*scratches head*Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Looks like you won that discussion Looper. :1st: :ugh:
Printable View
*scratches head*Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Looks like you won that discussion Looper. :1st: :ugh:
So there you go Looper does indeed support Nazis, not least by continuing the lies about russia annexing Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Imagine that a greek only political party, full of greek nutters who were mostly convicted criminals and a long record of attacking non Greek Australians, did a coup in Australia kicking your democratically elected politicians out, and the first thing these bunch of bastards did was ban the English language, written and spoken, in Australia. How would you feel? You keep pumping out Washingtons "talking points", as in the little one liners they rely on to dupe fools, but you seem to have little or no understanding of what really happens.
I am amazed that the NATO generals have not "planned" a/many military attack on Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
I am amazed that the NATO countries have not "planned" a financial warfare attack on Russia.
I am amazed that the NATO countries have not "planned" a propaganda warfare attack on Russia.
You really need to take your head out of your arse.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/03/789.jpg
Do you honestly believe that if Russia:
1. created/funded/managed/manipulated an overthrow of the State of Texas/North Island/Scotland/Western Australia/............ elected assemblies and installed their stooges,
2. armed them,
3. trained them,
4. supported them financially,
5. started blowing up airplanes crossing Texas
6. stood on the world stage to demand world-wide sanctions from their puppet support countries.
That the USA//New Zealand/UK/Australia wouldn't consider it an act of war against it.
Yesterday the USA designated Venezuela a non state, for what? Stopping a USA coup attempt.
Page 1 of THE PLAN
Financial Sanctions (no body bags/no burning kids running down the road) Check,
Financing "opposition" groups Check,
creating social unrest Check .......
Doesn't your brain recognise some similarities here and there?
In the past 20 - 50 years the USA/some puppets have invaded and killed in too many countries based on Lies and Fiction. They have maimed, slaughtered and shattered the lives of previously peaceful men, women and children. They have shown how they are able to send countries, "Back to the Stone Age".
Don't give me this shit about "WHO HAS PLANS?"
Amusingly ahistorical view you have there, Looper. Crimea as a "foreign land" vis-a-vis Russia? Kind of funny coming from a Brit- know your own history, much? Who do you think Lord Cardigan and other assorted imperialists were fighting in Crimea, Ukrainians? The Russians have a longer memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Crimea was gifted to the Ukrainian SR- a Soviet construction of which a large part is made of land stolen by Stalin from Poland- by a Ukrainian premier of the USSR. The majority population was then and remains Russian-speaking, as it has been since Catherine the Great busted up the Crimean Tatar/Ottoman slaving operation there. It hardly made any difference while the Soviet Union was a going concern, but once a hostile government was formed through CIA intervention Putin decided to make clear that there was no chance that the most important southern Russian naval port was going to fall into the hands of NATO. There was no resistance to this on the part of the local populace- even Putin's opposition in Russia concedes this, so it is bit ridiculous to say the referendum had no legitimacy because the Kiev government, which took power by force, didn't sanction it. For my part I think it was a rash and unnecessary move on Putin's part, given that they could take the Crimea at any time of their choosing, but he decided to make a statement, even if it came at some cost.
It is looking more and more likely that that the fascists- Svoboda and Right Sector- will attempt to seize power from Poroshenko, and given that they already do most of the heavy lifting for the Kiev government they will likely easily succeed. This would leave the US/NATO strategy in Ukraine in tatters, unless they want to be seen as openly supporting fascists. If the idea was to weaken Putin's grip in Russia- not a bad thing if it were to happen- the US and Britain (the eternal Russophobe, still playing the Great Game for reasons unknown) have gone about it all wrong. Maybe better leave this stuff to the Germans from now on and not, as the US neocon-in-charge, Victoria Nuland, recommended, "fuck the EU." You won't get anywhere threatening Russia, and if the Banderistas do take charge in Kiev it will be nearly impossible to prevent the Russians from coming in an sorting them out. You might think NATO can win a ground war in Russia (and the area around Kiev is the historical Russian heartland)- Charles XII, Nappy, and Hitler thought they could win, too.
The only 'attack' that has been launched on Russia is trade sanctions. That is how civilised countries respond to regressive belligerents in the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
They are not lies it is a fact as plain as day.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
International political meddling is a common if undesirable activity in the 21st century. Military invasion for land acquisition is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Any 'attack' on Russia was in response to their neanderthal approach to foreign relationships. The only 'attack's have been financial which is a civilised response when compared to the original provocation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
I don't deny that Russia may have a historical claim to Crimea being Russian and may want to re-acquire it. They should have approached such an end through political engagement with the country they want the land back from. Crimea was sovereign Ukrainian territory. No other country has the right to take it off them without a negotiation and some offer of recompense.Quote:
Originally Posted by robuzo
You're wrong. But then again, yo likely get your information from Murdoch publications or the bought and sold Aussie propaganda press so there is no surprise there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Never heard of the middle east then? Or do you still believe that Saddam had WMD? Afghanistan did 9/11? No hope for a flat earther like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Do you think it is OK for countries to take land of other countries against their will?Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
War involves entering other countries. Those were not sovereign territorial acquisitions. There was never any suggestion that the US would attempt to acquire those lands as US sovereign territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Is that worse then were you get your nonsense from?Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
David Icke, Infowars, RT, ITAR-Tass :rofl:
Tell that to Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, UK.........Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Every US/NATO base is sovereign territory of the occupying state.
