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 .
Goldhawk-Road said:
But that begs the question, has the US invaded Canada or Mexico recently? It's relations with Canada are good, and with Mexico, which is a bit of a governmental head case, reasonable.

Russian is reaping from its immediate neighbours what it has sown
Click to expand...

It's more of a question would the U.S. invade IF Russia put some army bases there or if Mexico/Canada said they will work with the Russians (hitchens point).

Isn't that entirely why Cuba was invaded (i think) cause they were cosying up too much with the soviet union?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Staines R's
Staines R's said:
So like you refer to the EU then ?
Click to expand...

NATO is a one purpose organisation - which is effectively defence against Russian aggression. If there was none, states wouldn't bother joining NATO and making large financial contributions.

Look at Sweden and Finland. No interest in joining NATO until Russian goes on military manoevres and now they're applying to join
 
BobbyD said:
It's more of a question would the U.S. invade IF Russia put some army bases there or if Mexico/Canada said they will work with the Russians (hitchens point).

Isn't that entirely why Cuba was invaded (i think) cause they were cosying up too much with the soviet union?
Click to expand...

Cuba is a bad example, because it was siting nuclear missiles. There is no question of the US siting nuclear missiles in Ukraine or Georgia
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
NATO is a one purpose organisation - which is effectively defence against Russian aggression. If there was none, states wouldn't bother joining NATO and making large financial contributions.

Look at Sweden and Finland. No interest in joining NATO until Russian goes on military manoevres and now they're applying to join
Click to expand...

Ahhh…..so what you’re saying is that NATO (as a one purpose organisation) has to have an enemy (Russia) to even exist ?
Is that why Russia was never allowed to join in the early 2000’s ? We need an enemy to defend against ?
 
Staines R's said:
Ahhh…..so what you’re saying is that NATO (as a one purpose organisation) has to have an enemy (Russia) to even exist ?
Is that why Russia was never allowed to join in the early 2000’s ? We need an enemy to defend against ?
Click to expand...

It was set up to counter the threats at the time from the Soviet Union. And with good reason.
 
Staines R's said:
I’m not saying Putin was or is an innocent player in all this……however nor is NATO/US.
Click to expand...

True but some are less guilty than others. There's a reason why all the ex-Soviet blocks wanted to join NATO and the EU, and why a country like Belarus with a tyrant for a leader and a system of oppression for its civilians remained allied to Russia.
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
True but some are less guilty than others. There's a reason why all the ex-Soviet blocks wanted to join NATO and the EU, and why a country like Belarus with a tyrant for a leader and a system of oppression for its civilians remained allied to Russia.
Click to expand...

Yeah Turkey is a true believer in human rights….but at least they are OUR torturers

Ask any Kurds
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steelmonkey
Staines R's said:
Yeah Turkey is a true believer in human rights….but at least they are OUR torturers

Ask any Kurds
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you write to Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, East Germany etc etc and tell them they were better off governed by Russia.

Don't expect a prompt reply
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
I'm not sure what your point was. I'd already agreed neither side was without fault. Just that one side - NATO - was more without fault than Russia.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion, it’s ok to ignore torture, state murder and oppression… because it’s not as bad as the torture, state murder and oppression elsewhere ?

As long as the torturers are on “our side” it’s ok ?
 
Staines R's said:
So in your opinion, it’s ok to ignore torture, state murder and oppression… because it’s not as bad as the torture, state murder and oppression elsewhere ?

As long as the torturers are on “our side” it’s ok ?
Click to expand...

No, I've already said, NATO is not without fault. Turkey is an Achillies heel if you like, but was taken in as a member for strategic and pragmatic reasons. But that does not mean that summing up the whole, Russia does not have very much to answer for, as is evidenced by the flight to the West of virtually all the ex-Soviet Block countries. They wanted independence, prosperity and freedom
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
Cuba is a bad example, because it was siting nuclear missiles. There is no question of the US siting nuclear missiles in Ukraine or Georgia
Click to expand...

according to the article by hitchens, theres some nuclear missiles sitting in poland and they were actively pursuing Ukraine for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back