The Ukraine War

[BaaLocks]

4 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

You think that it was primarily immigration that defined Brexit?

Yes, and I'm not alone.

5 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

But let's stay off Brexit if we can,it's a revolving door of arguements that both go nowhere and stifle discussions of other subjects when everyone climbs over to their personal side of the fence.

Fair enough - I'll leave it there, wouldn't want to remain on this topic too long ?

[BaaLocks]

2 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Not for this topic but are people still peddling that utter rubbish?

True, it's only £29.5bn. My bad!

[Crewton]

35 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I didn't you are right - but you did suggest that Saddam was an evil tyrant, Uncle Sam helped remove that evil tyrant so if they've done that and the country isn't in a better place then, well, ooops I guess.

As for Chechnya, when Russians try to maintain their sovereign borders (that have been in place since 1858) it's crushing them ruthlessly. When Ukraine try to do the same with borders that have been in place since 1991 it's a wonderful thing that's needs our undying (and sometimes dying) support. But no strings being pulled eh? 

LOL you're equating the 2nd Chechen War with the war in Ukraine now, as if the combatants are of equal stature and the methods they employed are comparable? Your friend Mr Putin must be delighted with your work here.

I think we're done.

[Wolfie]

11 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

True, it's only £29.5bn. My bad!

You claimed it was for the App. Which is wrong.

The last figure I saw was that the App cost around £80m. The rest is for the hundreds of millions of tests that were performed.

[WhiteHorseRam]

20 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Yes, and I'm not alone.

Fair enough - I'll leave it there, wouldn't want to remain on this topic too long ?

Sorry I'm having trouble reading the chart - where is Love Island?

[BaaLocks]

52 minutes ago, Crewton said:

LOL you're equating the 2nd Chechen War with the war in Ukraine now, as if the combatants are of equal stature and the methods they employed are comparable? Your friend Mr Putin must be delighted with your work here.

I think we're done.

Well Ukranians didn't place bombs in the apartments of Russian civilians, hijack maternity wards of hospitals, kidnap children and torture them on camera, occupy schools and lead to the death of 333 people in the largest school shooting in history, hijack a theatre full of people in Moscow. They didn't house Osama Bin Laden in hiding. So you are right, methods employed are not comparable.

No friend of Putin - but you know that.

[BaaLocks]

55 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

You claimed it was for the App. Which is wrong.

The last figure I saw was that the App cost around £80m. The rest is for the hundreds of millions of tests that were performed.

OK - fair point, although I think my point was more the number than the technology.

[Tamworthram]

3 hours ago, Alpha said:

I know your perspective on it because you went on to say that it's because it's close to home that we should be/are more concerned than any other war. 

But the other perspective is that there a places and people in the world that we are ok with seeing war. We're ok with them dying. We're ok with border doubling, tripling, quadrupling and more if it's a part of the world where that sort of thing just happens. We're ok with widespread famine and displacement of millions of people if it's over there where they're always fighting. Cus that's what they do, there. 

But Ukraine are white people. European people. Civilised people. Our people. 

Now I'm obviously not suggesting you're one of these people. This isn't a personal attack mate. 

Why is it so unimaginable to have war in Europe. We're civilised people! We're the peak of humanity. You don't get extremists here. We're not like those barbarians in the Middle East. It's not acceptable for Europeans to die. It's certainly not acceptable for Americans to die in America. What happened in Iraq? What happened in Palestine? Gaza you say? Afghanistan? Well that's just what they do there isn't it? Barbarians! Uncivilised barbarians who should live like us. 

I just feel, and it's fine if you disagree, that we're desensitized when it comes to America's enemies dying. But when it's an ally then insert sad music and show the human cost. 

It's not white war as in everyone is racist. It's about how conflicts are presented to you and how you're trained to feel about that. Because they don't want you talking about the Azov Battalion. They don't want you to ask why Israel has swallowed up land. They don't want you asking why we step in to help these people but not those people. 

Or worse still, why do we help them people kill those people if we're the good guys? Isn't that a contradiction to what we're saying over here? 

 

I don’t think anyone is actually “OK” with the things you have mentioned especially widespread famine and people dying. But, I would agree that such events are often not close enough to home (or strategically/economically “important” enough) for states and their populations (on all sides) to want to get involved.

[Leeds Ram]

6 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

It's not odd at all, it's just different to your perspective. That's the point of the discussion from my side, I'm not here to say you are wrong / right / stupid / clever but to bring a different lens to the discussion. To your point on Moldova - as I saw it, you say yourself that the Russian attack and expansion is failing yet a few sentences later say they are also looking beyond Ukraine. The two points don't align - they are contradictory. If you want my version of 'odd' I'd say your suggestion that the US had nothing to do with the Arab Spring or Syrian destabilisation would be my view there - beyond bizarre to me that you could suggest that with such clarity.

