General / Off-Topic I am losing my mind over is

[beelbeebub]

So, and I'm speaking personally here, is Russia a dangerous enemy that needs to contained?
:
As FuzzySpider said, ultimately it's pure chance where you are born (but for a few twists of fate I might have been born in China or even Iran!) so to base animosity purely on that is a bit daft!
:
However, in the spirit in which the question was asked....(and speaking personally)....
....
It's complicated! But the short answer is, right now, based on recent actions Russia is viewed with suspicion.
.
A few points to note.
.
Historically (during the cold war), yes Russia (as the USSR) was "the enemy" and both sides engaged in all sorts of unpleasant dirty tricks to "get one over" the other.
:
Then came the end of the cold war. To all intents the west "won", in that the USSR broke up, and the various parts of the USSR broke away from Russian influence.
:
It's important to note that despite the collapse of the USSR and the chaos that followed, hugely weakening the military capabilities of Russia and it's former client states , "the West" did not immediately roll tanks across Eastern Europe and into Russia as they could have done. This is important as if the west had wanted to invade or destroy Russia, this would have been the time to do it. It did not, and I think that shows that at it's heart "the West" has no interest in conquering or destroying Russia.
:
Of course we don't want a hostile Russia either, as the song goes "Everybody needs good neighbours" (UK/Australian reference there ). What "the West" wants is a friendly Russia we can trade and live with, much like we in the UK trade and live with France, Germany, Spain and the US (despite having being mortal enemies with all of those countries at one time or another). It appears that Russians are being fed the line that "the West" is against Russia and wants to destroy it. This is not the case. Until a few years ago, Russia was viewed as a potential friend. It's citizens were valued as tourists, it's oligarchs came and lived in our cities, even bought our football teams. Of course there were friction points. Friends don't carry out political assassinations with radioactive poison in friends back yards for example but on the whole the hope was Russia would some day join with the rest of Europe in a peaceful trade and cultural grouping stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
:
Frankly all that changed with the events in the Ukraine.
:
In hindsight it is clear how Russia could have seen the EU approaches to the Ukraine as threatening. But the point is that the EU only made the moves because it thought Russia was a friend. It's like the EU chatted up Russia's ex girlfriend, thinking it was over between them and they were just good friends with Russia, but didn't realise Russia still wanted to get back together with the ex girlfriend and saw the EU chatting her up as an aggressive move.
:
Syria is a massive mess and many more of these types of incidents will happen if everyone doesn't get together to sort out the situation.

 

[Surfinjo]

So, and I'm speaking personally here, is Russia a dangerous enemy that needs to contained?
:
As FuzzySpider said, ultimately it's pure chance where you are born (but for a few twists of fate I might have been born in China or even Iran!) so to base animosity purely on that is a bit daft!
:
However, in the spirit in which the question was asked....(and speaking personally)....
....
It's complicated! But the short answer is, right now, based on recent actions Russia is viewed with suspicion.
.
A few points to note.
.
Historically (during the cold war), yes Russia (as the USSR) was "the enemy" and both sides engaged in all sorts of unpleasant dirty tricks to "get one over" the other.
:
Then came the end of the cold war. To all intents the west "won", in that the USSR broke up, and the various parts of the USSR broke away from Russian influence.
:
It's important to note that despite the collapse of the USSR and the chaos that followed, hugely weakening the military capabilities of Russia and it's former client states , "the West" did not immediately roll tanks across Eastern Europe and into Russia as they could have done. This is important as if the west had wanted to invade or destroy Russia, this would have been the time to do it. It did not, and I think that shows that at it's heart "the West" has no interest in conquering or destroying Russia.
:
Of course we don't want a hostile Russia either, as the song goes "Everybody needs good neighbours" (UK/Australian reference there ). What "the West" wants is a friendly Russia we can trade and live with, much like we in the UK trade and live with France, Germany, Spain and the US (despite having being mortal enemies with all of those countries at one time or another). It appears that Russians are being fed the line that "the West" is against Russia and wants to destroy it. This is not the case. Until a few years ago, Russia was viewed as a potential friend. It's citizens were valued as tourists, it's oligarchs came and lived in our cities, even bought our football teams. Of course there were friction points. Friends don't carry out political assassinations with radioactive poison in friends back yards for example but on the whole the hope was Russia would some day join with the rest of Europe in a peaceful trade and cultural grouping stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
:
Frankly all that changed with the events in the Ukraine.
:
In hindsight it is clear how Russia could have seen the EU approaches to the Ukraine as threatening. But the point is that the EU only made the moves because it thought Russia was a friend. It's like the EU chatted up Russia's ex girlfriend, thinking it was over between them and they were just good friends with Russia, but didn't realise Russia still wanted to get back together with the ex girlfriend and saw the EU chatting her up as an aggressive move.
:
Syria is a massive mess and many more of these types of incidents will happen if everyone doesn't get together to sort out the situation.