Military bases are there with the consent of the host nation. Usually based on some military coalition agreement in the case of allies. In the case of recent military operations, bases may remain on the land while the country returns to stability.
There is never any suggestion that the land is irrevocable US sovereign territory; and these are small pieces of land not 10% of a large country.
Spurious comparison.
Apparently Putin is not too dangerous , I just read a news article he is presumed dead because he has not been seen for 8 days and the social media are having a free for all.
Tell that to the Cypriots. Tell that to the IraqisQuote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Factually correct, not like your posts, generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
:rofl: Says the master of misinformation and propaganda. Not one of your posts has a drop of creditability.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Russia invaded a foreign country and took a very large tract of land off them and now claims it as Russian sovereign territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
That is not anywhere remotely in the same vicinity as maintaining military base on foreign soil with the agreement of the host country.
Are you really so stupid as to not see the difference in that or are you just being obtuse?
Fatuously incorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
As Ozcol mentioned a couple of posts back, Putin is missing.
Where is Putin? Russian leader’s absence sparks rumors
Everyone has their off days, but when you're the proudly virile and uncontested leader of one of the most-watched countries in the world, your days off make people nervous. Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn't been seen for days, and now people are beginning to wonder why.
On Thursday, Putin's spokesman announced that the president would not attend a meeting with the Federal Security Service (FSB), which he usually attends. But no, Putin was "absolutely" healthy, Dmitry Peskov told Russia's Ekho Moskvy, before adding that the president's handshake was so strong it could “break your hand.”
Putin's absence at the FSB meeting comes just a day after he unexpectedly canceled a trip to Kazakhstan. "The visit has been canceled. It looks like he [Putin] has fallen ill," an anonymous Kazakh official told Reuters afterward, prompting a flurry of speculation.
To make matters more confusing, on Wednesday the Kremlin released an image of Putin meeting with the regional governor of Karelia. But local Web site Vesti Karelii reported that Putin actually had met with the head of the Republic of Karelia, Alexander Khudilainen, on March 4. In fact, RBC.ru reports that a number of events posted by the Kremlin appeared to have been recycled from earlier events. If this is correct, the last time Putin was seen in public may have been March 5, when he met the Italian prime minister in Moscow.
Getting worked up by an absence of a few days may seem silly, but these things happen in authoritarian regimes: North Korea's Kim Jong Un disappeared for weeks last year, intriguing the world. In that case, Kim later reappeared with no real explanation and continued going about his business as usual (don't be surprised if that happens in Russia, too). Russia isn't North Korea, but it's still an intensely personalized political system. Little of political substance happens without Putin's personal approval, and it's hard to imagine how the country would respond if he really were sick.
There's also a history here. At the end of the Soviet era, three separate Communist Party chiefs died suddenly in office, and during the end of Boris Yeltsin's time as president of Russia, alcoholism and poor health led to a number of unexplained and embarrassing absences. Again, Putin is certainly no Yeltsin -- he's a black-belt in judo and known to be extremely health conscious -- but many Russians now assume that the state would lie about the health of its leaders.
This isn't the first time there has been speculation about Putin's health. In 2012, there were a series of rumors when he was briefly absent from public life; most focused on some kind of back ailment. Putin returned, with little explanation. Then, last year, after a New York Post article said Putin might have cancer, Peskov told reporters: “Bite your tongue! Everything’s fine."
Now, with the Russian president absent again, Putin's health is the talk of Moscow. But while rumors are everywhere (some say he has had a stroke; others suggest plastic surgery) it's all just speculation at the moment. On Twitter, users have posted their own theories under the hashtag #ПутинУмер or #PutinIsDead. Another, less macabre, hashtag -- #WhereIsPutin -- is also popular.
Where is Putin? Russian leader?s absence sparks rumors. - The Washington Post
What about Guantanamo in Cuba, Looper?
Or Diego Garcia
Cuban?American Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Peaceably agreed treaty.
What about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Do you want me to hold your hand again..?
What about Diego Garcia?
It's a strategically important location with contested ownership.
The British claimed the island and in 1965 dubiously made it a British territory, they then offered to lease the island to the US with the provisio that it was un-inhabited. A program soon followed to expel the natives and the US moved in, and have used the base since for long range air strikes, naval resupply and more recently rendition. The ownership of the island is still contested, clearly it belongs to the native islanders, but the US continue to claim it as their own.
Well that's about the size of it... though I find it unlikely that you will manage to draw any parallels.. have you heard of Gibraltar.?
:chitown:
Guantanamo bay is held under a treaty agreement between the US and Cuba since 1903..... in a similar kind of way that Akrotiri in Cyprus is held by the British as sovereign territory.
Diego Garcia is in the British Indian Ocean territory and is occupied by the US in full agreement and cooperation with the UK government. It used to be occupied by some natives who were not doing anything useful with it so the British re-settled them in more suitable surroundings so that the place could be utilized as a very strategic military base suitable for the deployment of submarines and long range strike aircraft etc......:)
Apparently the Cuban view is that the base was taken under duress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Guantánamo Bay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban–American Treaty was obtained by threat of force and is in violation of international law.
the collection of memesQuote:
Originally Posted by misskit
The Internet Thinks Putin Is Dead
Don't see much similarity and in any case this was half a century ago. The 21st century is a different planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Going back almost to the 19th century with that one. Before both world wars. Legal western slavery was still well within living memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Gibraltar? That is going back over 3 centuries. Are you seriously wanting to make comparisons dating back to before the UK's union of the parliaments?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
You want to put historical time limits on a discussion about sovereignty.?
:rofl:
You should stick to what you know best, this clearly isn't it.
:smileylaughing:Quelle Surprise.! :smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
What are you on about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Do you not know that the acceptability of behaviour changes with time?
200 years ago it was normal to go to war with your neighbours and take their land if you felt like it and had the muscle. Now it is not.
You are right, Looper, but the problem is that certain countries like to tell others what the latest acceptable 'fashion' is, and they expect other countries to simply submit to their "enlightened wisdom". It's somewhat arrogant, and presumably done on purpose in order to make sure what they do is not only deemed acceptable, but also considered the morally "correct" path. They want global hegemony of what is deemed acceptable. They try to enforce their views and values on the world using any means possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
The rest of the world envies the lifestyle and intellectual freedoms afforded by the western philosophy of government and equal opportunity even if some of them are loathe to admit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
They end up emulating every social freedom first pioneered by western freedom of thought.
Not arrogance. Just the way it is. Some culture has to be the most progressive. On this planet at this time it happens to be white western culture.
1000 years ago it was middle eastern muslim culture.
They dropped the ball by shunning the printing press which allowed western ideas to accelerate in their rate of refinement through mass communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NevernaYou are right, Looper, but the problem is that certain countries like to tell others what the latest acceptable 'fashion' is, and they expect other countries to simply submit to their "enlightened wisdom". It's somewhat arrogant, and presumably done on purpose in order to make sure what they do is not only deemed acceptable, but also considered the morally "correct" path. They want global hegemony of what is deemed acceptable. They try to enforce their views and values on the world using any means possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Speaking in general you are not wrong. But let's get specific. Do you see Russia invading a neighbouring country and taking large parts of it away or destroying it as something acceptable today?
It's a fine red herring that Looper is dangling, but it's only so he can dismiss similarly relevant situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers
Acceptable today.? This century, last century..?
Where should we draw the line that Looper would like us to arbitrarily dismiss the significance of history with?
Laughable
There is no line.
The acceptability of behaviour is something that evolves slowly over time. It is shaped by global conflict events and the lessons we learn about how to deal with them and how to avoid them in future.
National boundaries are now sacrosanct.
You cannot grab land from other countries just because you are in a bad mood about losing a tactical battle in the field of international politics.
Are you saying that Russia has invaded a neighbouring country and taken large parts of it away and/or destroyed it? Or is you question just a hypothetical one?Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeoversQuote:
Originally Posted by NevernaYou are right, Looper, but the problem is that certain countries like to tell others what the latest acceptable 'fashion' is, and they expect other countries to simply submit to their "enlightened wisdom". It's somewhat arrogant, and presumably done on purpose in order to make sure what they do is not only deemed acceptable, but also considered the morally "correct" path. They want global hegemony of what is deemed acceptable. They try to enforce their views and values on the world using any means possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Speaking in general you are not wrong. But let's get specific. Do you see Russia invading a neighbouring country and taking large parts of it away or destroying it as something acceptable today?
And never forget the old adage about arguing with idiots... :chitown:
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
No they are not, Looper.
I am not hypothetical. My post was very clear. It is specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
I don't need to say that Russia has invaded a neighbouring country. Vladimir Putin himself has said so. The destruction is obvious.
I refer you to post #955
Still on about Crimea? Yawwn- it's done and dusted. Considering that Ukraine is in economic freefall, and it's eastern provinces in a civil war, Crimea looks like the land of milk and honey in comparison. The Crimean people (overwhelmingky Russian) & Parliament did the right thing, as did Russia.
Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Syria..................?Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
A source would be good.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeovers