Off Topic 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!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%
  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
I think it’s his failure to carry it off that is funny. In a kind of bitter way. Rather than news.

Meanwhile Biden says he will respond ‘in kind’ if Russia uses chemical weapons.

Lot of time being spent in the news discussing what these ‘carefully chosen words’ imply. From my understanding of the English language ‘in kind’ is pretty clear. If you punch me, I’ll respond in kind ie punch you back. You react to what someone has done to you (positive as well as negative) by doing the same thing back. I’ve looked it up, that’s the definition. I read this as a promise to use chemical weapons should Putin do so. Which would be illegal under international law. Which leads me to believe that these words weren’t ‘carefully chosen’ at all, there is no way he will use chemical weapons. He probably won’t even respond much beyond more of the same stuff he is doing already - Obama and him allowed Assad, backed by Putin, to get away with using chemical weapons in Syria despite threatening action, which is why Putin won’t take this seriously.

Of course, it could also be said that Biden might not be fully in control of what he says.


Boris Johnson has clarified. Something about porcupines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmid and sb_73
I think it’s his failure to carry it off that is funny. In a kind of bitter way. Rather than news.

Meanwhile Biden says he will respond ‘in kind’ if Russia uses chemical weapons.

Lot of time being spent in the news discussing what these ‘carefully chosen words’ imply. From my understanding of the English language ‘in kind’ is pretty clear. If you punch me, I’ll respond in kind ie punch you back. You react to what someone has done to you (positive as well as negative) by doing the same thing back. I’ve looked it up, that’s the definition. I read this as a promise to use chemical weapons should Putin do so. Which would be illegal under international law. Which leads me to believe that these words weren’t ‘carefully chosen’ at all, there is no way he will use chemical weapons. He probably won’t even respond much beyond more of the same stuff he is doing already - Obama and him allowed Assad, backed by Putin, to get away with using chemical weapons in Syria despite threatening action, which is why Putin won’t take this seriously.

Of course, it could also be said that Biden might not be fully in control of what he says.

Biden is weak, and is seen as such.This was proven by the fact that the Taliban had no fear of him, which they did of Trump.
I hate Trump, however he was a bully that his enemies feared would carry out his threats of retaliation if necessary. When the Trump administration authorised and carried out the dropping of a MOAB in Afghanistan against ISIS, it was a message to the Taliban that he would have no hesitation to drop one on them also if they stepped out of line….Biden would not have done any such thing and the Taliban knew that, therefore we had the chaotic shambles that we saw on our TV screens.

(Raving and Steels will know where I heard this)
 
Biden is weak, and is seen as such.This was proven by the fact that the Taliban had no fear of him, which they did of Trump.
I hate Trump, however he was a bully that his enemies feared would carry out his threats of retaliation if necessary. When the Trump administration authorised and carried out the dropping of a MOAB in Afghanistan against ISIS, it was a message to the Taliban that he would have no hesitation to drop one on them also if they stepped out of line….Biden would not have done any such thing and the Taliban knew that, therefore we had the chaotic shambles that we saw on our TV screens.

(Raving and Steels will know where I heard this)
What’s a MOAB? Something big and nasty I assume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW Ranger
You must log in or register to see media

Good response.
? When did the German army use chemical weapons? Obviously the SS used chemical weapons in the camps, but did the military in battle? I genuinely have never heard of them using gas, or anything else, in WW2 against troops or civilians. Doesn’t mean they didn’t. I might have just never have heard of it.
 
? When did the German army use chemical weapons? Obviously the SS used chemical weapons in the camps, but did the military in battle? I genuinely have never heard of them using gas, or anything else, in WW2 against troops or civilians. Doesn’t mean they didn’t. I might have just never have heard of it.

i assumed he was referring to the use of gas in the camps.
 
? When did the German army use chemical weapons? Obviously the SS used chemical weapons in the camps, but did the military in battle? I genuinely have never heard of them using gas, or anything else, in WW2 against troops or civilians. Doesn’t mean they didn’t. I might have just never have heard of it.

The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.

Taken from google (between jobs in my night shift)
 
In other news…

China is preparing to do a deal ( bribe ) the Solomon Islands in return of them allowing China to build & house a military base and docking of their war vessels.

How has the world body of governments allowed China to build artificial islands for military bases in the pacific, a squillion miles from China ?

All indications for China wanting to control the pacific and Australia are laid bare to see.

Australia being large and having vast underground minerals, fuels & gases would be ideal for China to populate.

The writing is on the wall, whether anyone chooses to read it is another question.
 
In other news…

China is preparing to do a deal ( bribe ) the Solomon Islands in return of them allowing China to build & house a military base and docking of their war vessels.

How has the world body of governments allowed China to build artificial islands for military bases in the pacific, a squillion miles from China ?

All indications for China wanting to control the pacific and Australia are laid bare to see.

Australia being large and having vast underground minerals, fuels & gases would be ideal for China to populate.

The writing is on the wall, whether anyone chooses to read it is another question.
The chinks can have the convict island
They will never take nz without a fight
Maybe they will but no **** it there are so many Chinese here already we are ****ed:1980_boogie_down:<cracker>
 
You must log in or register to see media

Actually, Atkins's report seems remarkably fair. Right wing politician gets 1.6% of the Ukrainian electoral vote in 2019. Jewish candidate gets over 70%. And Russia is calling Ukraine a Nazi dominated state...

Hitchens is remarkably pro Russia, constantly telling anyone who will listen that the real threat is China. But that doesn't wash when he's speaking to Ukrainians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol