Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. " well its far better than the nuke exchange that was on the cards if hillary had got in so yes its an excellent thing. why wouldnt it be? 2 super powers getting along rather than fighting each other. its 1,000,000% a good thing for the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. well its far better than the nuke exchange that was on the cards if hillary had got in so yes its an excellent thing. why wouldnt it be? 2 super powers getting along rather than fighting each other. its 1,000,000% a good thing for the world. " I agree thank you for your input.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will either be good, better western/russian relations - even if it just enforces mutual respect. Or it will be bad, eg, if Putin decides to run rings around Trump in terms of diplomacy and by exploiting his 'I wont promise to help NATO members' attitude. And honestly I think if Putin wants to he will switch on his wolf in sheep's clothing approach to diplomacy. Can't believe I'm saying this, but Clinton was a far worse option, straight off the bat for western/russian relations. " . I have long held the opinion that the narrative brought against Russia is unwarranted, Russia although not a super power is the only major country that has a different attitude to foreign affairs than "the west ". These differences of not towing the line is the reason the west uses the "dangerous" narrative of Russian aggression.... The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. After the cold war of eastern Europe was over Russia was promised that Germany wouldn't be reunified, that NATO wouldn't expand into Russia's neighbours that we would provide financial help for the slow process of de communising and separating the Soviet block...... Instead we did nothing, we let Russia go into meltdown financially and physically. And we wonder why the fuck they then vote in Putin, why he's now by a long long way the most popular leader with its population?.... Not one western leader wouldn't give their hind teeth for his popularity.... The man who stood up for ordinary Russians! While also lining his own pockets with national assets..... Ring any bells  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It could be ? As long as it's not mutual agreement to let each other cause whatever havoc they want to ? Like Hitler and Stalin before Hitler made his fatal error of invading Russia . Remember they actually both attacked Finland at the same time !" Agreed about Hitler fighting on two fronts. Bad judgement if ever there was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. " On the face of it, any kind of "friendship" reduces the potential for conflict between two parties. Unfortunately, the issue has more dimensions than that not least the possibility that the US could be seen to be giving tacit approval to Russian support of Assad in Syria as well as the Russian interventions in Ukraine. Without the US as a potential peacekeeper in Europe, there would be nothing stopping Putin annexing the Eastern regions of the Baltic states that have an indigenous Russian population as he did with Crimea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. On the face of it, any kind of "friendship" reduces the potential for conflict between two parties. Unfortunately, the issue has more dimensions than that not least the possibility that the US could be seen to be giving tacit approval to Russian support of Assad in Syria as well as the Russian interventions in Ukraine. Without the US as a potential peacekeeper in Europe, there would be nothing stopping Putin annexing the Eastern regions of the Baltic states that have an indigenous Russian population as he did with Crimea." why shouldn't the US support russia in helping assad? After all assad was elected by the people. .. so wheather its rebels or isis that are in syria and assad invited russia in to assist then the west should respect and support that. and as for crimera that always was part of russia anyway...it was gifted to ukraine when ukraine was part if the USSR they didnt know back then that the USSR wouldn't break apart. when the poop hit the fan in Ukraine russia took back crimera without a gun fired or drop of blood spilt. and the peoole of crimera was overwhelmingly in support of being back a part of russia. why do you think russia wants to take over europe? It doesn't. it wants to be left alone to enjoy life without the west bringing regime change to alot of countrys and edging closer to russia and placing missile systems around its border. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Without the US as a potential peacekeeper in Europe, there would be nothing stopping Putin annexing the Eastern regions of the Baltic states that have an indigenous Russian population as he did with Crimea." . The Soviet union already did that, they ceded all those countries back because it dammed bankrupted Russia maintaining them. Russia has plentiful resources, it's the biggest country earth and doesn't "need" any of those country's, the annexing of Crimea was needed as they're naval base was there, the Eastern Ukraine has Russian gas pipes running through them, that aside it couldn't give a rat's arse about the Ukraine.... This myth of Russian empire is just that a myth, it's never needed expansion because of geography...... Take a look at it on the atlas!. It has two military bases outside of Russian borders, do you happen to know how many the UK has never mind the USA? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will either be good, better western/russian relations - even if it just enforces mutual respect. Or it will be bad, eg, if Putin decides to run rings around Trump in terms of diplomacy and by exploiting his 'I wont promise to help NATO members' attitude. And honestly I think if Putin wants to he will switch on his wolf in sheep's clothing approach to diplomacy. Can't believe I'm saying this, but Clinton was a far worse option, straight off the bat for western/russian relations. . I have long held the opinion that the narrative brought against Russia is unwarranted, Russia although not a super power is the only major country that has a different attitude to foreign affairs than "the west ". These differences of not towing the line is the reason the west uses the "dangerous" narrative of Russian aggression.... The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. After the cold war of eastern Europe was over Russia was promised that Germany wouldn't be reunified, that NATO wouldn't expand into Russia's neighbours that we would provide financial help for the slow process of de communising and separating the Soviet block...... Instead we did nothing, we let Russia go into meltdown financially and physically. And we wonder why the fuck they then vote in Putin, why he's now by a long long way the most popular leader with its population?.... Not one western leader wouldn't give their hind teeth for his popularity.... The man who stood up for ordinary Russians! While also lining his own pockets with national assets..... Ring any bells "Yes the same USSR that was an ally to Hitler at the start of ww2. The people of Eastern Europe were delighted with Soviet friendship after 1945. Don't mention Beria though as he was busy liquidating "enemies of the people" to ensure the counter balance you describe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. well its far better than the nuke exchange that was on the cards if hillary had got in so yes its an excellent thing. why wouldnt it be? 2 super powers getting along rather than fighting each other. its 1,000,000% a good thing for the world. " Lol - there's no such thing as a million percent. 
