the biggest threat to world peace and order.
     
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Hartley. on March 03, 2016, 07:47:AM
    You are reluctant to enter into debate and instead resort to insult because you have no argument, as you have demonstrated. You talk of conspiracies incessantly but have as yet been unable to point out which parts of my posts are conspiracy theory, despite me asking you for clarification many times.
    You are too ill informed to enter into debate on the issue hence your insults.
    The point of the comparisons between Russian and US military presence outside of their own borders was as I stated in the post. I was adding facts and context to your puerile comparisons earlier and emphasizing that your comparisons were lacking the necessary details. Do you even read the reply before resorting to insults, or is it above your reading level?
    Given the amount of invasions and wars that the US has been and are involved in, I would be interested to hear how you have concluded that I am wrong to have the impression that the US acts out of aggression. You believe that the US has a large military presence "because it can" and because the US "has the manpower and the wealth".
     Are you serious? Is this your considered opinion as to why the US has such massive military presence abroad?How old are you David?, because this is an incredibly naive view.
      You think that the reason for the US having over a quarter of a million military personnel stationed abroad in over 150 countries and spending more on arms than the next nine largest spenders combined is because the US had to give all those people something to do, what with all that manpower.I wonder who came up with the ruse of invading and bombing lots of countries so they could use lots of this seemingly spare wealth. What a land of milk and honey the USA must be. 
      I hope that all those foreign people who have been slaughtered and their surviving families, all those people who were tortured as part of the US "war on terror" and the millions of displaced people realise that the US doesn't bomb and invade them out of aggression. What would give them that impression, David?
      They would have to be conspiracy nuts to believe that the US has any aggressive intent wouldn't they David?
       Unsurprisingly you failed to answer any of the questions asked of you so we'll try again.
       Seeing as you believe that there is some equivalence between Russia's actions in Georgia and US/UK action in Iraq do you consider that Putin lied in order to justify the Russian intervention in Georgia?
       Do you believe that the US and UK governments lied in order to justify their intervention in Iraq?
       In your opinion have Russia armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments? 
       How about the US, do you think that they have armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments?
       Answer those questions honestly and it should be obvious, even to one as myopic as you, that the US are the biggest threat to world peace and order.
     
   

That's a fair argument on a number of meandering points, although it might have been better received had you refrained from getting involved in some of the personal jibes, especially when you accuse David of doing the same, no doubt borne out of frustration.

With regards to military presence outside of borders, I can understand David's view that Russia is the largest country in the world spanning across the globe, therefore they do not require so many external bases. Although it is also worth noting that the majority of Russia's external military assets are located in territories which was formerly part of the Soviet block.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 03, 2016, 08:00:AM
    You are reluctant to enter into debate and instead resort to insult because you have no argument, as you have demonstrated. You talk of conspiracies incessantly but have as yet been unable to point out which parts of my posts are conspiracy theory, despite me asking you for clarification many times.
    You are too ill informed to enter into debate on the issue hence your insults.
    The point of the comparisons between Russian and US military presence outside of their own borders was as I stated in the post. I was adding facts and context to your puerile comparisons earlier and emphasizing that your comparisons were lacking the necessary details. Do you even read the reply before resorting to insults, or is it above your reading level?
    Given the amount of invasions and wars that the US has been and are involved in, I would be interested to hear how you have concluded that I am wrong to have the impression that the US acts out of aggression. You believe that the US has a large military presence "because it can" and because the US "has the manpower and the wealth".
     Are you serious? Is this your considered opinion as to why the US has such massive military presence abroad?How old are you David?, because this is an incredibly naive view.
      You think that the reason for the US having over a quarter of a million military personnel stationed abroad in over 150 countries and spending more on arms than the next nine largest spenders combined is because the US had to give all those people something to do, what with all that manpower.I wonder who came up with the ruse of invading and bombing lots of countries so they could use lots of this seemingly spare wealth. What a land of milk and honey the USA must be. 
      I hope that all those foreign people who have been slaughtered and their surviving families, all those people who were tortured as part of the US "war on terror" and the millions of displaced people realise that the US doesn't bomb and invade them out of aggression. What would give them that impression, David?
      They would have to be conspiracy nuts to believe that the US has any aggressive intent wouldn't they David?
       Unsurprisingly you failed to answer any of the questions asked of you so we'll try again.
       Seeing as you believe that there is some equivalence between Russia's actions in Georgia and US/UK action in Iraq do you consider that Putin lied in order to justify the Russian intervention in Georgia?
       Do you believe that the US and UK governments lied in order to justify their intervention in Iraq?
       In your opinion have Russia armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments? 
       How about the US, do you think that they have armed and funded Islamist jihadists and used them as proxies to destabilise/overthrow "unfriendly" governments?
       Answer those questions honestly and it should be obvious, even to one as myopic as you, that the US are the biggest threat to world peace and order.
     
   

How ironic, several month ago you were claiming that the Russian military involvement in Ukraine was a lie being peddled by America and NATO, you when't on to say that I had been brainwashed by media outlets! Media outlets that I don't even watch or take note of. I had kindly gone out my way to show you factual documented proof of Russian military activity in Ukraine from primary sources of information, then what did you do? Deny everything and continue to believe it's all a lie despite overwhelming evidence you buried your head in the sand claiming I was the one brainwashed and ill informed. 

Now Vladimir Putin himself has admitted there are Russian military boots in eastern Ukraine. Ultimately proving what was already proven and that I had explained to you all along, Now you have the audacity to continue denying your errors and one again go on to say that I am the one ill informed and not very good at debating the subject then you claim that I have no argument. You are a classic example of the Emperor with no clothes.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: John on March 03, 2016, 11:16:AM
Putin is corrupt.

That must be the understatement of the day, the entire Russian government and those who pandy to it are corrupt to the core.

That said however, what do members think of the latest claim by a US general that the exodus from Syria is a carefully planned project by Russia and Assad to destabilize Europe?

ps  it appears to be working!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 03, 2016, 02:25:PM
That's a fair argument on a number of meandering points, although it might have been better received had you refrained from getting involved in some of the personal jibes, especially when you accuse David of doing the same, no doubt borne out of frustration.

Gringo denies factual evidence and believes his opinions are more valid than reality.

Gringo criticizes George W Bush for the American policy on Iraq when in fact it was actually Bill Clinton that made the removal of Saddam Hussein official foreign policy not George W Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWT587vW5E4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWT587vW5E4)

Gringo believes that the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an illegal war of aggression, It may seem that way to anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict. In 1991 after the US liberated Kuwait, Iraq and the US signed a conditional ceasefire approved and passed by the UN see (United Nations Security Council Resolution 687) anyone with a shade of sense will know that conditional ceasefire does not bring a conflict to a conclusion and breaking the conditions can result in the ceasefire being void thus the military conflict commences.

The Iraqi WMD program was a means to and end for Saddam Hussein, gassing tens of thousands of innocent men women and children with Sarin and Hydrogen Cyanide to ensure reqime survival was the norm under the Baathist Regime. I have documents from Saddams own government below in case Gringo starts to go into La La land again
(http://s28.postimg.org/n71lxtdop/image.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/n71lxtdop/)

(http://s28.postimg.org/4sr2tu1e1/image.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/4sr2tu1e1/)

Gringo claims that Bush lied about WMD to invade Iraq and ignores the fact that they did find WMD in Iraq and statements from former Iraq Military Commanders and Iraqi Nuclear Scientists corroborate the claims that Iraq was In violation United Nations Security Council Resolution 687.

UN Special Commission (UNSCOM)

Saddam’s primary concern was retaining a cadre of skilled scientists to facilitate reconstitution of WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, former science advisor Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far Hashim

According to ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud, Saddam privately told him that Iraq would reacquire WMD post-sanctions.

See Iraq Survey Group Final Report


(http://s27.postimg.org/b06nc6d0f/nytfoiarequest_p1_normal.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/b06nc6d0f/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Avarice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Avarice)

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003 and it is an inconvenient truth everyone prefers to ignore. Specially Gringo because to him the USA is Evil Empire and a Dictatorship that uses chemical weapons on innocent people to ensure regime survival and attempts to conquests its niegbours is somehow the innocent victim of evil American Empire.

Nobody with half a brain in Kuwait or South Korea would object to US foreign policy, NGB Claims he celebrated when America left Vietnam ignorant of the fact that everyone is Saigon was begging the Americans to take them to the US, Afterall they were about to be forced into an ideology that had murdered almost 100 million people in the 20th century alone so I cannot blame them but someone USA is the evil empire in the minds of some.


With regards to military presence outside of borders, I can understand David's view that Russia is the largest country in the world spanning across the globe, therefore they do not require so many external bases. Although it is also worth noting that the majority of Russia's external military assets are located in territories which was formerly part of the Soviet block.

Exactly, Russia has eastern Europe on one end and you can see Alaska from the east of the Russia on the other end its massive!, Plus Russia has direct access to the Middle East via the black sea and the Caspian Sea, Then it borders with the Korean Peninsula and has Islands in the Japanese sea in close proximity to the Japanese mainland, a country of such size that has access to all regions except Africa and South America does not require a large amount of Bases.

The USA spends 3.5% of its GDP on its military, While Russia spends 4.5% of its GDP on its military. Both those figures are fairly reasonable.

Gringo then complains that the US uses NATO for its own ends and is then completely ignores the fact that Russia does the exact same thing with CSTO (collective security treaty organization) and Ignores the fact that Russia has a Military partnership with China and both use SCO to increase their influence over the region.

Gringo thinks America evil because it creates treaties to expand its empire of influence. But then look what Russia a China are creating?

(http://chinaincentralasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SCO-members-map1.jpg)


Map of CSTO (Russian Version of Nato)
(http://www.moscowtopnews.com/image/article/1/7/5/1175.jpeg)

Talk about double standards,  ;D
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2016, 01:22:AM
How ironic, several month ago you were claiming that the Russian military involvement in Ukraine was a lie being peddled by America and NATO, you when't on to say that I had been brainwashed by media outlets! Media outlets that I don't even watch or take note of. I had kindly gone out my way to show you factual documented proof of Russian military activity in Ukraine from primary sources of information, then what did you do? Deny everything and continue to believe it's all a lie despite overwhelming evidence you buried your head in the sand claiming I was the one brainwashed and ill informed. 

Now Vladimir Putin himself has admitted there are Russian military boots in eastern Ukraine. Ultimately proving what was already proven and that I had explained to you all along, Now you have the audacity to continue denying your errors and one again go on to say that I am the one ill informed and not very good at debating the subject then you claim that I have no argument. You are a classic example of the Emperor with no clothes.
   David since you claim that Russia has invaded Ukraine, then surely you will have an approximate idea of how many troops this invasion consists of. I am sure that you will be able to enlighten us with the size of this Russian invasion force. Approximate numbers will suffice and it is be expected that you will support your claim with evidence that is verifiable; not just what somebody said on youtube.
     After all an invasion is not the sort of thing that you can keep secret in this age of communication. The pictures of this invasion must have been all over the news and print media.
    That Russia and Russians in general support the Ukrainian rebels is understandable. If you really wanted  to find out the truth rather than the version served up to you by vested interests then you would know that there is a civil war in Ukraine. It is undeniable that Ukraine is a divided country and that the majority of inhabitants of regions of the east and south of the country are pro and largely ethnic Russian.
    The west of the country including Kiev is largely more orientated towards Europe and the eastern regions do not accept rule by what they see as western stooges installed by a coup. Whether you believe that a coup took place is neither here nor there, it is the view of the majority of Ukrainians in the eastern regions.
    Russia has actually acted with restraint in the face of western provocations. Had they really invaded Ukraine then it would be over inside days. That there is a stalemate at the moment is evidence enough that the Ukrainian military is fighting rebels and not Russia.The east of the country will not accept the rule of what they see as the puppet government of Kiev and these are the real facts.
    One of my daughters shares a house with, amongst others, a Ukrainian who is ethnically Russian. His opinion is that the West are the aggressors in Ukraine and he would like Russia to intervene officially. I am sure however that if he were a Ukrainian from Kiev then his views may well be the opposite. This is the crux of the matter. There is a civil war in Ukraine not an invasion by Russia.
    I pointed out to you earlier that the US have admitted boots on the ground in Syria but you haven't mentioned the US invasion of Syria. So do let us know how many Russian troops are in Ukraine in this invasion.
    Your obsession with Russia's supposed crimes is indicative of your nationalistic right wing views. You should be questioning your own government's roles in the various international conflicts that we involve ourselves in, Yemen for example. You really ought to take a more objective and less subjective view of world events.
    For instance an objective view of US and Russian troop presence in Syria and Ukraine, respectively,would consider facts and context rather than treating both with equivalence.
    The Russian presence in Ukraine, that has been admitted to by Putin, is of military advisors (a fairly obvious euphemism for Special forces). This much can be inferred from the fact that Putin's admission came when calling for  a "calm discussion" with the Ukrainians over a prisoner swap involving two captured Russian special forces. Putin said at this time, "We never said that there weren't people there dealing with certain tasks, including in the military sphere".
    Again it can be reasonably inferred from this that Russian special forces are operating and helping the rebels in Ukraine, and that Putin rather than admit this earlier peddled the line that there was no invasion by Russian troops. Whilst it may be disingenuous to omit special forces presence, it does not however constitute an invasion either.
   To add some context to these verifiable facts we must now consider what the Russian interest in Ukraine is in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Ukraine borders Russia and there are legitimate concerns from Russia at the expansion of Nato towards its borders.  The eastern regions want autonomy from Kiev at the least and arguably want to become a Russian territory. The eastern regions are also largely ethnic Russians and the ties with Russia are historically strong.
     There have been calls from these regions for more military help from Russia to defend against the Ukrainian army and various right wing and outright Nazi paramilitaries who have fighting alongside them.
     None of this can be seriously disputed.


    The US presence that has been admitted to in Syria by Obama, Kerry and others is of commandos and special forces being embedded with rebels. There is also the infamous and now suspended $500m program to arm and train non jihadist rebels which was embarrassingly stopped when the US was forced to admit that all but 4 or 5 had defected to jihadist groups, mostly Al nusra(Al Qaeda affiliates).
    It has also been admitted by the US that they have informed the Russians of the positions of their embedded forces in order to avoid casualties.
    There is no doubt then that US forces are helping terrorists attempting to overthrow a government.
    To add context to these facts we must now consider what the US interest is in Syria in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Well the US definitely doesn't border Syria and there are no parts of it that have a large make up of ethnic Americans. There are no real historical links between Syria and the US, the US have not been invited by the Syrian government and nor has their assistance been requested.
    Again none of this can be seriously disputed.
    If you were to be objective then you would see that Russia has legitimate interests in events in Ukraine and Syria for that matter.
    It is impossible however to claim that the US interests in Syria are in any way legitimate.
    Russia, on the other hand, is there at the request of the UN and internationally recognised government of Syria. Furthermore it is not disputed by NATO/US/UK that Assad would win any free and fair election held in Syria, hence their insistence that he must go and not be allowed to stand. The real goal of NATO is to overthrow Assad and their actions and statements make this clear.
   
     Ultimately, David I'm not really in a debate with you(you are too ill informed and not well enough read),
I am schooling you. You are just failing to take the lessons on board.
   
   
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 04, 2016, 02:05:AM
 
     Ultimately, David I'm not really in a debate with you(you are too ill informed and not well enough read),
I am schooling you. You are just failing to take the lessons on board.
   
   

(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/lol_spider-man.gif)



How can I take your "lessons" on board? Ramblings of a conspiracy nut with no factual primary sources of evidence to back up his absurd claims that is not what I call schooling. The only thing you are doing is entertaining me by being a politically inept clown.

Time and time again I dismantle your claims. I even go out my way to find official documents and other primary sources of information, Yet you still like to believe I am being brainwashed by some vast media conspiracy that exists only in your imagination. And the amusing thing is your too foolish to actually work out your foolish
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Caroline on March 04, 2016, 12:43:PM
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/lol_spider-man.gif)



How can I take your "lessons" on board? Ramblings of a conspiracy nut with no factual primary sources of evidence to back up his absurd claims that is not what I call schooling. The only thing you are doing is entertaining me by being a politically inept clown.

Time and time again I dismantle your claims. I even go out my way to find official documents and other primary sources of information, Yet you still like to believe I am being brainwashed by some vast media conspiracy that exists only in your imagination. And the amusing thing is your too foolish to actually work out your foolish

I agree David - Russia a solution?  ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on March 04, 2016, 01:59:PM
   David since you claim that Russia has invaded Ukraine, then surely you will have an approximate idea of how many troops this invasion consists of. I am sure that you will be able to enlighten us with the size of this Russian invasion force. Approximate numbers will suffice and it is be expected that you will support your claim with evidence that is verifiable; not just what somebody said on youtube.
     After all an invasion is not the sort of thing that you can keep secret in this age of communication. The pictures of this invasion must have been all over the news and print media.
    That Russia and Russians in general support the Ukrainian rebels is understandable. If you really wanted  to find out the truth rather than the version served up to you by vested interests then you would know that there is a civil war in Ukraine. It is undeniable that Ukraine is a divided country and that the majority of inhabitants of regions of the east and south of the country are pro and largely ethnic Russian.
    The west of the country including Kiev is largely more orientated towards Europe and the eastern regions do not accept rule by what they see as western stooges installed by a coup. Whether you believe that a coup took place is neither here nor there, it is the view of the majority of Ukrainians in the eastern regions.
    Russia has actually acted with restraint in the face of western provocations. Had they really invaded Ukraine then it would be over inside days. That there is a stalemate at the moment is evidence enough that the Ukrainian military is fighting rebels and not Russia.The east of the country will not accept the rule of what they see as the puppet government of Kiev and these are the real facts.
    One of my daughters shares a house with, amongst others, a Ukrainian who is ethnically Russian. His opinion is that the West are the aggressors in Ukraine and he would like Russia to intervene officially. I am sure however that if he were a Ukrainian from Kiev then his views may well be the opposite. This is the crux of the matter. There is a civil war in Ukraine not an invasion by Russia.
    I pointed out to you earlier that the US have admitted boots on the ground in Syria but you haven't mentioned the US invasion of Syria. So do let us know how many Russian troops are in Ukraine in this invasion.
    Your obsession with Russia's supposed crimes is indicative of your nationalistic right wing views. You should be questioning your own government's roles in the various international conflicts that we involve ourselves in, Yemen for example. You really ought to take a more objective and less subjective view of world events.
    For instance an objective view of US and Russian troop presence in Syria and Ukraine, respectively,would consider facts and context rather than treating both with equivalence.
    The Russian presence in Ukraine, that has been admitted to by Putin, is of military advisors (a fairly obvious euphemism for Special forces). This much can be inferred from the fact that Putin's admission came when calling for  a "calm discussion" with the Ukrainians over a prisoner swap involving two captured Russian special forces. Putin said at this time, "We never said that there weren't people there dealing with certain tasks, including in the military sphere".
    Again it can be reasonably inferred from this that Russian special forces are operating and helping the rebels in Ukraine, and that Putin rather than admit this earlier peddled the line that there was no invasion by Russian troops. Whilst it may be disingenuous to omit special forces presence, it does not however constitute an invasion either.
   To add some context to these verifiable facts we must now consider what the Russian interest in Ukraine is in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Ukraine borders Russia and there are legitimate concerns from Russia at the expansion of Nato towards its borders.  The eastern regions want autonomy from Kiev at the least and arguably want to become a Russian territory. The eastern regions are also largely ethnic Russians and the ties with Russia are historically strong.
     There have been calls from these regions for more military help from Russia to defend against the Ukrainian army and various right wing and outright Nazi paramilitaries who have fighting alongside them.
     None of this can be seriously disputed.


    The US presence that has been admitted to in Syria by Obama, Kerry and others is of commandos and special forces being embedded with rebels. There is also the infamous and now suspended $500m program to arm and train non jihadist rebels which was embarrassingly stopped when the US was forced to admit that all but 4 or 5 had defected to jihadist groups, mostly Al nusra(Al Qaeda affiliates).
    It has also been admitted by the US that they have informed the Russians of the positions of their embedded forces in order to avoid casualties.
    There is no doubt then that US forces are helping terrorists attempting to overthrow a government.
    To add context to these facts we must now consider what the US interest is in Syria in order to take an objective view on the matter.
    Well the US definitely doesn't border Syria and there are no parts of it that have a large make up of ethnic Americans. There are no real historical links between Syria and the US, the US have not been invited by the Syrian government and nor has their assistance been requested.
    Again none of this can be seriously disputed.
    If you were to be objective then you would see that Russia has legitimate interests in events in Ukraine and Syria for that matter.
    It is impossible however to claim that the US interests in Syria are in any way legitimate.
    Russia, on the other hand, is there at the request of the UN and internationally recognised government of Syria. Furthermore it is not disputed by NATO/US/UK that Assad would win any free and fair election held in Syria, hence their insistence that he must go and not be allowed to stand. The real goal of NATO is to overthrow Assad and their actions and statements make this clear.
   
     Ultimately, David I'm not really in a debate with you(you are too ill informed and not well enough read),
I am schooling you. You are just failing to take the lessons on board.
   
   
   

You present the arguments on this very well Gringo.  Keep up the good work!

   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 04, 2016, 06:14:PM
I agree David - Russia a solution?  ::)

The biggest Irony in all this is that self proclaimed "leftists" like NGB criticize the US and see Russia as their solution, completely ignorant of the fact that Russia is more on the right of the spectrum than the United States is.

Russia has a flat rate of Income Tax of 13% thus has a much higher level of wealth inequality than we do (See Gini coefficients) Russia allows its citizens to own guns for self defence, In the US gay marriage is now legal while in Russia promoting homosexuality is illegal in their own words "for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values"
Russia then has a road safety law preventing Transgender people obtaining driving licenses.
Reporters Without Borders put Russia at 147th place in the World Press Freedom Index (from a list of 168 countries)

Then to make matters worse Vladimir Putin favours Donald Trumps for president while Donald Trump openly expresses admiration for Vladimir Putin.

Anyone who sees the US and Russia as polar opposites and believes Russia is a solution for the things they dislike about the US is just ill informed and delusional
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2016, 07:00:PM
You present the arguments on this very well Gringo.  Keep up the good work!

   
  Thanks ngb, I appreciate your support.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 04, 2016, 11:28:PM
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/lol_spider-man.gif)



How can I take your "lessons" on board? Ramblings of a conspiracy nut with no factual primary sources of evidence to back up his absurd claims that is not what I call schooling. The only thing you are doing is entertaining me by being a politically inept clown.

Time and time again I dismantle your claims. I even go out my way to find official documents and other primary sources of information, Yet you still like to believe I am being brainwashed by some vast media conspiracy that exists only in your imagination. And the amusing thing is your too foolish to actually work out your foolish
  David to be brutally honest with you, being called foolish, conspiracy nut, la la etc. by someone with a reading level of approximately 11 is laughable and anyone informed can see this.
     Some way back on this thread you had to ask what the meaning of "sycophant" was.
     I derided you at the time for lacking the wit and intellectual curiosity to use a dictionary and also pointed out that it is a common word that it would be hard to have avoided ever coming across.
      That you had to ask tells us that either you have never come across the word, in which case it is reasonable to assume that your reading material is aimed at those with a reading age of 11, or that if you have come across it then you didn't bother to find out the meaning. If it is the latter option then you need to get back to the easy stuff, because anything challenging is way over your head including most of my posts.
     Your written English is also of a low standard. It is littered with bad spelling and poor grammar. My 12 year old granddaughter and 11 year old grandson could school you on that. Their written English is of a far superior standard to yours and the idea that that you, with language skills that my grandchildren would deem a low standard, are in a position to call anyone foolish is amusing.
      Your reply 363 demonstrates your piss poor reading and comprehension skills.
      Your first two sentences are an example.
   "Gringo denies factual evidence and believes his opinions are more valid than reality"
   "Gringo criticizes George W Bush for the American policy on Iraq when in fact it was actually Bill Clinton that made the removal of Saddam Hussein official foreign policy not George W Bush."
     
     Firstly, you will find that I criticise Bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It happened on his watch, after all. If in order to criticise me, you need to misrepresent the things that I have said then your criticisms are invalid because, well they're lies aren't they.
     It also makes you look stupid because you misrepresent me in order to supposedly demonstrate my misrepresentations. This is exactly what I mean when I tell you that you aren't very good at this debating malarkey. You lack the language skills to recognise that you have been schooled.

     Your next sentence is unintentional comedy gold.
     "Gringo believes that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression, It may seem that way to anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."

     People who don't understand these things, like the then secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, who declared the war illegal in 2004 and stated that it "breached the UN charter" after previously maintaining a silence. What would the Secretary General of the UN know about it?
      How about the International Commission of International Jurists, probably the world's most prestigious and respected body of international lawyers. It was the "overwhelming consensus" that the Iraq invasion was illegal.
     It is not in question that the majority of lawyers in international law regard the invasion as illegal, but what would the likes of Phillippe Sands QC know about it?
    Luckily David is posting and can explain the technicalities of international law to all of us who cannot quite grasp it. I can't imagine that you would require better language skills than David possesses to understand International law. He knows how to use youtube and everything ::) ::)
     
       
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2016, 01:18:AM
  David to be brutally honest with you, being called foolish, conspiracy nut, la la etc. by someone with a reading level of approximately 11 is laughable and anyone informed can see this.
     Some way back on this thread you had to ask what the meaning of "sycophant" was.
     I derided you at the time for lacking the wit and intellectual curiosity to use a dictionary and also pointed out that it is a common word that it would be hard to have avoided ever coming across.
      That you had to ask tells us that either you have never come across the word, in which case it is reasonable to assume that your reading material is aimed at those with a reading age of 11, or that if you have come across it then you didn't bother to find out the meaning. If it is the latter option then you need to get back to the easy stuff, because anything challenging is way over your head including most of my posts.
     Your written English is also of a low standard. It is littered with bad spelling and poor grammar. My 12 year old granddaughter and 11 year old grandson could school you on that. Their written English is of a far superior standard to yours and the idea that that you, with language skills that my grandchildren would deem a low standard, are in a position to call anyone foolish is amusing.
      Your reply 363 demonstrates your piss poor reading and comprehension skills.
      Your first two sentences are an example.
   "Gringo denies factual evidence and believes his opinions are more valid than reality"
   "Gringo criticizes George W Bush for the American policy on Iraq when in fact it was actually Bill Clinton that made the removal of Saddam Hussein official foreign policy not George W Bush."
     
     Firstly, you will find that I criticise Bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It happened on his watch, after all. If in order to criticise me, you need to misrepresent the things that I have said then your criticisms are invalid because, well they're lies aren't they.
     It also makes you look stupid because you misrepresent me in order to supposedly demonstrate my misrepresentations. This is exactly what I mean when I tell you that you aren't very good at this debating malarkey. You lack the language skills to recognise that you have been schooled.

     Your next sentence is unintentional comedy gold.
     "Gringo believes that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression, It may seem that way to anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."

     People who don't understand these things, like the then secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, who declared the war illegal in 2004 and stated that it "breached the UN charter" after previously maintaining a silence. What would the Secretary General of the UN know about it?
      How about the International Commission of International Jurists, probably the world's most prestigious and respected body of international lawyers. It was the "overwhelming consensus" that the Iraq invasion was illegal.
     It is not in question that the majority of lawyers in international law regard the invasion as illegal, but what would the likes of Phillippe Sands QC know about it?
    Luckily David is posting and can explain the technicalities of international law to all of us who cannot quite grasp it. I can't imagine that you would require better language skills than David possesses to understand International law. He knows how to use youtube and everything ::) ::)
     
       

The UN had authorised into force UNSCR 678 in order to Liberate Kuwait from the occupying regime; UNSCR 687 recalled and affirmed that resolution and imposed disarmament obligations on Iraq as one of the conditions. UN Security Council 687 also allowed members to use all necessary means to enforce Iraqi disarmament and compliance with UN inspection and verification, this was a condition of the 1991 ceasefire

Then In 1998, the US and the UK bombed Iraq to “degrade” its WMD capability. The legality of the bombing in 1998 was that UNSCR 678 still governed and overshadowed the entire process.

Menzies Campbell said at the time

Some say that there is no proper legal basis because there is no single resolution of the United Nations Security Council that authorises the action taken during the past 24 hours. To them I say that, when considering the legal basis of the action, one must have regard to resolutions 687 and 688 with which the Gulf war was brought to an end, to the fact that they reflect voluntary undertakings freely entered into by the Iraqi Government to help bring the war to an end and that since then no resolution of the Security Council in respect of these matters has been anything other than entirely consistent with those obligations. When considering the legal basis of the action we must look at the body of resolutions as a whole and not seek to fasten on to one particular resolution or describe it or any other as deficient.


By Iraq breaching the terms this would revive the authorisation of force in UNSCR 678 which allows the US and the UK "Use any force necessary" This is the exact same legal argument used in 2003 when inspectors discovered ballistic missiles that Iraq that was in breach of its ceasefire agreement.

Weather you agree with the Iraq war or not and in hindsight it was a bad idea we can all agree on that. However if you look at the legalities of the situation you will find there is no basis for the 2003 to be illegal as explained above. Allot of politicians will voice the opinion that the war was illegal But the fact they see the invasion as illegal does not mean it was illegal.

I am sure NGB being a lawyer himself can agree with me in this. UNSCR 678 literally had a clause that allowed the Gulf War to restart if Saddam Hussein was in breach of its conditions (which he was) its as simple as that. You could criticize the UN for passing UNSCR 678 with such an ambiguous interpretations as "obey or we will force you to by all means necessary" but what can you do? lesson learned
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 05, 2016, 01:46:PM
The UN had authorised into force UNSCR 678 in order to Liberate Kuwait from the occupying regime; UNSCR 687 recalled and affirmed that resolution and imposed disarmament obligations on Iraq as one of the conditions. UN Security Council 687 also allowed members to use all necessary means to enforce Iraqi disarmament and compliance with UN inspection and verification, this was a condition of the 1991 ceasefire

Then In 1998, the US and the UK bombed Iraq to “degrade” its WMD capability. The legality of the bombing in 1998 was that UNSCR 678 still governed and overshadowed the entire process.

Menzies Campbell said at the time

Some say that there is no proper legal basis because there is no single resolution of the United Nations Security Council that authorises the action taken during the past 24 hours. To them I say that, when considering the legal basis of the action, one must have regard to resolutions 687 and 688 with which the Gulf war was brought to an end, to the fact that they reflect voluntary undertakings freely entered into by the Iraqi Government to help bring the war to an end and that since then no resolution of the Security Council in respect of these matters has been anything other than entirely consistent with those obligations. When considering the legal basis of the action we must look at the body of resolutions as a whole and not seek to fasten on to one particular resolution or describe it or any other as deficient.


By Iraq breaching the terms this would revive the authorisation of force in UNSCR 678 which allows the US and the UK "Use any force necessary" This is the exact same legal argument used in 2003 when inspectors discovered ballistic missiles that Iraq that was in breach of its ceasefire agreement.

Weather you agree with the Iraq war or not and in hindsight it was a bad idea we can all agree on that. However if you look at the legalities of the situation you will find there is no basis for the 2003 to be illegal as explained above. Allot of politicians will voice the opinion that the war was illegal But the fact they see the invasion as illegal does not mean it was illegal.

I am sure NGB being a lawyer himself can agree with me in this. UNSCR 678 literally had a clause that allowed the Gulf War to restart if Saddam Hussein was in breach of its conditions (which he was) its as simple as that. You could criticize the UN for passing UNSCR 678 with such an ambiguous interpretations as "obey or we will force you to by all means necessary" but what can you do? lesson learned
   You do realise that Menzies Campbell opposed the war and has stated that it was in fact illegal. In the quote that you posted Campbell is talking about bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. Here is what Campbell said about the 2003 invasion:
      "The illegality was then and is today easily stated. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits regime change. It is hardly surprising that a treaty formed immediately after the Second World War should do so since the Axis powers ignored the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of those whom they sought to annexe or conquer- just as the action against Iraq did."

      So Menzies Campbell, in whose words you have so much faith, agrees that the invasion was illegal. You have quoted him talking about the bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. He is pretty unequivocal in the passage above, comparing the 2003 invasion to the annexations and invasions of the Nazis. It is good to see that you agree with Menzies Campbell but by extension you now also agree with "conspiracy nuts" like myself, Kofi Annan and even "self confessed lefties" and "crack smokers" like NGB, whose agreement you are now seeking despite insulting him earlier.
     This is what I mean when I say that you're not very good at this.
     He goes on to say:
     "The charter of the UN is not the only source of International Law. Custom and convention also play a part. It is a principle of customary international law that military action can only be justified when all other political and diplomatic alternatives have been exhausted. Until they were forced to leave Iraq by the impending military action the UN inspectors were still doing their job, as were those of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They were still receiving sufficient co-operation from the Iraqis in the search for WMD. In short, all the diplomatic alternatives had not been exhausted. Military action breached both the UN Charter and customary international law."

     You claim to be explaining the intricacies of International law to, "anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."
     It is lucky for us that you are around then isn't it David, to explain the legal intricacies for us. That you chose the opinion of someone who is a QC and has studied International law was a good start but unfortunately for you his opinion is the polar opposite of what you are claiming. You didn't do very well on the legal technicalities part, did you?
    Never mind, perhaps you will do better on the history of the conflict that you appear to believe you grasp well enough to explain to those who don't understand.
    Oh shit, you don't know the difference between 1998 and 2003. I think if I were you I would lay off attempting to teach History too. The kindest thing I could say about your grasp of History is that it is no worse than your grasp of international law.
     This is just embarrassing, David.
     
     
     
     

     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on March 05, 2016, 03:25:PM
   You do realise that Menzies Campbell opposed the war and has stated that it was in fact illegal. In the quote that you posted Campbell is talking about bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. Here is what Campbell said about the 2003 invasion:
      "The illegality was then and is today easily stated. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits regime change. It is hardly surprising that a treaty formed immediately after the Second World War should do so since the Axis powers ignored the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of those whom they sought to annexe or conquer- just as the action against Iraq did."

      So Menzies Campbell, in whose words you have so much faith, agrees that the invasion was illegal. You have quoted him talking about the bombing in 1998 not the 2003 invasion. He is pretty unequivocal in the passage above, comparing the 2003 invasion to the annexations and invasions of the Nazis. It is good to see that you agree with Menzies Campbell but by extension you now also agree with "conspiracy nuts" like myself, Kofi Annan and even "self confessed lefties" and "crack smokers" like NGB, whose agreement you are now seeking despite insulting him earlier.
     This is what I mean when I say that you're not very good at this.
     He goes on to say:
     "The charter of the UN is not the only source of International Law. Custom and convention also play a part. It is a principle of customary international law that military action can only be justified when all other political and diplomatic alternatives have been exhausted. Until they were forced to leave Iraq by the impending military action the UN inspectors were still doing their job, as were those of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They were still receiving sufficient co-operation from the Iraqis in the search for WMD. In short, all the diplomatic alternatives had not been exhausted. Military action breached both the UN Charter and customary international law."

     You claim to be explaining the intricacies of International law to, "anyone who does not understand or cannot grasp the History or the legal technicalities of the conflict."
     It is lucky for us that you are around then isn't it David, to the explain the legal intricacies for us. That you chose the opinion of someone who is a QC and has studied International law was a good start but unfortunately for you his opinion is the polar opposite of what you are claiming. You didn't do very well on the legal technicalities part, did you?
    Never mind, perhaps you will do better on the history of the conflict that you appear to believe you grasp well enough to explain to those who don't understand.
    Oh shit, you don't know the difference between 1998 and 2003. I think if I were you I would lay off attempting to teach History too. The kindest thing I could say about your grasp of History is that it is no worse than your grasp of international law.
     This is just embarrassing, David.
     
           

Once again your selective reading fails miserably. I know that quote from Menzies Campbell is from 1998 and I stated that if you bothered to read properly. Its the basis of the entire argument and even more importantly it shows how Menzies Campbell is prepared to contradict himself to manipulate public opinion.  Menzies Campbell knows full well the 2003 invasion was lawful just as he explained why the 1998 bombings of Iraq was lawful. What Menzies Campbell sais publicly about the 2003 invasion is what any politician does, that is say things that resonate with public opinion.

The 1998 and 1996 airstrikes on Iraq have the same directive ordinance as the 2003 Invasion.

Anthony Aust professor of international law at the London School of Economics said the following in 2004 I quote
it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious.  end quote

Sir Adam Roberts
Professor of international relations at Oxford University in 2004 - quote
Indeed, the 1991 ceasefire was contingent on full Iraqi compliance, and the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully. end quote

Anyone with an objective mind will conclude the 2003 Invasion was in all respects 'Lawful' however if you want to argue if the war was Justified or not then that's a completely different argument all together.

At the end of the day Gringo I am the one who brings forward evidence from primary sources and quote from experts who know what they are talking about to back up my own claims. You on the hand simply mock and try to undermine the credibility of the material I present then you bring nothing except your own opinions not demonstrated by evidence and having to resort to conspiracy theories that are completely fictitious. The only one here causing embarrassment is yourself.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on March 05, 2016, 08:25:PM
Once again your selective reading fails miserably. I know that quote from Menzies Campbell is from 1998 and I stated that if you bothered to read properly. Its the basis of the entire argument and even more importantly it shows how Menzies Campbell is prepared to contradict himself to manipulate public opinion.  Menzies Campbell knows full well the 2003 invasion was lawful just as he explained why the 1998 bombings of Iraq was lawful. What Menzies Campbell sais publicly about the 2003 invasion is what any politician does, that is say things that resonate with public opinion.

The 1998 and 1996 airstrikes on Iraq have the same directive ordinance as the 2003 Invasion.

Anthony Aust professor of international law at the London School of Economics said the following in 2004 I quote
it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious.  end quote

Sir Adam Roberts
Professor of international relations at Oxford University in 2004 - quote
Indeed, the 1991 ceasefire was contingent on full Iraqi compliance, and the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully. end quote

Anyone with an objective mind will conclude the 2003 Invasion was in all respects 'Lawful' however if you want to argue if the war was Justified or not then that's a completely different argument all together.

