Jump to content

Putin


Ovis aries

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

​You do know right that i can defend the governments of the U.S. and UK without defending all their historical actions right? Also Saddam had a good crack at killing millions of people, he broke the genocide convention, openly invaded his neighbours for personal gain not on humanitarian grounds now rooted in the r2p doctrine, fooled around with the NPT and had also harboured international terrorists. I'm going to end this here because otherwise we'll go round and round in circles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should this thread be closed. Closet putin ordered a hit on one of his critics and Boris Nemtsov got shot yesterday. Four shots in the back. So closet putin to shot someone in the back.

But I'm getting worried that putin will go next for Daveo since he is the admin on the site and he can't cope with critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live a couple of hours from Russia and I have been following them all my life. I have a lot of Russians as friends and neighbours and know a lot about their way of life and thinking. At least I'm convinced that not a hell of a lot happens there without putin saying so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it always Putin. Why do people think anytime something happens with Russia it has come directly from Putin. Russia is quite well known for having rogue generals, KGB spies, mercenaries, etc. I mean jeez. Do you guys pay any sort of attention. Look at the dictatorships of the Middle East. What you find is they keep the real evil under control. North Korea, do people honestly think the Kim's run the show? Putin is at war with rogue figures as much as he is with anyone else. The notion that he is behind every act is ludicrous. When he is gone, Russia will be considerably more unstable than it is with him. Don't mistake potential for actual instability though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could have done though. Never understood that opportunist "See! Told ya!" argument from those against the war. Were we just supposed to accept Saddams word for it they didn't have any when they bought a nuclear reactor from the French, had killed the Kurds in the manner they had done, and had set up mock facilities for inspection?

It's like the social services investigating the case of a kid with bruises all over them for the 3rd time. Parents don't comply with s47 proceedings, get caught out lying etc. There's no actual proof of abuse though so I guess we'll do nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

​I wouldn't call it opportunistic. As someone that campaigned against the war from day one, and marched in London and Chicago against it, I think I qualify as someone that can say "I told you". It was blatantly obvious that they didn't have WMDs to anyone with a brain. Dr David Kelly died because of that fact. 

Saddam was an evil man, no hiding that, but he did keep a lid on extremism, and managed to keep Sunnis and Shiites at some level of calm. 

I fail to see how killing over 100k civilians, in a foreign land, that was no threat to our own, and lifting the lid on extremism and terrorism, is anything like a kid with bruises. Unless of course, you decided to bomb that kid. Then it might be similar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was anything but obvious and talk of David Kelly demonstrates that, considering he hit the news due to the propaganda that was on display about the Iraq invasion. Half of the anti-war lot were studenty hippie types against war pretty much by default and the other half were a Muslim community that has been statistically shown to side with other muslims no matter the circumstances. So excuse me if I don't believe these people were basing their argument on evidence they weren't even privy to anyway. 

And regarding the analogy - Not for a minute do I think that you think that I was comparing the specific violence rather than an authority having to make an important decision based on limited evidence.

Regarding tyrants required to keep the lid on terrorism? I agree. But what does that say about people in that part of the world? In a ridiculous thread in which Israel has been compared to Saddams Iraq I'm going to partake in a bit of opportunism myself by, as Douglas Murray puts it, asserting the cultural superiority of the west. You see, we don't need tyrants to curb extremism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our tyrants were Bush and Blair. A few continue to suggest that they did no wrong, and that the conflict was totally justified, but where were the pesky disappearing WMDs at the time of Gulf War II - weapons that we were assured could be "…turned on the West in 45 minutes"? Where was the evidence of the purchase of Yellow Cake Uranium? All they could produce was a Dodgy Dossier of trumped-up assertions and supposition masquerading as fact, and the follow-up to that was the utter mockery of everybody's intelligence - the farcical presentation of Colin Powell to the United Nations which went along the lines of "This is a railway. It could be used to transport WMD. This is a building - it could be used to store WMD. This is a big building - it could be a factory used to manufacture nerve gas or nuclear weapons".

It was a farce because it was a lie based upon information that was 10 years out of date, but because there was a chance to turn a profit, everybody turned a blind eye - profit that in Halliburton's case, was a figure that approached $40 Billion. 150,000 deaths - but each one brought in approximately $267,000 clear profit to the principal beneficiaries of the conflict - so that's all right then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...