Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Malangsob said:

However, I think if i got into the where's and why's of that I would sidetrack this thread

As far as I know, anyone can start a new topic if they have something worthwhile to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Why buy comic books when you can read all the sanctimonious fiction you could ever need, right here on social media. 

What part is fantasy? 

 

Have not increased the size of NATO since 1996?

 

For what goal? 

 

Russia presented no existential threat.

 

Fun fact, Putin actually lobbied with Clinton to become a part of NATO.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

 

The fact is, there was a line, a cultural, political, and geographic line set.

 

Ukraine has it written into their constitution that they will be a non-nuclear combatant.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26676051

 

This was a stipulation required by Russia, and agreed to by Ukraine when the Soviet bloc dissolved.

 

Zelensky, and Ukraine have pushed for years to change the Budapest Accord which guaranteed such.

 

So, who expects Russia to permit a country who has belligerent intention toward them to gain nukes with a 5 minute Moscow strike time? 

 

Would the west accept this? Come now. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Malangsob said:

What part is fantasy? Pretty much all of it

 

Have not increased the size of NATO since 1996? Other counties asked to join NATO and were admitted.

 

For what goal? You'd have to ask them why they felt they needed the security of NATO membership, rather than create a myth that NATO expanded by absorbing new territory

 

Russia presented no existential threat. You may chose to say that but it's hardly the same view taken by countries that asked to join NATO. Perhaps those new member countries were in a better position to judge Russia than you.

 

Fun fact, Putin actually lobbied with Clinton to become a part of NATO. God, not this old chestnut again. It's not a fun fact, it's an oblique suggestion that Russia is so benign it could be a member of NATO, which of course is where the fantasy really takes off. There is absolutely no evidence this is true.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

 

The fact is, there was a line, a cultural, political, and geographic line set. There are always lines. Recent evidence says only Russia is intent on breaching those lines ... wherever and whenever it suits Russia.

 

Ukraine has it written into their constitution that they will be a non-nuclear combatant. When has Ukraine embraced nuclear weapons? Much as some want to paint the west as the nuclear bully, the only country wielding a nuclear threat is Russia

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26676051

 

This was a stipulation required by Russia, and agreed to by Ukraine when the Soviet bloc dissolved.

 

Zelensky, and Ukraine have pushed for years to change the Budapest Accord which guaranteed such. The Budapest Accord was intended to protect in the event it gave up it's Soviet nuclear weapons. "The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan."

 

So, who expects Russia to permit a country who has belligerent intention toward them to gain nukes with a 5 minute Moscow strike time? That's just claptrap, both the belligerent intent and the nukes. You seem consumed by conspiracy theories.

 

Would the west accept this? Come now. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The N.A.T.O. debate could really go in one of a couple of other threads. But I'll add this point here anyway.

 

Russia couldn't join N.A.T.O. as it is an alliance specifically for vassal states to align with the U.S.A.

 

Russia has, among other things, a giant nuclear arsenal which guarantees that it can exercise an independent foreign policy. The U.S.A. could not turn Russia into a vassal under current circumstances so N.A.T.O. will be used against Russia until these circumstances change.

 

This policy affects energy prices in the United Kingdom. It is not the sole cause of price increases but it is one of many. Few people will bother to think it through but all should be asking why ending Russian independence is so important. Should it really have a material impact on our home finances? Not everyone would choose to spend money in this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

Well I certainly look forward to Mr Sunak's £400 this autumn, just as I appreciated the £150 off my council tax. Problem is it will also go to those who don't really need it. I can't forget the taxi driver I met  who sneered at the state pension because he already was receiving a far greater private pension. There should be some sort of means testing but as to what means within the current system, well search me.

Nice of Mr Sunak to pledge to give his £400, that will be funded by taxpayers, to charity as he doesn't really need it. And there folks is a massive part of the problem. I'll be honest and say it bluntly. Getting a one off £400 grant to pay for a £3.5k per year gas and electricity bill means nothing to me. More so when the prices next year will increase again. This is all one massive grift by a bunch of con men.

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

This is all one massive grift by a bunch of con men.

Can you explain please - for those of us who need to form opinions based on detail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bill said:

Can you explain please - for those of us who need to form opinions based on detail?

  1. Take peoples money
  2. Waste the vast majority of it on rubbish and give it to your pals in dodgy deals
  3. if things kick off and people get upset about something. give a little bit of money(NHS workers, fuel cost increases or baby boxes) to the people to pretend you care
  4. make the thicko's pay for the stuff you 'gave' them
  5. don't fix any of the problems in the real world because you are too busy conning people into thinking you care

its straight out the SNP playbook. Because the tories in Westminster and the SNP run from the same playbook.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to summarise:

 

Russia is being run by a megalomaniac.

The USA is a large-scale pain in the arse.

Never trust a politician (even less so a bureaucrat).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Nice of Mr Sunak to pledge to give his £400, that will be funded by taxpayers, to charity as he doesn't really need it. And there folks is a massive part of the problem. I'll be honest and say it bluntly. Getting a one off £400 grant to pay for a £3.5k per year gas and electricity bill means nothing to me. More so when the prices next year will increase again. This is all one massive grift by a bunch of con men.

I believe the price cap is to be reviewed every few months from now on 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.