Russia - worrying?

[ILB]

   Themselves. By their own admissions.

   If that video is admitting being a "despot dictator" then we have a lot of invading still to do.
   NATO has no right to act as judge, jury and executioner. You know this really. NATO's crime spree is ending as is NATO.

Saddam had no right to murder his own people. Torture political opponents. And conduct show elections.

Uday had no right to kidnap and rape and kill innocent women and children.

The sportsmen of Iraq had the right to not get imprisoned and tortured because of competition losses

Iraqi people had the right to get their country back.

[David1819]

Saddam had no right to murder his own people. Torture political opponents. And conduct show elections.

Uday had no right to kidnap and rape and kill innocent women and children.

The sportsmen of Iraq had the right to not get imprisoned and tortured because of competition losses

Iraqi people had the right to get their country back.

He invaded Iran and Kuwait then planned to invade Saudi Arabia. He fired scud missiles into Israel, set oil fields ablaze and poured 11 million barrels of crude oil into the Persian gulf, probably the largest acts of ecoterrorism ever committed.

The guy was a threat to the whole world.

[gringo]

   I am certain that if Russia, China or any other country had carried out those same actions (shock and awe) cities levelled, the utter destruction and death caused in those invasions, you would be calling out Russia, China or whoever for acting as world police.
    You know it, I know it.
    You would be right.
    NATO's wars of aggression have been brutal. The civilian deaths, injuries, displacement and destruction were not a reasonable price to pay for removing anyone. They arm and sponsor dictators more brutal than Saddam, as well you know.
    Your justifications for such brutality is acting as apologist for their genocidal criminality. You know that you would not justify those same actions by any other country.

[ILB]

He invaded Iran and Kuwait then planned to invade Saudi Arabia. He fired scud missiles into Israel, set oil fields ablaze and poured 11 million barrels of crude oil into the Persian gulf, probably the largest acts of ecoterrorism ever committed.

The guy was a threat to the whole world.

Indeed. Not forgetting the haljaba gas attack

Ironically,. He did do some good for Iraq. He built schools, hospitals, promoted women's rights and literacy. And gave the whole of Iraq electricity. But the whole regime was a brutal police state. Forced disappearances, torture, murder. You could get sentenced to death for dropping the Iraqi Dinah note ( which featured a picture of Saddam) on to the floor

[ILB]

He invaded Iran and Kuwait then planned to invade Saudi Arabia. He fired scud missiles into Israel, set oil fields ablaze and poured 11 million barrels of crude oil into the Persian gulf, probably the largest acts of ecoterrorism ever committed.

The guy was a threat to the whole world.

" Just wait till I become president. Il be crueller than my father ever was. Trust me you will yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein"  quote by Uday hussein

[David1819]

" Just wait till I become president. Il be crueller than my father ever was. Trust me you will yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein"  quote by Uday hussein

Where did you get this quote from?

[ILB]

Where did you get this quote from?

From a documentary about the regime. It stuck in my mind. You should be able to come across it

[Steve_uk]

Why is Russia blocking Ukraine's grain exports? https://www.aol.co.uk/news/war-looms-large-over-g20-220456360-195620113.html

[ILB]

Nothing can justify this full scale invasion upon Ukraine.

NATO have made mistakes. But it is what it is. It is not about policing the world. It is about promoting and supplementing world stability. I back every NATO led invasion entirely. I back conclusively any disposal of a despot dictator. My own words. Not any " propaganda" I've read.

We have no idea about Russia's agenda. Does he plant spill over to Poland? Germany? How can we conclusively know? Gringo outlines Russia's aims. Be that as it may, but we cannot take the chance.

Anything further west than Ukraine will result in military action we all know this

[Steve_uk]

Putin has already invaded Crimea, which gringo does not accept as an invasion. Medvedev has threatened nuclear war if this is not accepted.

[David1819]

Councillor sentenced to seven years in jail for opposing the Ukraine war.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/07/russia-municipal-councillor-sentenced-to-seven-years-in-jail-for-opposing-the-ukraine-war/

[lookout]

That's what you get for expressing your views----a bit the same as here if you say the wrong thing and this is supposed to be a democracy.

[gringo]

NATO have made mistakes. But it is what it is. It is not about policing the world. It is about promoting and supplementing world stability. I back every NATO led invasion entirely. I back conclusively any disposal of a despot dictator. My own words. Not any " propaganda" I've read .

He invaded Iran and Kuwait then planned to invade Saudi Arabia.


Indeed. Not forgetting the haljaba gas attack


    Let's examine your non propagandised world view. Thought of it all by yourself, so you say.

    Taking apart the above quotes, "I back every NATO led invasion entirely"

    The invasion of Iran was NATO backed. Who armed and supported Saddam in this brutal war? It was the year after the overthrow of the Iranian Shah and his brutal police state. Do a quick search on the Savak. Then perhaps find out how the Shah came to power. When you are done with this, it may then be enlightening, for you, to do a little reading on the Halabja massacre where you will discover NATO's role in providing the chemical weapons, the means of delivery and the targeting.

    Knowing that you are incapable of doing any of this(too much reading and cognitive dissonance for you) I will spell out the nature of your unequivocal support of NATO.

