It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
Naki_Gooner wrote:What is the purpose of the U.N. if nations are to take matters into their own hands? Have the U.N. found definitive proof that sarin was used? or are the yanks just saying it was. What does Syria have that the yanks want? why are the yanks so gung-ho about Syria, why weren't they in Rwanda years ago? cant trust the media, don't trust the yanks.
If you stick your nose in other peoples business, expect to get it boxed.
What is the purpose of the U.N if it sluggishly crawls towards self serving statements of outrage, whilst each day hundreds die?
The U.N are about to announce that chemical weapons were used.
Read my post on the previous page to see what America and Russia want in Syria.
Very good question about Rwanda, and why were the U/N. so slow to act on Rwanda?
Naki_Gooner wrote:What is the purpose of the U.N. if nations are to take matters into their own hands? Have the U.N. found definitive proof that sarin was used? or are the yanks just saying it was. What does Syria have that the yanks want? why are the yanks so gung-ho about Syria, why weren't they in Rwanda years ago? cant trust the media, don't trust the yanks.
If you stick your nose in other peoples business, expect to get it boxed.
What is the purpose of the U.N if it sluggishly crawls towards self serving statements of outrage, whilst each day hundreds die? So get rid and let the yanks and their sidekicks be world police? picking and choosing their battles?
The U.N are about to announce that chemical weapons were used. How do you know?
Read my post on the previous page to see what America and Russia want in Syria. Iraqs WMD's?
Very good question about Rwanda, and why were the U/N. so slow to act on Rwanda?Because beauracracy is a slow process
I agree the U.N. is slow to react, no argument there, but, the U.N. are the keepers of international law, are they not?
Naki_Gooner wrote:What is the purpose of the U.N. if nations are to take matters into their own hands? Have the U.N. found definitive proof that sarin was used? or are the yanks just saying it was. What does Syria have that the yanks want? why are the yanks so gung-ho about Syria, why weren't they in Rwanda years ago? cant trust the media, don't trust the yanks.
If you stick your nose in other peoples business, expect to get it boxed.
What is the purpose of the U.N if it sluggishly crawls towards self serving statements of outrage, whilst each day hundreds die? So get rid and let the yanks and their sidekicks be world police? picking and choosing their battles?
QuartzGooner: Why focus on America? Russia has a sphere of influence too, gets involved in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Iran and North Korea are heavily involved in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and South America.
The U.N are about to announce that chemical weapons were used. How do you know?
QuartzGooner: Reported on UK media. If the media are wrong about that, so am I.
Read my post on the previous page to see what America and Russia want in Syria. Iraqs WMD's?
QuartzGooner: Possibly. Also oil, gas, access to Mediterranean coast, proximity to Iran, and deals with Gulf Arab states.
Very good question about Rwanda, and why were the U/N. so slow to act on Rwanda?Because beauracracy is a slow process
QuartzGooner: Yes, but that did not help the Rwandans.
I agree the U.N. is slow to react, no argument there, but, the U.N. are the keepers of international law, are they not?
QuartzGooner: Not the only one though. And if they are not good at enforcing that law, then they can and should be bypassed. The UN is not impartial. Sometimes you just have to act.
I know military intervention isn't ideal but I personally won't be celebrating letting a bloke who used chemical weapons on civilians stay in power on the condition that he is supposedly going to disclose and hand over his remaining stocks as a success.
I don't doubt that we would have seen a different conclusion had there been a viable opposition alternative to the current regime.
The current situation within Ukraine is very similar to that in Kuwait several years ago in that a foreign country has effectively invaded another contrary to international law. The concern this time around is that Russia has a considerable military strength whereas Iraq didn't.
Putin will not retreat from his current stance and is basically sticking two fingers up to the US and Europe. How do they respond? Sanctions will be largely ineffective as China has abstained from voting and Russia will just turn to them for supplies etc. from outside their own country. This will create a strong alliance and any threat against Russia will be met with resistance from China too.
I think this is Putin's desperate attempt to make his mark on history. I think he wants it to be a big mark and will only go down fighting, literally.
I think Putin is cleverer than Obama and Cameron, and he holds the aces for the moment...Russia supplies a lot of gas to Europe and Europe will not want to jeopardise that until it has an alternative pipeline built.
The USA imports energy too, though should be self-sufficient within a decade if it continues expanding it's fracking.
Will the West go to open hostilities with Putin over Ukraine?
I doubt it.
Whilst CIA operatives may well be involved with pro-Western elements in the Ukraine, Obama lacks the stomach for open conflict, public opinion in the USA does not want a ground war, and the American budget does not need a war either.
I think Crimea will be absorbed into Russia, which it was part of for many years.
As for World War Three; I reckon we are sort of in it already, have been since late 1990's, a war of Capitalism versus militant Islam.
The big flashpoint will be Iran, and to an extent North Korea (working with Iran on nukes in exchange for missile technology).
Don't think WWIII is ever going to be a particularly realistic contest as the only countries capable of waging such a war have the capability to nuke each other off the face of this planet!
Who knows what Putin's plans are? As most commentators have said it depends whether or to what extent he intends to pile into eastern Ukraine, and also the reaction to what's happening in major cities like Kharkiv and Donetsk. And if he is looking to send forces what level of resistance Russian forces encounter on the ground. Crimea is gone, it was as soon as Putin set his sights on it and piled in.
There was at first a certain level of hypocrisy from Western leaders, particularly America. What would they do civil war was threatening to rage in a country where one distinct territory was made up of predominantly US citizens? Imo without doubt they would move forces in on the excuse of protecting their citizens. Obviously Putin's encouragement and endorsement of a clearly illegal and undemocratic referendum has gone much further.
I think he will probably be satisfied with his lot - he can remain bullish and his legacy will be ensured (which is what he really cares about), the rhetoric about sanctions and admonishments from the West will die down and people will accept the situation with the Crimea like the two Russian enclaves in Georgia and the West will just be glad that the conflict hasn't escalated further.
dPmunky wrote:yeah yeah yeah, but the real important question is....where the hell is this plane?
The Iluminatti have it hidden away in a secret base under the sea at the location where Atlantis was nuked by the alien race known as The Greys.
Or Courtney "Look at me, daddy!!" Love spotted it in the ocean.
She has the same middle name as Chris Kamara?
Same amount of brain cells too!
Sorry - cell, singular.
I would just like to categorically state that Courtney Love absolutely was not responsible for the death of Kurt Cobain. Glad we were able to clear that up.
Any evidence to the contrary and a botched police SOCO report is definitely, completely irrelevant.