Politics

[Craig 6682]

4 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

 

I tend to think he's all right (sufficiently so to get my second vote both times, anyway) but the Silvertown Tunnel thing is a massive blind spot and I don't get how he can defend it with a straight face.

 

Is that thing still going? Skanska had the contract to build that thing when I was working there. 

[Meenzer 15467]

3 minutes ago, Craig said:

Is that thing still going? Skanska had the contract to build that thing when I was working there. 

 

Construction has started, to the satisfaction of very few people who actually live in the area, but there we go. Who needs breathable air anyway?  

[scoobos 298]

3 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

I knew Stop the War like to protest western imperialism but don’t object to Russian aggression, yes. I have posted about it before on here. 

Ok, this isn't UK politics so I think I'll dip back in

I'm not so sure its as black and white as that - and having lived in countries that are allies of Russia and "being read the newspapers" - they have a lot of points that do show NATO (mainly US) aggression.

The US in particular, have for nearly a decade , took the piss out of the New START by developing multiple launch missile systems that were branded "Defensive" , but , at the change or a warhead and software could very quickly become "aggressive weapons".

Both sides have been doing it, I think the difference is that Russia has not been putting them within range of the US homeland, the same way the US has to Russia. Last time Russia did anything like that, the US reacted almost identically.

Just trying to say, there's two sides to the coin, and honestly - looking at the USA vs Russia as to who is the potential warmonger, since WW2 - There's only 1 real answer there.

link to the US version of the story I was read all those years ago . Missile Defense Issue Remains A Sticking Point in U.S.-Russia Arms-Reduction Pact | CNSNews

Couple more links on the topic - but you can see why - when these "defensive missiles" are deployed on the edge, or beyond NATO - it's a bone of contention:
Who, What, Why: What is a defensive weapon? - BBC News
"We are all perfectly aware that the (US) missile defense system is defensive in name only", says Putin - Ground Report

Edited February 11, 2022 by scoobos

[Rayvin 5189]

2 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Ok, this isn't UK politics so I think I'll dip back in

I'm not so sure its as black and white as that - and having lived in countries that are allies of Russia and "being read the newspapers" - they have a lot of points that do show NATO (mainly US) aggression.

The US in particular, have for nearly a decade , took the piss out of the New START by developing multiple launch missile systems that were branded "Defensive" , but , at the change or a warhead and software could very quickly become "aggressive weapons".

Both sides have been doing it, I think the difference is that Russia has not been putting them within range of the US homeland, the same way the US has to Russia. Last time Russia did anything like that, the US reacted almost identically.

Just trying to say, there's two sides to the coin, and honestly - looking at the USA vs Russia as to who is the potential warmonger, since WW2 - There's only 1 real answer there.

link to the US version of the story I was read all those years ago . Missile Defense Issue Remains A Sticking Point in U.S.-Russia Arms-Reduction Pact | CNSNews

 

 

Good post but I still feel like the US as to be the one winner in the whole situation or we end up in very dangerous territory.

[scoobos 298]

I think the USA are more dangerous than Russia - ask yourself how many civilians have died during warfare at the hands of USA proxy wars, compared to the Russians.

The USA have , through their need to push ideology and fear of anything that reduces the market for capitalism (or their GDP) , created most of the enemies we are fighting.

I still believe that the final invasion of Iraq had everything to do with the petrodollar and Saddam threating to use Euros.

not saying I support Russia's politics, human rights etc - but honestly, at the moment  - for the "good of the world" I'd probably go with Russia over the USA - I see them as being the most destructive and toxic culture we have - mainly due to how easily it has spread and how widely adopted it is - pinned on Consumption and "what we don't have, but could have if we forgoe our culture".

All those films in the 80's were part backed by US defense agencies, Topgun was pretty much a recruitment video (A shit one tho!)
How Top Gun Impacted Navy Recruiting In Real Life | Screen Rant

Edited February 11, 2022 by scoobos

[spongebob toonpants 3961]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Good post but I still feel like the US as to be the one winner in the whole situation or we end up in very dangerous territory.

Why? Because US intervention round the globe have gone so well in the past?

Edited February 11, 2022 by spongebob toonpants

[Rayvin 5189]

Just now, spongebob toonpants said:

Why? Because US intervention round yhe globe have gone so well in the past?

 

I feel like if the US is relegated to a regional power instead of the lone global hegemon, we'll see Russia and China rushing to grab their smaller satellite countries and ultimately the world becoming a more dangerous place. No one wants another world or cold war, and the egos of Russia and China being bruised unfairly on occasion is worth it if it avoids that situation.

 

We need to be relying on diplomacy and interdependency to eliminate the US as a global player, not military force. We also very much need the EU to federalise and start developing its own confident and independent foreign policy for engagement with Russia.

[ewerk 30409]

Welcome to Trottastic.

 

Bringing commies home.

[Howmanheyman 32910]

31 minutes ago, Ken said:

Cuba 

🎶......quiero bailar la salsa!🎵

 

[scoobos 298]

Just now, Rayvin said:

"ultimately the world becoming a more dangerous place. "

 

For me, it comes back to the key question - why more dangerous .

Which country out of China, Russia and the USA - in the last 100 years - has launched the most missiles, faught the most wars, killed the most civilians and launched the most Nuclear warheads (even some that were just for "experimental reasons" , if you don't know about why the two bombs were dropped in japan, its worth a read).

For me, thats dangerous.

Final point, honestly, if you think Russia and China were aggressive - don't you think they would have taken the chance by now? China sabre rattles about Taiwan , Russia sabre rattles about  NATO expansion - but even with  2 million armed forces they haven't invaded anywhere. Can't say the same of the US .

The UK has a current force of 60,000 Army by the way, less than wembley. Oh and we dont need tanks...

[Dr Gloom 21869]

7 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I think the USA are more dangerous than Russia - ask yourself how many civilians have died during warfare at the hands of USA proxy wars, compared to the Russians.

The USA have , through their need to push ideology and fear of anything that reduces the market for capitalism (or their GDP) , created most of the enemies we are fighting.

I still believe that the final invasion of Iraq had everything to do with the petrodollar and Saddam threating to use Euros.

not saying I support Russia's politics, human rights etc - but honestly, at the moment  - for the "good of the world" I'd probably go with Russia over the USA - I see them as being the most destructive and toxic culture we have - mainly due to how easily it has spread and how widely adopted it is - pinned on Consumption and "what we don't have, but could have if we forgoe our culture".

All those films in the 80's were part backed by US defense agencies, Topgun was pretty much a recruitment video (A shit one tho!)
How Top Gun Impacted Navy Recruiting In Real Life | Screen Rant

I take it you made it to the stop the war event yesterday then 

[spongebob toonpants 3961]

Europe already learning to live without the US

 

China is about economic domination, always has been throughout history

 

Russia's threat overblown

 

I realise this is simplistic, but I am busy at work

[scoobos 298]

1 minute ago, Howmanheyman said:

🎶......quiero bailar la salsa!🎵

 

Is mint btw - crazy that everyone is essentially squatting in the houses of the old "aristocracy" - but it's got a great feel.

[Renton 21461]

11 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Ok, this isn't UK politics so I think I'll dip back in

I'm not so sure its as black and white as that - and having lived in countries that are allies of Russia and "being read the newspapers" - they have a lot of points that do show NATO (mainly US) aggression.

The US in particular, have for nearly a decade , took the piss out of the New START by developing multiple launch missile systems that were branded "Defensive" , but , at the change or a warhead and software could very quickly become "aggressive weapons".

Both sides have been doing it, I think the difference is that Russia has not been putting them within range of the US homeland, the same way the US has to Russia. Last time Russia did anything like that, the US reacted almost identically.

Just trying to say, there's two sides to the coin, and honestly - looking at the USA vs Russia as to who is the potential warmonger, since WW2 - There's only 1 real answer there.

link to the US version of the story I was read all those years ago . Missile Defense Issue Remains A Sticking Point in U.S.-Russia Arms-Reduction Pact | CNSNews

Couple more links on the topic - but you can see why - when these "defensive missiles" are deployed on the edge, or beyond NATO - it's a bone of contention:
Who, What, Why: What is a defensive weapon? - BBC News
"We are all perfectly aware that the (US) missile defense system is defensive in name only", says Putin - Ground Report

 

NATO is a defensive organisation though and always has been. What is the motive for NATO to militarily attack former soviet nations? And if these nations want to make sovereign choices to join western organisations like NATO and the EU, who are Russia to dictate to them not too? Sorry, but I don't think NATO are the aggressors here at all, and historically Russia is hardly squeaky clean. 

[scoobos 298]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

I take it you made it to the stop the war event yesterday then 

Nah, Im more an extinction rebellion / Occupy guy - they are the only rallies I've ever been to.