At the end of the day Gringo I am the one who brings forward evidence from primary sources and quote from experts who know what they are talking about to back up my own claims. You on the hand simply mock and try to undermine the credibility of the material I present then you bring nothing except your own opinions not demonstrated by evidence and having to resort to conspiracy theories that are completely fictitious. The only one here causing embarrassment is yourself.
   So not put off by the fact that your previous post was thoroughly dismantled, you decide to come back for more.
    So far we have Kofi Annan(sec. Gen. of the UN at the time) who presumably knows what he is talking about, the ICJ, Phillippe Sands and Menzies Campbell, with whom who you can't seem to decide whether you agree with or not.
     Menzies Campbell(presumably one of your ever so reliable primary sources, although interestingly Kofi Annan et al. are not seen as primary sources by you), it seems is a reliable source when he appears to support your argument but an opportunist when he disagrees.
     Anyway let's move on to your new sources to see if they in any way strengthen your argument. Also, bear in mind that you have just accused me of "selective reading".

     First of all you quote Anthony Aust, somewhat selectively it could be said. For anyone who is interested in reading the whole of the article it was in the guardian on the 2/3/04, under the title, "Was the war legal? Leading lawyers give their verdict".
      In light of David's accusations of "selective reading", perhaps David should read the whole article and then get back to us with his thoughts/knee jerk bigoted opinions. Anyway, I digress, let's get back to Anthony Aust, who David obviously wouldn't dream of quoting "selectively" from.
        Your quote begins with the words "it was lawful". You appear to have missed the first seven words of his opinion, which has the effect of misrepresenting his views, so I will enlighten you.

      "There is a good legal argument that it is lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the Security Council during the next decade. To say it was no longer effective is spurious..."
       There is more that you missed out, that we shall come to in a moment, but firstly you could do with thinking about the  what the difference is between stating that something is "lawful" and claiming that "there is a good legal argument that it is lawful" and whether missing out those qualifying words is an honest way to "debate".
      He goes on to add, "A second resolution would have been desirable to put the position beyond all doubt and politically, but if the issue ever came before the international court of justice, it could be argued either way with equal cogency. I have been a lawyer for long enough to know you can never predict the outcome of a legal case. What is clear however is that there was legal justification for the government's position."
      Anthony Aust, far from supporting the legality of the invasion, as you claim, is in fact sitting very firmly on the fence. He has basically said that a case could be made but concedes that an equally cogent case can be made that the invasion was illegal.
      Legal justification for the government's position is also very different to saying that the invasion was legal but these fine distinctions are above your reading level.
      Your first expert does not support your argument at all and you were only able to claim that he did by selectively quoting from him and misrepresenting his opinion.
      This is pretty poor stuff even by your own usual standards and the second expert you have chosen is even less supportive than Anthony Aust.

     You quote Sir Adam Roberts even more selectively.
        "There was in principle a possible case for the lawfulness of the resort to war by the US and it's small coalition. In a series of resolutions since 1990, the UN security council had authorised the US and partners to restore peace and security in the region, and that included helping to ensure Iraqi compliance with disarmament arrangements. Indeed, the 1991 ceasefire was contingent on full Iraqi compliance, and the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully.
        The crucial weakness in the case for war was that the US and UK governments overstated the Iraqi threat, and underestimated the effectiveness of the ongoing processes of inspection and containment.
        The governments have to be judged by the information available to them at the time. However, even by that standard the case for the lawfulness of the war looked, and looks, thin. The failure to plan properly for occupation makes it thinner still."
       I have highlighted in red the part that you quoted in order to allow anyone reading judge who of us is selective in their reading.
       Your second expert is even less supportive of your position than Anthony Aust and in fact he tends towards the opinion that it was unlawful.

       That to support your position you have had to misrepresent expert views is laughable. The sub headline in the article that you have quoted from,"As ministers face new challenges on the legality of the invasion of Iraq, Owen Boycott talks to international law experts to find that most think it was illegal"

      The two contributors that you selectively quote from do not support your position and this is the best you could do from the article. You are either stupid or dishonest.
     
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 08:04:AM
   Read through this again, David and you will find all of the points you have raised in the bbc thread have already been addressed. If you don't have the time then in brief you are a little confused as to the difference between a Civil War and an invasion.
    If you think back to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions it may help you to discern the difference.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on May 01, 2018, 09:28:AM
   Read through this again, David and you will find all of the points you have raised in the bbc thread have already been addressed. If you don't have the time then in brief you are a little confused as to the difference between a Civil War and an invasion.
    If you think back to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions it may help you to discern the difference.

As far as I am concerend the two Russian proto states in eastern Ukraine are now seperated from Ukraine. They are states in thier own right. What we have now is a territorial dispute between Ukraine and two new Russian satellite states .The majority of people in eastern Ukraine want to live in a Russian satellite state. So I have no problem with it.

As for Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal tyrant who constrcuted the 4th largerst army in the world despite having a population of just 20 odd million. And I think its appalling that the world sat idly by and done nothing for three decades but merely "contain" the regime. It was a war of aggression for the 20% Sunni Population but a war of liberation for the 80% Shia and Kurds. It may have been poorly executed but I will always support the principle for it.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 01:58:PM
As far as I am concerend the two Russian proto states in eastern Ukraine are now seperated from Ukraine. They are states in thier own right. What we have now is a territorial dispute between Ukraine and two new Russian satellite states .The majority of people in eastern Ukraine want to live in a Russian satellite state. So I have no problem with it.

As for Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal tyrant who constrcuted the 4th largerst army in the world despite having a population of just 20 odd million. And I think its appalling that the world sat idly by and done nothing for three decades but merely "contain" the regime. It was a war of aggression for the 20% Sunni Population but a war of liberation for the 80% Shia and Kurds. It may have been poorly executed but I will always support the principle for it.
    The principle for the Iraq war, that you are supporting, is illegal. However bad we believe someone to be, Might is Right should never dictate foreign policy. It has brought us to where we are now with the criminal genocidal regimes being the ones doing the enforcing.
    The majority of the world is willing Syria/Russia and others to bloody the nose of the western aggressors currently running amok and trashing international law. Either our maniacal leaders are stopped or WW3 is inevitable.
    US/Western hegemony is coming to an end and in a fit of pique the permanent state of the Western powers appear willing to bring the world down with them. This is where turning a blind eye to international law gets you. By attacking Iraq and Libya we opened Pandora's Box.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on May 01, 2018, 09:33:PM
    The principle for the Iraq war, that you are supporting, is illegal.

I think we have argued this before. 

The UN security council imposed a ceasefire agreement on Iraq in Resolution 687 in 1991, In which Iraq had to accept a number of obligations and demands. Material breach of resolution 687 revived the option to use force under resolution 678.  UN resolution 1441 passed in 2002 the council determined that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations. Consequently, the authorization to use force under Resolution 678 was revived.

Technically the invasion was perfectly legal. But you might prefer to call this a loophole. If you want to argue that the war was morally wrong because it did not have the support of the global community like it did in 1991 then that's a different matter all together.

Interestingly Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 were technically unauthorised as there was no UN resolution determining that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations ceasefire agreement in Resolution 687. The 1998 operation by Bill Clinton was a blatant distraction from his impeachment scandal. In 1997 Hussein expelled members of the United Nations inspection team. So what took him so long?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 11:25:PM
I think we have argued this before. 

The UN security council imposed a ceasefire agreement on Iraq in Resolution 687 in 1991, In which Iraq had to accept a number of obligations and demands. Material breach of resolution 687 revived the option to use force under resolution 678.  UN resolution 1441 passed in 2002 the council determined that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations. Consequently, the authorization to use force under Resolution 678 was revived.

Technically the invasion was perfectly legal. But you might prefer to call this a loophole. If you want to argue that the war was morally wrong because it did not have the support of the global community like it did in 1991 then that's a different matter all together.

Interestingly Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 were technically unauthorised as there was no UN resolution determining that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations ceasefire agreement in Resolution 687. The 1998 operation by Bill Clinton was a blatant distraction from his impeachment scandal. In 1997 Hussein expelled members of the United Nations inspection team. So what took him so long?
  We discussed it a page or two back and your attempts at arguing your case were laughable. Selectively quoting lawyers opinions to back up your unsupported views. The lawyers you quoted actually believed the opposite of what your context free, selectively quoted opinions attempted to claim. It was pretty desperate stuff and you were unable then as now to support your ridiculous and long discredited views.
   You are part of an ever dwindling band of apologists clinging onto this myth but you are arguing against the overwhelming consensus amongst international lawyers regarding the legality of the Iraq invasion. This is why you were reduced to misrepresenting the positions of Anthony Aust  QC amongst others. You claimed the support of Sir Menzies Campbell QC and international lawyer and then called him an opportunist or something when it turned out he believed the invasion illegal. 
   The debate over the legality has long been settled.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on May 02, 2018, 01:11:AM
  We discussed it a page or two back and your attempts at arguing your case were laughable. Selectively quoting lawyers opinions to back up your unsupported views. The lawyers you quoted actually believed the opposite of what your context free, selectively quoted opinions attempted to claim. It was pretty desperate stuff and you were unable then as now to support your ridiculous and long discredited views.
   You are part of an ever dwindling band of apologists clinging onto this myth but you are arguing against the overwhelming consensus amongst international lawyers regarding the legality of the Iraq invasion. This is why you were reduced to misrepresenting the positions of Anthony Aust  QC amongst others. You claimed the support of Sir Menzies Campbell QC and international lawyer and then called him an opportunist or something when it turned out he believed the invasion illegal. 
   The debate over the legality has long been settled.

You have not got a leg to stand on. Thats why you are just ranting and misrepresenting my arguments. How about you actually raise the legal points and attack my argument instead of attacking me?

 

1. Resolution 678 authorized force against Iraq to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. Resolution 687, which set out the cease-fire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

3. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

5. Resolution 1441 determined that Iraq was and remained in material breach of resolution 687, because it had not fully complied with its obligations to disarm.

6. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 was revived.

Resolution 678 contained the authorization to “use all necessary means” No time limit on its duration had been established in the operative part of resolution.

The combined effects of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter render the war legal.

Simply telling me I am wrong and going round in circles attacking the poster and not the post is not going to make the Iraq war illegal and never will.




Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on May 02, 2018, 06:46:PM
You have not got a leg to stand on. Thats why you are just ranting and misrepresenting my arguments. How about you actually raise the legal points and attack my argument instead of attacking me?

 

1. Resolution 678 authorized force against Iraq to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. Resolution 687, which set out the cease-fire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

3. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

5. Resolution 1441 determined that Iraq was and remained in material breach of resolution 687, because it had not fully complied with its obligations to disarm.

6. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 was revived.

Resolution 678 contained the authorization to “use all necessary means” No time limit on its duration had been established in the operative part of resolution.

The combined effects of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter render the war legal.

Simply telling me I am wrong and going round in circles attacking the poster and not the post is not going to make the Iraq war illegal and never will.
   David, your grasp of the intricacies of international law surrounding the invasion is, to put it kindly, limited. Below you can read a damning critique by eminent QC., Phillippe Sands regarding the legality of the invasion and the Chilcott report:

     https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/philippe-sands/a-grand-and-disastrous-deceit

   You will find that your interpretations of the resolutions you listed perhaps lack something in understanding. If you can't be arsed to read it in full here are a few relevant sections that deal specifically with the requirement of a new resolution and legality of the invasion.

 "... Even so, Chilcott devotes much of his opening statement on the legality. Distinguishing between substance and process, the inquiry concludes that "the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory." "Far from satisfactory" is a career ending phrase in mandarin speak, a large boot put in with considerable force. As late as January 2003, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told Blair that lawful war required a further Security Council resolution, before later changing his mind - his written advice of 7 March found a second resolution "preferable" (rather than indispensable) - and then changing it again, offering a final view on 17 March: since Iraq was in "material breach" of the existing Security Council resolutions, "the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

    The resolutions in place were well understood and debated at the time leading to millions worldwide in the biggest protests ever seen taking to the streets. At the UN the US/UK were out on a limb against the overwhelming international consensus.
    The US/UK were self evidently going to war regardless of legality and desperately searching for even a fig leaf to justify their actions. Goldsmith's advice appears, to the impartial observer, to have been in some way coerced. He was changing with the wind and under intense pressure to give "legal cover" to the already made decision to go to war.
    The argument is so strained as to be laughable. Phillippe Sands spells it out for you anyway and goes on to say:

   "He homes in on a key question: on what basis did Blair take the decision that Iraq was in further material breach? "Not clear", Chilcott answered, somewhat generously, since the evidence before the enquiry showed that Blair consulted no one but himself - not the UN weapons inspectors, not the Joint Intelligence Committee, not anyone. Playing God and weapons inspector, Blair simply made up his mind that Iraq was in material breach. "Given the gravity of the situation," Chilcott adds, "Lord Goldsmith should have been asked to provide written advice explaining how, in the absence of a majority in the Security Council, Mr. Blair could take that decision."

    This is a pretty damning indictment of the claims to legality through previous resolutions. It should also beg the question why were US/UK seeking a new resolution in the Security Council, if as you contend, the resolutions in place already justified invasion.
    When it became obvious that the US/UK did not have the support for a new resolution authorising force and had no chance of getting one through the UN, there was suddenly legal advice justifying action from the AG, albeit it secret and contrary to his previous advice. Anyway Sands goes on:

    "The report goes further in its criticism of the processes followed in obtaining a legal sign-off. Senior ministers were not consulted. "Normal practice" was cast aside: it was "unusual" for the attorney general rather than a minister to offer an explanation in parliament. Ministers, senior officials and the cabinet weren't provided with the written advice of 7 March: the cabinet wasn't told how Blair had reached his views on material breach. The cabinet "should have been made aware of the uncertainties", but was not. Goldsmith should have provided full written advice explaining the full legal basis for action and setting out all the risks of legal challenge.
    These are forceful criticisms. They are given added heft by the inquiry's failure to be persuaded by Blair and Straw's claim that France was to blame "for the "impasse" in the UN", and by it's blunt rejection of the idea that the UK had upheld the authority of the Security Council. Rather, "in the absence of a majority in support of military action we consider the UK was,in fact, undermining the Security Council's authority."
   
    You should read and consider those words carefully. There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal. Your unsupported and dubious interpretations of international law and the authority contained within UN resolutions are pretty desperate stuff.

    As mentioned in previous posts, that sailed over your head, the ICJ ( International Commission of Jurists), probably the preeminent authority on international law have the following to say:

   "The invasion of Iraq was neither in self defence against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression"
    When you previously attempted to argue in favour of the legality of the invasion you selectively quoted from several lawyers in international law. The lawyers and sources that you did present actually thought the opposite of what you attempted to imply.
     Anthony Aust QC was one of the sources who you quoted "selectively". Sir Menzies Campbell, whose support you claimed but then attacked as an opportunist, despite previously considering him a reliable source, when it turned out that he was unequivocal in his opinion that the 2003 invasion was illegal.
     Elizabeth Wilmshust, legal adviser at the FCO resigned after Goldsmith reversed her legal opinion on the legality of the war. Any number of experts on international law have given detailed opinions on the illegality of the invasion.
    Against this weight of expert opinion and analysis all that you have offered is your own derisory views on resolutions about which you know nothing. There are no impartial experts arguing for the legality of the Iraq invasion and it is a dwindling, sorry band of warmongers and apologists that you are currently associating with.
    Read the link in full and from there you will be able to read the many sources cited in the full article. A who's who of experts in international law in agreement that the invasion was illegal. If you open your mind and read you may learn something.
    Kofi Annan the UN secretary general at the time declared the invasion illegal. Do you have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that you are attempting to argue against. I have pointed out to you previously that I am schooling rather than debating you and this remains true.
    You would be better served to go and do some reading before commenting further because your contributions so far embarrass you.
   

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on May 03, 2018, 12:48:AM
   David, your grasp of the intricacies of international law surrounding the invasion is, to put it kindly, limited. Below you can read a damning critique by eminent QC., Phillippe Sands regarding the legality of the invasion and the Chilcott report:

     https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/philippe-sands/a-grand-and-disastrous-deceit

   You will find that your interpretations of the resolutions you listed perhaps lack something in understanding. If you can't be arsed to read it in full here are a few relevant sections that deal specifically with the requirement of a new resolution and legality of the invasion.

 "... Even so, Chilcott devotes much of his opening statement on the legality. Distinguishing between substance and process, the inquiry concludes that "the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory." "Far from satisfactory" is a career ending phrase in mandarin speak, a large boot put in with considerable force. As late as January 2003, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told Blair that lawful war required a further Security Council resolution, before later changing his mind - his written advice of 7 March found a second resolution "preferable" (rather than indispensable) - and then changing it again, offering a final view on 17 March: since Iraq was in "material breach" of the existing Security Council resolutions, "the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

    The resolutions in place were well understood and debated at the time leading to millions worldwide in the biggest protests ever seen taking to the streets. At the UN the US/UK were out on a limb against the overwhelming international consensus.
    The US/UK were self evidently going to war regardless of legality and desperately searching for even a fig leaf to justify their actions. Goldsmith's advice appears, to the impartial observer, to have been in some way coerced. He was changing with the wind and under intense pressure to give "legal cover" to the already made decision to go to war.
    The argument is so strained as to be laughable. Phillippe Sands spells it out for you anyway and goes on to say:

   "He homes in on a key question: on what basis did Blair take the decision that Iraq was in further material breach? "Not clear", Chilcott answered, somewhat generously, since the evidence before the enquiry showed that Blair consulted no one but himself - not the UN weapons inspectors, not the Joint Intelligence Committee, not anyone. Playing God and weapons inspector, Blair simply made up his mind that Iraq was in material breach. "Given the gravity of the situation," Chilcott adds, "Lord Goldsmith should have been asked to provide written advice explaining how, in the absence of a majority in the Security Council, Mr. Blair could take that decision."

    This is a pretty damning indictment of the claims to legality through previous resolutions. It should also beg the question why were US/UK seeking a new resolution in the Security Council, if as you contend, the resolutions in place already justified invasion.
    When it became obvious that the US/UK did not have the support for a new resolution authorising force and had no chance of getting one through the UN, there was suddenly legal advice justifying action from the AG, albeit it secret and contrary to his previous advice. Anyway Sands goes on:

    "The report goes further in its criticism of the processes followed in obtaining a legal sign-off. Senior ministers were not consulted. "Normal practice" was cast aside: it was "unusual" for the attorney general rather than a minister to offer an explanation in parliament. Ministers, senior officials and the cabinet weren't provided with the written advice of 7 March: the cabinet wasn't told how Blair had reached his views on material breach. The cabinet "should have been made aware of the uncertainties", but was not. Goldsmith should have provided full written advice explaining the full legal basis for action and setting out all the risks of legal challenge.
    These are forceful criticisms. They are given added heft by the inquiry's failure to be persuaded by Blair and Straw's claim that France was to blame "for the "impasse" in the UN", and by it's blunt rejection of the idea that the UK had upheld the authority of the Security Council. Rather, "in the absence of a majority in support of military action we consider the UK was,in fact, undermining the Security Council's authority."
   
    You should read and consider those words carefully. There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal. Your unsupported and dubious interpretations of international law and the authority contained within UN resolutions are pretty desperate stuff.

    As mentioned in previous posts, that sailed over your head, the ICJ ( International Commission of Jurists), probably the preeminent authority on international law have the following to say:

   "The invasion of Iraq was neither in self defence against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression"
    When you previously attempted to argue in favour of the legality of the invasion you selectively quoted from several lawyers in international law. The lawyers and sources that you did present actually thought the opposite of what you attempted to imply.
     Anthony Aust QC was one of the sources who you quoted "selectively". Sir Menzies Campbell, whose support you claimed but then attacked as an opportunist, despite previously considering him a reliable source, when it turned out that he was unequivocal in his opinion that the 2003 invasion was illegal.
     Elizabeth Wilmshust, legal adviser at the FCO resigned after Goldsmith reversed her legal opinion on the legality of the war. Any number of experts on international law have given detailed opinions on the illegality of the invasion.
    Against this weight of expert opinion and analysis all that you have offered is your own derisory views on resolutions about which you know nothing. There are no impartial experts arguing for the legality of the Iraq invasion and it is a dwindling, sorry band of warmongers and apologists that you are currently associating with.
    Read the link in full and from there you will be able to read the many sources cited in the full article. A who's who of experts in international law in agreement that the invasion was illegal. If you open your mind and read you may learn something.
    Kofi Annan the UN secretary general at the time declared the invasion illegal. Do you have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that you are attempting to argue against. I have pointed out to you previously that I am schooling rather than debating you and this remains true.
    You would be better served to go and do some reading before commenting further because your contributions so far embarrass you.
   

This is a snippet of what you quoted.


"the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

It all comes down to this very narrow point. Did Saddam Hussein breach the conditions of the ceasefire agreement?

If the answer to that question is yes. Then we move onto the next question

With Saddam in breach of the ceasefire agreement thus giving the US authorization to “use all necessary means” does this allow the US to forcefully remove the regime?

The term “use all necessary means” with no explicit conditions on what is unnecessary. Then yes the US can forcefully remove the regime.

Its my belief that Saddam Hussein had no intentions of ever fully cooperating. So regime removal was the only solution. Even if Saddam Hussein did not have WMD at the time of the invasion, he intended to rebuild them.

Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival and was prepared to use them on both military and civilian targets if he felt threatened. As we already know.

When the Iranians made breakthroughs into Iraqi territory with Operation Dawn 8 thus Sorounding Basra. They were reppled by nerve agents killing 15,000 Iranian troops in the process. This is one of the reasons why the Americans did not push deep into Iraq in 1991 because they knew what would happen. Since Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival the ceasefire proposals put forward to end what he called "the mother of all battles" as he called it UN resolution 678 was put to him as the "mother of all solutions" ie your regime survives if you disarm.

UN resolution 678 caused a humanitarian disaster. With much of Saddam's republican guard battered and demoralised, civilian uprisings began against the regime.


At the time, much of Iraq was in open revolt, the report notes, and the Iraqi regime was deeply shaken by the fall of Karbala to Shiite rebels. The report said the use of chemical weapons was an example of the “dire nature of the situation” and the regime’s “faith in ‘special weapons’” that it would consider using chemical weapons while coalition forces were still in Iraq.


https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin)

The suppression of the uprising resulted in the exodus of over ten percent of the country's population. and 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed. While the forces that Liberated Kuwait basically sat a watched it happen.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm (https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm)

The only solution was regime change. I don't care how many people disagree with me. Or how much you think my rationale is "laughable". Many pundits and political leaders have expressed the view that since the United Nations Security Council has not enacted a fresh resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, the countries attacking Iraq were breaching international law by doing so. I disagree.
 
Saddam Hussein was charged with possessing prohibited weapons and perpetuating gross violations of human rights. To argue that is removal violated international law is IMO absurd. You are essentially arguing that its illegal to enforce international law and illegal to inforce international humanitarian law.

Do I have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that I am attempting (and succeeding) in arguing against? Yes very much so. The sheer weight of this expert opinion is so weak all it can convince to pass judgment is a quasi kangaroo court in Kuala Lumpur that does not have a UN mandate or recognition.  ;D

The International Criminal Court has passed no such judgement, despite this alleged  "absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal." That you insist has merit. But it cannot even get the case to court.  ;D

Blair is in the jurisdiction to be charged but is not because their is no case against him. (Bush is beyond reach regardless). Don't get me wrong Blair deserves to be humiliated and punished for a wide range of things. But that's not going to cloud by judgment on the Iraq issue. For argument sake If the International Criminal Court put on a show trial and threw all logic out the window and to find Blair guilty of war crime and then jailed him. He would no doubt deserve it for other things he has done, even if such ruling was technically unfair.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on May 03, 2018, 08:20:AM
This is a snippet of what you quoted.


"the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

It all comes down to this very narrow point. Did Saddam Hussein breach the conditions of the ceasefire agreement?

If the answer to that question is yes. Then we move onto the next question

With Saddam in breach of the ceasefire agreement thus giving the US authorization to “use all necessary means” does this allow the US to forcefully remove the regime?

The term “use all necessary means” with no explicit conditions on what is unnecessary. Then yes the US can forcefully remove the regime.

Its my belief that Saddam Hussein had no intentions of ever fully cooperating. So regime removal was the only solution. Even if Saddam Hussein did not have WMD at the time of the invasion, he intended to rebuild them.

Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival and was prepared to use them on both military and civilian targets if he felt threatened. As we already know.

When the Iranians made breakthroughs into Iraqi territory with Operation Dawn 8 thus Sorounding Basra. They were reppled by nerve agents killing 15,000 Iranian troops in the process. This is one of the reasons why the Americans did not push deep into Iraq in 1991 because they knew what would happen. Since Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival the ceasefire proposals put forward to end what he called "the mother of all battles" as he called it UN resolution 678 was put to him as the "mother of all solutions" ie your regime survives if you disarm.

UN resolution 678 caused a humanitarian disaster. With much of Saddam's republican guard battered and demoralised, civilian uprisings began against the regime.


At the time, much of Iraq was in open revolt, the report notes, and the Iraqi regime was deeply shaken by the fall of Karbala to Shiite rebels. The report said the use of chemical weapons was an example of the “dire nature of the situation” and the regime’s “faith in ‘special weapons’” that it would consider using chemical weapons while coalition forces were still in Iraq.


https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin)

The suppression of the uprising resulted in the exodus of over ten percent of the country's population. and 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed. While the forces that Liberated Kuwait basically sat a watched it happen.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm (https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm)

The only solution was regime change. I don't care how many people disagree with me. Or how much you think my rationale is "laughable". Many pundits and political leaders have expressed the view that since the United Nations Security Council has not enacted a fresh resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, the countries attacking Iraq were breaching international law by doing so. I disagree.
 
Saddam Hussein was charged with possessing prohibited weapons and perpetuating gross violations of human rights. To argue that is removal violated international law is IMO absurd. You are essentially arguing that its illegal to enforce international law and illegal to inforce international humanitarian law.

Do I have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that I am attempting (and succeeding) in arguing against? Yes very much so. The sheer weight of this expert opinion is so weak all it can convince to pass judgment is a quasi kangaroo court in Kuala Lumpur that does not have a UN mandate or recognition.  ;D

The International Criminal Court has passed no such judgement, despite this alleged  "absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal." That you insist has merit. But it cannot even get the case to court.  ;D

Blair is in the jurisdiction to be charged but is not because their is no case against him. (Bush is beyond reach regardless). Don't get me wrong Blair deserves to be humiliated and punished for a wide range of things. But that's not going to cloud by judgment on the Iraq issue. For argument sake If the International Criminal Court put on a show trial and threw all logic out the window and to find Blair guilty of war crime and then jailed him. He would no doubt deserve it for other things he has done, even if such ruling was technically unfair.

Have you watched the full video of George Galloway's testimony?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on May 03, 2018, 12:56:PM
Have you watched the full video of George Galloway's testimony?

George Galloway does not come into the equation. If he wants to bitch about Americans selling weapons to Iraq and the middle east during the Iraq-Iran war.


"If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."


- George Galloway

Well Mr Galloway are you aware of who the largest supplier of weapons was to the middle east in that decade? 

Anyway. I've spent more than enough time on this thread.  I'm out.  8)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on May 03, 2018, 04:36:PM
    Your ability to comprehend is severely limited and clearly influenced by your own dogma. Your post literally falls apart after line 5 and 2 of those were quoting somebody else, although selectively, seemingly in order to give a false impression. Selective quoting is your speciality it seems:
     
    This is a snippet of what you posted.

 "the authority to use force under resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived. Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in resolution 1441."

    It all comes down to this very narrow point. Did Saddam Hussein breach the conditions of the ceasefire agreement?
 
   If the answer to that question is yes. Then we move on to the next question.

   "If the answer to that question is yes?"
   But the answer to that question was no.
   Had you bothered to use the preceding and succeeding words of Phillippe Sands, helpfully provided in my previous post, then you would have seen that the question had already been dealt with in clear and damning terms. Blair decided on his own without consultation that Iraq were in breach. Can you actually read and understand at the same time? Read the full link and any other number of expert opinion on the matter.

   "Then we move on to the next question."
   The obvious implication here is that you believe that Iraq were in breach of 1441 despite admitting yourself, without irony intended, a few lines later that they weren't. You cite not a single expert source but instead treat us to the gem. "It is my belief... blah blah".
   Who needs to read and digest the opinions of experts on international law with all it's time consuming reading, having to think about and consider things? It's much quicker and easier to take a knee jerk position based on preconceptions and dogma, isn't it David?
   What bollocks is this? Is it anybody else's belief?
   It is my belief that the invasion was illegal. It also happens to be the belief of what you haughtily dismiss, again without irony intended, with the delusional beyond words following claim:

"Do I have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that I am attempting (and succeeding) in arguing against. The sheer weight of this expert opinion is so weak all it can convince to pass judgement is a quasi kangaroo court in Kuala Lumpur..."

   It is impressive, if that is the correct description, that you can pack so much delusion and ignorance into so few words. You believe that you are "succeeding" in your argument. Only if you are trying to prove your ignorance and idiocy. That being case you are doing a sterling job.
   I suspect that you have done a search using the terms, "Iraq war legality", which would explain the reason why the only opinions expressed on int'l law are yours. You can't find an expert opinion that shares your view. You should ask yourself why that is. Your claim to have understanding of the opinion you are arguing against is, self evidently to any impartial reader, delusional.
   You then go onto display your lack of knowledge of how international power works with your seeming belief that the reasons the architects of the US/UK aggression have not been hauled before international courts is because of the weakness of the case. Are you really that naive and misinformed?
    One of the main routes to the ICC is blocked by virtue of the simple fact that no veto wielding member of the UNSC is ever going to agree to send themselves to the ICC. The US are not even signed up to it.
    There is no other real mechanism that would achieve this outcome because the US/UK are powerful internationally both militarily and economically and would stymie any attempts. Your ignorance and naivete in not understanding this invalidates the  half baked, knee jerk reactions you attempt to pass off as considered opinion.
     It also seems reasonable to infer from this view that you believe there are no "strong cases" of US/UK war crimes ever. All that illegal rendition, torture, invasions and millions dead must have been all done in accordance with int'l law by your warped logic. Otherwise where are the ICC. Lucky for you, David, you can sleep easy, safe in the knowledge that your government are such fine and law abiding actors on the world stage.
     Apropos of nothing you throw in a pathetic "potted history" of the Iraq/Iran war. Were you to watch the George Galloway testimony before the US senate, which Roch recommended, you would learn that the reason we didn't have much to say about the gas attacks at the time was because the US sold Saddam the gas and helped with the targeting.
     You give an explanation of UN resolutions that is patronising and shallow but is clearly your understanding. It is perhaps how a patient and informed adult might attempt to explain int'l law to a 11 year old. You just sound like the 11 year old.
     These half witted diversions are an attempt to show that you are informed and knowledgeable but only betray the fact that you have spent 15, 20 minutes searching for confirmation bias and writing any old shit, relevant or not, about Saddam, Iraq etc. in order to appear so. It hasn't worked.
     All the, unsupported by anyone but yourself, drivel that you have posted in answer to the question, "do you have any understanding of the sheer weight of expert opinion you are arguing against?" would have been more honestly and accurately summed up in a one word answer.
     No.
     
     
     

   
     
     


 





Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: nugnug on May 14, 2018, 10:37:AM
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/05/13/more-evidence-of-false-information-on-the-poisoning-of-sergei-and-yulia-skripal/
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on December 23, 2019, 05:45:PM
An outlook on Russia: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-a-mess-why-is-putin-such-a-formidable-adversary/ar-BBYgra7?ocid=spartanntp
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 24, 2020, 09:30:PM
Another poisoning it seems  :-\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2joAGDObc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2joAGDObc)

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 12:38:AM
Another poisoning it seems  :-\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2joAGDObc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2joAGDObc)
   More idiotic CIA/MI5 propaganda.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 12:47:AM
   More idiotic CIA/MI5 propaganda.

Aljazeera is CIA/MI5 propaganda? Who would have known!  ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 02:07:AM
Aljazeera is CIA/MI5 propaganda? Who would have known!  ::)
    Don't misrepresent me, David.
   Al jazeera whilst good on many issues has it's obvious biases. Do you know who owns it? Or the interests that they represent? The rivalries and alliances?
    It is owned by the Al Thani family (google it)
    Their sympathies lie with the Muslim Brotherhood (again google it)
    Al jazeera are only reporting what they are told.
    Do you honestly believe that Putin or the Russian state had anything to do with this? There are much cleaner and easier ways to kill people with total plausible deniability than ridiculous poisonings. You no doubt believe the ridiculous Salisbury hoax and that two Russians on a tourist visa smeared a supposed deadly nerve agent on a door handle before going window shopping for a couple of hours in Salisbury. I doubt that you even consider where the missing Skripals are now. No proof of life from the UK government but nothing suspicious there just move along. Isn't this Russian poisoning shit getting a bit tired and stale now. Intelligence agencies clearly lack creativity these days. I blame the public school education.
     That you still appear to believe that Russia rather than US/UK/NATO are the aggressors demonstrates that you are not really paying sufficient attention to the aggressive behaviour and language of your own government.
     You see the beam in the eye of the Russians but ignore the mote in the eye of NATO.
     You need to worry about your own government dragging us into wars. We are way more imperialistic brutal and warmongering. Russia don't need to control other countries natural reserves, they've got plenty of their own. It is our Govt's who covet Russia's resources, not vice versa
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 08:25:AM
Do you honestly believe that Putin or the Russian state had anything to do with this?


I never said they did  ???

There are much cleaner and easier ways to kill people with total plausible deniability than ridiculous poisonings

Well yes, the death of Alexander Perepilichny could be one example. But when poison is used like this, its out of spite, they don't just want to kill or harm they want to set an example. Whoever decided to use Polonium on Alexander Litvinenko wanted him to suffer greatly.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on August 25, 2020, 08:29:AM
I'm afraid it's ominously redolent of an elected dictatorship, as occurs to a greater extent in China, but Russia is heading for totalitarianism all the same. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51120166
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 08:42:AM
I'm afraid it's ominously redolent of an elected dictatorship, as occurs to a greater extent in China, but Russia is heading for totalitarianism all the same. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51120166

Russia has done very well under Putin. His biggest opposition is the Russian communist party and most Russians are wise enough not to give them another chance in power.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 09:11:AM
David, are you an American asset, operating in the UK?  What's your code name - 'Cruise' (as in missile or Tom).
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 09:31:AM
David, are you an American asset, operating in the UK?  What's your code name - 'Cruise' (as in missile or Tom).

Yes. I am employed by NASA/Area 51. Assigned to the UK to go around abducting sheep in my flying saucer. They pay well and the burger king is nice so wont be going back to my home galaxy any time soon.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on August 25, 2020, 09:38:AM
Russia has done very well under Putin. His biggest opposition is the Russian communist party and most Russians are wise enough not to give them another chance in power.
He rode the oil price increase and is heavily dependent on that commodity along with gas. The economy itself is smaller than Italy's.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 10:11:AM
He rode the oil price increase and is heavily dependent on that commodity along with gas. The economy itself is smaller than Italy's.

A country is heavily dependant on its natural resources? How odd!
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 10:26:AM
Yes. I am employed by NASA/Area 51. Assigned to the UK to go around abducting sheep in my flying saucer. They pay well and the burger king is nice so wont be going back to my home galaxy any time soon.

I'm not sure why you link me to UFO's. It's not a topic I have given any attention to.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 10:31:AM
I'm not sure why you link me to UFO's. It's not a topic I have given any attention to.

You cited Richard Hall as credible source. That's what I ended up reading  :))
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 10:39:AM
He rode the oil price increase and is heavily dependent on that commodity along with gas. The economy itself is smaller than Italy's.
   You know very little of Russia, Steve, and what little you do know is the repeated talking points of western intelligence agencies through the media. Since the heavy sanctions Russia has become self reliant in many areas, the agriculture especially has grown.
    As I have already pointed out, it is not Russia who covets our natural resources. It is the West acting aggressively, not Russia. You are easily led by misinformation via a controlled media.
    It is laughable to be told that Russia are killing journalists and censoring media by Western presstitutes who seem to have forgotten that the most famous case of state censorship and oppression of journalism is taking place under their noses and with their full connivance. Julian Assange anyone.
    It is a great big elephant in the room with an 800lb gorilla on its back. Those guilty of the persecution of Assange, or of turning a blind eye to it, have zero credibility to lecture about press freedom.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on August 25, 2020, 10:40:AM
A country is heavily dependant on its natural resources? How odd!
Germany and Japan in contrast to Russia have very few natural resources yet much stronger economies.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 10:56:AM
You cited Richard Hall as credible source. That's what I ended up reading  :))

Having an interest in UFO's doesn't diminish Richard Hall's credibility as a source regarding the Thomas Mair case.

Your curious neocon sympathies don't diminish your research in the Bamber case. I wouldn't conflate the two, save perhaps, some bias on your part regarding trust in the authorities.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 11:19:AM
   You know very little of Russia, Steve, and what little you do know is the repeated talking points of western intelligence agencies through the media. Since the heavy sanctions Russia has become self reliant in many areas, the agriculture especially has grown.
    As I have already pointed out, it is not Russia who covets our natural resources. It is the West acting aggressively, not Russia. You are easily led by misinformation via a controlled media.
    It is laughable to be told that Russia are killing journalists and censoring media by Western presstitutes who seem to have forgotten that the most famous case of state censorship and oppression of journalism is taking place under their noses and with their full connivance. Julian Assange anyone.
    It is a great big elephant in the room with an 800lb gorilla on its back. Those guilty of the persecution of Assange, or of turning a blind eye to it, have zero credibility to lecture about press freedom.

Ah yes. Russia is a safe haven for the likes of Assange.

https://cpj.org/data/killed/europe/russia/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&cc_fips%5B%5D=RS&start_year=1992&end_year=2020&group_by=location (https://cpj.org/data/killed/europe/russia/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&cc_fips%5B%5D=RS&start_year=1992&end_year=2020&group_by=location)


 ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on August 25, 2020, 11:20:AM
   You know very little of Russia, Steve, and what little you do know is the repeated talking points of western intelligence agencies through the media. Since the heavy sanctions Russia has become self reliant in many areas, the agriculture especially has grown.
    As I have already pointed out, it is not Russia who covets our natural resources. It is the West acting aggressively, not Russia. You are easily led by misinformation via a controlled media.
    It is laughable to be told that Russia are killing journalists and censoring media by Western presstitutes who seem to have forgotten that the most famous case of state censorship and oppression of journalism is taking place under their noses and with their full connivance. Julian Assange anyone.
    It is a great big elephant in the room with an 800lb gorilla on its back. Those guilty of the persecution of Assange, or of turning a blind eye to it, have zero credibility to lecture about press freedom.
If there had been no invasion of Crimea there would be no need for Western sanctions. Russia is stifling democratic debate and killing (yes killing) its political opponents.  https://youtu.be/vM04zNbsaJg

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 11:39:AM
Ah yes. Russia is a safe haven for the likes of Assange.

https://cpj.org/data/killed/europe/russia/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&cc_fips%5B%5D=RS&start_year=1992&end_year=2020&group_by=location (https://cpj.org/data/killed/europe/russia/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&cc_fips%5B%5D=RS&start_year=1992&end_year=2020&group_by=location)


 ::)
    Your sarcasm is ill judged. Snowden is safe in Russia. Assange is facing 175 years prison and is subject to torture by the UK govt. according to the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer.
 The trials and tribulations of the other players in this ongoing assault on freedom of speech, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, are well known. You need to worry about your own government before you can criticise others.
     The UK along with the usual band of war criminals masquerading as statesmen are a greater danger to world peace than Russia. The aggressions of the West are magnitudes greater than any Russian sins.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 12:18:PM
If there had been no invasion of Crimea there would be no need for Western sanctions. Russia is stifling democratic debate and killing (yes killing) its political opponents.  https://youtu.be/vM04zNbsaJg
    Do you think the Crimeans want liberating from this so called invasion? They don't, if you are unaware. Why do you think that the Crimean people should be forced to live under another regime? Why are you concerned about who governs the Crimeans? and why would you want them to be ruled by a regime they distrust?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on August 25, 2020, 12:24:PM
    Do you think the Crimeans want liberating from this so called invasion? They don't, if you are unaware. Why do you think that the Crimean people should be forced to live under another regime? Why are you concerned about who governs the Crimeans? and why would you want them to be ruled by a regime they distrust?
It was the first change of sovereignty by force in Europe since the Second World War. A terrible precedent to set.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 12:33:PM
    Your sarcasm is ill judged. Snowden is safe in Russia. Assange is facing 175 years prison and is subject to torture by the UK govt. according to the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer.
 The trials and tribulations of the other players in this ongoing assault on freedom of speech, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, are well known. You need to worry about your own government before you can criticise others.
     

How does one "safe" american make up for 57 murdered journalists?   ???

Assange is an attention whore. The "psychological torture" is an act. Had he actually answered the charges back in 2013 and (if we assume) found guilty, Obama would have commuted his sentence in 2017 like he did with his co-conspirator Chelsea Manning.  Now Chelsea Manning is back in prison for refusing to testify against Assange and Assange more or less imprisioned himself in the Ecuadorian embassy for 7 years. He only has himself to blame really.


Furthermore Chelsea Manning and Assange committed theft and espionage. Freedom of speech does mean freedom to steal nor does it mean freedom to divulge confidential information without permission.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 12:43:PM
It was the first change of sovereignty by force in Europe since the Second World War. A terrible precedent to set.
    Is it your belief that the Crimean people should be forced against their will to live under the Ukrainian regime? You don't address the issues. Don't changes of sovereignty by force count if they are not in Europe and haven't you forgotten Yugoslavia? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya plus the ongoing attempts to destabilise Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China to name but a handful. These don't count because they aren't in Europe?
     I don't need to ask why you included such irrelevant and wrong parameters in your non answer. You are way out of your depth on geopolitics as you have demonstrated previously and are limited to repeating things that you have heard via a discredited media and state institutions. Western aggression against other countries is in front of your eyes and you refuse to see it. Russia's actions in the world cannot be credibly criticised by anyone who supports/condones the actions of the UK and its criminal cohorts on the world stage.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 12:46:PM
Lets get back topic.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/poisoning-russian-dissidents-200822163134775.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/poisoning-russian-dissidents-200822163134775.html)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 12:55:PM
How does one "safe" american make up for 57 murdered journalists?   ???

Assange is an attention whore. The "psychological torture" is an act. Had he actually answered the charges back in 2013 and (if we assume) found guilty, Obama would have commuted his sentence in 2017 like he did with his co-conspirator Chelsea Manning.  Now Chelsea Manning is back in prison for refusing to testify against Assange and Assange more or less imprisioned himself in the Ecuadorian embassy for 7 years. He only has himself to blame really.


Furthermore Chelsea Manning and Assange committed theft and espionage. Freedom of speech does mean freedom to steal nor does it mean freedom to divulge confidential information without permission.
    You understand nothing about the Assange case as your brief summary demonstrates and are an apologist for war criminals. You also seem to be assuming that murdered journalists happen only in Russia and are all by the Kremlin. You are doing the same as you accuse Adam of. Gish Gallop. A list of journalists is not an argument. Should you wish to discuss some of those cases individually then do so.
     In the same time frame, according to your source, 11 were murdered in the US. Accidents, like the one that Michael Hastings died in, are not included. You have no idea how many journalists are killed/silenced  by either the Russian government or your own but it would be more honest to be holding your own government to account for reasons too obvious to point out.
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 12:56:PM
Russia's actions in the world cannot be credibly criticised by anyone who supports/condones the actions of the UK and its criminal cohorts on the world stage.

'Axis of Evil'  USA / Israel / UK - (some people might add Saudi Arabia).
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 01:02:PM
Lets get back topic.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/poisoning-russian-dissidents-200822163134775.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/poisoning-russian-dissidents-200822163134775.html)
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/08/navalny-was-not-poisoned.html#comments

     Have a read, particularly the comments and you may learn something. The links between the Hospital involved and the NGO's and a previous supposed poisoning of a Pussy Riot member(an obvious Western intelligence asset) are particularly informative but you will need to read the comments to unearth those links.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 01:12:PM
'Axis of Evil'  USA / Israel / UK - (some people might add Saudi Arabia).
   And France. The Veto in the UN Security Council makes the governments of these countries particularly attractive to those intent on subjugating the world. The France, UK, US axis is sometimes referred to as FUKUS which is particularly apt. Israel in reality is a giant military base for the Western powers rather than a real nation state and its continued existence as an apartheid state is becoming increasingly untenable.
    The tail is now wagging the dog.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 01:24:PM
   And France. The Veto in the UN Security Council makes the governments of these countries particularly attractive to those intent on subjugating the world. The France, UK, US axis is sometimes referred to as FUKUS which is particularly apt. Israel in reality is a giant military base for the Western powers rather than a real nation state and its continued existence as an apartheid state is becoming increasingly untenable.
    The tail is now wagging the dog.

I'm currently reading an excellent book about 7/7. There seems to be a good few Israeli links regarding that as well.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 01:32:PM
I'm currently reading an excellent book about 7/7. There seems to be a good few Israeli links regarding that as well.
    What book are you reading?
    Israel has become the tail that wags the dog. Zionism is a racist and criminal enterprise and our government and state institutions as well as France and US are full of fifth columnists who serve other interests. Our free media will never discuss this and any journalist/politician that dares to address this will be, and are, hounded and ruined.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 01:33:PM
    You understand nothing about the Assange case as your brief summary demonstrates and are an apologist for war criminals. You also seem to be assuming that murdered journalists happen only in Russia and are all by the Kremlin. You are doing the same as you accuse Adam of. Gish Gallop. A list of journalists is not an argument. Should you wish to discuss some of those cases individually then do so.
     In the same time frame, according to your source, 11 were murdered in the US. Accidents, like the one that Michael Hastings died in, are not included. You have no idea how many journalists are killed/silenced  by either the Russian government or your own but it would be more honest to be holding your own government to account for reasons too obvious to point out.
   

Oh.. didn't mean to hit a nerve. My apologies.. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 01:40:PM
'Axis of Evil'  USA / Israel / UK - (some people might add Saudi Arabia).

Then why do you choose to live here? How does the US attract the largest migrant population on the planet?

Evil places I tell you  ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 01:43:PM
Oh.. didn't mean to hit a nerve. My apologies..
    You haven't hit any nerve. You seem to have hit a wall in putting forward anything credible. Is that comment meant to be a substitute for addressing any of the issues beyond posting a list of dead journalists?
    Show me some credible evidence of your allegations/innuendo.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 01:47:PM
Then why do you choose to live here? How does the US attract the largest migrant population on the planet?

Evil places I tell you  ::)

I like American people in general. I like UK people in general. But the people of the UK and USA are not in control of their respective governments, security services and media, all of which are mired in filth.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 01:48:PM
Then why do you choose to live here? How does the US attract the largest migrant population on the planet?

Evil places I tell you  ::)
    Migrants are your guide in measuring whether a country is aggressive on the world stage? What does this demonstrate to you, exactly?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 01:59:PM
    You haven't hit any nerve. You seem to have hit a wall in putting forward anything credible. Is that comment meant to be a substitute for addressing any of the issues beyond posting a list of dead journalists?
    Show me some credible evidence of your allegations/innuendo.

I am trying to talk about the poisoning of Alexey Navalny. You are the one who has taken this subject somewhere else (whether deliberately or not I do not know)

So, The situation with Alexey Navalny. I haven't pointed the finger at anyone or said anything yet.

You expressed the view its MI5/CIA propaganda. What evidence has brought you to that conclusion?


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 01:59:PM
I like American people in general. I like UK people in general. But the people of the UK and USA are not in control of their respective governments, security services and media, all of which are mired in filth.
   Agree with all of that.
    Migrants want to settle in Western nations for any number of reasons. The perceived economic advantages from a point of view of someone with little to base that on. The cultural domination of the English speaking world plays a huge part in the apparent attractiveness to a migrant. English speaking films, literature and music dominate the cultural space.
    This has nothing to do with Western aggression in the world. It seems that more people are waking up to the reality of UK/US et al as aggressive warmongers that the rest of the world needs to face down.
    Some will never be able to face the cognitive dissonance of accepting that so much of what they believe is a lie.
    Tis truly easier to fool a person than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 02:13:PM
I am trying to talk about the poisoning of Alexey Navalny. You are the one who has taken this subject somewhere else (whether deliberately or not I do not know)

So, The situation with Alexey Navalny. I haven't pointed the finger at anyone or said anything yet.

You expressed the view its MI5/CIA propaganda. What evidence has brought you to that conclusion?
   Do you believe that the Skripals were poisoned by two GRU agents with Novichok in Salisbury?
     This may seem irrelevant to you but I am interested in what you consider relevant evidence where poisoning by the Russian state is alleged. It may also highlight the difference between reporting and truth. Lying by omission etc.
     What are your views on the Skripals?
     I am happy to discuss the Navalny issue separately but I suspect that you will have your usual blinkers on.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 02:19:PM
    Migrants are your guide in measuring whether a country is aggressive on the world stage?

No I was simply pointing out that if a place was an "Axis of evil" it wouldn't attract so many people.

People fled Nazi Germany, people fled the USSR. People flee from Cuba, people flee from North Korea etc etc. Those countries can be considered "evil" to some extent or another. Hence people leave and no one desires to move there. On the contrary North America and Western Europe is a desirable place to live people want to live there.


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 02:24:PM
I am trying to talk about the poisoning of Alexey Navalny. You are the one who has taken this subject somewhere else (whether deliberately or not I do not know)

So, The situation with Alexey Navalny. I haven't pointed the finger at anyone or said anything yet.

You expressed the view its MI5/CIA propaganda. What evidence has brought you to that conclusion?
The Charité is a large company that is 100 percent owned by the State of Berlin
https://www.charite.de/die_charite/

Cinema For Peace organised Navalny's 'rescue' and they are also based in Berlin.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-german-ngo-behind-alexei-navalnys-rescue/a-54661016
"The founder of the NGO behind his evacuation, Jaka Bizilj, said private donations had paid for the flight — a Bombardier Challenger chartered by a Nuremberg-based firm — as well as for the medical staff on board.
Bizilj told DW that plans for the evacuation were set in motion on Thursday after members of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot Nadya Tolokonnikova and Pyotr Verzilov appealed to the NGO for help.

"I got a call from Nadia Tolokonnikova from Los Angeles, from Pussy Riot, and from Pyotr from Moscow, asking me if we could help a dear friend, Alexei, who'd got poisoned too," Bizilj told DW in an interview. The foundation had flown Verzilov himself to Berlin in 2018 after he was poisoned and fell ill.

Dizilj stressed that although the governments of Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron had been briefed, Navalny's airlift to Berlin had been a "private" activity.

"It was very expensive to do it in at very short notice, but in the end, during the process, without having to think much about it, private persons came forward and took over [costs]," he said, adding that the charter flight would not burden taxpayers."
...............

So - Pussy Riot rings Jaka Bizilj. Magically donors instantly step forward for the cost of a charter plane. The plane is then kitted out with required medical equipment and doctors and is at the Omsk airport at daylight the next day. Navalny is then transported from the military airport to the hospital with a large convoy of military and civilian ambulances and police escort.
What a load of shit.

Same old Same old. Cinema For peace and Charite.
https://www.dw.com/en/pussy-riot-activist-discharged-from-berlin-hospital-after-alleged-poisoning/a-45651878
"A member of Russian protest group Pussy Riot has been released from a German hospital after recovering from a suspected poisoning. The activist says he's "convinced" he was targeted by Russia's secret service.

Pussy Riot activist Pyotr Verzilov was discharged from hospital in Berlin on Wednesday after making progress in his recovery.

"The patient's health has considerably improved," the Charite hospital said in a statement.

Doctors at the facility found no traces of poison in Verzilov's body, but say the "absorption" of a poison was the "most plausible explanation" for his condition."
......................   

     The above is one of hundreds of comments in the link I gave you earlier. I watched the clip that you posted but you clearly haven't read a word of the link that i gave you.
     There are interesting and informed discussions going on if you choose to look. The same players, the same narratives over and over by the Western intelligence agencies.
     Do you really not see the ongoing efforts and aggression against Russia and other countries? Are you honestly incapable of detecting the same patterns and players time and again. There is ample evidence, as usual, of Western intelligence agencies controlling the narrative again. You don't want to see it.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 02:32:PM
   Do you believe that the Skripals were poisoned by two GRU agents with Novichok in Salisbury?
     

Yes. Strong circumstantial evidence with no plausible alternative explanation.

I am happy to discuss the Navalny issue separately but I suspect that you will have your usual blinkers on.


OK. You expressed the view its MI5/CIA propaganda. What evidence has brought you to that conclusion?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 02:46:PM
The Charité is a large company that is 100 percent owned by the State of Berlin
https://www.charite.de/die_charite/

Cinema For Peace organised Navalny's 'rescue' and they are also based in Berlin.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-german-ngo-behind-alexei-navalnys-rescue/a-54661016
"The founder of the NGO behind his evacuation, Jaka Bizilj, said private donations had paid for the flight — a Bombardier Challenger chartered by a Nuremberg-based firm — as well as for the medical staff on board.
Bizilj told DW that plans for the evacuation were set in motion on Thursday after members of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot Nadya Tolokonnikova and Pyotr Verzilov appealed to the NGO for help.

"I got a call from Nadia Tolokonnikova from Los Angeles, from Pussy Riot, and from Pyotr from Moscow, asking me if we could help a dear friend, Alexei, who'd got poisoned too," Bizilj told DW in an interview. The foundation had flown Verzilov himself to Berlin in 2018 after he was poisoned and fell ill.

Dizilj stressed that although the governments of Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron had been briefed, Navalny's airlift to Berlin had been a "private" activity.

"It was very expensive to do it in at very short notice, but in the end, during the process, without having to think much about it, private persons came forward and took over [costs]," he said, adding that the charter flight would not burden taxpayers."
...............

So - Pussy Riot rings Jaka Bizilj. Magically donors instantly step forward for the cost of a charter plane. The plane is then kitted out with required medical equipment and doctors and is at the Omsk airport at daylight the next day. Navalny is then transported from the military airport to the hospital with a large convoy of military and civilian ambulances and police escort.
What a load of shit.

Same old Same old. Cinema For peace and Charite.
https://www.dw.com/en/pussy-riot-activist-discharged-from-berlin-hospital-after-alleged-poisoning/a-45651878
"A member of Russian protest group Pussy Riot has been released from a German hospital after recovering from a suspected poisoning. The activist says he's "convinced" he was targeted by Russia's secret service.

Pussy Riot activist Pyotr Verzilov was discharged from hospital in Berlin on Wednesday after making progress in his recovery.

"The patient's health has considerably improved," the Charite hospital said in a statement.

Doctors at the facility found no traces of poison in Verzilov's body, but say the "absorption" of a poison was the "most plausible explanation" for his condition."
......................   

     The above is one of hundreds of comments in the link I gave you earlier. I watched the clip that you posted but you clearly haven't read a word of the link that i gave you.
     There are interesting and informed discussions going on if you choose to look. The same players, the same narratives over and over by the Western intelligence agencies.
     Do you really not see the ongoing efforts and aggression against Russia and other countries? Are you honestly incapable of detecting the same patterns and players time and again. There is ample evidence, as usual, of Western intelligence agencies controlling the narrative again. You don't want to see it.

So you are saying Russians who dislike Putin fake being poisoned as part of a smear campaign?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on August 25, 2020, 03:22:PM
There are a few untraceable toxins, some of which give off the same symptoms as Verzilov was given.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 03:27:PM
Yes. Strong circumstantial evidence with no plausible alternative explanation.


OK. You expressed the view its MI5/CIA propaganda. What evidence has brought you to that conclusion?
   The fact that you believe the Skripal fairy tale and believe there to be no "plausible alternative explanation" and "strong circumstantial evidence" is evidence only of your narrow reading on the subject.
    It is way more plausible that Skripal had turned yet again and that the two Russians were involved in some drop or collection with Skripal. This would more sensibly explain why two Russians were "window shopping" in Salisbury in the immediate vicinity of where the Skripals succumbed to whatever substance they were incapacitated with. It is surely not credible that they smeared a deadly nerve agent on a door handle on foreign soil(an act of war, if true) and then went window shopping after this heinous and criminal act. Also this instantaneous deadly nerve agent had no effect for some hours and then both a young woman and an older man succumbed at exactly the same time. It is way more likely that whatever incapacitated the Skripals was applied at the bench they were sitting on.
    It may also explain why Pablo Miller, Skripals MI6 handler, is D noticed in connection with this event. Miller also resides in Salisbury and was Skripals recruiter and handler who now works for/with the infamous Christopher Steele at Orbis intelligence( a supposed private agency that is in reality a blatant UK intel asset run by supposed "ex spooks") also "D" noticed by the UK govt.
    As for Navalny. The links between the the hospital that he transferred to and previous unfounded allegations of poisoning agaist Russia. The huge coordinated noise via the media before any details are known. Already the narrative is set.
    The use of the same old script despite it being discredited time and again. It is why I asked your view on the Skripals. Your no plausible alternative is straight from the desk of GCHQ, your brainwashing is complete.
    The media circus around it before facts are known is a dead giveaway that it is an intelligence op. The results of tests will be spun.
     Here again, there is a relevancy to the Skripal case. Despite what you believe, Novichok has never been confirmed as used in Salisbury and more to the point, almost certainly wasn't.
     The OPCW were asked to confirm that the samples gathered and presented were the same as the UK govt analysis. The UK analysis is confidential. The OPCW confirmed only what the UK asked. What we asked is confidential. A secret. There was no Novichok, it is a UK intel invention against a geoploitical rival.
     You believe the Novichok tale because you don't read enough alternative to the mainstream views. It is a fact that the OPCW nor anyone else has shown that Russian agents nor anyone else used Novichok in Salisbury. The UK govt. have claimed this and media outlets have repeated these lies without question but it is a demonstrable and demonstrated lie. You choose to look the other way.
     Take careful note of the medical reports that will be released. The Russian doctors are being very open about this and have samples. Russian intel is ahead of them on this latest wheeze. The media circus will write what their masters tell them and spin stories but no poison administered by Russian agents will be found. You will believe the opposite of that.
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 03:36:PM
So you are saying Russians who dislike Putin fake being poisoned as part of a smear campaign?
    David, this is a pathetic response. The Russians involved are western intelligence agency assets.
Pussy Riot, Navalny et al are fifth columnists. Yes Western Intelligence agencies are faking attacks and incidents to blame on Russia.
    Do you imagine that there is no intel coordination on these stories?
    Putin, like some comic book villain, plotting poisonings and ways of klling a few irrelevant dissidents?
    You are gullible and naive and not well read or informed on world politics. Hence your silly dismissals as above.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 04:29:PM
   The fact that you believe the Skripal fairy tale and believe there to be no "plausible alternative explanation" and "strong circumstantial evidence" is evidence only of your narrow reading on the subject.
    It is way more plausible that Skripal had turned yet again and that the two Russians were involved in some drop or collection with Skripal. This would more sensibly explain why two Russians were "window shopping" in Salisbury in the immediate vicinity of where the Skripals succumbed to whatever substance they were incapacitated with. It is surely not credible that they smeared a deadly nerve agent on a door handle on foreign soil(an act of war, if true) and then went window shopping after this heinous and criminal act. Also this instantaneous deadly nerve agent had no effect for some hours and then both a young woman and an older man succumbed at exactly the same time. It is way more likely that whatever incapacitated the Skripals was applied at the bench they were sitting on.
    It may also explain why Pablo Miller, Skripals MI6 handler, is D noticed in connection with this event. Miller also resides in Salisbury and was Skripals recruiter and handler who now works for/with the infamous Christopher Steele at Orbis intelligence( a supposed private agency that is in reality a blatant UK intel asset run by supposed "ex spooks") also "D" noticed by the UK govt.
    As for Navalny. The links between the the hospital that he transferred to and previous unfounded allegations of poisoning agaist Russia. The huge coordinated noise via the media before any details are known. Already the narrative is set.
    The use of the same old script despite it being discredited time and again. It is why I asked your view on the Skripals. Your no plausible alternative is straight from the desk of GCHQ, your brainwashing is complete.
    The media circus around it before facts are known is a dead giveaway that it is an intelligence op. The results of tests will be spun.
     Here again, there is a relevancy to the Skripal case. Despite what you believe, Novichok has never been confirmed as used in Salisbury and more to the point, almost certainly wasn't.
     The OPCW were asked to confirm that the samples gathered and presented were the same as the UK govt analysis. The UK analysis is confidential. The OPCW confirmed only what the UK asked. What we asked is confidential. A secret. There was no Novichok, it is a UK intel invention against a geoploitical rival.
     You believe the Novichok tale because you don't read enough alternative to the mainstream views. It is a fact that the OPCW nor anyone else has shown that Russian agents nor anyone else used Novichok in Salisbury. The UK govt. have claimed this and media outlets have repeated these lies without question but it is a demonstrable and demonstrated lie. You choose to look the other way.
     Take careful note of the medical reports that will be released. The Russian doctors are being very open about this and have samples. Russian intel is ahead of them on this latest wheeze. The media circus will write what their masters tell them and spin stories but no poison administered by Russian agents will be found. You will believe the opposite of that.
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 04:31:PM
    David, this is a pathetic response. The Russians involved are western intelligence agency assets.
Pussy Riot, Navalny et al are fifth columnists. Yes Western Intelligence agencies are faking attacks and incidents to blame on Russia.
    Do you imagine that there is no intel coordination on these stories?
    Putin, like some comic book villain, plotting poisonings and ways of klling a few irrelevant dissidents?
    You are gullible and naive and not well read or informed on world politics. Hence your silly dismissals as above.

Did Pussy Riot help blow up building 7?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 04:46:PM
Did Pussy Riot help blow up building 7?
   David Brent gif and stupid questions. Good debating points.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 04:55:PM
https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2020/08/poisoned-kremlin-critic-flown-to.html 
    Some reading for you
   
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/08/the-back-and-forth-about-navalnys-poisoning-.html#more
    and a bit more. Inform yourself and you will rise above David Brent gifs and asking stupid  misrepresented questions.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 04:59:PM
   David Brent gif and stupid questions. Good debating points.

What is there to debate? You are just making up wild conspiracy theories without any primary sources to support what you allege. Expecting people to find Skripals MI6 handler living down the road from him as reasonable grounds for probable cause. Sorry but all that warrants is laughter.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on August 25, 2020, 05:06:PM
   David Brent gif and stupid questions. Good debating points.

The gif is removed now.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 05:13:PM
What is there to debate? You are just making up wild conspiracy theories without any primary sources to support what you allege. Expecting people to find Skripals MI6 handler living down the road from him as reasonable grounds for probable cause. Sorry but all that warrants is laughter.
   I gave a few of the many reasons to disbelieve the UK gov story on the Skripals. You misrepresent one of those points. Previously you have shown yourself to be ignorant and ill informed on world matters because your reading is limited. You still believe the Iraq invasion to be legal and showed how far out of your depth you were when attempting, poorly, to debate it. This was some years back on this thread. It is obvious that you haven't spent the intervening years attempting to be better read and informed.
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 05:15:PM
The gif is removed now.
   Could have left it as far as I'm concerned, NGB. It denigrates the poster not the recipient. They are a childish response and speak volumes.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 05:37:PM
   I gave a few of the many reasons to disbelieve the UK gov story on the Skripals. You misrepresent one of those points.
   

No, you concocted a conspiracy theory.

You still believe the Iraq invasion to be legal and showed how far out of your depth you were when attempting, poorly, to debate it.
 

I don't believe the Iraq Invasion was legal. I know the Iraq invasion was legal. Anyone familiar with the conditional ceasefire that was still in effect (Resolution 687) knows it was legal. You can cite as many intellectually dishonest leftist legal crackpots as you wish its not going to change that.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: ngb1066 on August 25, 2020, 05:42:PM
   Could have left it as far as I'm concerned, NGB. It denigrates the poster not the recipient. They are a childish response and speak volumes.

I know but they are irritating, particularly when used frequently.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 05:44:PM
I know but they are irritating, particularly when used frequently.
   I agree that they are irritating.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 25, 2020, 06:06:PM
No, you concocted a conspiracy theory.

I don't believe the Iraq Invasion was legal. I know the Iraq invasion was legal. Anyone familiar with the conditional ceasefire that was still in effect (Resolution 687) knows it was legal. You can cite as many intellectually dishonest leftist legal crackpots as you wish its not going to change that.
    Can you cite the OPCW confirming that the Skripals were poisoned with novichok? What did the OPCW state was in the samples taken from the Skripals? Otherwise your novichok tale is a conspiracy theory. No newspaper reports paraphrasing or repeating UK govt. spin. Just direct from the OPCW report. What did the UK govt. ask from the OPCW? Do you know? It is important what they were specifically asked to do. Even the Porton Down scientists don't state novichok as the poison.

     I understand your views on the Iraq invasion and you had your arse handed to you because you could find no expert on international law to support your view. You couldn't back your case then as now and calling the experts on international law, ICJ etc. that I cited as "intellectually dishonest leftist legal crackpots" makes you intellectually dishonest.
    It is also intellectually dishonest to justify the invasions and wars waged on your behalf by your government and feign concern at the welfare of Russians. There are millions dead and displaced because of actions committed on your behalf using lies as cover. Care about things closer to home that are done in your name. You are just doing as instructed and believe you are free thinking.
    I am currently going through, systematically, the list of murdered Russian journalists that you posted. It is fairly obvious that you didn't. It doesn't show what you think it does. Will post results later.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 06:18:PM
Here is another case of poisoning. The guys face was very disfigured.  :-\

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673609609120?via%3Dihub (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673609609120?via%3Dihub)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 08:24:PM
In regards to the Skripal case.

Two agents of the GRU Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga (using false names) purchased their flight tickets on the 1st of March and flew to London the next day (2nd of March). They visited Salisbury twice before leaving on the 4th. According to them, they went to see Salisbury Cathedral.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 08:37:PM
In regards to the Skripal case.

Two agents of the GRU Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga (using false names) purchased their flight tickets on the 1st of March and flew to London the next day (2nd of March). They visited Salisbury twice before leaving on the 4th. According to them, they went to see Salisbury Cathedral.

Alexander Mishkin entered the UK as Alexander Pedrov

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpE-gFdWwAEwuMt.jpg)

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/09/world/09skripal1/09skripal1-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 08:46:PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwbY9O_zMe4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwbY9O_zMe4)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on August 25, 2020, 09:04:PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwbY9O_zMe4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwbY9O_zMe4)
They are not who they claim to be: https://youtu.be/H7g7hPdhagk

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/planes-trains-and-fake-names-the-trail-left-by-skripal-suspects
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 09:12:PM
    What book are you reading?
    Israel has become the tail that wags the dog. Zionism is a racist and criminal enterprise and our government and state institutions as well as France and US are full of fifth columnists who serve other interests. Our free media will never discuss this and any journalist/politician that dares to address this will be, and are, hounded and ruined.
.

This one.  Slow start but finding it riveting now. About a quarter of the way in. It's about 350 pages.

I never realised another academic, a professor from Sheffield Hallam had carried out an analysis of the events at Canary Wharf that day. Think I'll read that too.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 25, 2020, 09:30:PM
Our free media will never discuss this and any journalist/politician that dares to address this will be, and are, hounded and ruined.

I can't stress how relevant and important this point is. Our security services control our media. Whichever story is given to the media, it doesn't matter whether you read The Telegraph or The Guardian. whether you read The Mirror or The Mail, whether you watch C4 News or BBC, they will all parrot what is fed to them. There is no journalism as such. And certainly no investigative journalism.  Our media is in thrall to what is fed to them either by security services or quite often by police. The chicken feed, anomalies and false trails that are put out, are not questioned in an objective, examinatory way.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 25, 2020, 09:41:PM
They are not who they claim to be: https://youtu.be/H7g7hPdhagk

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/planes-trains-and-fake-names-the-trail-left-by-skripal-suspects

Yes I know. I stated that already
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 26, 2020, 12:53:AM
They are not who they claim to be: https://youtu.be/H7g7hPdhagk

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/planes-trains-and-fake-names-the-trail-left-by-skripal-suspects
   I don't doubt this. I don't think many do. It is however an enormous leap from there to GRU assassins.  https://www.theblogmire.com/the-salisbury-poisonings-two-years-on-a-riddle-wrapped-in-a-cover-up-inside-a-hoax/
    A more in depth view if you interested in truth rather than intel agency propaganda. From Salisbury resident and blogger Rob Slane. He covered it extensively at time and the archive at the Blogmire is probably the most extensive coverage available of the contradictions and lies of the official account.
    Probably a waste of time for you and David, though.
    It would be like reading Dickens books to my dog.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 26, 2020, 01:37:AM
Probably a waste of time for you and David, though.
 It would be like reading Dickens books to my dog.

[Apply David Brent GIF here]

Speaking of Dickens characters...
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 26, 2020, 02:30:AM
The proof is more or less in the pudding. Both men are on Russian TV using their false names and claiming to be in the “fitness industry”. When they are in fact in the Russian military intelligence service. One is actually decorated with honours.

(https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2018/10/comparison.png)

His name is even engraved on this military monument. For the medal he has received.

(https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2018/09/monument.png)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 26, 2020, 12:03:PM
The proof is more or less in the pudding. Both men are on Russian TV using their false names and claiming to be in the “fitness industry”. When they are in fact in the Russian military intelligence service. One is actually decorated with honours.

(https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2018/10/comparison.png)

His name is even engraved on this military monument. For the medal he has received.

(https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2018/09/monument.png)

My guess is that they were unwittingly snared in a sting, oversaw by British intelligence, for the purpose of 'Russia-phobia'.  They came for one reason but ended up as patsies for another reason.

It's intrigue and counter intrigue. You will never fully get to the bottom of it, precisely because you're not meant to.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 26, 2020, 01:09:PM
My guess is that they were unwittingly snared in a sting, oversaw by British intelligence, for the purpose of 'Russia-phobia'.  They came for one reason but ended up as patsies for another reason.

It's intrigue and counter intrigue. You will never fully get to the bottom of it, precisely because you're not meant to.

lol 😂
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Roch on August 26, 2020, 01:25:PM
lol 😂

'Russia-phobia' alongside 'war on terror' has been deployed as a mass consumption reson d'etre for our security services.

Meanwhile, it turns out we're the real 'interferers' and terrorists.

I find it all embarrassing. British spooks playing at 1970's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, for no real reason.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 26, 2020, 03:18:PM
'Russia-phobia' alongside 'war on terror' has been deployed as a mass consumption reson d'etre for our security services.

Meanwhile, it turns out we're the real 'interferers' and terrorists.

I find it all embarrassing. British spooks playing at 1970's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, for no real reason.

No, the GRU simply wanted to punish a traitor and make an example of him. Russians are very patriotic and don't take treason lightly.

Alexander Litvinenko was making the most outrageous claims. He was publicly accusing Putin and his former allegiances of being responsible for the Russian apartment bombings, the Beslan school siege and The Moscow theater hostage crisis (all of which was perpetrated by Chechen separatists). Nobody deserves to die that way, but he more or less dug his own grave. If someone went around falsely accusing me of mass murdering my own people, including school kids, I would be pretty pissed to.

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 26, 2020, 04:30:PM
No, the GRU simply wanted to punish a traitor and make an example of him. Russians are very patriotic and don't take treason lightly.

Alexander Litvinenko was making the most outrageous claims. He was publicly accusing Putin and his former allegiances of being responsible for the Russian apartment bombings, the Beslan school siege and The Moscow theater hostage crisis (all of which was perpetrated by Chechen separatists). Nobody deserves to die that way, but he more or less dug his own grave. If someone went around falsely accusing me of mass murdering my own people, including school kids, I would be pretty pissed to.


https://streamable.com/1z2z2c (https://streamable.com/1z2z2c)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on August 26, 2020, 05:43:PM
My guess is that they were unwittingly snared in a sting, oversaw by British intelligence, for the purpose of 'Russia-phobia'.  They came for one reason but ended up as patsies for another reason.

It's intrigue and counter intrigue. You will never fully get to the bottom of it, precisely because you're not meant to.
    Pretty fairly sums it up. There are hints as to their real purpose that day, and many plausible theories. The least plausible, in fact impossible, scenario is the incoherent drivel served up by the UK govt.
    I suspect that Skripal had turned again and wanted to return to Russia. Given his service for the UK intelligence agencies there would be a price to pay for his return which more readily explains the presence of the two Russians.
    It also helps to explain the changing timelines and confusion over where DS Bailey was supposedly poisoned. The D notice that was issued by the UK govt. immediately on Pablo Miller and Christopher Steele also hints at motivation. Steele is the author of the infamous "Russiagate" dossier. Miller is the original recruiter and handler of Skripal when UK intel first turned him. The UK govt. immediately banned  mention of either of these two in connection with the case.
    Skripal knows things about UK intel and their motivation from preventing his return is self evident. Where is he now? Where is Julia who is publically accused of nothing?
    Do you remember the sneaked phone call to her cousin? I think a sympathetic nurse or hospital worker had let Julia use her phone. She stated to Victoria that she wanted to return to Russia and that she and her father were ok. Once the recorded call was out there then UK intel could not claim that they were still in coma or whatever. No consular access, no proof of life of either Sergei or Julia, no contact with the family in Russia despite Sergei's mother being 91 and hasn't heard from either since. Previously Sergei called his mother every week.
    The UK govt. need to prove that Sergei and Julia are alive and able to exercise free will. Pictures of a couple of Russians and impossible claims of nerve agent attacks are not sufficient.
    It is the UK gov who have questions to answer, not Russia.
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 27, 2020, 11:11:AM

https://streamable.com/1z2z2c (https://streamable.com/1z2z2c)


On the day of the poisoning (https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/featured-topics/incident-salisbury), GRU agents Chepiga and Mishkin (impersonating themselves tourists Boshirov and Petrov) Checked out of Salisbury Station at 11:48AM they then returned to Salisbury Station at 1:50PM. They were then at Heathrow at 7:30PM later that evening waiting for a flight back to Moscow.

A bizarre holiday indeed. Not that it will stop some indulging in their conspiratorial fantasies. Where the standard of evidence for Russia's culpability is set so high it is impossible to convince them otherwise, whereas immaterial neither here nor there will suffice their conspiracy theories. If two members of the CIA were posing as tourists under false names with the same abnormal traveling schedule that day, Roch and Gringo would likely cream their pants, and we wouldn't hear the end of it.


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 30, 2020, 02:44:PM
Viktor Yushchenko: Ukraine's ex-president on being poisoned (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-43611547)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on August 30, 2020, 08:00:PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_uKCEj2Xk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_uKCEj2Xk)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on September 01, 2020, 10:17:AM

Here is a bit of an article I have read from "The echo of Moscow". I put the text through google translate.

"A certain cholinesterase inhibitor was used against Navalny. In general, this is a fairly wide range of substances, including the aforementioned sarin, soman, V-gases, "newbie". All these are phosphorus-organic substances. In addition to carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and phosphorus, sarin and soman also contain fluorine, V-gases contain nitrogen, and the “novice” (substance A-232) contains both fluorine and nitrogen. But the point is, of course, not in the elemental composition, but in the structure of these organic substances, which can be determined using mass spectrometry with chromatography - a very sensitive method. Some substances of this class can be made unstable so that they decompose in air and in the human body. For example, soman is hydrolyzed and decomposed by 50% in a neutral environment in 41 hours. Modern toxic substances (OM) of this class can decompose much faster."

"Ours will never, under any circumstances, admit involvement in the poisoning of Navalny, if only because it means that Russia is violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is already very serious. (The production of polonium-210, for example, is not prohibited.) Reference to possible private individuals does not save: this means that in our country access to such substances is not controlled. Russia should have already destroyed ALL of their stocks in 2017."
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on September 01, 2020, 06:04:PM
Here is a bit of an article I have read from "The echo of Moscow". I put the text through google translate.

"A certain cholinesterase inhibitor was used against Navalny. In general, this is a fairly wide range of substances, including the aforementioned sarin, soman, V-gases, "newbie". All these are phosphorus-organic substances. In addition to carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and phosphorus, sarin and soman also contain fluorine, V-gases contain nitrogen, and the “novice” (substance A-232) contains both fluorine and nitrogen. But the point is, of course, not in the elemental composition, but in the structure of these organic substances, which can be determined using mass spectrometry with chromatography - a very sensitive method. Some substances of this class can be made unstable so that they decompose in air and in the human body. For example, soman is hydrolyzed and decomposed by 50% in a neutral environment in 41 hours. Modern toxic substances (OM) of this class can decompose much faster."

"Ours will never, under any circumstances, admit involvement in the poisoning of Navalny, if only because it means that Russia is violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is already very serious. (The production of polonium-210, for example, is not prohibited.) Reference to possible private individuals does not save: this means that in our country access to such substances is not controlled. Russia should have already destroyed ALL of their stocks in 2017."

This has confirmed my worst suspicions.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on September 02, 2020, 02:01:PM
This has confirmed my worst suspicions.

What is your worst suspicion?
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on September 02, 2020, 05:40:PM
Alexei Navalny poisoned with novichok, says German government

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/02/alexei-navalny-poisoned-with-novichok-says-german-government-russia (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/02/alexei-navalny-poisoned-with-novichok-says-german-government-russia)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on September 02, 2020, 05:50:PM
What is your worst suspicion?
..that Putin's henchmen are engineering lifetime tenure for him on the same model as the Chinese Communist Party.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on September 02, 2020, 06:18:PM
..that Putin's henchmen are engineering lifetime tenure for him on the same model as the Chinese Communist Party.

It’s difficult to argue that he is not the man for the job.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/GDP_of_Russia_since_1989.svg/350px-GDP_of_Russia_since_1989.svg.png)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on September 05, 2020, 04:20:AM
I don't know why anybody is surprised about the different facets of contemporary life in Russia: https://youtu.be/2AocEgKx9eU
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on September 05, 2020, 01:18:PM
Trump refuses to condemn Russia over poisoning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54039710 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54039710)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: lookout on September 05, 2020, 02:40:PM
Trump refuses to condemn Russia over poisoning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54039710 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54039710)




I wonder why that is ? I know he seems to blame China for everything else--------
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on September 05, 2020, 02:44:PM

I wonder why that is ? I know he seems to blame China for everything else--------

Trump and Putin are on very good terms. And no doubt Trump is hoping Putin will help him get re-elected.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 26, 2020, 12:21:AM
   In the dying days of US/UK/NATO hegemony the Western intelligence agencies are floundering from one pathetic false flag provocation to the next and their moves are becoming increasingly desperate.
   Stymied at every turn in their attempt to steal Iran's oil and gas, Russia's oil, gas, gold and other vast mineral wealth, likewise Venezuela the outlaw empire is gradually being brought down.
   Those countries in the cross hairs of Empire have created an effective alliance against the war criminals in control of Western Governments and any attack on any of those countries is effectively stymied.
    Novichock is an invention of Western intelligence agencies and anyone still buying into this nonsense is a strawberry short of a punnet. Putin and the Russian government have successfully negated Western aggression and sanctions to become stronger. NATO in their hubris have driven China, Russia together and are now outgunned and out teched. The dream/nightmare of the New American Century is finished and a multipolar world is taking shape with the Outlaw Empire powerless to prevent it.
   Everything else is just noise.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 26, 2020, 06:27:PM
   
Novichock is an invention of Western intelligence agencies

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 27, 2020, 04:58:AM
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
   There is no evidence presented of Novichok use by anyone. Read the OPCW reports. There are only assertions by Western politicians and media outlets telling you that there is evidence. None has been presented. The allegations have changed on each occasion, multiple times in laughable ways. The World's deadliest nerve agent has yet to kill anyone or have any evidence presented as to it's use. Groundless accusations from compromised Western politicians and media whores are not evidence.
     It is worth noting that those making the accusations have form for false allegations of Chemical weapons use. The OPCW whistle blowers of the Douma incident in Syria blew the lid on this particular scam to anyone who really follows geopolitics and is widely read enough to know. Ian Henderson was one of the whistle blowers. Look him up and take it from there. You may learn something if you are genuinely interested in truth rather than just cheerleading for your side, right or wrong.
     If you bother to find out about Ian Henderson and the rest of the OPCW whistle blowers then you should also learn about the White Helmets, the so called civil defence organisation. Bizarrely for a civil defence org. they were founded by a British intelligence officer( James le Mesurier) in Turkey and operated only in jihadi held areas of Syria. They filmed the supposed chemical attacks of the Syrian Army. They were funded by the UK govt., amongst others, and were allowed to operate by the jihadis(Al Qaida/Al Nusra/ISIS despite the Red Crescent volunteers being killed and run out of those areas. The Red Crescent are the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross and affiliated with the Red Cross.
     If this doesn't tell you who the White Helmets are then you don't want to know. Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have done lots of excellent reporting from Syria about these Western sponsored propagandists and agent provocateurs, as have many others. James Le Mesurier their UK intelligence agent founder died in very mysterious circumstances in November last year in Turkey. Allegations of fraud surfacing against him as well as the whole WH scam becoming increasingly transparent, and the whole affair reflects very badly on the UK gov., which is why you won't read or hear much about it from the UK media. This is what the UK government are spending our money on in their failing attempts to overthrow foreign governments.
    None of these allegations of chemical weapon use have come with any verifiable or credible evidence. The common theme seems to be the UK gov making allegations against enemies, all with the same script and always without evidence, just assertions. Either all of the UK enemies, but nobody else, uses chem weapons or the UK gov just use this as a lazy accusation against all enemies. UK gov are not credible
    This is just the noise I was referring to earlier. UK/US and the rest of the Israeli stooges in NATO have lost. Syria, Iran, Venezuela have successfully resisted, with Russian/Chinese assistance, the attempt by the Outlaw US/UK led alliance to subjugate their countries and steal their resource and mineral wealth.
    Consider this.
    All of the countries that the UK and the US, along with their band of outlaw states, are threatening are not attempting to invade or overthrow our governments. The weapons developed by these countries demonstrate their intent. The US/UK alliance develop and produce weapons and spend their "defence budget"(Orwellian or what?) on things and in ways that are designed to invade and subjugate countries. Fleets of Aircraft Carriers, overseas bases, supposed Freedom of Navigation patrols, arming Saudi Arabia and complicity in their crimes in Yemen, Arming and funding jihadists in Syria, Libya etc.
    On the other hand, those countries being threatened, develop weapons and spend their defence budgets to actually defend their own country. The weapons they design and now deploy are to counter and nullify our offensive weapons. Missile tech has literally changed the rules of war. The head of the Revolutionary Guard air force summed it up neatly when he said that Iran used to see a US Carrier in the Gulf as a threat, now they see it as a target.
    We need to get checkmate with our aggressive strategy. Those defending only require a stalemate.
    The game is up for the West and their sponsors. All of the countries in the crosshairs can exact far too high a price for any aggressive move. A $6 billion Carrier with it's thousands of crew, hundreds of planes and missiles is negated by a 5,000 dollar missile. No more shock and awe to prepare for invasion by sailing an Aircraft Carrier group within striking distance of the Target nation. Their sponsored jihadis are not cohesive enough to beat effective well trained armies. The sanctions and economic warfare are the final moves of an empire with no good moves left.
    Do you listen to Mike Pompeo and still truly believe that you are on the right side?
    I said years ago, on this thread. We are the Nazis now.
   
     

   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 03:22:PM
   There is no evidence presented of Novichok use by anyone. Read the OPCW reports. There are only assertions by Western politicians and media outlets telling you that there is evidence. None has been presented. The allegations have changed on each occasion, multiple times in laughable ways. The World's deadliest nerve agent has yet to kill anyone or have any evidence presented as to it's use. Groundless accusations from compromised Western politicians and media whores are not evidence.
     It is worth noting that those making the accusations have form for false allegations of Chemical weapons use. The OPCW whistle blowers of the Douma incident in Syria blew the lid on this particular scam to anyone who really follows geopolitics and is widely read enough to know. Ian Henderson was one of the whistle blowers. Look him up and take it from there. You may learn something if you are genuinely interested in truth rather than just cheerleading for your side, right or wrong.
     If you bother to find out about Ian Henderson and the rest of the OPCW whistle blowers then you should also learn about the White Helmets, the so called civil defence organisation. Bizarrely for a civil defence org. they were founded by a British intelligence officer( James le Mesurier) in Turkey and operated only in jihadi held areas of Syria. They filmed the supposed chemical attacks of the Syrian Army. They were funded by the UK govt., amongst others, and were allowed to operate by the jihadis(Al Qaida/Al Nusra/ISIS despite the Red Crescent volunteers being killed and run out of those areas. The Red Crescent are the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross and affiliated with the Red Cross.
     If this doesn't tell you who the White Helmets are then you don't want to know. Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have done lots of excellent reporting from Syria about these Western sponsored propagandists and agent provocateurs, as have many others. James Le Mesurier their UK intelligence agent founder died in very mysterious circumstances in November last year in Turkey. Allegations of fraud surfacing against him as well as the whole WH scam becoming increasingly transparent, and the whole affair reflects very badly on the UK gov., which is why you won't read or hear much about it from the UK media. This is what the UK government are spending our money on in their failing attempts to overthrow foreign governments.
    None of these allegations of chemical weapon use have come with any verifiable or credible evidence. The common theme seems to be the UK gov making allegations against enemies, all with the same script and always without evidence, just assertions. Either all of the UK enemies, but nobody else, uses chem weapons or the UK gov just use this as a lazy accusation against all enemies. UK gov are not credible
    This is just the noise I was referring to earlier. UK/US and the rest of the Israeli stooges in NATO have lost. Syria, Iran, Venezuela have successfully resisted, with Russian/Chinese assistance, the attempt by the Outlaw US/UK led alliance to subjugate their countries and steal their resource and mineral wealth.
    Consider this.
    All of the countries that the UK and the US, along with their band of outlaw states, are threatening are not attempting to invade or overthrow our governments. The weapons developed by these countries demonstrate their intent. The US/UK alliance develop and produce weapons and spend their "defence budget"(Orwellian or what?) on things and in ways that are designed to invade and subjugate countries. Fleets of Aircraft Carriers, overseas bases, supposed Freedom of Navigation patrols, arming Saudi Arabia and complicity in their crimes in Yemen, Arming and funding jihadists in Syria, Libya etc.
    On the other hand, those countries being threatened, develop weapons and spend their defence budgets to actually defend their own country. The weapons they design and now deploy are to counter and nullify our offensive weapons. Missile tech has literally changed the rules of war. The head of the Revolutionary Guard air force summed it up neatly when he said that Iran used to see a US Carrier in the Gulf as a threat, now they see it as a target.
    We need to get checkmate with our aggressive strategy. Those defending only require a stalemate.
    The game is up for the West and their sponsors. All of the countries in the crosshairs can exact far too high a price for any aggressive move. A $6 billion Carrier with it's thousands of crew, hundreds of planes and missiles is negated by a 5,000 dollar missile. No more shock and awe to prepare for invasion by sailing an Aircraft Carrier group within striking distance of the Target nation. Their sponsored jihadis are not cohesive enough to beat effective well trained armies. The sanctions and economic warfare are the final moves of an empire with no good moves left.
    Do you listen to Mike Pompeo and still truly believe that you are on the right side?
    I said years ago, on this thread. We are the Nazis now.
   
     

   

So you have no evidence that Novichok was invented by western intelligence. Thought so.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 27, 2020, 04:01:PM
    Western intelligence nor anybody else has produced evidence of Novichok use by anyone anywhere. What were you saying about assertions? That is all we have and until you can point me to evidence of Novichok use, it didn't happen. The onus is on you to show Novichok was used not on me to prove it wasn't.
    It is an obvious distraction from the rest of the failure of UK/US to subdue and subjugate Russia.
    Did you bother to find out about Ian Henderson and the rest of the OPCW whistle blowers? The accusers, as I have said, have form for these type of accusations asserted without evidence. Given your supposed approach to accusations presented without evidence, I am surprised that you haven't dismissed the UK gov allegations, asserted as they are without evidence.
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 27, 2020, 04:19:PM
    How many times do you think the OPCW have referred to Novichok use by Russia in the "investigations" into Novichok use by Russia? Have you read the report? (the answer is zero mentions in case you were curious)
    Despite what you believe, beyond groundless and evidence free accusations, there is zero evidence of Novichok use. The ball is in your court to produce some.
   
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 05:11:PM
From Russian chemist Vil Sultanovich Mirzayanov


"For a long time Russia simply reproduced the chemical weapons of Western countries; however, in the beginning of the 1970s Russian scientist Petr Kirpichev and his team created a new class of chemical agents which are many times more lethal than anything known up to this time. Moreover, the chemical agent known to us as A-232 was not a traditional phosphoorganic nerve agent of known structure. For that purpose, GOSNIIOKhT expressly synthesized a pesticide with an analogous structure. This opened up the possibility of using agricultural chemicals as components of binary weapons. Russia profited from this deception and set traps during the time of negotiations of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC), especially in connection with the advancement of their binary weapons program. When two relatively harmless components react with each other during the flight of a rocket and produce a deadly chemical agent, the binary weapon eliminates most of the expense and danger of the production and storage of chemical agents. It also makes them extremely difficult to monitor and control.

Even when the CWC was being negotiated, Russia secretly and persistently pressed forward with its program of development and testing of the new class of binary chemical agents under the code name Novichok, which means “newcomer” in Russian. According to the Wyoming Accord, both the United States and Russia were required to declare their stores of chemical weapons, but Russia lied about the quantity stockpiled and has never acknowledged the Novichok program to this day. As a scientist and as a human being, I went through a long soul searching process and came to the heart wrenching realization that not only were chemical weapons useless for the country’s defense, but their main purpose is the mass slaughter of civilians. I could not bear to continue to participate in the deception of the world community by Russia’s ruling class. They just wanted to exploit the loopholes written into the CWC in order to destroy their old and useless chemical weapons, while trying to keep the development and stockpiling of new deadly binary weapons a secret.
"
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 05:16:PM
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/jptac008_l94001.htm (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/jptac008_l94001.htm)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 05:23:PM
 https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/17/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-2-we-need-to-talk-about-henderson/ (https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/17/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-2-we-need-to-talk-about-henderson/)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 05:49:PM
From Russian chemist Vil Sultanovich Mirzayanov

"From 1971 to 1973, Petr Kirpichev, a senior scientist from the Shikhany branch of GOSNIIOKhT, and his assistants developed a new class of chemical agents which later became known as Novichok agents, and all problems connected with them received this codename. The word “Novichok” translates as “newcomer”. At first, Substance A-230 was synthesized and tested, which stands for

      F     
     /
CH3-P=O
     \       
      N=C(CH3)-N(C2H5)2

or N-2-diethylaminomethylacetoamidido-methylphosphonofluoridate (Codename A-230 or Substance 84). For the first time, the acetoamydin-radical (C2H5)2N-C(CH3)=N- (creating P-N–bound) was introduced into the molecular skeleton of sarin or soman, instead of the O-alkyl radical. This was fantastic from standpoint of military chemists, because the toxicity of the new substance was up to 5-8 times higher than was the toxicity of Substance 33. The result depended on whether the skin-resorptive or the intravenous test was used. According to senior engineer Vladimir Uglev, who was the assistant of Kirpichev, the long time military chemists in Military Unit 61469 didn’t believe it. They only started to take this agent more seriously when they conducted their own laboratory tests with animals. Old jealousies didn’t allow them to recognize the importance of this discovery. However, Director Ivan Martynov immediately sensed the perspectives of this agent and took measures to support Kirpichev’s work, showing his personal interest. With his persistency he prompted the Central Committee of CPSU to take a decision to promote such agents.

This work was granted top priority and a few people were given clearance to become familiarized with it. This of course didn’t stop the military specialists from trying in every possible way to compromise it or break it. Things became more complicated in the winter of 1977 when they found that this agent was crystallizing in containers at temperatures below -10 Celsius. The problem was solved by adding some N,N-dimethylformamid to the pure agent. Even though this agent was diluted a bit by this solvent, its toxicity was extremely high, and GOSNIIOKhT tried to push it through the standard military field tests, with the goals of developing the technology of its production and getting it formally accepted as a chemical agent of Soviet Army. Petr Kirpichev’s group then synthesized and tested analogs of agent A-230

     F     
    /
CH3O-P=O             Agent A-232     
    \     
     N=C(CH3)-N(C2H5)2       

    F   
   /
C2H5O-P=O            Agent A-234     
   \       
    N=C(CH3)-N(C2H5)2

The agent A-232 has the same toxicity as Substance 33, though it is much more volatile than Substance 33 and agent A-230. Its stability against moisture is lower than both these agents. Kirpichev synthesized and tested the ethoxy-analog of agent A-234 and ultra highly toxic solid derivatives of agent A-230 and A-232 where the amidin radical was replaced by a guanidine radical. Their codenames are A-242 and A-262, respectively:"


Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 27, 2020, 07:36:PM
     Well done for proving my point. Where is the evidence of Novichok use? You haven't posted any because there is none. You have posted stuff from the 1970's and Bellingcat(f=#?ing Bellingcat) but not what should be simple. Evidence of Novichok use.
     You cannot even point to it's mention by the OPCW, as I knew you couldn't, and everything that you posted is an admission of, whilst simultaneously acting as a distraction from, the fact that there is no evidence; just assertions. These assertions can be dismissed on those grounds that you have previously identified, so you are correct about something.
     Bellingcat's report on Ian Henderson has already been debunked and you really expose that your geopolitical knowledge amounts to a quick google search. If you followed and understood events in real time then you would know that Ian Henderson was in fact on the FFM team and that he has since been joined by other whistle blowers. Jose Bustani has also supported and joined them. Bustani is the former head of the OPCW forced from his post by John Bolton, former US National Security advisor but more widely known as a war criminal. Look that up and it may open your eyes to Western government interference in and corruption of bodies like the OPCW. You choose not to see the truth, David, because it is uncomfortable and you prefer comforting lies. 
     There is plenty of in depth reportage of the OPCW Douma scandal and that you chose MI6 front and former underwear salesman Eliot Higgins(aka Bellingcat) is telling. Higgins is an embarrassment and his "investigations" always, by massive coincidence, support the UK gov narrative. If you knew anything about world politics and followed these events actively then you would be embarrassed to quote Higgins.
    If you were knowledgeable about any of this, David, then you would discuss rather than post links to information that doesn't have even a tenuous connection with events.
    Can you post a link to the OPCW or even the Porton Down scientists claiming Novichok use?
    No distractions or irrelevant essays talking of testing 50 years ago. No idiotic Bellingcat propaganda thinly disguised as investigations.
    Can you link or quote an official finding of Novicho use?
     
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 08:28:PM
     Well done for proving my point.
     

What point? You claimed Novitchok was invented by western intelligence. That drivel of yours is now up in smoke. I already demonstrated how Novichok was used in Salisbury, You only need to go several pages back on this thread. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 08:54:PM
Federal Republic of Germany confirm that the biomarkers of the cholinesterase inhibitor found in Mr Navalny’s blood and urine samples have similar structural characteristics as the toxic chemicals belonging to schedules 1.A.14 and 1.A.15

https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/10/opcw-issues-report-technical-assistance-requested-germany (https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/10/opcw-issues-report-technical-assistance-requested-germany)

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/12/s-1820-2019%28e%29.pdf (https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/12/s-1820-2019%28e%29.pdf)

1.A.15 is Methyl-(bis(diethylamino)methylene)phosphonamidofluoridate which is a Novichok type agent.

The reports list the actual chemical nomenclature name for the Novichok agent. It seems gringo made a rush to judgment. Specifics are very important, It would very unprofessional to use an umbrella term like Novichok that applies to a family of agents. Absence of the term Novichok seems to be foundation of another one of gringos conspiracy theories which is now also up in smoke.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on October 27, 2020, 09:34:PM
     Well done for proving my point. Where is the evidence of Novichok use? You haven't posted any because there is none. You have posted stuff from the 1970's and Bellingcat(f=#?ing Bellingcat) but not what should be simple. Evidence of Novichok use.
     You cannot even point to it's mention by the OPCW, as I knew you couldn't, and everything that you posted is an admission of, whilst simultaneously acting as a distraction from, the fact that there is no evidence; just assertions. These assertions can be dismissed on those grounds that you have previously identified, so you are correct about something.
     Bellingcat's report on Ian Henderson has already been debunked and you really expose that your geopolitical knowledge amounts to a quick google search. If you followed and understood events in real time then you would know that Ian Henderson was in fact on the FFM team and that he has since been joined by other whistle blowers. Jose Bustani has also supported and joined them. Bustani is the former head of the OPCW forced from his post by John Bolton, former US National Security advisor but more widely known as a war criminal. Look that up and it may open your eyes to Western government interference in and corruption of bodies like the OPCW. You choose not to see the truth, David, because it is uncomfortable and you prefer comforting lies. 
     There is plenty of in depth reportage of the OPCW Douma scandal and that you chose MI6 front and former underwear salesman Eliot Higgins(aka Bellingcat) is telling. Higgins is an embarrassment and his "investigations" always, by massive coincidence, support the UK gov narrative. If you knew anything about world politics and followed these events actively then you would be embarrassed to quote Higgins.
    If you were knowledgeable about any of this, David, then you would discuss rather than post links to information that doesn't have even a tenuous connection with events.
    Can you post a link to the OPCW or even the Porton Down scientists claiming Novichok use?
    No distractions or irrelevant essays talking of testing 50 years ago. No idiotic Bellingcat propaganda thinly disguised as investigations.
    Can you link or quote an official finding of Novicho use?
     
   
I'm sick of your "I know something that you don't know" approach. Nobody but a fool believes Russia had nothing to do with the Skripals or the Navalny poisonings. Just because Porton Down scientists cannot definitively trace the nerve agent back to a Russian laboratory does not preclude the strong probability that it emanated from Russia.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43377698
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 27, 2020, 09:49:PM
I'm sick of your "I know something that you don't know" approach. Nobody but a fool believes Russia had nothing to do with the Skripals or the Navalny poisonings. Just because Porton Down scientists cannot definitively trace the nerve agent back to a Russian laboratory does not preclude the strong probability that it emanated from Russia.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43377698

Gringo has made an idiot of himself here. He seems to have assumed that Novichok is a single specific agent and thus should be mentioned as such by the OPCW. When in reality Novichok is an umbrella term for a whole family of 3rd generation agents produced in the USSR and the Russian federation.

What Gringo has failed to realise is that OPCW has stated Navalny was poisoned with - Methyl(bis(diethylamino)methylene)phosphonamidofluoridate. That substance is a Novichok type agent.  ::)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 27, 2020, 11:21:PM
What point? You claimed Novitchok was invented by western intelligence. That drivel of yours is now up in smoke. I already demonstrated how Novichok was used in Salisbury, You only need to go several pages back on this thread.
   The point that the whole Novichok narrative is an invention of Western intelligence is demonstrated by your inability to post any evidence of it's use by Russia from the OPCW or Porton Down or any other source. It is well known how and when Novichok was developed and where. This is not at issue. Perhaps my wording could have been clearer but it is obvious what I was referring to.
    You haven't demonstrated how Novichok was used in Salisbury for the simple reason that it wasn't and there is no official statement or evidence to back up your claim.

    There is plenty of in depth discussion and analysis of the ever evolving and increasingly farcical UK govt. propaganda on this. A good starting point is here;

     https://www.theblogmire.com/category/skripal-case/ 

    where blogger and Salisbury resident Rob Slane followed and dissected events from the beginning. A lot of in depth reading if you want to get to the bottom of the Salisbury incident and read the blog from the start you will see the inconsistencies in the official account. There are many places where the incident is discussed intelligently, but you just read those sites that appear to confirm your initial knee jerk conclusions.
     Your view of the world is narrow and refuses to accommodate any information which challenges this. The UK/US and their vassals are not the benign forces that you believe. They are currently aggressively attacking, threatening and sanctioning any country that refuses to bow to their supremacy. The Novichok scam is part of that policy attempting to isolate and side-line Russia. If you cannot see Western aggression in the world then you are deliberately looking the other way.
    The rest of the World is consistent in agreeing in surveys that the US is the biggest threat to World peace. Not Russia or China or Iran or whoever the warmongers latest bogey man is. The US. It shames us as a country to be allied with and run by the war criminals currently rampaging their way around the world.
    Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and others are are successfully resisting the hegemon and all of these allegations by Western intelligence (Iran sponsoring terrorism, Russia poisoning with Novichok, Assad chemical weapon attacks)are inventions by the same people who brought you the Iraqi's throwing babies from incubators(Gulf War 1), Saddam's WMD(Gulf War 2), Qhaddafi slaughtering his own citizens(Libya) and on and on.
     You are still falling for the same lies from the same liars in order to gain your support for the latest war of aggression. Be more sceptical, David.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 27, 2020, 11:38:PM
Gringo has made an idiot of himself here. He seems to have assumed that Novichok is a single specific agent and thus should be mentioned as such by the OPCW. When in reality Novichok is an umbrella term for a whole family of 3rd generation agents produced in the USSR and the Russian federation.

What Gringo has failed to realise is that OPCW has stated Navalny was poisoned with - Methyl(bis(diethylamino)methylene)phosphonamidofluoridate. That substance is a Novichok type agent.  ::)
   I am fully aware of what Novichok is. A family of organophosphate nerve agents. The OPCW have not stated Novichok use by Russia.
    The OPCW were only asked to confirm Porton Down findings rather than conducting a full FFM (fact finding mission where they would collect samples with full chain of evidence custody). The agents that they were confirming are confidential at the UK's behest.
    The agent that was detected in Navalny was not a Novichok. If it were he would be dead, as would the Skripals and many others who came into contact.
    Novichok type agent is a not very subtle way of saying it wasn't a novichok. Novichok type agent doesn't inform or mean anything concrete. That is why that form of words is used by others reporting official findings.
    Novichok isn't mentioned by the OPCW because it wasn't used.
    You still believe the WMD lie so it is hardly surprising that you also believe this lie, coincidentally told by the same people.
   
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 28, 2020, 05:26:AM
    Distractions aside, it is becoming clear that the West, led by US/UK/Israel are losing in their attempt at World domination to a collective and collaborative response by those threatened nations and are powerless to intervene militarily.
    The murder of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and the Iranian response demonstrated the impotence of the Outlaw Empire to achieve their goals of regime change via military means. To recap General Soleimani was assassinated in January of this year by the US in Iraq whilst visiting at the request of the Iraqi prime minister. Not in a war zone or on a battlefield but on a diplomatic mission. The American attack was not only criminal but also cowardly. Also killed in this missile attack was Abu Muhandis an Iraqi and commander of the PMF militia officially part of the Iraqi military.
    Iran's response was measured and game changing. Their missile attack on US Iraqi bases was deadly accurate and demonstrated that Iranian missile technology was able to accurately target within a few metres radius from hundreds of miles away. Suddenly US servicemen for the first time in decades were hiding in shelters helpless to prevent the attacks. That was with a dozen or so missiles. They have thousands of them. Iran demonstrated that any attack on them would come at an unaffordable cost to the US. Every US base in the Middle East would be destroyed should the US attack. Since then the US have been leaving their bases in Iraq because they are not defendable. Russia have made clear that Iran would come under their nuclear umbrella should they be attacked with nuclear weapons.
     After the missile attack Trump claimed that no US servicemen were hurt and that a devastating response would occur if any US service personnel were hurt. Over the following weeks the US announced injuries from the attacks. First they admitted to 11 injured then 34 then 50, finally settling on over 100. A large number of Purple Hearts have been issued to personnel injured in the attacks since. Purple Hearts are given to those injured or killed. US are impotent along with the UK and are raging hence the idiotic propaganda and provocations.
     Israel would love to attack Iran but would be decimated and need Uncle Sam to attack for them.
     Prior to this, in June of 2019, the Iranians shot down a US drone. Not just any old drone, however, but a RQ Global Hawk surveillance drone. $200 billion worth of drone, bristling with state of the art surveillance equipment, the size of a passenger jet, one of only two that the US had. It was flying 11 miles high beyond, or so the US thought, Iranian air defence. One warning not heeded, one missile and the US stock of Global Hawks was halved.
     The statement put out by the IRGC after this was even more chilling to the US. Flying with the drone was another jet with US personnel on board. Quite what was their purpose that day can only be speculated but the Iranians made clear that they knew of the other plane and chose not to shoot it down because there were "35 warm bodies on board."
     Not only is it plain that they could but also that they knew that one was a drone and one had 35 people on board. How did they know? There are a number of possibilities, none of them good from the US military point of view.
     The trade sanctions being applied everywhere and the abuse by the US of the dollar position as world reserve currency are the only response that they have now, along with their groundless accusations of poisonings/chemical attacks, but this has only driven the target countries together and made the fall of the US empire a matter of time. When not if. It is a case of bringing the Empire down incrementally and avoiding hot war which could soon escalate badly, especially with the psychopaths who conduct US foreign policy.
     This appears to be the strategy of the "Axis of Resistance" and for the sake of humanity we should hope that they manage to do so successfully and end the criminal rampage of the West before it reaches its inevitable conclusion.
     
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on October 28, 2020, 07:10:AM
    Distractions aside, it is becoming clear that the West, led by US/UK/Israel are losing in their attempt at World domination to a collective and collaborative response by those threatened nations and are powerless to intervene militarily.
    The murder of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and the Iranian response demonstrated the impotence of the Outlaw Empire to achieve their goals of regime change via military means. To recap General Soleimani was assassinated in January of this year by the US in Iraq whilst visiting at the request of the Iraqi prime minister. Not in a war zone or on a battlefield but on a diplomatic mission. The American attack was not only criminal but also cowardly. Also killed in this missile attack was Abu Muhandis an Iraqi and commander of the PMF militia officially part of the Iraqi military.
    Iran's response was measured and game changing. Their missile attack on US Iraqi bases was deadly accurate and demonstrated that Iranian missile technology was able to accurately target within a few metres radius from hundreds of miles away. Suddenly US servicemen for the first time in decades were hiding in shelters helpless to prevent the attacks. That was with a dozen or so missiles. They have thousands of them. Iran demonstrated that any attack on them would come at an unaffordable cost to the US. Every US base in the Middle East would be destroyed should the US attack. Since then the US have been leaving their bases in Iraq because they are not defendable. Russia have made clear that Iran would come under their nuclear umbrella should they be attacked with nuclear weapons.
     After the missile attack Trump claimed that no US servicemen were hurt and that a devastating response would occur if any US service personnel were hurt. Over the following weeks the US announced injuries from the attacks. First they admitted to 11 injured then 34 then 50, finally settling on over 100. A large number of Purple Hearts have been issued to personnel injured in the attacks since. Purple Hearts are given to those injured or killed. US are impotent along with the UK and are raging hence the idiotic propaganda and provocations.
     Israel would love to attack Iran but would be decimated and need Uncle Sam to attack for them.
     Prior to this, in June of 2019, the Iranians shot down a US drone. Not just any old drone, however, but a RQ Global Hawk surveillance drone. $200 billion worth of drone, bristling with state of the art surveillance equipment, the size of a passenger jet, one of only two that the US had. It was flying 11 miles high beyond, or so the US thought, Iranian air defence. One warning not heeded, one missile and the US stock of Global Hawks was halved.
     The statement put out by the IRGC after this was even more chilling to the US. Flying with the drone was another jet with US personnel on board. Quite what was their purpose that day can only be speculated but the Iranians made clear that they knew of the other plane and chose not to shoot it down because there were "35 warm bodies on board."
     Not only is it plain that they could but also that they knew that one was a drone and one had 35 people on board. How did they know? There are a number of possibilities, none of them good from the US military point of view.
     The trade sanctions being applied everywhere and the abuse by the US of the dollar position as world reserve currency are the only response that they have now, along with their groundless accusations of poisonings/chemical attacks, but this has only driven the target countries together and made the fall of the US empire a matter of time. When not if. It is a case of bringing the Empire down incrementally and avoiding hot war which could soon escalate badly, especially with the psychopaths who conduct US foreign policy.
     This appears to be the strategy of the "Axis of Resistance" and for the sake of humanity we should hope that they manage to do so successfully and end the criminal rampage of the West before it reaches its inevitable conclusion.
   
This is a selective piece filled with half-truths.

Was Iran's response measured..https://youtu.be/tcFn6KsxOgo

The cost I have of the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk is $131 million plus $19000 per flying hour.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 28, 2020, 12:30:PM
   I am fully aware of what Novichok is. A family of organophosphate nerve agents. The OPCW have not stated Novichok use by Russia.
    The OPCW were only asked to confirm Porton Down findings rather than conducting a full FFM (fact finding mission where they would collect samples with full chain of evidence custody). The agents that they were confirming are confidential at the UK's behest.
    The agent that was detected in Navalny was not a Novichok. If it were he would be dead, as would the Skripals and many others who came into contact.
    Novichok type agent is a not very subtle way of saying it wasn't a novichok. Novichok type agent doesn't inform or mean anything concrete. That is why that form of words is used by others reporting official findings.
    Novichok isn't mentioned by the OPCW because it wasn't used.
    You still believe the WMD lie so it is hardly surprising that you also believe this lie, coincidentally told by the same people.
   

Federal Republic of Germany confirm that the biomarkers of the cholinesterase inhibitor found in Mr Navalny’s blood and urine samples have similar structural characteristics as the toxic chemicals belonging to schedules 1.A.14 and 1.A.15

A Novichok agent is mentioned by OPCW via its IUPAC name and CAS identification number, The same substance mentioned by the russian chemist Vil Mirzayanov I quoted from yesterday. Now are you going to put your hands up and admit you were wrong (yet again) or continue digging a deeper hole for yourself?  ;D

And don't make out that you know anything about Novichok agents, it was only until yesterday you realized where it came from. LMAO

(https://i.ibb.co/LRy3G2M/opwc.png)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 28, 2020, 02:44:PM
This is a selective piece filled with half-truths.

Was Iran's response measured..https://youtu.be/tcFn6KsxOgo

The cost I have of the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk is $131 million plus $19000 per flying hour.

The program cost for the Grumman RQ-4 was just over 10 billion USD. A single unit cost 131 million USD.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf (https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf)

I don't know where Gringo got that 200 billion figure from. I suspect he got it from from where he gets most claims he has made on this thread - his imagination.

As for Irans "measured and game changing" actions. All they achieved was blowing up Airlines Flight 752 killing 176 passengers and crew.  :-\

Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: gringo on October 29, 2020, 01:19:AM
The program cost for the Grumman RQ-4 was just over 10 billion USD. A single unit cost 131 million USD.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf (https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf)

I don't know where Gringo got that 200 billion figure from. I suspect he got it from from where he gets most claims he has made on this thread - his imagination.

As for Irans "measured and game changing" actions. All they achieved was blowing up Airlines Flight 752 killing 176 passengers and crew.  :-\
   It is a minor quibble which demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding but the cost of the Reaper Drone shot down by the Iranians is given as $176b by Time Magazine, wikipedia(your favourite source) gives the cost as $222.7 made up of $131b unit cost and the rest R & D.
    $200bn was reported at the time and the variance given makes that a reasonable average. Your doubting of it simultaneously demonstrates that
   a) Your knowledge of Geopolitics amounts to a quick Google search and clicking on the wikipedia page.
   b) You cannot even be arsed to read that properly.

   Had you done so you would have saved yourself from looking so dumb now. Your figure that you "corrected" me with is from Wikipedia (the 131 billion figure). In your desperation to prove me wrong you forgot to read the full entry which gives  £222 billion as the cost including R & D). So the one thing that you and Steve take issue with as inaccurate, as if to demonstrate the rest of the post is also wrong, is in fact accurate according to your own source which you couldn't even read properly.
    I gave my figure from memory. I follow geopolitics keenly and can remember. I don't need to debate via Wikipedia entries wrongly quoted. 
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on October 29, 2020, 05:15:AM
  It is a minor quibble which demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding but the cost of the Reaper Drone shot down by the Iranians is given as $176b by Time Magazine, wikipedia(your favourite source) gives the cost as $222.7 made up of $131b unit cost and the rest R & D.
    $200bn was reported at the time and the variance given makes that a reasonable average. Your doubting of it simultaneously demonstrates that
   a) Your knowledge of Geopolitics amounts to a quick Google search and clicking on the wikipedia page.
   b) You cannot even be arsed to read that properly.

   Had you done so you would have saved yourself from looking so dumb now. Your figure that you "corrected" me with is from Wikipedia (the 131 billion figure). In your desperation to prove me wrong you forgot to read the full entry which gives  £222 billion as the cost including R & D). So the one thing that you and Steve take issue with as inaccurate, as if to demonstrate the rest of the post is also wrong, is in fact accurate according to your own source which you couldn't even read properly.
    I gave my figure from memory. I follow geopolitics keenly and can remember. I don't need to debate via Wikipedia entries wrongly quoted.
The $200 billion figure is the total cost of the US Air Force budget projected for 2021: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the-budget-and-the-truth/
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 29, 2020, 02:41:PM
the cost of the Reaper Drone shot down by the Iranians is given as $176b by Time Magazine,

Iran did not shoot down an MQ-9 Reaper it was an RQ-4 Hawk. But never mind.

  you would have saved yourself from looking so dumb now.

Don't project yourself onto me Gringo. So far you have made two ostentatious claims about Novichok that I have proven false in replies #481, #484 and #487 on this thread. You do not even have the modesty to admit you were wrong and resort to insults and go off topic to drones just shows you are not here for an honest debate.
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: David1819 on October 29, 2020, 05:47:PM
The $200 billion figure is the total cost of the US Air Force budget projected for 2021: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the-budget-and-the-truth/

$200 billion for a drone?  ;D that is an absurd claim. Military drones are designed to be cheap and disposable. 40 military drones have either crashed or been shot down this year alone.

https://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/ (https://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/)
Title: Re: Russia - worrying?
Post by: Steve_uk on October 29, 2020, 05:51:PM
$200 billion for a drone?  ;D that is an absurd claim. Military drones are designed to be cheap and disposable. 40 military drones have either crashed or been shot down this year alone.

https://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/ (https://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/)
But it's not $200 billion for the drone programme. The figure is for the total USAF budget.