I hope your grasp of realpolitik is better than your grasp of maths.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. " Someone needs to lay off the mountain dew! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Lol - there's no such thing as a million percent " If a kilo of cocaine costs $1 in Columbia and $10,000 in New York how much has it's value increased? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. well its far better than the nuke exchange that was on the cards if hillary had got in so yes its an excellent thing. why wouldnt it be? 2 super powers getting along rather than fighting each other. its 1,000,000% a good thing for the world. Lol - there's no such thing as a million percent.
I hope your grasp of realpolitik is better than your grasp of maths.
"haha poster above this post just said it. there obviously is such thing as 1,000,000%. Unlucky joe try again.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It could be ? As long as it's not mutual agreement to let each other cause whatever havoc they want to ? Like Hitler and Stalin before Hitler made his fatal error of invading Russia . Remember they actually both attacked Finland at the same time !" No they didn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. On the face of it, any kind of "friendship" reduces the potential for conflict between two parties. Unfortunately, the issue has more dimensions than that not least the possibility that the US could be seen to be giving tacit approval to Russian support of Assad in Syria as well as the Russian interventions in Ukraine. Without the US as a potential peacekeeper in Europe, there would be nothing stopping Putin annexing the Eastern regions of the Baltic states that have an indigenous Russian population as he did with Crimea." Yes there is a lot more to it than just Russia/America Reading the alleged content from the recent phone call between the two. Putin said he was ready for “a dialogue of partnership with the new administration based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other”. It is the "non-interference in the internal affairs of each other” bit that I find a bit scary. Is Putin paving the way to get the Americans not to interfere if he decides to annex the Baltic states or finish the job in Ukraine? Whether you would agree or not, Putin could put up a good historical argument as to why any of that could be classed as "internal" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the friendship between Trump and Putin good for the world or bad for the world? One word or one sentence answers please this is not a debate just want your opinion. On the face of it, any kind of "friendship" reduces the potential for conflict between two parties. Unfortunately, the issue has more dimensions than that not least the possibility that the US could be seen to be giving tacit approval to Russian support of Assad in Syria as well as the Russian interventions in Ukraine. Without the US as a potential peacekeeper in Europe, there would be nothing stopping Putin annexing the Eastern regions of the Baltic states that have an indigenous Russian population as he did with Crimea. Yes there is a lot more to it than just Russia/America Reading the alleged content from the recent phone call between the two. Putin said he was ready for “a dialogue of partnership with the new administration based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other”. It is the "non-interference in the internal affairs of each other” bit that I find a bit scary. Is Putin paving the way to get the Americans not to interfere if he decides to annex the Baltic states or finish the job in Ukraine? Whether you would agree or not, Putin could put up a good historical argument as to why any of that could be classed as "internal"" And there you have it in a nutshell | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. Someone needs to lay off the mountain dew!" . Instead of wise cracks why don't you actually point out something that's wrong with my analysis of history?..... Yeah thought not  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia! " I am sorry, but I'm not entirely sure that is correct. The Yalta Conference was agreed upon, but Stalin went back on the agreement later, forcing the eastern European countries that had soviet troops on the ground into becoming satellites of the USSR. His main intention was economic, borne from the need to feed his people and rebuild the crippled country. The German Instrument of Surrender and the Allied Control Council saw to it that Germany was stripped of her armed forces and weaponry, thus posing no real threat to the USSR or any other neighbour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. Someone needs to lay off the mountain dew!. Instead of wise cracks why don't you actually point out something that's wrong with my analysis of history?..... Yeah thought not "Must admit that although I tend to agree with most of your posts I really don't know where you have got that lot from. Firstly Stalin "pleaded" for nothing. He was much more fond of demanding. Both Roosevelt and Churchill were widely criticised for giving far too much to the Soviets at Yalta and subsequently Potsdam. It was at Stalin's insistence that Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria came under the Soviet sphere of influence. He even arranged to meet the provisional (non Communist) Polish government then promptly had them arrested. Secondly what German "Empire" was there to break up? While the former East Prussia was divided between Russia and the Soviet puppet Poland and the majority of German Pomerania and Silesia also became (and still are) part of Poland. (All dictated by Stalin BTW) However to say that any of those were part of a German "Empire" would be like saying Yorkshire was part of the British Empire. At Yalta Roosevelt was prepared to, and did, give Stalin anything he wanted to try and get the Soviet Union into the War against Japan. Even at Potsdam Truman started the conference with the same ideas but halfway through he learned of the successful Atomic bomb test and very quickly changed tack. Stalin was even demanding occupation zones in Korea and Manchuria in return for joining the Pacific war. Thankfully the bomb put paid to those demands. How's that for pointing out what is wrong with your analysis? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. Someone needs to lay off the mountain dew!. Instead of wise cracks why don't you actually point out something that's wrong with my analysis of history?..... Yeah thought not
Must admit that although I tend to agree with most of your posts I really don't know where you have got that lot from.
Firstly Stalin "pleaded" for nothing. He was much more fond of demanding.
Both Roosevelt and Churchill were widely criticised for giving far too much to the Soviets at Yalta and subsequently Potsdam.
It was at Stalin's insistence that Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria came under the Soviet sphere of influence. He even arranged to meet the provisional (non Communist) Polish government then promptly had them arrested.
Secondly what German "Empire" was there to break up? While the former East Prussia was divided between Russia and the Soviet puppet Poland and the majority of German Pomerania and Silesia also became (and still are) part of Poland. (All dictated by Stalin BTW) However to say that any of those were part of a German "Empire" would be like saying Yorkshire was part of the British Empire.
At Yalta Roosevelt was prepared to, and did, give Stalin anything he wanted to try and get the Soviet Union into the War against Japan. Even at Potsdam Truman started the conference with the same ideas but halfway through he learned of the successful Atomic bomb test and very quickly changed tack.
Stalin was even demanding occupation zones in Korea and Manchuria in return for joining the Pacific war. Thankfully the bomb put paid to those demands.
How's that for pointing out what is wrong with your analysis?". Which German empire? Well that would be the one called the third Reich. The bit we agree on was Stalin's insistence that the line of countries you mention did come under Soviet control because the Germans and the Bolsheviks hated each other's ideology, Hitler's entire premise to the German people had been the eradication of the Bolsheviks, nearly every German volunteer belived that was what they had signed up for.... You can't escape the fact that twice Germany had tried genocide on the Russian population, I'm not sticking up for Stalin I'm pointing out that pretty much any leader of any country had they been through what Russia had been through would have done the same. Just look at the death toll, more Russians were killed in ww2 than every other country involved combined. As for the Japanese, there's a little bit more to their surrender than the A bomb, quietly slipped from history was the Russian invasion coming from the north, the Japanese being wise decided the better option was to surrender to the yanks than the Russians for obvious reasons..... There are some things considered worse than death and the Japanese were willing to fight on to the death, the A bomb didn't alter that outcome?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. Someone needs to lay off the mountain dew!. Instead of wise cracks why don't you actually point out something that's wrong with my analysis of history?..... Yeah thought not "I dunno have a read of it, the 1809 annexing of Finland from Sweden?, the invasion of Finland in 1939?, how about the 1904 attempts to expand into Manchuria?, the 1853 campaign in the Crimea and Romania?. For all it's land mass the majority of Russia is fucking useless, the only value is found around the edges which is why since C16 it's always been on an expansionist footing. At Tehran it was agreed the post war German border would be moved west to the Order and at Yalta Stalin agreed to free elections in eastern Europe...how did that pan out?, What part of the division of Nazi Germany into zones of occupation didn't constitute a break up of the "empire" (which itself had been dissolved in 1918?), an "empire" which in 1945 had no access to oil reserves no access to iron ore reserves no foreign currency reserves and by default was in no position to prosecute war, which as an empire hadn't tried the genocide of all Russians twice in 25yrs. Will that do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just look at the death toll, more Russians were killed in ww2 than every other country involved combined. " Nearly as many as during the artificial famine of 1932-34 and the great terror, plus those shipped off to labour camps or expelled from St Petersburg & Moscow. That's not to sound facetious about the number of war dead but context is required. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just look at the death toll, more Russians were killed in ww2 than every other country involved combined. Nearly as many as during the artificial famine of 1932-34 and the great terror, plus those shipped off to labour camps or expelled from St Petersburg & Moscow. That's not to sound facetious about the number of war dead but context is required." . I think your maths is as poor as your history!. Either way what the fuck has any of those deaths got to do with the fact that the Soviet union suffered 30 million deaths in ww2?. My original assertion which you wise cracked at was that Stalin took the eastern block to disconnect itself from any future German threat.... I'm afraid people said they posed no threat after ww1 as well! They were wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It could be ? As long as it's not mutual agreement to let each other cause whatever havoc they want to ? Like Hitler and Stalin before Hitler made his fatal error of invading Russia . Remember they actually both attacked Finland at the same time ! Agreed about Hitler fighting on two fronts. Bad judgement if ever there was." Good job he did tho ! If he had left Russia alone Stalin wouldn't have helped us ! Both as bad and Evil as each other !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just look at the death toll, more Russians were killed in ww2 than every other country involved combined. Nearly as many as during the artificial famine of 1932-34 and the great terror, plus those shipped off to labour camps or expelled from St Petersburg & Moscow. That's not to sound facetious about the number of war dead but context is required.. I think your maths is as poor as your history!. Either way what the fuck has any of those deaths got to do with the fact that the Soviet union suffered 30 million deaths in ww2?. My original assertion which you wise cracked at was that Stalin took the eastern block to disconnect itself from any future German threat.... I'm afraid people said they posed no threat after ww1 as well! They were wrong" Your original assertion was that Stalin took the Eastern block only after the Allied Occupation Council failed to break up the German "empire", even though the protocols had been agreed with Stalin at Tehran and Yalta, it was a land grab pure and simple, and there's nothing wrong with my maths...Stalin murdered more Soviet citizens than Nazi Germany ever did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the first seeds of this bizarre but cosy little relationship have been sewn tonight. Assad now given free reign and the Syrian rebels given up to the great God. Good luck Eastern Europe "Ah yes, the Obama/Clinton legacy in the ME, which includes arming the Syrian 'rebels' like the Al Nusra Front which affiliated to AL QUEDA received arms from the US via Saudi Arabia!? And despite hundreds of appeals for help leaving their Libyan Ambassador and other support staff to die in their Consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton should be in the dock but don't worry it's unlikely even Trump would make them pay for their treason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. Someone needs to lay off the mountain dew!. Instead of wise cracks why don't you actually point out something that's wrong with my analysis of history?..... Yeah thought not
Must admit that although I tend to agree with most of your posts I really don't know where you have got that lot from.
Firstly Stalin "pleaded" for nothing. He was much more fond of demanding.