    1) In 1953 you supported the overthrow in a coup led by intel services of NATO members US/UK of the Iranian democratically elected socialist government of Mohammed Mossadegh. You then, by inference, supported the brutal Shah regime and his police state. When they were overthrown in the revolution of 1979, you no longer supported Iran so;
    2) In 1980 through to 1988 you supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in invading Iran and also supported NATO in providing arms, training and support including the supply of chemical weapons as well as the means of delivery and the targeting for those weapons killing and injuring thousands of Iranians.
    3) In 1991 you no longer supported Saddam's Iraq and now supported invading Iraq for its invasions of Kuwait and Iran!. So invading Iran using NATO supplied chemical weapons should be supported(until it is convenient to not support it) but invading Kuwait not supported.

    And you support all of these actions. And you are not propagandised. And you do all of your thinking for yourself.
    If you were really aware of the decades long crime spree of NATO you would realise that feigning concern for victims of war is hollow if you have supported the genocidal actions of NATO, which you inform us, you have.
   
   
   
   

[Steve_uk]

NATO have made mistakes. But it is what it is. It is not about policing the world. It is about promoting and supplementing world stability. I back every NATO led invasion entirely. I back conclusively any disposal of a despot dictator. My own words. Not any " propaganda" I've read .

He invaded Iran and Kuwait then planned to invade Saudi Arabia.


Indeed. Not forgetting the haljaba gas attack


    Let's examine your non propagandised world view. Thought of it all by yourself, so you say.

    Taking apart the above quotes, "I back every NATO led invasion entirely"

    The invasion of Iran was NATO backed. Who armed and supported Saddam in this brutal war? It was the year after the overthrow of the Iranian Shah and his brutal police state. Do a quick search on the Savak. Then perhaps find out how the Shah came to power. When you are done with this, it may then be enlightening, for you, to do a little reading on the Halabja massacre where you will discover NATO's role in providing the chemical weapons, the means of delivery and the targeting.

    Knowing that you are incapable of doing any of this(too much reading and cognitive dissonance for you) I will spell out the nature of your unequivocal support of NATO.

    1) In 1953 you supported the overthrow in a coup led by intel services of NATO members US/UK of the Iranian democratically elected socialist government of Mohammed Mossadegh. You then, by inference, supported the brutal Shah regime and his police state. When they were overthrown in the revolution of 1979, you no longer supported Iran so;
    2) In 1980 through to 1988 you supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in invading Iran and also supported NATO in providing arms, training and support including the supply of chemical weapons as well as the means of delivery and the targeting for those weapons killing and injuring thousands of Iranians.
    3) In 1991 you no longer supported Saddam's Iraq and now supported invading Iraq for its invasions of Kuwait and Iran!. So invading Iran using NATO supplied chemical weapons should be supported(until it is convenient to not support it) but invading Kuwait not supported.

    And you support all of these actions. And you are not propagandised. And you do all of your thinking for yourself.
    If you were really aware of the decades long crime spree of NATO you would realise that feigning concern for victims of war is hollow if you have supported the genocidal actions of NATO, which you inform us, you have.
   
   
   
   

Iran is a rogue state on a par with Russia. I've lost count of the number of terrorist offences it has committed.

[gringo]

NATO have made mistakes. But it is what it is. It is not about policing the world. It is about promoting and supplementing world stability. I back every NATO led invasion entirely. I back conclusively any disposal of a despot dictator. My own words. Not any " propaganda" I've read .

He invaded Iran and Kuwait then planned to invade Saudi Arabia.


Indeed. Not forgetting the haljaba gas attack


    Let's examine your non propagandised world view. Thought of it all by yourself, so you say.

    Taking apart the above quotes, "I back every NATO led invasion entirely"

    The invasion of Iran was NATO backed. Who armed and supported Saddam in this brutal war? It was the year after the overthrow of the Iranian Shah and his brutal police state. Do a quick search on the Savak. Then perhaps find out how the Shah came to power. When you are done with this, it may then be enlightening, for you, to do a little reading on the Halabja massacre where you will discover NATO's role in providing the chemical weapons, the means of delivery and the targeting.

    Knowing that you are incapable of doing any of this(too much reading and cognitive dissonance for you) I will spell out the nature of your unequivocal support of NATO.

    1) In 1953 you supported the overthrow in a coup led by intel services of NATO members US/UK of the Iranian democratically elected socialist government of Mohammed Mossadegh. You then, by inference, supported the brutal Shah regime and his police state. When they were overthrown in the revolution of 1979, you no longer supported Iran so;
    2) In 1980 through to 1988 you supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in invading Iran and also supported NATO in providing arms, training and support including the supply of chemical weapons as well as the means of delivery and the targeting for those weapons killing and injuring thousands of Iranians.
    3) In 1991 you no longer supported Saddam's Iraq and now supported invading Iraq for its invasions of Kuwait and Iran!. So invading Iran using NATO supplied chemical weapons should be supported(until it is convenient to not support it) but invading Kuwait not supported.

    And you support all of these actions. And you are not propagandised. And you do all of your thinking for yourself.
    If you were really aware of the decades long crime spree of NATO you would realise that feigning concern for victims of war is hollow if you have supported the genocidal actions of NATO, which you inform us, you have.

      If your response to that is,
Iran is a rogue state on a par with Russia. I've lost count of the number of terrorist offences it has committed.
    then you show your ignorance. Iran is, by any objective measure, more sinned against than sinner. NATO have facilitated chemical weapons use against them, overthrown a democratically government and installed in its place a police state with brutal secret police, the Savak. Since the revolution overthrowing the Shah's despotic rule, NATO has sanctioned, threatened, sponsored invasions of Iran, murdered General Soleimani in another sovereign state where he had been invited on a diplomatic visit and you consider them a rogue state, but you're not indoctrinated.