Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by Looper

They are not lies it is a fact as plain as day.

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.

Originally Posted by Looper

Military invasion for land acquisition is not.

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.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You're wrong.

Do you think it is OK for countries to take land of other countries against their will?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Never heard of the middle east then? Or do you still believe that Saddam had WMD? Afghanistan did 9/11?

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.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

yo likely get your information from Murdoch publications or the bought and sold Aussie propaganda press so there is no surprise there.

Is that worse then were you get your nonsense from?

David Icke, Infowars, RT, ITAR-Tass

Originally Posted by Looper

There was never any suggestion that the US would attempt to acquire those lands as US sovereign territory.

Tell that to Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, UK.........

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.

Originally Posted by Looper

There is never any suggestion that the land is irrevocable US sovereign territory;

Tell that to the Cypriots. Tell that to the Iraqis

Originally Posted by Looper

Spurious comparison.

Factually correct, not like your posts, generally.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Factually correct, not like your posts, generally.

Says the master of misinformation and propaganda. Not one of your posts has a drop of creditability.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Tell that to the Cypriots. Tell that to the Iraqis

Russia invaded a foreign country and took a very large tract of land off them and now claims it as Russian sovereign territory.

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?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Factually correct, not like your posts, generally.

Fatuously incorrect

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

Originally Posted by Neverna

What about Guantanamo in Cuba, Looper?

Cuban?American Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peaceably agreed treaty.

Originally Posted by Neo

Or Diego Garcia

What about it?

Do you want me to hold your hand again..?

What about Diego Garcia?

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......

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Neverna

What about Guantanamo in Cuba, Looper?

Cuban?American Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peaceably agreed treaty.

Apparently the Cuban view is that the base was taken under duress.

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.

Guantánamo Bay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by misskit

Where is Putin? Russian leader’s absence sparks rumors

the collection of memes
The Internet Thinks Putin Is Dead

Originally Posted by Neo

Well that's about the size of it... though I find it unlikely that you will manage to draw any parallels..

Don't see much similarity and in any case this was half a century ago. The 21st century is a different planet.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Apparently the Cuban view is that the base was taken under duress.

Going back almost to the 19th century with that one. Before both world wars. Legal western slavery was still well within living memory.

Originally Posted by Neo

have you heard of Gibraltar.?

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?

You want to put historical time limits on a discussion about sovereignty.?




You should stick to what you know best, this clearly isn't it.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Neo

Well that's about the size of it... though I find it unlikely that you will manage to draw any parallels..

Don't see much similarity

Quelle Surprise.!

Originally Posted by Neo

You want to put historical time limits on a discussion about sovereignty.?

What are you on about?

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.

Originally Posted by Looper

Do you not know that the acceptability of behaviour changes with time?

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.

Originally Posted by Neverna

They want global hegemony of what is deemed acceptable and they try to enforce their views on the world.

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.

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.