[Renton 21461]

10 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Saddam threating to use Euros

 

This is new to me. What's the story here? 

[Renton 21461]

1 minute ago, scoobos said:

Is mint btw - crazy that everyone is essentially squatting in the houses of the old "aristocracy" - but it's got a great feel.

 

I loved Havana when I was there, but it was no utopia by any means and despite the weather I wouldn't want to live there. 

[ewerk 30409]

3 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Final point, honestly, if you think Russia and China were aggressive - don't you think they would have taken the chance by now? China sabre rattles about Taiwan , Russia sabre rattles about  NATO expansion - but even with  2 million armed forces they haven't invaded anywhere. Can't say the same of the US .

 

Do you think Russia and China would have been quite so reserved if the USA hadn't been so aggressive in the past?

[Meenzer 15467]

Occupy tried to co-opt the march to save Lewisham Hospital A&E a few years back. Absolute pack of whoppers.  

[Rayvin 5189]

China is going to try to take Taiwan in the next 10 years IMO based on the developments in Hong Kong, and if Russia is allowed to take the Ukraine it'll be a signal to them that the US will be too weak to stop it. The Ukraine themselves have already suffered violence at the hands of Putin, so you can see why they'd be concerned.

 

And the argument about who is responsible for the most death and violence etc I do take on board, but we obviously have no way of knowing what an alternative landscape would have looked like in which the US was a benign actor in regional conflicts. Who knows what the cost of that might have been. Probably consolidation into bigger regional blocs, in which smaller states are stifled and eliminated. Russia and China both have imperialist pasts and both believe in their right to be global super powers. China believes it should be where the US is.

 

Pre-Trump I would have been totally with you both on this, but him pulling the US back from the world scene has noticeably harmed the balance of things, and IMO has led to the US being challenged here. This less stable world is a taste of what things will look like if the US loses here.

[scoobos 298]

Flashback: Petrodollar Warfare - Saddam abandons Dollar for Euro | empirestrikesblack (it's taken from a time magazine article) 
Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro | Business | The Guardian
Venezuela Drops Petrodollar, US Imposes Sanctions For Drug Trafficking (mintpressnews.com)
The USA Attacked Iraq Because Saddam had W$D - CounterPunch.org


It's one of those "facts" that's been removed from most websites - because we aren't biased or guilty of our own propaganda.

And Im NOT Communist, I am though anti late game capitalism - as its greedy as fuck and literally causing wars, famine and the environmental hellgame we see now. It's unstoppable at this point imo.

[scoobos 298]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Do you think Russia and China would have been quite so reserved if the USA hadn't been so aggressive in the past?

Look into what happened after the end of the 2nd world war , you could ask the same in reverse. I'm not trying to defend either side here - I'm saying its not black and white and we are on one side, subjected to a very singular view which is ANTI Eastern ideology and pro western. 

[Renton 21461]

4 minutes ago, scoobos said:

For me, it comes back to the key question - why more dangerous .

Which country out of China, Russia and the USA - in the last 100 years - has launched the most missiles, faught the most wars, killed the most civilians and launched the most Nuclear warheads (even some that were just for "experimental reasons" , if you don't know about why the two bombs were dropped in japan, its worth a read).

For me, thats dangerous.

Final point, honestly, if you think Russia and China were aggressive - don't you think they would have taken the chance by now? China sabre rattles about Taiwan , Russia sabre rattles about  NATO expansion - but even with  2 million armed forces they haven't invaded anywhere. Can't say the same of the US .

The UK has a current force of 60,000 Army by the way, less than wembley. Oh and we dont need tanks...

 

I'm fascinated by nuclear weapons and personally would say, with some reluctance, Hiroshima was a necessary evil. Not sure where you are going with here with the "experimental reasons", they were used to end the war quickly before Russia joined the fray and to (hugely) reduce the US casualties that would have happened otherwise. I also think the nuclear deterrent has prevented inevitable (major) war in Europe since (so far). 

[Alex 34954]

2 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

Occupy tried to co-opt the march to save Lewisham Hospital A&E a few years back. Absolute pack of whoppers.  

Pretty vacant? 

[Rayvin 5189]

1 minute ago, scoobos said:

And Im NOT Communist, I am though anti late game capitalism - as its greedy as fuck and literally causing wars, famine and the environmental hellgame we see now. It's unstoppable at this point imo.

 

This is where I am too but it's equivalent to being a Communist on here