BaaLocks

Well happy birthday. Same as Oliver Stone - c'mon that's got to be worth a wry smile.
I'll consider myself corrected on Al Qaeda, I'll step down on that one. I was referencing (I think) Adam Curtis but I take the point. Apologies.
I don't agree on Syria, you yourself say that America turned the other way when maybe it's long stated position of global peacemaker could have - for once - been better used. But I guess then you would say they can't win - don't get involved they get criticized, send in the napalm and they get it also.

Surely we should be encouraging black and white discussions on a Derby County forum? 

I'll be brief in response as it's my birthday today ? Well it's not always a matter of perspective, there are facts that exist and realities outside of ideological construction. Statements such as "the US created Al-Qaeda" aren't really a matter of perspective it's a specific claim and it's a false one. It's generally committed by those who confuse the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda together as one homogeneous entity rather than individualised groups. It's a common error but it's an error nevertheless. 

On Syria I find the idea of supposed 'US destablisation' as an idea unconvincing. It denies the organic nature of the protests and the domestic reasons and uprisings that tied in to broader protests across the region but had specific reasons. It ignores the Assad's regime's actions that created the conditions from a domestic peaceful uprising into a civil war that de-stabalised not just Syria but also Iraq. It also ignores the fact the US didn't have much of a role to play compared to the numerous regional actors that got and remain involved. Reliable authors who cover the region such as Shadi Hamid, Christopher Phillips, Charles Lister and Rania Abouzeid  highlight both the US's lack of knowledge about the key players even after over a year into the civil war (the description of the Istanbul room meetings in 'no turning back' is especially instructive) and their comparatively small role in the conflict. If you're talking about the Arab Springs more generally, someone again like Shadi Hamid has a lot to say about the lack of support for the democratic uprisings by America and willingness to look the other way, especially in relationship to Egypt. 

They're only contradictory if you think that struggling in Ukraine necessarily means Russia isn't also able to threaten or signal to other countries. We've seen them do this with numerous countries seeking to join NATO, so it's no issue to point out they're using a similar playbook with Moldova as they've done in the past. It just points to the chaotic and dubious geopolitical logic that is going on and not something I consider to be unique to Russia necessarily but maybe even highlights their current vulnerability (some monsters lash out most viciously when injured). 

Yeah, I don't mind disagreeing at all. I get that at time the tone I use can come across as confrontational, it's one of the reasons I don't always love using boards to discuss politics as the inability to register emotion is a problem. Because I can write in a very dry, clear cut manner that can come across as scolding or annoyed. But that doesn't reflect how I actually feel (enjoying different discussions with others even when I strongly disagree). My best friends in at my uni offices are people with which I share absolutely 0 political opinions with, when we discuss politics in person we have a smile and a laugh rather than having an intemperate argument. 

Don’t worry, it’s just a shoe tout, selling shoes outside the police station. Nothing to see here.

I'd argue that it's £2.3bn (it's actually reported as £3.8bn) of support from UK that is lamentable - whichever way you look at it.
Want a pro-Ukraine spin? Well we've just signed of fifty times that to energy suppliers, fifteen times that on a non-exisent app for C-19. Kind of shows where the really focus is.
Want a anti-Govt spin? UK willingly removed ourselves in 2015 as an integrated player in European politics and has a limited geographical proximity to Ukraine - it's a terrible conflict but no more, no less than many others happening around the world (except these are whities, that look a lot like a lot of us, maybe not you - it's not a personal jibe). But all the flags, lapel badges and speeches from Boris suited two aspects perfectly - firstly to deflect from other news (partygate being an obvious one) but also to satisfy Bunter's desire to be all Churchillian and play silly war games (something he might have done for personal benefit but with imprecise return to the UK).

I'd argue that it's £2.3bn (it's actually reported as £3.8bn) of support from UK that is lamentable - whichever way you look at it.
Want a pro-Ukraine spin? Well we've just signed of fifty times that to energy suppliers, fifteen times that on a non-exisent app for C-19. Kind of shows where the really focus is.
Want a anti-Govt spin? UK willingly removed ourselves in 2015 as an integrated player in European politics and has a limited geographical proximity to Ukraine - it's a terrible conflict but no more, no less than many others happening around the world (except these are whities, that look a lot like a lot of us, maybe not you - it's not a personal jibe). But all the flags, lapel badges and speeches from Boris suited two aspects perfectly - firstly to deflect from other news (partygate being an obvious one) but also to satisfy Bunter's desire to be all Churchillian and play silly war games (something he might have done for personal benefit but with imprecise return to the UK).

Yeah all true. And that's why we don't get to see big fights when we should because of the pitfalls. 
Because all these guys fight 2 times per year there's just no time to stage comebacks as such. 
Ideally AJ should be able to lose to Usyk and Fury. He should be able to go fight Wilder. And if he loses that then he should be able to fight Joyce or Wallin or Whyte or Ruiz again. Until he finds his level. Imo he smashes anyone below and probably including Wilder. But none of them would ever let him hold that position. They'd go over him and around him to bigger money, bigger reward fights that they can afford to lose.
But if AJ loses to Fury is value plummets. Nobody wants to risk their value on him. People want to skip over him. And AJ won't go and fight Wilder because if he loses that then he's back on undercards. Which is ridiculous when he's such an exciting fighter and one of the elite heavies. 
The belts further complicate things since people get fight easy defences over the best. 
Everyone in boxing can only afford a couple of losses and those losses have to be to the absolute elite. All the danger fights that count for nothing are rare. And when they happen there's not much money and hype. Luis Ortiz has only taken them because he was in do or die at his age. Ruiz and Charles Martin saw an old man with a (undeserved) good reputation 

AJ just shows what boxing can do to you - after the Klitschko fight we thought he was going to rule for years. It looked like nobody would be able to lay a glove on him. Then a sketchy performance against Takam (up to a rather challenged stoppage) and a poor night's work against Parker means that the Povetkin win was he only really strong night past that. Then, five fights and four years later and his only wins since Povetkin are against a very flabby Ruiz and a strong, yet eminently beatable Pulev. In that time three defeats and a complete loss of the aura around him. Wilder is much the same, he was 40-0 going into the Fury fight and has still only lost to the lineal champion but he's also not only lost his aura but also his belts.
It is so much about timing, and what is around you at the time. If he'd been around five or six years before Joshua could have racked up a pretty solid record but now he's always going to be considered at the guy who just came up short at the very highest level.

AJ has accepted the Fury fight. Talk about a career ending / reigniting fight - and I give him the props for taking it. Lose this and he's back to fighting Del Boy and Parker, legacy in the bin by the door. Win and he's back in the frame, calling the shots and among the big fights. It's a massive, massive decision for him to take but ponder it for a bit and I'm not sure he had that much of a choice. Say no and he's out in the shadows with no path to any belt and sat watching till Usyk relinquishes one or Fury comes good on his promise to retire. The only thing that is for sure is that he has to win - at the very, very least get a disputed split decision.

Is that the Brad Pitt film, or the film adaptation of Orwell's book? 

1

As I say, conscription is a bad thing and I fully understand those that refuse.
But so is being killed by an army invading your country.
No easy choices when someone else puts you in this position.

Hopefully some of our more regular posters can reach over to their bedside table and clarify the exact wording for you ?

Yes indeed, we all remember images of men being dragged from their cars in the opening days of the conflict as they tried to flee. As for the Russian side, much is being said of the decision that awaits Putin - at the moment there has been no conscription but if believe what is being presented it will be his next big moment in how he handles this confilict. Don't introduce conscription and he may risk defeat, introduce it and he risks significant impact on his domestic popularity.

I *think* that was on his Life in Belfast album which was excellent.
Anybody who bought tickets for the Monkeys reunion tour
 

Indeed, and one of the very worst things about this has been the forced conscription of all Ukrainian men, forbidden to leave the country and forced to fight. I'm surprised how little criticism of that there's been. I'm pretty sure it's similar on the Russian side too, in that the Russians are desperate for more soldiers here, so a lot of kids will be sent in to die.

Personally, and excuse me for maybe being a bit plummy, but I don't really see much to laugh or scoff at. The average soldier is a kid, with parents that love them, that has no real beef with the enemy they have been sent to fight, that is carrying out instruction inside the 'theatre of war'. Very few of them would not happily swop the experience for chance to go home, sit on the sofa and watch television - from either side. There is not much humour in that for me.

Personally, and excuse me for maybe being a bit plummy, but I don't really see much to laugh or scoff at. The average soldier is a kid, with parents that love them, that has no real beef with the enemy they have been sent to fight, that is carrying out instruction inside the 'theatre of war'. Very few of them would not happily swop the experience for chance to go home, sit on the sofa and watch television - from either side. There is not much humour in that for me.

Personally, and excuse me for maybe being a bit plummy, but I don't really see much to laugh or scoff at. The average soldier is a kid, with parents that love them, that has no real beef with the enemy they have been sent to fight, that is carrying out instruction inside the 'theatre of war'. Very few of them would not happily swop the experience for chance to go home, sit on the sofa and watch television - from either side. There is not much humour in that for me.

As Rowan Atkinson said, with far more humour than I can write it:
I say, I say, I say what is the secret of good comedy
I don't know, what is the secret of..
Timing

It's good of the USA to decide who to offer security to. 
A bit like the city of Rome it just always seems to work out that their entirely defensive moves are perceived as threats by their warmongering enemies. 
So misunderstood by some. 

I watched a Documentary on Netflix the other day by John Pilger...it certainly opened my eyes and brain more than what I thought about the good old US of A
Have a read or better still if you have Netflix watch it and see how the States have monopolised the South China Sees, Below is the story and video.
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-coming-war-on-china
A proxy War is being played out in Ukraine with a huge chunk of $s and arms being sent to Ukraine courtesy of America, Putin/Russia now appear to be on the back foot at the expense of 10s of 1000s of Ukrainians and Russians on both sides.
Putin now it would seem only has Gas to fight with, Europe will struggle this Winter as will Russian forces even more, My guess is Putin has been played like a cheap fiddle and America is pulling the strings. 

Tbh when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 they did the same.. got to the suburbs of tblisi. Eventually withdrew to South Ossetia.

We should bring beck "chinny reck-on" complete with stroking of the chin. I think it would work well at PMQs or for football journalists to use in post match interviews