This is a beautifully compiled western government view of things. In that, it must be complimented.

What it also highlights, perhaps, more importantly, is that there are at least two sides to every story.

 

[FuzzySpider]

It's important to note that despite the collapse of the USSR and the chaos that followed, hugely weakening the military capabilities of Russia and it's former client states , "the West" did not immediately roll tanks across Eastern Europe and into Russia as they could have done. This is important as if the west had wanted to invade or destroy Russia, this would have been the time to do it. It did not, and I think that shows that at it's heart "the West" has no interest in conquering or destroying Russia.

Russia had (and continues to maintain) a giant stockpile of ICBMs, even in the chaos that followed the MAD protocol applied. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union invading Russia would have been extremely foolhardy for the West. We're led to believe military might can conquer anything, yet we can't hold Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia doesn't bear thinking about.

Frankly all that changed with the events in the Ukraine.

What happened in the Ukraine was a very clear act of provocation from the West, and I say that as an Englishman.

A man elected in what UN observers called a free and fair election was forced to flee the country as right-sector militia essentially took over. The Svoboda party are among them, essentially a group (read, read). Tyahnybok openly says that Russia is the biggest threat to the Ukraine and openly says that Ukraine should aquire nuclear weapons (read). You can see why Russia would be extremely dubious about the West courting such company.

But the Russian invasian of certain areas in the Ukraine was a direct result of went on in Crimea. You see, historically Crimea has mostly been a part of Russia. In 1954 Khruschev transfered Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. He might have done it because he had some connection to Ukraine but probably because it was simpler that way. The Crimean peninsula is not attached to Russia but to the Ukraine, so powerlines, gas pipes, rail, roads etc all connect to the Ukraine.

What is very important to remember is that although Crimea is now mostly Ukrainian they still have a huge ethnic Russian population, and to many in both Russia and Crimea the Crimean is still Russian.

So imagine the situation in the USA/Alaska if Canada decided it wanted to take Alaska for itself. Or the situation in Northern Ireland/UK/Ireland. Or UK/Falklands.

After the Right Sector took power in Ukraine they started to put oppressive measures in place to quell ethnic Russian opposition to them, including the banning of the Russian language. Certain factions decided they weren't going to have it and resisted violently. In a very Western-like maneuver Putin armed these separatist groups. It escalated further, and eventually Putin annexed the place.

NATO in not fit for purpose and should be disbanded. The hawks in Washington and London always seem to see other powerful nations, particularly those with socialist leaning governments, to be enemies (the stupid domino theory still holds sway with those idiots) or "potential theatres". Given how NATO has invaded nations under false pretenses in the very recent past Russia has every reason to be skeptical of it. So when NATO member states support people on Russias very border, who say Russia is a threat and announce their desire to be a nuclear power, it reacts.

Had this happened in, for example, Mexico. If a government openly hostile to the Americans took over in a coup and then said they wanted nukes, with Russian ministers being photographed with them and publically supporting them, the USA would have responded with tanks and jets too.

 

[Surfinjo]

NATO in not fit for purpose and should be disbanded.
.

Agreed.

I suggest and have suggested, beginning that process by abolishing one of the more hawkish elements, the UK.

 

[Calaban]

Trying to makes sense of whats going on over there- the different factions, the different views, the changes over time... could make anyone lose their mind.

Thankfully there is this:

[video=youtube;NKb9GVU8bHE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKb9GVU8bHE[/video]

It doesn't make things any less of a Mongolian Cluster...Goulash over there, but at least we might get a grasp on who is coming from where (might take a few re-views)

 

[beelbeebub]

This is a beautifully compiled western government view of things. In that, it must be complimented.

That was the point, to provide Cargobane with a flavour of why the West might see Russia as the bogey man. it's not because we are all cartoon capitalist villains, laughing and cackling and plotting the destruction of Russia simply because we hate it for unspecified reasons. There is a narrative (right or wrong) in the west about Russia (just like there is no doubt a narrative in Russia about the West), understanding each other's narratives is the first step to de-conflicting the relationship.

What it also highlights, perhaps, more importantly, is that there are at least two sides to every story.

Exactly. Here's a test case. Let me ask Cargobane and Surfinjo each, What do you think happened with MH17?

Russia had (and continues to maintain) a giant stockpile of ICBMs, even in the chaos that followed the MAD protocol applied. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union invading Russia would have been extremely foolhardy for the West. We're led to believe military might can conquer anything, yet we can't hold Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia doesn't bear thinking about.

You're right, I probably over spun the "weakness" of the Russian military. Russia was at that time unarguably weaker in conventional capability (due in part to the chaos), but it's nuclear capability, despite also being somewhat degraded was still potent enough to get the job done (i.e. kill us all several times over). I maintain though that, that period was when Russia was at it's weakest and the fact that the West made no military moves, speaks to the fact that the West doesn't actually want to invade/destroy/occupy Russia. That doesn't mean that it doesn't (subconsciously perhaps) want to denominate Russia culturally (I would say the US wants to dominate the world culturally simply because they genuinely believe their way is simply better, rather like a music fan who can't stop playing you their favourite band's latest song convinced that you will see how great it is if only you gave it a go).

What happened in the Ukraine was a very clear act of provocation from the West, and I say that as an Englishman.

I would argue that the initial provocation (the EU chatting up the Ukraine) was innocent in that they didn't mean to start a civil war.

A man elected in what UN observers called a free and fair election was forced to flee the country as right-sector militia essentially took over. The Svoboda party are among them, essentially a group (read, read). Tyahnybok openly says that Russia is the biggest threat to the Ukraine and openly says that Ukraine should aquire nuclear weapons (read). You can see why Russia would be extremely dubious about the West courting such company.

You are quite right, the new government has some decidedly dubious members, the EU should be equally wary of them. I think the west got "revolution fever" and went on urging revolution without really thinking through who the revolutionaries were. The proper course of action should have been to urge calm and do all it could to drag the sides to the negotiating table. Stating that it would only deal with a government after a correct and proper transition of power would have been a start.

But the Russian invasian of certain areas in the Ukraine was a direct result of went on in Crimea. You see, historically Crimea has mostly been a part of Russia. In 1954 Khruschev transfered Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. He might have done it because he had some connection to Ukraine but probably because it was simpler that way. The Crimean peninsula is not attached to Russia but to the Ukraine, so powerlines, gas pipes, rail, roads etc all connect to the Ukraine.

What is very important to remember is that although Crimea is now mostly Ukrainian they still have a huge ethnic Russian population, and to many in both Russia and Crimea the Crimean is still Russian.

I quite agree, on the Crimea thing, aside from the underhand way it happened, I am on the side of the Russians, it was as you say Russian until recently and had a lot of Russians. Frankly at this point the EU ought to be urging the Ukraine to accept the Crimea as lost back to it's rightful owners, and get negotiating with the Russians over a face saving deal that can also include Eastern Ukraine and proper right for ethnic Russians

So imagine the situation in the USA/Alaska if Canada decided it wanted to take Alaska for itself. Or the situation in Northern Ireland/UK/Ireland. Or UK/Falklands.

After the Right Sector took power in Ukraine they started to put oppressive measures in place to quell ethnic Russian opposition to them, including the banning of the Russian language. Certain factions decided they weren't going to have it and resisted violently. In a very Western-like maneuver Putin armed these separatist groups. It escalated further, and eventually Putin annexed the place.

The EU should have really put pressure on the new Ukrainian gov (aside from what it should have done above) to treat it's ethnic Russian population fairly (and by that I mean no differently from any other Ukrainian). The RU could have done this by stressing that any moves towards the EU were dependent on the Ukrainians human rights record.
.
Yes it was a vaguely Western move, although that really doesn't make it any better.

NATO in not fit for purpose and should be disbanded. The hawks in Washington and London always seem to see other powerful nations, particularly those with socialist leaning governments, to be enemies (the stupid domino theory still holds sway with those idiots) or "potential theatres". Given how NATO has invaded nations under false pretenses in the very recent past Russia has every reason to be skeptical of it. So when NATO member states support people on Russias very border, who say Russia is a threat and announce their desire to be a nuclear power, it reacts.

Had this happened in, for example, Mexico. If a government openly hostile to the Americans took over in a coup and then said they wanted nukes, with Russian ministers being photographed with them and publically supporting them, the USA would have responded with tanks and jets too.

Ultimately, my distrust of Russia lies more in my distrust of Putin. My primary suspicion centres around the personality cult he seems to be building. Did you see the Reggie Yates documentary where he visited various Russian youth organisations? Their veneration of Putin was really scary. I am deeply suspicious of any figure, but especially any political leader, who builds a personality cult around themselves. Building a group of followers fanatically loyal to the "leader" personally rather than to the office of leader is exceptionally dangerous.
.
Might I ask Cargobane (if it's not a topic that will get him in trouble) of his thoughts on Mr Putin?
.

NATO in not fit for purpose and should be disbanded.

as a final aside, may I ask FS and Surfinjo why they think NATO is not fit for purpose. What countries have they attacked or invaded?
.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of them being involved in a military capacity as NATO in the Yugoslavia mess, the Afghan war, and the recent Libyan air campaign (although that was under the auspices of the UN security council I think).
.
The Yugoslavian actions were (IIRC) to try and prevent one side or another slaughtering the other and really was more of an indictment of the EU's failure to sort out a mess on it's own doorstep.
.
The Libyan air strikes were under the UN's authorisation (again IIRC)
.
NATO was involved in the aftermath of the second Iraq war to train the Iraqi army but not I think the actual war.
.
And it will have to cop to the whole Afghan screw up I'll grant you.
.
Why is NATO not fit for purpose (that purpose being a mutual defence pact in the face of an external threat). Not being funny, genuinely want to hear your view points

 

[Surfinjo]

.
as a final aside, may I ask FS and Surfinjo why they think NATO is not fit for purpose. What countries have they attacked or invaded?

NATO is a war organisation. Like the UK, its existence can be compared to keeping a loaded gun in the house. Sooner or later, someone is going to use it. We have seen in the last few days a NATO country attacking Russia. The current talk is of NATO being used to attack Syria.

NATO, like the UK, had a purpose. NATO maintained a balance of power during the cold war. Whatever the controversies over the validity of the period. NATO did a god job. But those days are over.

History is over. We are a small group of islands who are seeking to punch above our weight, with the big boys. I contend we need to grow up and take care of our own little corner of the world. Not try to run others.

 

[beelbeebub]

NATO is a war organisation. Like the UK, its existence can be compared to keeping a loaded gun in the house. Sooner or later, someone is going to use it. We have seen in the last few days a NATO country attacking Russia. The current talk is of NATO being used to attack Syria.

I would say rather than a NATO country attacking Russia, a Russian jet was shot down by a NATO country. There is controversy over whether or not the jet violated Turkish air space or not. If it did violate Turkish airspace then a shoot down would be an extreme but ultimately justifiable action. If it didn't then Turkey shot down a Russian jet unlawfully, an act of aggression. Complicating things are the fact that if the Russian jet did enter Turkish airspace it was for a very brief period, 17 seconds at most, and it was crossing a projection of airspace rather than directly penetrating. On the other hand the Russians have been sailing close to the wind with air space intrusions, missile locks etc. Ultimately if you fly close to or over the border with an unfriendly country you run the real risk of an accidental shoot down.
:
I'm pretty sure, given the statements from the NATO allies that this was more the Turks being trigger happy, than some planned act of NATO aggression.
:
On the subject of accidents shoot downs, your thoughts on MH17?

NATO, like the UK, had a purpose. NATO maintained a balance of power during the cold war. Whatever the controversies over the validity of the period. NATO did a god job. But those days are over.

History is over. We are a small group of islands who are seeking to punch above our weight, with the big boys. I contend we need to grow up and take care of our own little corner of the world. Not try to run others.

I agree about not running others and NATO should not get involved with Syria, or any other acts of aggression it should keep to it's purpose, mutual defence, it should add controlling it's members to that purpose, maybe sanctions for military action outside of NATO.
:
Here's a thought! If we stick to NATO only acting in mutual defence and ensure no member takes military action outside f BATO (or I suppose the UN), then that should curtail any acts of aggression by it's members!
.
Back on topic, i'm not so sure those days are over (sadly), the signals coming out of Russia are not reassuring.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I agree about not running others and NATO should not get involved with Syria, or any other acts of aggression it should keep to it's purpose, mutual defence, it should add controlling it's members to that purpose, maybe sanctions for military action outside of NATO.

Firstly it's overly procovative. To non-members it simply says that America will come and hit you with a big stick if you misbehave, but you may not weild a stick of your own when NATO members misbehave. Far from being a world police force NATO is the name of the gang on the playground that do as they please, without any oversight. Case in point: Turkey shooting down Russian jets to prevent Russia from bombing anti-Assad forces. Russia can't retaliate without risking a lot of other countries getting involved. Turkey was emboldened by beint a part of this organization.

Secondly it is corrupt. The USA has now insisted that NATO members spend a certain amount of their GDP on defense. Where is that money going to be spent? And what country is going to be profiting by it? The UK just sold its Harrier B fleet to the USA so they can use them for spares for their own Harriers used by the US marines. We have ordered the F-35 Lightening 2 as a replacement - a combat jet that, by a lot of accounts, can't actually fight. It is certainly vastly over priced, unnecessary, and laden with issues. But we're still buying it. As is Canada, Australia, Denmark, Turkey, and Norway. Most of these countries were strong-armed into buying the thing by Lockheed-Martin after US diplomats... encouraged it.

And thirdly it just don't operate as it should. The UK has had it's soverign territory invaded once since WW2 - the Falklands in 1982. The response of NATO states to this was to either remain neutral and leave us to it deal with it on our own (the USA) to actually supplying our enemies with Mirage fighter jets and Exocet missiles (France).

On the subject of accidents shoot downs, your thoughts on MH17?

It was shot down by pro-Russian rebels in the Ukraine who had been supplied with weapons by Russia. It was a mistake, and Russia should shoulder some of the blame for that. But when the USA shot down Flight 655 in the Persian gulf the USA never accepted any responsibility or held any of the crew of the missile cruiser to account. And this wasn't some rebel or terrorist group outside of their military infrastructure, this was a bunch of people in the US army who caused the eight worst aviation disaster in history.

Back on topic, i'm not so sure those days are over (sadly), the signals coming out of Russia are not reassuring.

A country is monitoring my phone calls. A country is collecting my emails and sifting through them. A country is conducting mass surveillance and has been doing so, in secret, for several years now. A country has illegally invaded nations in very recent history, spends more on weapons than the next 25 countries combined, and has massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. A country has a concentration and torture camp on Cuba, kept offshore to avoid granting the people in it any due process at all. A country is exerting massive influence on my government, having it sign up to treaties like TTIP which basically means my government will be answerable to corporations and diplomats from its government, rather than the people of my country. A certain country has a major political party which is actively involved in climate change denial, and seeks to shut down international treaties to prevent climate change which might cut into the profits of the corporations of that nation.

Russia might be the enemy of our government and the enemy our obliging media, particularly the Murdoch press, would love to construct for you. But if you're looking for a country whos government is actively threatening you right now then you're looking in the wrong direction.

 

[Surfinjo]

I agree about not running others and NATO should not get involved with Syria, or any other acts of aggression it should keep to it's purpose, mutual defence, it should add controlling it's members to that purpose, maybe sanctions for military action outside of NATO.
:
Here's a thought! If we stick to NATO only acting in mutual defence and ensure no member takes military action outside f BATO (or I suppose the UN), then that should curtail any acts of aggression by it's members!
.
Back on topic, i'm not so sure those days are over (sadly), the signals coming out of Russia are not reassuring.

Here's a better thought.

Leave NATO because it has already tastes blood, so to speak, by destroying Afghanistan and Iraq and is currently looking to destroy Syria.

Leave the UK because it represents the mighty power which these islands used to be.

Concentrate on our own defence and our own problems.

 

[Cargobane]

Thanks for all the great replies Commanders. It will take me a while to comb through the responses. But I leave you will a snippet of history. And compare this with Syria.
----
On July 3,1979, President Carter signed a directive ordering secret aid and covert support for the mujahedeen opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, Afghanistan. In December of 1979, the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, after which the CIA publicly aided the mujahedeen. The objective was to trap the Soviets in a long and costly war designed to drain their resources, much as the war in Vietnam had done to the United States.

The mujahedeen consisted of at least seven major factions, which fought amongst themselves for control over territory and the opium trade. The U.S., in order to covertly combat the Soviet Union, chose to give aid to the most extreme groups. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he praised the mujahedeen as “freedom fighters” and increased aid to the Afghan warlords. The U.S. worked closely with Pakistan in providing this aid to the mujahedeen.
----
How easy it seems to use FSA and Syria in this. Except this time Russia has been invited by the lawful and rightful government to help repel the 'freedom fighters'.

And check this Germany view point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHbStsy11j0

 

[Surfinjo]

Thank you Cargobane.

Some rather more recent snippets, no-doubt destined for the same bottom drawer,

KABUL, Afghanistan — The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John F. Campbell, said Wednesday that several service members had been suspended from duty after an internal military investigation of the American airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz last month.

Calling the airstrike a “tragic mistake,” General Campbell read a statement announcing the findings of the investigation, which he said concluded that “avoidable human error” was to blame,

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/w..._th_20151126&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=35132326

Now most people would say that is a self confessed war crime.

Me? I say it is just another reason why we, as the citizens of these tiny Islands of the NW coast of Europe, should be getting right out of there and leaving the psychos to play whatever stupid game they wish.

 

[Cargobane]

To pay due to the gaming world, I must say after watching this 8-Shot wonder prance into the world, I can't help but want to play Command & Conquer.
You just can't make this sort of thing up. But there it is.
Syria: See the moment the S-400s arrived in Latakia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtWLMXAGTQ8

Look at that PowerPlay

Best comment on YT: "no fly zone for nato.."

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention a memoryhole worthy story. ~1 Million Syrians have been able to return to their LAND and Live since Russia was Invited to help them.
Russia may actual help rebuild entire cities. (But not make cityscape interrenments camps like that other country

I wish the US/NATO war pigs would own up and get the F out. Maybe the returning M.I.C resources could be used for peace instead of war making. Other countries have shown they can coexist with people and economies without the Great US/EU/IMF-FedBank Monster.

Ask yourself this. ...
After Desert Shield/Storm and Mission Accomplished, which resulted in the falsely presented and premeditated destruction of an entire countries infrastructure, what Recover and Rebuilding has occurred by those who committed the acts which caused the destruction. Unless you are kool enough to believe that the nation which was invaded and destroyed should be responsible for that. The US has done NOTHING to restore or rebuild ANYTHING in IRAQ. At least not anything that doesn't help them promote more 'regime change' and 'freedom fighters' in the "land where heads are chopped off but not that land".

crazy...

 

[Surfinjo]

Scotland is to help train Syrian women who are involved in the peace process.
Nicola Sturgeon announced that the Scottish government would work with the UN to offer female peacemakers training in negotiation and communication.
The initiative emerged from discussions between the first minister and the UN special envoy for Syria.
Ms Sturgeon said the work related to UN resolution 1325, which reaffirms the role of women in preventing and resolving conflicts.
She said: "In recent months the world has been both touched by the plight of refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and horrified by the terrorist atrocities of Daesh.
"Scotland is playing its role welcoming refugees into our communities and we have also provided funding to help support aid agencies responding to the crisis in Syria and surrounding countries.
"However, we are also open to exploring other avenues to assist where we can."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34953758?post_id=1391329307862200_1512700299058433#_=_

 

[Cargobane]

By all Operational Accounts, the US/EU forces should immediately start providing military aid the oppressed people of Turkey. Where the REGIME is cracking down hard on free speech and peaceful demonstrators who are asking for accountability of the Turkey Regime's support of Terrorists. A public speaker of the people was assassinated on TV. Turkey Freedom Fighters are resorting to using common US July 4th Fireworks in an effort to stun and blind the Turkey Dictatorship's Stormtroopers while some poor sap tries to throw a bottle of flaming boozing on the tanks. The US should give them some TOW's instead.

 

[Surfinjo]

By all Operational Accounts, the US/EU forces should immediately start providing military aid the oppressed people of Turkey. Where the REGIME is cracking down hard on free speech and peaceful demonstrators who are asking for accountability of the Turkey Regime's support of Terrorists. A public speaker of the people was assassinated on TV. Turkey Freedom Fighters are resorting to using common US July 4th Fireworks in an effort to stun and blind the Turkey Dictatorship's Stormtroopers while some poor sap tries to throw a bottle of flaming boozing on the tanks. The US should give them some TOW's instead.

With Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Bush/ Blair still at large, Industrialised surveillance of everything we do, Illegal wars and rumours of illegal wars, we can only wonder when our glorious governments will notice the beam in their own eye?

 

[Surfinjo]

It is appreciated many won't support the SNP, but they are now the only Parliamentary group opposed to Bombing Syria.

A petition has been organised.

Please consider signing to show opposition to the bombing of Syria.

http://www.snp.org/dont-bomb-syria?recruiter_id=228113

 

[FuzzySpider]

It is appreciated many won't support the SNP, but they are now the only Parliamentary group opposed to Bombing Syria.

A petition has been organised.

Please consider signing to show opposition to the bombing of Syria.

http://www.snp.org/dont-bomb-syria?recruiter_id=228113

It won't make a difference. There was a petition which called for a vote of no confidence in Cameron recently - they simply ignored it. The anti-Iraq war protests were the biggest ever seen in this the days of Wat Tyler. They were just ignored too. This will cause more terrorism/resistance.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html

France is similarly looking at making their country more dangerous to live in it seems.

 

[Surfinjo]

It won't make a difference. There was a petition which called for a vote of no confidence in Cameron recently - they simply ignored it. The anti-Iraq war protests were the biggest ever seen in this the days of Wat Tyler. They were just ignored too. This will cause more terrorism/resistance.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html

France is similarly looking at making their country more dangerous to live in it seems.

Actually, it will.

It won't stop military action, that was going to happen anyway.

Some of the points made by Benn jr about IS for example were dramatic and sickening, but sadly, are hardly unique in the world. Over the last 40 or so years, tens of thousands of children have been abducted by armed groups in Africa, most claiming religious justification, to become fighters and sex objects. Their parents and other adults were routinely killed or mutilated to prevent them protecting their children. The so called Lords Resistance Army for example.

Strangely, Benn jr and co didn't seem to feel Africa was as important.

But it will establish that the action is not supported by the people. It is know, for example, that the majority didn't support Blair's wars. But the statistics are not generally available, other than a few opinion polls called by newspapers.

An open petition will establish a set figure from which can be extrapolated a good estimate. More importantly, as the figure grows, it will being the point into public consciousness. Especially those who may opt for apathy because they believe there is little they can do.

Putting your name up there as an opponent means something. Not a lot. but it's better than doing nothing

 

[Patrick_68000]

[/url] http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/173CE/production/_86928159_86760502.jpg

She is the sister of Merkel ?