Both Roosevelt and Churchill were widely criticised for giving far too much to the Soviets at Yalta and subsequently Potsdam.
It was at Stalin's insistence that Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria came under the Soviet sphere of influence. He even arranged to meet the provisional (non Communist) Polish government then promptly had them arrested.
Secondly what German "Empire" was there to break up? While the former East Prussia was divided between Russia and the Soviet puppet Poland and the majority of German Pomerania and Silesia also became (and still are) part of Poland. (All dictated by Stalin BTW) However to say that any of those were part of a German "Empire" would be like saying Yorkshire was part of the British Empire.
At Yalta Roosevelt was prepared to, and did, give Stalin anything he wanted to try and get the Soviet Union into the War against Japan. Even at Potsdam Truman started the conference with the same ideas but halfway through he learned of the successful Atomic bomb test and very quickly changed tack.
Stalin was even demanding occupation zones in Korea and Manchuria in return for joining the Pacific war. Thankfully the bomb put paid to those demands.
How's that for pointing out what is wrong with your analysis?.
Which German empire? Well that would be the one called the third Reich.
The bit we agree on was Stalin's insistence that the line of countries you mention did come under Soviet control because the Germans and the Bolsheviks hated each other's ideology, Hitler's entire premise to the German people had been the eradication of the Bolsheviks, nearly every German volunteer belived that was what they had signed up for.... You can't escape the fact that twice Germany had tried genocide on the Russian population, I'm not sticking up for Stalin I'm pointing out that pretty much any leader of any country had they been through what Russia had been through would have done the same.
Just look at the death toll, more Russians were killed in ww2 than every other country involved combined.
As for the Japanese, there's a little bit more to their surrender than the A bomb, quietly slipped from history was the Russian invasion coming from the north, the Japanese being wise decided the better option was to surrender to the yanks than the Russians for obvious reasons..... There are some things considered worse than death and the Japanese were willing to fight on to the death, the A bomb didn't alter that outcome?.
"OK If you want to call the 3rd Reich an Empire I'll give to you. I wouldn't though. For me an Empire has to last for more than a handful of years. The 3rd Reich was nothing more than a short term occupation for, in most cases, less than 5 years. Of course Stalin was an ally against a common enemy and no one should forget it. Nor should anyone forget the Russian losses during WW2. However that does not excuse the expansionism and oppression of the post war years. Hungarian uprising, Prague Spring, ring any bells? As for Japan? It can be argued that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria contributed to Japans surrender but I would disagree. Had Stalin acted a few weeks earlier I would have conceded the point but the invasion was after Hiroshima and only one day before Nagasaki. The Japanese had no choice when it came to who they were going to surrender to. Stalin's invasion was nothing more than a land grab which put Soviet occupation of Manchuria and parts of Korea (rejected by Truman at Potsdam) firmly back on the table. Something the world is still paying the price for today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Nice guy" Vlad's Russia withdraw from the International Criminal Court. Hmmmm....why could that be?" Here is why russia is removing its support. Russia is withdrawing its support for the International Criminal Court after the court released a report accusing Russia of war crimes when it seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The move follows last month's announcements by three African nations — Burundi, Gambia and South Africa — that they intend to withdraw from the court, alleging it is biased. A statement on the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website announced "the intention not to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the first seeds of this bizarre but cosy little relationship have been sewn tonight. Assad now given free reign and the Syrian rebels given up to the great God. Good luck Eastern Europe
Ah yes, the Obama/Clinton legacy in the ME, which includes arming the Syrian 'rebels' like the Al Nusra Front which affiliated to AL QUEDA received arms from the US via Saudi Arabia!? And despite hundreds of appeals for help leaving their Libyan Ambassador and other support staff to die in their Consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton should be in the dock but don't worry it's unlikely even Trump would make them pay for their treason."Hindsight is a wonderful thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's too early to tell in my opinion, they are both mavericks, but Putin is more of an opportunist. History is likely to repeat itself, like at Potsdam where Roosevelt and Churchill and Stalin all make a deal, 6 months later Stalin is the only one left in power. Putin will probably outlast trump, even is trump manages the full 8 years! " For someone so keen on facts I would have thought you would have known that Roosevelt had died before Potsdam. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact remains that apart from a few of its neighbours who've been under/influence of western powers Russia historically has NEVER posed any threat to European countries, the fact that they were actually one of our best allies in ww2 and many other conflicts seems to be erased from well known history, the only time Russia expanded its influence was after ww2 when after pleading with FDR and Churchill, Stalin couldn't get them to break up the German empire which lets face facts had systemically tried the genocide of all Russians twice within 25 years... Only then did Stalin grab a land bank of countries between Germany and itself to make sure Germany could never again try the eradication of Russia!. Someone needs to lay off the mountain dew!. Instead of wise cracks why don't you actually point out something that's wrong with my analysis of history?..... Yeah thought not
Must admit that although I tend to agree with most of your posts I really don't know where you have got that lot from.
Firstly Stalin "pleaded" for nothing. He was much more fond of demanding.
Both Roosevelt and Churchill were widely criticised for giving far too much to the Soviets at Yalta and subsequently Potsdam.
It was at Stalin's insistence that Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria came under the Soviet sphere of influence. He even arranged to meet the provisional (non Communist) Polish government then promptly had them arrested.
Secondly what German "Empire" was there to break up? While the former East Prussia was divided between Russia and the Soviet puppet Poland and the majority of German Pomerania and Silesia also became (and still are) part of Poland. (All dictated by Stalin BTW) However to say that any of those were part of a German "Empire" would be like saying Yorkshire was part of the British Empire.
At Yalta Roosevelt was prepared to, and did, give Stalin anything he wanted to try and get the Soviet Union into the War against Japan. Even at Potsdam Truman started the conference with the same ideas but halfway through he learned of the successful Atomic bomb test and very quickly changed tack.
Stalin was even demanding occupation zones in Korea and Manchuria in return for joining the Pacific war. Thankfully the bomb put paid to those demands.
How's that for pointing out what is wrong with your analysis?.
Which German empire? Well that would be the one called the third Reich.
The bit we agree on was Stalin's insistence that the line of countries you mention did come under Soviet control because the Germans and the Bolsheviks hated each other's ideology, Hitler's entire premise to the German people had been the eradication of the Bolsheviks, nearly every German volunteer belived that was what they had signed up for.... You can't escape the fact that twice Germany had tried genocide on the Russian population, I'm not sticking up for Stalin I'm pointing out that pretty much any leader of any country had they been through what Russia had been through would have done the same.
Just look at the death toll, more Russians were killed in ww2 than every other country involved combined.
As for the Japanese, there's a little bit more to their surrender than the A bomb, quietly slipped from history was the Russian invasion coming from the north, the Japanese being wise decided the better option was to surrender to the yanks than the Russians for obvious reasons..... There are some things considered worse than death and the Japanese were willing to fight on to the death, the A bomb didn't alter that outcome?.
OK If you want to call the 3rd Reich an Empire I'll give to you. I wouldn't though. For me an Empire has to last for more than a handful of years. The 3rd Reich was nothing more than a short term occupation for, in most cases, less than 5 years.
Of course Stalin was an ally against a common enemy and no one should forget it. Nor should anyone forget the Russian losses during WW2. However that does not excuse the expansionism and oppression of the post war years. Hungarian uprising, Prague Spring, ring any bells?
As for Japan? It can be argued that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria contributed to Japans surrender but I would disagree. Had Stalin acted a few weeks earlier I would have conceded the point but the invasion was after Hiroshima and only one day before Nagasaki. The Japanese had no choice when it came to who they were going to surrender to.
Stalin's invasion was nothing more than a land grab which put Soviet occupation of Manchuria and parts of Korea (rejected by Truman at Potsdam) firmly back on the table. Something the world is still paying the price for today.
". I'll be honest I dislike communists and communism as much as you do. The point I'm making is until you can understand them and see "they're side" you'll never be able to have dialogue, sure you can have massive military opposing each other with cold wars and proxy wars but as we've seen for decades it doesn't really get you anywhere..... Except massive military expenditure. Now the original question i posed was do Russia actually produce any real threat to European countries and was their original land grab of the eastern block justifiable?. . They own most of London! I think there'd be very reluctant to turn they're valuable real estate into rubble? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now the original question i posed was do Russia actually produce any real threat to European countries and was their original land grab of the eastern block justifiable?. . " Q1. Yes. At least to the Baltic states and Ukraine. Q2. No. Never. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's too early to tell in my opinion, they are both mavericks, but Putin is more of an opportunist. History is likely to repeat itself, like at Potsdam where Roosevelt and Churchill and Stalin all make a deal, 6 months later Stalin is the only one left in power. Putin will probably outlast trump, even is trump manages the full 8 years! For someone so keen on facts I would have thought you would have known that Roosevelt had died before Potsdam. " My mistake, I meant Yalta. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born." Could people stick to the OP please and just answer the question. Thank you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My post wasn't off topic so I see no problem with it...." I,ll take it you think its good then which is what I was asking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My post wasn't off topic so I see no problem with it.... I,ll take it you think its good then which is what I was asking." You can take it how you like it, you are obviously picking on my post for an argument.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born." If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP wants UKIP style simple, one dimensional answer to a complex problem. Doesn't want to talk about it, doesn't want to think about underlying factors, doesn't want opinions that differ from his. " I asked a simple question gave the option for a one word or one sentence answer seems that too complicated for some people. A yes or no or "I think it would be good/bad for the world" was all I was looking for as stated in my OP. It has NOTHING to do with Ukip or anything else but just cant answer a simple question, then you wonder why more people don't use this forum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My post wasn't off topic so I see no problem with it.... I,ll take it you think its good then which is what I was asking. You can take it how you like it, you are obviously picking on my post for an argument...." No I was,nt yours just happened to be the last made there are a lot more before yours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fortunately we are free to think for ourselves, and as a free thinking person I choose not to agree with you or your opinion of Putin and his intensions." So you think it is bad that Trump and Putin are friends? You don't know what my opinion of Putin is so you dont know whether you agree or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. " So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? " are you sure about that? Pretty sure america is there just waiting for its oppurtunity to bring regime change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? are you sure about that? Pretty sure america is there just waiting for its oppurtunity to bring regime change." You think the US is bombing Assad, and Assad is keeping quiet about about? Yes, I'm sure the US and coalition allies are not bombing Assad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? " They are arming "rebels" fighting Assad. These "rebels" are no different to ISIS, they are Wahabbi Islamists, hence the numerous videos coming out of them beheading kids and burning soldier's alive, etc. Assad kept these animals under control and the "good guys" in that war are the regime troops. They are secular, pro-government and moderate (as the whole country was before this war broke out) - America is siding with fanatical jihadists over a secular government. Ask yourself why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP wants UKIP style simple, one dimensional answer to a complex problem. Doesn't want to talk about it, doesn't want to think about underlying factors, doesn't want opinions that differ from his. I asked a simple question gave the option for a one word or one sentence answer seems that too complicated for some people. A yes or no or "I think it would be good/bad for the world" was all I was looking for as stated in my OP. It has NOTHING to do with Ukip or anything else but just cant answer a simple question, then you wonder why more people don't use this forum. " on such a complex issue as this thread is, a simple one word answer is highly unlikely.. and you can not dictate that people keep it to your perception of a 'simple answer'.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? are you sure about that? Pretty sure america is there just waiting for its oppurtunity to bring regime change. You think the US is bombing Assad, and Assad is keeping quiet about about? Yes, I'm sure the US and coalition allies are not bombing Assad. " didnt say they was bombing assad I said they was waiting for oppurtunity for regime change as its obvious to anyone that America want the rebels to overthrow assad. its russia and syria thats dealing eith isis and anerica doing its own thing as it refuses to work together with them. thankfully thats all changing soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? are you sure about that? Pretty sure america is there just waiting for its oppurtunity to bring regime change. You think the US is bombing Assad, and Assad is keeping quiet about about? Yes, I'm sure the US and coalition allies are not bombing Assad. didnt say they was bombing assad I said they was waiting for oppurtunity for regime change as its obvious to anyone that America want the rebels to overthrow assad. its russia and syria thats dealing eith isis and anerica doing its own thing as it refuses to work together with them. thankfully thats all changing soon." Sorry, but you appear to have it backwards. Assad is fighting against all opposition forces. Russia is fighting against the so called moderate opposition forces, because they are being supported by the US, but aren't really targetting ISIS, because ISIS is anti-American. The US and Coalition allies are supporting the so called moderate opposition, and directly targetting ISIS, but not targetting Assad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? are you sure about that? Pretty sure america is there just waiting for its oppurtunity to bring regime change. You think the US is bombing Assad, and Assad is keeping quiet about about? Yes, I'm sure the US and coalition allies are not bombing Assad. didnt say they was bombing assad I said they was waiting for oppurtunity for regime change as its obvious to anyone that America want the rebels to overthrow assad. its russia and syria thats dealing eith isis and anerica doing its own thing as it refuses to work together with them. thankfully thats all changing soon. Sorry, but you appear to have it backwards. Assad is fighting against all opposition forces. Russia is fighting against the so called moderate opposition forces, because they are being supported by the US, but aren't really targetting ISIS, because ISIS is anti-American. The US and Coalition allies are supporting the so called moderate opposition, and directly targetting ISIS, but not targetting Assad. " sorry im afraid you have it all backwards. you cone on here day after day spouting stuff you seen on bbc or sky or some us media propagander channel. you expected britain to vote remain because the media told you, you expected clinton to win because the media told you so yet myself and others said trump would win. you and your biased main stream media with their narrative on expecting people to believe anything tbey say is thankfully finally falling apart. But by all means keep on following their narrative if you want you just wont be informed on whats going on. isis anti anerican you say? America created the damn thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way that Obama, Clinton, or any US President wants WW3, what they want is European nations to stand their ground against Putin.....and rightly so. The Baltic states are in danger of being annexed by Putin and it's a danger that has been widely recognised, Putin doesn't give a shit about IS...what he gives a shit about is the strategic importance of Syria, which is why Russia have been their allies for so long.....well before IS was even born. If the majority of the citizens of any given area of a "baltic" state identify as Russians, then Russia would have every right to annex it, the same as Serbia should have annexed Kosovo. It's absolutely no business of America's, or Western Europe's whatsoever. It's clear that you have fallen for the MSN narrative hook, line and sinker... "Big, bad, Putin must be stopped!" - The unfortunate reality is that in the war on terror, Putin is the good guy. America and Co don't want stable governments in the middle-east, hence them favouring ISIS over Assad. With Hillary as president, war with Russia would have been inevitable (this was the main factor in middle of the road Americans opting for Trump) - With Trump in charge, Putin has already stated that he intends to rebuild relations between to the two countries. So why are Americans bombing ISIS, but not bombing Assad? are you sure about that? Pretty sure america is there just waiting for its oppurtunity to bring regime change. You think the US is bombing Assad, and Assad is keeping quiet about about? Yes, I'm sure the US and coalition allies are not bombing Assad. didnt say they was bombing assad I said they was waiting for oppurtunity for regime change as its obvious to anyone that America want the rebels to overthrow assad. its russia and syria thats dealing eith isis and anerica doing its own thing as it refuses to work together with them. thankfully thats all changing soon. Sorry, but you appear to have it backwards. Assad is fighting against all opposition forces. Russia is fighting against the so called moderate opposition forces, because they are being supported by the US, but aren't really targetting ISIS, because ISIS is anti-American. The US and Coalition allies are supporting the so called moderate opposition, and directly targetting ISIS, but not targetting Assad. sorry im afraid you have it all backwards. you cone on here day after day spouting stuff you seen on bbc or sky or some us media propagander channel. you expected britain to vote remain because the media told you, you expected clinton to win because the media told you so yet myself and others said trump would win. you and your biased main stream media with their narrative on expecting people to believe anything tbey say is thankfully finally falling apart. But by all means keep on following their narrative if you want you just wont be informed on whats going on. isis anti anerican you say? America created the damn thing." With regards to Brexit and the US election, I have stated who I would have preferred to win, not who I thought would win. There is a very distinct difference. If you disagree with my analysis of the players in the Syria conflict then I would be interested in hearing your understanding of who is fighting whom and why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sure. russia and assad are fighting isis and the rebels. the Americans are there (uninvited) under the guise of fighting isis but are not really commited whole heartedly to that as they refuse to commicate and coordinate with the russians which just causes problems all around. America want regime change there and have done ever since they finishdd with libya. im sorry to say but the sooner you realise that the "bad guys" in this world isnt the Russians or assad or even gadaffi when he was alive....its us the west that are causing the problems on this planet. hopfully come january that will change once trump takea over as he doeant want to intefere in the middle east and he wants better relations with russia. I can honestly say the world's gonna be a better and safer place for it too. " I totally agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sure. russia and assad are fighting isis and the rebels. the Americans are there (uninvited) under the guise of fighting isis but are not really commited whole heartedly to that as they refuse to commicate and coordinate with the russians which just causes problems all around. America want regime change there and have done ever since they finishdd with libya. im sorry to say but the sooner you realise that the "bad guys" in this world isnt the Russians or assad or even gadaffi when he was alive....its us the west that are causing the problems on this planet. hopfully come january that will change once trump takea over as he doeant want to intefere in the middle east and he wants better relations with russia. I can honestly say the world's gonna be a better and safer place for it too. " So the only people that you say the US led coalition is fighting, is ISIS, yet in your previous post you seemed to imply that ISIS was pro-US. Have I misunderstood your position, or are ISIS so pro-US that they don't mind being bombed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sure. russia and assad are fighting isis and the rebels. the Americans are there (uninvited) under the guise of fighting isis but are not really commited whole heartedly to that as they refuse to commicate and coordinate with the russians which just causes problems all around. America want regime change there and have done ever since they finishdd with libya. im sorry to say but the sooner you realise that the "bad guys" in this world isnt the Russians or assad or even gadaffi when he was alive....its us the west that are causing the problems on this planet. hopfully come january that will change once trump takea over as he doeant want to intefere in the middle east and he wants better relations with russia. I can honestly say the world's gonna be a better and safer place for it too. So the only people that you say the US led coalition is fighting, is ISIS, yet in your previous post you seemed to imply that ISIS was pro-US. Have I misunderstood your position, or are ISIS so pro-US that they don't mind being bombed? " You said isis hate America if they hate america so much why are they helping america by destabilising yet another country that America is wanting regime change in...surely thats helping America so why would the US wanna bomb people that are helping them reach their objective of getting rid of assad. like I said earlier america created isis just like al quida before them and also funded the rebels in libya. but thats all changing now (fingers crossed) the elites didnt get their puppet hillary to carry on as normal following on from where obama left off. lets wait and see... but for now things look more promising.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sure. russia and assad are fighting isis and the rebels. the Americans are there (uninvited) under the guise of fighting isis but are not really commited whole heartedly to that as they refuse to commicate and coordinate with the russians which just causes problems all around. America want regime change there and have done ever since they finishdd with libya. im sorry to say but the sooner you realise that the "bad guys" in this world isnt the Russians or assad or even gadaffi when he was alive....its us the west that are causing the problems on this planet. hopfully come january that will change once trump takea over as he doeant want to intefere in the middle east and he wants better relations with russia. I can honestly say the world's gonna be a better and safer place for it too. So the only people that you say the US led coalition is fighting, is ISIS, yet in your previous post you seemed to imply that ISIS was pro-US. Have I misunderstood your position, or are ISIS so pro-US that they don't mind being bombed? You said isis hate America if they hate america so much why are they helping america by destabilising yet another country that America is wanting regime change in...surely thats helping America so why would the US wanna bomb people that are helping them reach their objective of getting rid of assad. like I said earlier america created isis just like al quida before them and also funded the rebels in libya. but thats all changing now (fingers crossed) the elites didnt get their puppet hillary to carry on as normal following on from where obama left off. lets wait and see... but for now things look more promising. "I just want to make sure that I am understanding your posts correctly. Earlier you said that the US wasn't bombing Assad, here you are saying the US aren't bombing ISIS, we all know the US aren't bombing the Russians, and it doesn't make sense that the US would be bombing the so called moderate rebels that they are supporting, so who exactly do you think the US is bombing? Or are they not bombing at all? [Im using US as shorthand in this an other posts for the US led coalition] | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP wants UKIP style simple, one dimensional answer to a complex problem. Doesn't want to talk about it, doesn't want to think about underlying factors, doesn't want opinions that differ from his. I asked a simple question gave the option for a one word or one sentence answer seems that too complicated for some people. A yes or no or "I think it would be good/bad for the world" was all I was looking for as stated in my OP. It has NOTHING to do with Ukip or anything else but just cant answer a simple question, then you wonder why more people don't use this forum. on such a complex issue as this thread is, a simple one word answer is highly unlikely.. and you can not dictate that people keep it to your perception of a 'simple answer'.. " Then don't reply to the OP simples.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP wants UKIP style simple, one dimensional answer to a complex problem. Doesn't want to talk about it, doesn't want to think about underlying factors, doesn't want opinions that differ from his. I asked a simple question gave the option for a one word or one sentence answer seems that too complicated for some people. A yes or no or "I think it would be good/bad for the world" was all I was looking for as stated in my OP. It has NOTHING to do with Ukip or anything else but just cant answer a simple question, then you wonder why more people don't use this forum. on such a complex issue as this thread is, a simple one word answer is highly unlikely.. and you can not dictate that people keep it to your perception of a 'simple answer'.. Then don't reply to the OP simples. "but its not simple is it? even an 'apples or oranges', 'dogs or cats' is best will expand and diverge as people elaborate and look to validate their point of view.. setting an arbitrary limit or attempting to just because one is the OP is like trying to plait fog.. simple enough.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP wants UKIP style simple, one dimensional answer to a complex problem. Doesn't want to talk about it, doesn't want to think about underlying factors, doesn't want opinions that differ from his. I asked a simple question gave the option for a one word or one sentence answer seems that too complicated for some people. A yes or no or "I think it would be good/bad for the world" was all I was looking for as stated in my OP. It has NOTHING to do with Ukip or anything else but just cant answer a simple question, then you wonder why more people don't use this forum. on such a complex issue as this thread is, a simple one word answer is highly unlikely.. and you can not dictate that people keep it to your perception of a 'simple answer'.. Then don't reply to the OP simples.
but its not simple is it?
even an 'apples or oranges', 'dogs or cats' is best will expand and diverge as people elaborate and look to validate their point of view..
setting an arbitrary limit or attempting to just because one is the OP is like trying to plait fog..
simple enough..
"NO The point of setting a limit was to try and avoid a shouting match debate about who is right and who is wrong. Anyone should be able to read the OP understand the question and the limit and answer as asked if they wish to answer, anyone who does,nt like the OP should read and move on without replying. Simples. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sure. russia and assad are fighting isis and the rebels. the Americans are there (uninvited) under the guise of fighting isis but are not really commited whole heartedly to that as they refuse to commicate and coordinate with the russians which just causes problems all around. America want regime change there and have done ever since they finishdd with libya. im sorry to say but the sooner you realise that the "bad guys" in this world isnt the Russians or assad or even gadaffi when he was alive....its us the west that are causing the problems on this planet. hopfully come january that will change once trump takea over as he doeant want to intefere in the middle east and he wants better relations with russia. I can honestly say the world's gonna be a better and safer place for it too. So the only people that you say the US led coalition is fighting, is ISIS, yet in your previous post you seemed to imply that ISIS was pro-US. Have I misunderstood your position, or are ISIS so pro-US that they don't mind being bombed? You said isis hate America if they hate america so much why are they helping america by destabilising yet another country that America is wanting regime change in...surely thats helping America so why would the US wanna bomb people that are helping them reach their objective of getting rid of assad. like I said earlier america created isis just like al quida before them and also funded the rebels in libya. but thats all changing now (fingers crossed) the elites didnt get their puppet hillary to carry on as normal following on from where obama left off. lets wait and see... but for now things look more promising.
I just want to make sure that I am understanding your posts correctly.
Earlier you said that the US wasn't bombing Assad, here you are saying the US aren't bombing ISIS, we all know the US aren't bombing the Russians, and it doesn't make sense that the US would be bombing the so called moderate rebels that they are supporting, so who exactly do you think the US is bombing? Or are they not bombing at all?
[Im using US as shorthand in this an other posts for the US led coalition]"Did we ever figure out who the US were bombing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sure. russia and assad are fighting isis and the rebels. the Americans are there (uninvited) under the guise of fighting isis but are not really commited whole heartedly to that as they refuse to commicate and coordinate with the russians which just causes problems all around. America want regime change there and have done ever since they finishdd with libya. im sorry to say but the sooner you realise that the "bad guys" in this world isnt the Russians or assad or even gadaffi when he was alive....its us the west that are causing the problems on this planet. hopfully come january that will change once trump takea over as he doeant want to intefere in the middle east and he wants better relations with russia. I can honestly say the world's gonna be a better and safer place for it too. So the only people that you say the US led coalition is fighting, is ISIS, yet in your previous post you seemed to imply that ISIS was pro-US. Have I misunderstood your position, or are ISIS so pro-US that they don't mind being bombed? You said isis hate America if they hate america so much why are they helping america by destabilising yet another country that America is wanting regime change in...surely thats helping America so why would the US wanna bomb people that are helping them reach their objective of getting rid of assad. like I said earlier america created isis just like al quida before them and also funded the rebels in libya. but thats all changing now (fingers crossed) the elites didnt get their puppet hillary to carry on as normal following on from where obama left off. lets wait and see... but for now things look more promising.
I just want to make sure that I am understanding your posts correctly.
Earlier you said that the US wasn't bombing Assad, here you are saying the US aren't bombing ISIS, we all know the US aren't bombing the Russians, and it doesn't make sense that the US would be bombing the so called moderate rebels that they are supporting, so who exactly do you think the US is bombing? Or are they not bombing at all?
[Im using US as shorthand in this an other posts for the US led coalition]
Did we ever figure out who the US were bombing? "Did we ever get to the bottom of who the Americans were bombing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Putin/Trump disagrees on Fidel Castro. I do wonder those who adore Putin and Trump what they think of Fidel Castro. Cuba and Russia had a close relationship. So tell us who is right? Trump's or Putin's view of Castro?" Although I was very young when the Cuban missile crisis was going on remember thinking in the aftermath of it in the 1970's that Castro was more Nationalist than Communist and he was more an accidental communist than by intention. I always felt he was solely accepting of the Russians because it made him a much more important figure to his belligerent neighbour to the north. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always felt he was solely accepting of the Russians because it made him a much more important figure to his belligerent neighbour to the north." I think you underestimate how much the Yank bare responsibility for the direction that Cuba took after the revolution of 59. Batista was owned by Yank mobsters and Cuba was nothing more than a mafia run criminal enterprise. When Castro overthrew that corrupt regime and confiscated all that mob property the USA had a choice, support Castro and take advantage of all the information that became available to US law enforcement to break organised crime in the States, or support the criminal gangs by getting upset the US property had been seized. What did they do? Yep, they backed the mafia and attempted to reinstall Batista and the crime cartels! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
