Putins satan 2 dooms day

[existentialist]

He's a z-blogger, surely?

A fellow traveller, at best.

 

[cupid_stunt]

An Irish mate described Mick Wallace and Clare Daly as a couple of fucking eejits, he went on to say he does not get Daly at all, and that she seems to be to Wallace, much like Dorries is to Johnson.

 

[spitfire]

They’re a pair of pricks and an embarrassment.

Handy idiot detectors though.

 

[NoXion]

Thank god we still have brave politicians like Claire Daly.

Mick Wallace another brave strong politician speaking out re NATO.

The old left was not pro NATO.

Did NATO hold a gun to the collective heads of the Kremlin and force them to start salami-slicing pieces of Ukraine? Or were there other things Russia could have done in order to convince their neighbours to stay in a Eurasian geopolitical orbit, rather than move into a trans-Atlantic one?

If anything, the Russian occupation of Ukraine has become the best advertisement in favour of NATO membership since the end of the Cold War. Putin and his lickspittles might as well accept payment from NATO for being such effective recruiting sergeants.

 

[existentialist]

And another thing. What's with the weird thread title? And how's it even relevant?

 

[rubbershoes]

And another thing. What's with the weird thread title? And how's it even relevant?

Elohim has done their research about the urban demographic and came up with a thread title that would be fine with the kidz.

They haven't answered my question about Russian imperialism yet. Odd, that

 

[gosub]

Don't mention that just repeat "it's a conspiracy "

In plain sight. It is.

 

[gosub]

No way I'd give Ukraine nukes of any sort...

They had nukes. They gave them up . They got invaded

 

[MickiQ]

Liked for the most part, apart from the "we" birthday and feel good factor.

Oh, and the nukes.

perhaps 'feel righteous' rather than 'feel good' might be a better way of putting it.

No way I'd give Ukraine nukes of any sort...

You will be relieved to know I have just checked in the garage and I am all out. Seriously though if Putin does use a battlefield nuke then the West and possibly China as well will have to get directly involved hopefully with an overwhelming conventional response first. If he uses one and we do nowt then it is a safe bet before this decade is out that South Korea, Taiwan and Japan and probably Germany will have them and other nations will be on the way.

Maybe I'm stuck in the past didn't realise many in the left had now become very pro NATO. No wonder Keir Starmer managed to take hold of the labour party.

You're just getting daft now.

 

[newme]

They had nukes. They gave them up . They got invaded

Remarkable how no country with actual nukes gets invaded isn't it

 

[gosub]

Can you not just post a random link to start a thread Elohim - especially as there's already a thread (at least one if you want to discuss anti-war stuff) for this kind of thing.

Pretty sure it's first I've heard of a weapon that can sink Britan

 

[bcuster]

They had nukes. They gave them up . They got invaded

All true. New nukes given over to Ukraine by nato will’ve been far too provocative and will worsen an already bad situation

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Could you please add some commentary to this explaining what the link is about and why you are posting it - this is a standard rule here. Thank you.

Hi Elohim - could you do this now please, as I see you've had time to read this post and make responses elsewhere on the thread. Thanks.

 

[tim]

Never have I seen a more feeble attempt at straw clutching in my entire life it doesn't even deserve 0/10

Ukraine is definitely in the right here, no-one has claimed that pre-war Ukraine was a paradise but it is totally innocent in all this. When people protest against foreign wars, they're not protesting against the actual war, they are protesting against their own Govt's policy towards it. There are no protests against this war because despite the complete dogs dinner Rishi Rich and his buddies are making of everything else it seems to me that the vast majority of the public are behind them on this. Here in Sleepyville UK there are at least a dozen Ukrainian flags flying from houses in support. I have met actual Ukrainian refugees (all women and children by the way, their men have stayed to fight).
If it was up to me I would let them have F-22's never mind F-16's, I'm not totally opposed to the idea of letting them have battlefield nukes. For the first time since the Falkands War we are involved in a war where there is no question we are on the right side and it feels good.

Those were the days my friend

 

[Tanya1982]

Pretty sure it's first I've heard of a weapon that can sink Britan

Really? I thought it was called a Liz Truss.

 

[gosub]

Really? I thought it was called a Liz Truss.

Made me think of this fella actually

 

[jeff_leigh]

Remarkable how no country with actual nukes gets invaded isn't it

The times long overdue to tell CND I told you so

 

[krtek a houby]

if Putin does use a battlefield nuke then the West and possibly China as well will have to get directly involved hopefully with an overwhelming conventional response first. If he uses one and we do nowt then it is a safe bet before this decade is out that South Korea, Taiwan and Japan and probably Germany will have them and other nations will be on the way.

You're just getting daft now.

Sorry, who is "we" again?

There's little chance of Japan attaining nuclear weapons, despite efforts from the Abe faction of the LDP to change the constitution here.

Also can't see Taiwan going down the nuclear route, either. China wouldn't stand for it.

 

[MickiQ]

Sorry, who is "we" again?

There's little chance of Japan attaining nuclear weapons, despite efforts from the Abe faction of the LDP to change the constitution here.

Also can't see Taiwan going down the nuclear route, either. China wouldn't stand for it.

There are plenty of countries in the world who don't have nukes but could if they really wanted, the main reason they haven't is that the US doesn't want them to and with a combination of implied threats and security guarantees has managed to keep a lid on it. Then along came Donald Trump and a lot of people realised that US security guarantees might not all be what they were cracked up to be. If the next president can just change his mind what use are they?
Top of the "Let's Up End The International Order" list is South Korea. Public support for the bomb in SK is overwhelming. Polls show 75% minimum support for the idea of getting their own both to face off against NK and maybe China when NK collapses.
For all it's constitution of peace, love and understanding, Japan is pouring cash into the SDF and a lot of purchases are stretching the definition of 'defensive' to the breaking point. Faced with an unfriendly nuclear armed China and an at best ambivalent nuclear-armed South Korea, I'm having a hard time believing that the Japanese Govt won't think they need some as well constitution or not. Beside nukes are a defensive weapon all you need is a No First Strike policy and you're covered.
The Chinese would fucking hate the idea of Taiwan getting them but bar actually invading they can't really stop them. I would imagine the Taiwanese Govt has one eye on Ukraine, another looking across the Taiwan Strait and drawing the same conclusion as posters on Urban (a place where I am amazed to discover there are people who still think holding hands and singing Kumbaya has strategic value) that nuclear armed countries don't get invaded whilst wondering if American promises to defend them are worth all that much.
Germany is apparently much less keen on the idea but the Trumpster and the realisation that US commitment depends on who is in the White House rather than any treaty has unnerved more than one German politician. The French aren't totally reliable allies when it comes to pressing the button either. If Germany even starts to discuss publicly the idea of acquiring the odd one then I would guess the Poles will as well even if they aren't practically capable of it.
Then we have the political cesspit that is the Middle East, the Iranians will no doubt continue to try and get one as it is the only sure fire way to protect them from the Great Satan and the evil Zionists. The main reason most ME countries don't have the bomb is because they can't build them not any great moral stance. But if they start spreading everywhere else then some of them will start pouring resources into it and one or two will eventually succeed. Nuclear weapons are after all 80 year old technology and the US can't sanction everybody. When everyone talks about nukes they all seem to assume ICBM's but a few small battlefield ones are enough to completely change the balance of power in region.
A lot of governments will be watching this conflict to see how it pans out, If the West (ie NATO, ie the US) doesn't react to Russia using nukes then the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that only nuclear weapons make you safe and the race begins.
As for who 'we' is then the answer is NATO/The West which of course means the US gets to decide but which we (the UK especially) will fully support because with something like this talk of an 'independent foreign policy' is basically just a polite fiction.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are plenty of countries in the world who don't have nukes but could if they really wanted, the main reason they haven't is that the US doesn't want them to and with a combination of implied threats and security guarantees has managed to keep a lid on it. Then along came Donald Trump and a lot of people realised that US security guarantees might not all be what they were cracked up to be. If the next president can just change his mind what use are they?
Top of the "Let's Up End The International Order" list is South Korea. Public support for the bomb in SK is overwhelming. Polls show 75% minimum support for the idea of getting their own both to face off against NK and maybe China when NK collapses.
For all it's constitution of peace, love and understanding, Japan is pouring cash into the SDF and a lot of purchases are stretching the definition of 'defensive' to the breaking point. Faced with an unfriendly nuclear armed China and an at best ambivalent nuclear-armed South Korea, I'm having a hard time believing that the Japanese Govt won't think they need some as well constitution or not. Beside nukes are a defensive weapon all you need is a No First Strike policy and you're covered.
The Chinese would fucking hate the idea of Taiwan getting them but bar actually invading they can't really stop them. I would imagine the Taiwanese Govt has one eye on Ukraine, another looking across the Taiwan Strait and drawing the same conclusion as posters on Urban (a place where I am amazed to discover there are people who still think holding hands and singing Kumbaya has strategic value) that nuclear armed countries don't get invaded whilst wondering if American promises to defend them are worth all that much.
Germany is apparently much less keen on the idea but the Trumpster and the realisation that US commitment depends on who is in the White House rather than any treaty has unnerved more than one German politician. The French aren't totally reliable allies when it comes to pressing the button either. If Germany even starts to discuss publicly the idea of acquiring the odd one then I would guess the Poles will as well even if they aren't practically capable of it.
Then we have the political cesspit that is the Middle East, the Iranians will no doubt continue to try and get one as it is the only sure fire way to protect them from the Great Satan and the evil Zionists. The main reason most ME countries don't have the bomb is because they can't build them not any great moral stance. But if they start spreading everywhere else then some of them will start pouring resources into it and one or two will eventually succeed. Nuclear weapons are after all 80 year old technology and the US can't sanction everybody. When everyone talks about nukes they all seem to assume ICBM's but a few small battlefield ones are enough to completely change the balance of power in region.
A lot of governments will be watching this conflict to see how it pans out, If the West (ie NATO, ie the US) doesn't react to Russia using nukes then the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that only nuclear weapons make you safe and the race begins.
As for who 'we' is then the answer is NATO/The West which of course means the US gets to decide but which we (the UK especially) will fully support because with something like this talk of an 'independent foreign policy' is basically just a polite fiction.

You provide no evidence bar your own opinion for the claim the country of hiroshima and nagasaki will seek nuclear weapons - polls from a former Japanese colony don't bolster your argument

 

[MickiQ]

You provide no evidence bar your own opinion for the claim the country of hiroshima and nagasaki will seek nuclear weapons - polls from a former Japanese colony don't bolster your argument

Of course I'm only providing my opinion as are you. Neither of us have any special knowledge at all do we?

 

[krtek a houby]

Of course I'm only providing my opinion as are you. Neither of us have any special knowledge at all do we?

There's plenty of talk from LDP stalwarts about beefing up the self defense forces and the real right wing loons are for it (nuclear weapons) but there's the people who have lived through the atomic age and the war crimes against Japan.

Their voices are still strong.

 

[MickiQ]

There's plenty of talk from LDP stalwarts about beefing up the self defense forces and the real right wing loons are for it (nuclear weapons) but there's the people who have lived through the atomic age and the war crimes against Japan.

Their voices are still strong.

Let us hope so, I would much rather be proved wrong than right.

 

[Serge Forward]

This thr

If it was up to me I would let them have F-22's never mind F-16's, I'm not totally opposed to the idea of letting them have battlefield nukes. For the first time since the Falkands War we are involved in a war where there is no question we are on the right side and it feels good.

This is as silly as "it's all NATO's fault, they made Russia invade Ukraine."

 

[Serge Forward]

Thank god we still have brave politicians like Claire Daly.

More silliness.

 

[likesfish]

I'm obviously not that bright.
But Nato you have to apply to join
Russia has attacked all it's neighbours who aren't in Nato and aren't an Allie .
Serbia did get bombed but was up to it's neck in massacres and mayhem and Kosovo was next on it's genocide run.
The reason NATO expanded Eastward is because it's pervious client states didn't want to be part of Russias area of influence.

you'd think an Irish politicion might understand Eastern europes reluctance to be part of Russias area of influence?
Or perhaps she has no problem with the parachute regiment being barracked in dublin ? given the UK's historical links to ireland and it's understandable security concerns?

 

[tim]

Yes, arm all our pervious clients!

 

[Isambard]

The message from the pro-war establishment is the same as usual: If you question the narrative and try to see a bigger picture (this is about more than innocent ickle wickle Ukraine being attacked) than you are a friend of "Puťler".

But the difference is now that the pro-war establishment has had years to establish a narrative and much of the supposed "left" (bunch of bloody Guardian reading liberals but hey-ho) has been co-opted.

The outcome of the war between NATO & Russia won't be decided via a demo for peace, but what actually happens on the ground and when Washington decides it is in their their interest to stop.

 

[cupid_stunt]

And another fuckwit turns up.

 

[NoXion]

Ah yes, the "narrative of the pro-war establishment". Remind me, the foreign troops that have been occupying Ukrainian territory since 2014, along with conducting a wholesale invasion in 2022, where do they come from? They are from Russia, yes? Not NATO? It astounds me how self-professed "anti-war" types in the West will ignore the blatantly obvious. The Kremlin's actions make them as pro-war as it's possible to get short of starting WWIII, but strangely enough they never figure in "peacemonger" rhetoric.

What's this "bigger picture" that apparently excuses Russian warmongering? NATO expansion? OK, let's keep widening our scope. Why might so many of Russia's neighbours prefer a NATO presence over a Russian one?