The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
redwhiteandermblue said:
I agree that all candidates are insane about foreign policy. But I believe Trump is at least as insane as any of them regarding the Middle East, if (arguably) more sensible about Russia. A question: is it right that you think my comparison of Putin to Mussolini is unfair? If so, who am I being unfair to?
Click to expand...

I'm actually pretty pro Putin tbh, so I can't see us reaching a concensus on this one <laugh>

The west paint Putin as an agressor, but from what I see, he just stands his ground in the face of western aggresion, expansionism and serial lieing.

From what I understand, one of the reasons that the establishment in the US is so anti-Trump (apart from him acting like a complete dick), is that he doesn't give a **** about the political bullshit (such as the Fed being so influential in government policy, strategic propaganda, cover up of Saudi's role in 9/11), and will just say things how he sees them). And he says Putin is a guy he respects for standing by his principles and getting things done. And that strikes me as being a pretty reasonable analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
RobSpur said:
I'm actually pretty pro Putin tbh, so I can't see us reaching a concensus on this one <laugh>

The west paint Putin as an agressor, but from what I see, he just stands his ground in the face of western aggresion, expansionism and serial lieing.

From what I understand, one of the reasons that the establishment in the US is so anti-Trump (apart from him acting like a complete dick), is that he doesn't give a **** about the political bullshit (such as the Fed being so influential in government policy, strategic propaganda, cover up of Saudi's role in 9/11), and will just say things how he sees them). And he says Putin is a guy he respects for standing by his principles and getting things done. And that strikes me as being a pretty reasonable analysis.
Click to expand...

Can agree with this 100%. Putin by no means is the perfect ruler and obviously has his methods of population/dissent control. In terms of his actions in Ukraine and Syria i can categorically say i'm not buying into the lies that the west have perpetuated.

I have seen the reporting in the western media about HK and the democratic stances and can see its totally 1 sided from what i hear from my relatives who are actually living there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobSpur
BobbyD said:
Can agree with this 100%. Putin by no means is the perfect ruler and obviously has his methods of population/dissent control. In terms of his actions in Ukraine and Syria i can categorically say i'm not buying into the lies that the west have perpetuated.

I have seen the reporting in the western media about HK and the democratic stances and can see its totally 1 sided from what i hear from my relatives who are actually living there.
Click to expand...

Agree with the Hong Kong stuff.

What I didn't get about that was that the British government expressed public support for those protesting against the alleged non-democratic way in which the head of the HK government was appointed, on the basis that the Chinese Government vetted candidates before they could be included in the public vote.

But......

Hang on...


When the British had Hong Kong, there was no public vote at all. The governor was just appointed by the British Government !

It pales into insignificance though, compared to the lies we are spouted about Syria etc.
 
Far too many journalists end up dead in Russia, for my liking.
The odd opposition politician going the same way doesn't look good, either.
Some of the people that Putin is linked to are absolutely reprehensible, too.

We all know that the current level of journalism in the West is dubious, at best.
That doesn't really explain why loads of Putin's critics seem to wind up getting murdered, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobSpur
PleaseNotPoll said:
Far too many journalists end up dead in Russia, for my liking.
The odd opposition politician going the same way doesn't look good, either.
Some of the people that Putin is linked to are absolutely reprehensible, too.

We all know that the current level of journalism in the West is dubious, at best.
That doesn't really explain why loads of Putin's critics seem to wind up getting murdered, though.
Click to expand...

True. I'd still rather here about the unfortunate deaths of a few Russians though, than the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Syrians by a western/gulf sponsored invasion though. Which to me is effectively pretty mich what we've seen the last few years.

I wrote quite a lengthy article about Syria a few months ago. It's far too long to put on here, but i'll try to copy and paste the bullet point exec summary I put at the top. It reads like something about of some kind of dark fairytale, but in fact its all verifiable and substantiated.
 
RobSpur said:
True. I'd still rather here about the unfortunate deaths of a few Russians though, than the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Syrians by a western/gulf sponsored invasion though. Which to me is effectively pretty mich what we've seen the last few years.

I wrote quite a lengthy article about Syria a few months ago. It's far too long to put on here, but i'll try to copy and paste the bullet point exec summary I put at the top. It reads like something about of some kind of dark fairytale, but in fact its all verifiable and substantiated.
Click to expand...
Isn't Syria just a proxy war for a bunch of arseholes, though?
I thought that Russia had their hand in as much as anyone, apart from the Saudis, perhaps?
 
As I said, the bullet points on their own read like he ravings of a loony, but here they are anyway :

* Syrian war is not war between Assad and his own people, it is an invasion by Saudi

* Syrian war due to Saudi sectarianism, supported by west to enforce anti Irani policies, and protect US dollar

* Western public deliberately misled about nature of conflict, and western involvement, including repeated lies told by governments

* Assad retains widespread majority support within Syria

* Government deliberately blamed in west for numerous atrocities and massacres, carried out by western backed rebels.

* Head of US armed forces has acknowledged that Saudi funds or funded ISIS

* Original protests in Syria were accompanied by armed sectarians who murdered police

* Fighting in Syria started by arms smuggling by Israel and Turkey

* BBC manipulated articles to cover up Saudi admission of funding Al Qaeda

* ISIS deliberately created by Saudi with US and UK knowledge

* CIA anticipated creation of ISIS caliphate, and adopted it as Iran containment policy

* MI6 knew of Saudi plan to export its extreme form of Islam, and that it could result in mass genocide of up to 100 million Shiahs

* US had established policy of removing Syrian and Iranian governments, by force if necessary (US 4 star general)

* Wars in Libya, Iraq and Ukraine, and unrest in Iran and Syria followed decisions to decouple oil sales from US dollar

* Former head of US Fed, confirmed that 2003 ("WMD") Iraq invasion was due to oil

* IMF threatened to withdraw Ukraine's bail out if it did not put down eastern rebellion by force

* Ukraine, post coup Prsident worked for US State Department

* US, UK and France, have entered into massive arms sales, and nuclear reactor sales with Saudi, which has world's worst human rights record

* UK has covered up Saudi war crimes in Yemen, committed with weapons sold by UK

* Former US Secretary of State has called 500,000 child deaths due to Iraqi sanctions "worth it" even though they achieved nothing
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Isn't Syria just a proxy war for a bunch of arseholes, though?
I thought that Russia had their hand in as much as anyone, apart from the Saudis, perhaps?
Click to expand...

As with pretty much all these conflicts thouh, all Russia's doing is trying to maintain the status quo.

It's not Russia who started the fighting or destabilised the country, or who sought regime change.

They've just reacted to others, in order to protect their allie, and their interests.
 
"When the British had Hong Kong, there was no public vote at all. The governor was just appointed by the British Government !"

The governor of HK was never advocating policy or candidates suitable for mainland lapdogs.

And there was public dissent.
I know many HK denizens were most displeased with Pattens' "big man" act towards
the mainland when he wasn't going to be the one there to face the post 1997 consequences.
 
RobSpur said:
As I said, the bullet points on their own read like he ravings of a loony, but here they are anyway :

* Syrian war is not war between Assad and his own people, it is an invasion by Saudi

* Syrian war due to Saudi sectarianism, supported by west to enforce anti Irani policies, and protect US dollar

* Western public deliberately misled about nature of conflict, and western involvement, including repeated lies told by governments

* Assad retains widespread majority support within Syria

* Government deliberately blamed in west for numerous atrocities and massacres

* Head of US armed forces has acknowledged that Saudi funds or funded ISIS

* Original protests in Syria were accompanied by armed sectarians who murdered police

* Fighting in Syria started by arms smuggling by Israel and Turkey

* BBC manipulated articles to cover up Saudi admission of funding Al Qaeda

* ISIS deliberately created by Saudi with US and UK knowledge

* CIA anticipated creation of ISIS caliphate, and adopted it as Iran containment policy

* MI6 knew of Saudi plan to export its extreme form of Islam, and that it could result in mass genocide of up to 100 million Shiahs

* US had established policy of removing Syrian and Iranian governments, by force if necessary (US 4 star general)

* Wars in Libya, Iraq and Ukraine, and unrest in Iran and Syria followed decisions to decouple oil sales from US dollar

* Former head of US Fed, confirmed that 2003 ("WMD") Iraq invasion was due to oil

* IMF threatened to withdraw Ukraine's bail out if it did not put down eastern rebellion by force

* Ukraine, post coup Prsident worked for US State Department

* US, UK and France, have entered into massive arms sales, and nuclear reactor sales with Saudi, which has world's worst human rights record

* UK has covered up Saudi war crimes in Yemen, committed with weapons sold by UK

* Former US Secretary of State has called 500,000 child deaths due to Iraqi sanctions "worth it" even though they achieved nothing
Click to expand...
A bit one-sided, RS. I'm sure a lot of that's accurate, but the likes of Assad and Putin are just as bad, if not worse.
Do you have a link to the article itself?
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
A bit one-sided, RS. I'm sure a lot of that's accurate, but the likes of Assad and Putin are just as bad, if not worse.
Do you have a link to the article itself?
Click to expand...

Nah.

It wasn't published (or publishable).

In fact there were a couple of bits of it unfinished, but there's some interesting research and (i think) argument in there.

If you're sufficiently interested, I could do either of the following :

1. Link some of the more credibe sources for some of the more controversial points.

2. Create a temporary article, and post the text of the article in there for you to cooy and paste (before deleting the article in here).
 
RobSpur said:
Nah.

It wasn't published (or publishable).

In fact there were a couple of bits of it unfinished, but there's some interesting research and (i think) argument in there.

If you're sufficiently interested, I could do either of the following :

1. Link some of the more credibe sources for some of the more controversial points.

2. Create a temporary article, and post the text of the article in there for you to cooy and paste (before deleting the article in here).
Click to expand...
Did you write it yourself? Sorry, I thought that this was something that you'd read online.

I'd like to see the sources, if that's ok.
 
The RDBD said:
"When the British had Hong Kong, there was no public vote at all. The governor was just appointed by the British Government !"

The governor of HK was never advocating policy or candidates suitable for mainland lapdogs.

And there was public dissent.
I know many HK denizens were most displeased with Pattens' "big man" act towards
the mainland when he wasn't going to be the one there to face the post 1997 consequences.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong's almost unchanged from 20 years ago though. It's not like the government has been appointed to turn hong kong into communist china. In fact the hong kong government happily speak out against the mainland when necessary.

But the point was, what the hell is the British government, and the British press, pontificating about democractic rights in HK, when there is more democracy there now than when it was under British rule ?

You make reference to the riots in the 70s, and they were far, far more violent and severe than the ones last year.

Western governments spout so much hypocrisy and falsehood to suit whatever agenda they and the US wants to follow, that it makes them impossible to believe on anything imo. They don't tell the truth, they just push whatever agenda they have.
 
RobSpur said:
Governments spout so much hypocrisy and falsehood to suit whatever agenda they want to follow, that it makes them impossible to believe on anything imo. They don't tell the truth, they just push whatever agenda they have.
Click to expand...
I think that this is the accurate way to look at it, unfortunately.
 
For me the Hong Kong reporting was terrible. It isn't just about the democratic process (which i think is about as democratic as UK, realistically i cannot be PM of UK unless i own a party and have MPs under me. I cannot by myself win the vote of the country).

BBC was reporting about violence at the protesters and about how the country supported the protests when i'm not sure that the majority did (anecdotal i must admit). If the same was to happen in the UK or indeed what DID happen in New York, you can be sure that the police would have cleared out these protesters who were blocking most of the main roads into the city for 2 and a half months.

I understand why the protests happen as there is a lot of inequality in HK, probably more so than UK and lot of the money stays with the upper classes (think its similar to korea and other asian countries) with a lack of opportunity for the underclass and lot of the HK culture is being "systematically" destroyed by corporations (similar to how Starbucks/amazon have effectively reduced the need of independents).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobSpur
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back