notwell Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Well of course that's right. The major powers guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in return for her renunciation of nuclear weapons. That turned out well for them didn't it? Do you believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament too? Yes. No nation should have the ability to wipe another off the face of the Earth with the push of a button. They serve as a great deterrant and probably keep the world a safer place. I am sure the innocent Japanese people of Hiroshima would disagree...if they weren't vaporised. And by serve as a great deterrent you mean allow us to bully those nations who don't have them (or kowtow to in the case of Israel). An for every innocent Japanese person vaporised there'll be a 10 who were thankful that the Asian Holocaust/Japanese War Crimes was brought to an end. It isn't about bullying anyone. If anything it is to actually stop us from being bullied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 By who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The next Hitler perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Then who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Who cares? No one can because having nuclear capability gives a level of insulation to that mad dictator approach. I don't see the issue. They are a nice to have really ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I see Putin has offered to help President Assad wipe ISIS from his country with military assistance and weaponry. The U.S. is none too happy about it either. If ISIS is a common enemy of both the west and Russia it should be applauded by NATO. Shouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Should be good news for everyone ..except those involved in the Nabucco agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34205003 luckily enough i quite like baked beans and tinned fruit cocktail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 More power to his elbow. I'd prefer the Russians in there to nobody. Somebody needs to enforce order. Total disgrace. Another Bush and Blair debacle that has spilled over from the nightmare in Iraq. No doubt Tony still thinks it was all for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 No doubt Tony still thinks it was all for the best.His bank manager certainly does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a9_1414933062 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 A Putin masterstroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 A Putin masterstroke. He does seem to run rings around the west when it comes to geopolitics. His offering to independantly assess Assad's chemical weapons capability put the brakes on the first planned invasion so now NATO have created this 'humanitarian crisis' he's looking to out-manoeuvre them again. NATO are desperate for this gas pipeline to run from Qatar through to the med via Syria and therefore cut off Russia's lucrative european market. As europe implodes economically the push for a 'friendly' resource partner will only intensify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/603511/Migrant-crisis-refugees-take-selfie-photo-Greek-boat-Lesbos-Syria-war?ref=yfp I'm not sure why this photo is apparently so wrong. The selfie is (sadly) a modern day phenomena, a phone capable of taking a selfie is cheap and selfie sticks are even cheaper. Selfies are taken by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, if you were a group of refugees that had just completed a potentially deadly part of your journey is it really so odd to celebrate? Seriously? Where did they get the selfie stick? Did they buy it before avoiding torture and persecution? If their local Phones-R-Us was bombed, are they still on contract? Or does it revert to pay-as-you-go? How do their roaming charges compare? Certainly MT charge a fortune on the continent. And most important of all, where the fuck did they charge their phones? Sarcasm aside, they're not refugees, they're economic migrants. You do realise there were functioning shops before their country went to rat shit? Also do you need a contract active to take a picture with your phone? Sarcasm aside you're a plonker. Yup Rmanx. I was disgusted last week when I heard Cameron talk about "these people". For goodness sake, has he not seen the before and after photos in his war meetings. They are ordinary people. They have iPhones and shops, businesses and money. But the shops, the factories and the banks have been bombed. And we paid for it. In normal times they would be welcome here with open arms with tourist visas and wallets full of cash. But the banks have gone and they cant get visas. All they need is refuge. Then they can go back to their homes and businesses to rebuild. The press is making out everyone from Syria are economic migrants. But Syria was doing ok before this war. Why does everyone assume all refugees are unskilled economic migrants? They have to walk because they can't get visas. For example, my Chinese wife is in the UK at the moment on a tourist visa. But if we were at "war" with China she would have no chance of getting a visa. I would have to smuggle her out to save her life. The refugees are just ordinary people, same as any of us. The assumption that the UK taxpayer has to house and keep every single refugee and buy them wide screen tvs is a Daily Mail style fear tactic. Just let people in. Give everyone a 3 year residency that allows them to work. Let the refugee builders build homes, let them build communities. We will be much better for it. A final thought.... Twin town. Every town seems to have lots of twins all over the world. I thought family were supposed to help each other out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/603511/Migrant-crisis-refugees-take-selfie-photo-Greek-boat-Lesbos-Syria-war?ref=yfp I'm not sure why this photo is apparently so wrong. The selfie is (sadly) a modern day phenomena, a phone capable of taking a selfie is cheap and selfie sticks are even cheaper. Selfies are taken by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, if you were a group of refugees that had just completed a potentially deadly part of your journey is it really so odd to celebrate? Seriously? Where did they get the selfie stick? Did they buy it before avoiding torture and persecution? If their local Phones-R-Us was bombed, are they still on contract? Or does it revert to pay-as-you-go? How do their roaming charges compare? Certainly MT charge a fortune on the continent. And most important of all, where the fuck did they charge their phones? Sarcasm aside, they're not refugees, they're economic migrants. You do realise there were functioning shops before their country went to rat shit? Also do you need a contract active to take a picture with your phone? Sarcasm aside you're a plonker. All they need is refuge. Then they can go back to their homes and businesses to rebuild. I'm just intrigued...how many would you actually suggest re-locate to the Isle of Man? Ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.