Your point on Russia exhibiting paranoia, fair point but to quote the great philosopher Kurt Cobain “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

As always, we're not going to agree - I doubt you'll lose too much sleep over that. But at least the opening request of the thread is respected - it's not personal, it's not abusive (not that I care that much if it is, we're never going to meet and my opinion matters as much to you, likely, as that of any other passer by on the street).

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. 

[uttoxram75]

13 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

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

Great points there Leeds Ram. Discussing topics on social media nearly always turns everything into black & white while in person its much more civilised.

 

[Leeds Ram]

1 minute ago, uttoxram75 said:

Great points there Leeds Ram. Discussing topics on social media nearly always turns everything into black & white while in person its much more civilised.

 

Yeah definitely Uttox ? the ability to see a smile or register a tone of voice is lacking online and these are things that I think are just so key when communicating on controversial and difficult topics. 

[Ram-Alf]

3 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Yeah definitely Uttox ? the ability to see a smile or register a tone of voice is lacking online and these are things that I think are just so key when communicating on controversial and difficult topics. 

I was in London the Day we lost to Charlton Athletic 3-0, It was also the Remain demonstration, We were in and around Leicester Square and went into a boozer before the game, Quite a few Remainers came and went, A couple from Barkshire stood next to us, We got talking and talking and talking, Both parties spoke for the rights and wrongs of Remain/Leave, Both parties got on well, It must have been 2+ hours of Political speak, We shook hands with the Males and a peck on the cheek for the Females.

We were Brexit

They were Remain

[Eddie]

When did the Ukraine War thread transmogrify into the Glorious British Unicorn Farmers thread?

[GboroRam]

2 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

Great points there Leeds Ram. Discussing topics on social media nearly always turns everything into black & white while in person its much more civilised.

 

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

[BaaLocks]

3 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

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. 

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.

[BaaLocks]

9 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Hilarious left wing bias there.

Ah, we agree eventually ?

9 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Boris,for all his faults,saw the big picture and acted decisively when most didn't or were constrained from doing so.

Boris saw squat except opportunity to play the diversionary angle.

9 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

It's a conflict on the edge of Europe,that unchecked would have probably led to an increasing bullish Kremlin extending its borders even further westwards.

Not one ounce of evidence to support this argument, but it fits the narrative I guess

[Leeds Ram]

36 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

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.

Haha didn't realise that ? and thanks ? 

  yeah Adam Curtis has made similar claims in the past from memory, perhaps it was from bitter lake? He's a great documentary maker in the artistic sense but his fact checking is not quite as good as maybe it should be for someone of his stature I think.  But there are loads of people who appreciate his work and I totally get why. 

I mean I'd say they should have been involved more too. For me the Arab Spring was the real opening for the freedom agenda Bush tried to force open but never could. There's a whole argument that if he'd gone into Damascus straight after Iraq (the place where many of the foreign fighters destabalising Iraq were coming through) with 500,000 troops then he'd have likely killed 2 birds with one stone. The Freedom agenda was undermined precisely because of cooperation with 'useful' autocratic regimes who were terrified of Al-Qaeda like Saudi Arabia. 

Obama's pet saying when it came to foreign policy was "don't do stupid sh**" which made him what I would call an unpragmatic realist. In the case of the Arab Springs it meant he chose the 'easier' way i.e., stepping back or not intervening at crucial moments which could have changed the face and politics of the region in the long term. I'd say that's different from the US destabalising Syria, can someone really do something by doing nothing? But I agree with the claim that if the US had intervened more strongly it could have stopped things from going south the way it did. 

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Ah, we agree eventually ?

Boris saw squat except opportunity to play the diversionary angle.

Not one ounce of evidence to support this argument, but it fits the narrative I guess

Aaah,basically biased nonsense from a left wing stance then.

I can't help but admire your honesty in admitting it tho,bravo!

[uttoxram75]

51 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Aaah,basically biased nonsense from a left wing stance then.

I can't help but admire your honesty in admitting it tho,bravo!

If Private Eye is seen as left wing then the goalposts have not just been moved but relocated to another continent!

Private Eye uncovers and exposes hypocrisy, whether from the right or left. Its best journalism is against corruption and cronyism, doesn't matter who or where, labour councils, tory councils, Lib Dems, whatever, if its dodgy they expose it.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

23 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

If Private Eye is seen as left wing then the goalposts have not just been moved but relocated to another continent!

Private Eye uncovers and exposes hypocrisy, whether from the right or left. Its best journalism is against corruption and cronyism, doesn't matter who or where, labour councils, tory councils, Lib Dems, whatever, if its dodgy they expose it.

Whatever,that particular article was just a bit of speculative rib poking as is private eyes want!

My left wing jibe was in respect of the posters self proclaimed left wing tendancies and bias rather than privates eyes front page eye candy.

Edited September 15, 2022 by kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong