The New Cold War

Who is the most dangerous in this New Cold War

  • USA

  • UK

  • Russia/Russian Federation

  • China

  • North Korea

  • Random Middle East Threat

  • EU

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
I'm thinking aloud as you can probably tell. But the fact is its very hard to tell what is true and what is not.

On the other hand if you just follow your nose, there’s no mistaking the rancid BS that the western media spurts out, as it’s completely devoid of logic, evidence, proof or reason.
 
I'm thinking aloud as you can probably tell. But the fact is its very hard to tell what is true and what is not.

On the other hand if you just follow your nose, there’s no mistaking the rancid BS that the western media spurts out, as it’s completely devoid of logic, evidence, proof or reason.
But RT tells the truth? Like Sputnik, Global Research etc?
 
I'm thinking aloud as you can probably tell. But the fact is its very hard to tell what is true and what is not.

On the other hand if you just follow your nose, there’s no mistaking the rancid BS that the western media spurts out, as it’s completely devoid of logic, evidence, proof or reason.
Rubbish. There has been plenty of evidence that points the finger at the Assad regime.
 
Rubbish. There has been plenty of evidence that points the finger at the Assad regime.
Well even if he was, so what? I am amazed that Assad supposedly seems to think that he needs chemicals to kill people. And bullets and bombs don't? Does gas kill better? I don’t think so. Does it target people better? Not according to WW1 it didn't.

Why in the would Assad (and therefore, Putin) resort to small-scale use of an unpredictable weapon? Don’t tell me Putin can’t control this guy. All he has to do is pull his troops out and Assad is toast. Actually, Vlad could target Assad and put in a replacement easily. I don’t believe there’s a hair-breadth of space between these two. They understand each other perfectly.
 
Well even if he was, so what? I am amazed that Assad supposedly seems to think that he needs chemicals to kill people. And bullets and bombs don't? Does gas kill better? I don’t think so. Does it target people better? Not according to WW1 it didn't.
You’ve heard of the Chemical Weapons Convention? UNSC Resolution 2118? About Assad giving up his CW? Of the unanimously appointed UNSC Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) that found Assad’s govt guilty of four attacks? Of the vetoes by Russia on renewing the JIM? Of the veto again by Russia in its reintroduction on Tuesday?

Why in the would Assad (and therefore, Putin) resort to small-scale use of an unpredictable weapon? Don’t tell me Putin can’t control this guy. All he has to do is pull his troops out and Assad is toast. Actually, Vlad could target Assad and put in a replacement easily. I don’t believe there’s a hair-breadth of space between these two. They understand each other perfectly.
Probably better the devil you know. They are both cool and calculating remorseless individuals but their ‘alliance’ is only good as long as Putin gets his airfield and port.

It’s not quite so easy to build Assad up as the ‘saviour of Syria’ and then bump him off 2/3 of the way through a civil war.
 
I can't think of a major power, current or historic, that didn't get stuck in around its own back yard.

On the other hand, I'm struggling just as hard to remember when today's Russia went half way round the world for the sole purpose of starting a war in someone else's country.
Remind me again who has invaded their neighbours this side of the Millennium?
 
You’ve heard of the Chemical Weapons Convention? UNSC Resolution 2118? About Assad giving up his CW? Of the unanimously appointed UNSC Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) that found Assad’s govt guilty of four attacks? Of the vetoes by Russia on renewing the JIM? Of the veto again by Russia in its reintroduction on Tuesday?


Probably better the devil you know. They are both cool and calculating remorseless individuals but their ‘alliance’ is only good as long as Putin gets his airfield and port.

It’s not quite so easy to build Assad up as the ‘saviour of Syria’ and then bump him off 2/3 of the way through a civil war.
Chess is the game Russians love to play, and they play it very well. They think out the repercussions and ramifications of every move. Cold-blooded men don’t make hot-blooded decisions. That's for Americans.

I wonder if we aren’t being manoeuvred into something we won’t like. Something like a missile-gap moment maybe? Or something that turns ugly like missile-launching ships getting sunk which then becomes the cause for a new round of war? Or our latest weapons fizzle in the face of Russian air-defenses, which I don't have ever stopped being developed in spite of collapse of the Soviet Union. Do we really want to know how cold-blooded Vlad can be? Is that the real point?
 
Invited by the incumbent government.

The parallel would be if the Soviet Union had massed forces in Venezuela then launched an invasion of Cuba with the sole intention of kicking Castro out of power.
Do you have any anti-American rhetoric that doesn't pre-date the birth of most serving personnel? I mean you may as well bear a chip on your shoulder about the Roman Invasion
 
No. They just rolled the heavy armour in and arrested anybody who protested against it.
That's because they were a dictatorship. What they weren't was a country that flew their troops across the world to invade and bomb the crap out of a sovereign state.

It's perfectly possible to be utter shits and still less destructive than the democracies have been of late.
 
Do you have any anti-American rhetoric that doesn't pre-date the birth of most serving personnel?
You'd better ask RCT(V) since he was the one that raised ancient history. I was perfectly happy discussing post-Soviet Russia up to that point.
 
Well even if he was, so what? I am amazed that Assad supposedly seems to think that he needs chemicals to kill people. And bullets and bombs don't? Does gas kill better? I don’t think so. Does it target people better? Not according to WW1 it didn't.

Why in the would Assad (and therefore, Putin) resort to small-scale use of an unpredictable weapon? Don’t tell me Putin can’t control this guy. All he has to do is pull his troops out and Assad is toast. Actually, Vlad could target Assad and put in a replacement easily. I don’t believe there’s a hair-breadth of space between these two. They understand each other perfectly.
Has means you get the clear out people from built up areas by.

1) not having to send your own guys in and accept the obvious casualties you’ll incure in FIBUA.

2) you don’t get to level building and infrastructure you may need at a later date.

3) it’s a terror weapon that scares the sh*t out of people.

So yes,Assad can use bombs and bullets, but why use them when you can use chemical weapons and have useful idiots in the west denounce their own governments for trying to reign in a mad man who’s breaking international law.
 
That's because they were a dictatorship. What they weren't was a country that flew their troops across the world to invade and bomb the crap out of a sovereign state.

It's perfectly possible to be utter shits and still less destructive than the democracies have been of late.
From what I remember it was the Iraqis that trashed their own country.
 
You'd better ask RCT(V) since he was the one that raised ancient history. I was perfectly happy discussing post-Soviet Russia up to that point.
And yet your cone-back was about something in 1962 - even I wasn't born then, the question is who has invaded their neighbours this side of the millennium? Is there a reason you forgot to answer?
 
Well even if he was, so what? I am amazed that Assad supposedly seems to think that he needs chemicals to kill people. And bullets and bombs don't? Does gas kill better? I don’t think so. Does it target people better? Not according to WW1 it didn't.

Why in the would Assad (and therefore, Putin) resort to small-scale use of an unpredictable weapon? Don’t tell me Putin can’t control this guy. All he has to do is pull his troops out and Assad is toast. Actually, Vlad could target Assad and put in a replacement easily. I don’t believe there’s a hair-breadth of space between these two. They understand each other perfectly.
Why did Assad gas the town? Who the fücks knows. Maybe he got out of bed the wrong side. Maybe he did it to send a message to the people of the town as to what would happen to them if they didn't surrender. Maybe he did it to try and to reduce casulties amongst his own forces. Maybe this. Or maybe that. Who the fück knows. The 'why' is a matter of conjecture and speculation.
 
Chess is the game Russians love to play, and they play it very well. They think out the repercussions and ramifications of every move. Cold-blooded men don’t make hot-blooded decisions. That's for Americans.
Kasparov doesn’t like Putin

I wonder if we aren’t being manoeuvred into something we won’t like. Something like a missile-gap moment maybe? Or something that turns ugly like missile-launching ships getting sunk which then becomes the cause for a new round of war? Or our latest weapons fizzle in the face of Russian air-defenses, which I don't have ever stopped being developed in spite of collapse of the Soviet Union. Do we really want to know how cold-blooded Vlad can be? Is that the real point?
Neither Russia nor the US are going to war over Syria. Any thoughts they will are towards the more loony fringe. They’ve managed to decinflict since September ‘15 and direct Russian involvement, even when the US shot down a Sy Air Force plane and when they removed a grid squares worth of Russian mercenaries.
 
Why did Assad gas the town? Who the fücks knows. Maybe he got out of bed the wrong side. Maybe he did it to send a message to the people of the town as to what would happen to them if they didn't surrender. Maybe he did it to try and to reduce casulties amongst his own forces. Maybe this. Or maybe that. Who the fück knows. The 'why' is a matter of conjecture and speculation.
My thoughts exactly. If indeed the Russians were supposedly behind all of this in both Syria over the last year and in the UK this past month, what have they gained by all of this supposedly-smart terror-inducing chemical hysteria? Wow. I can’t think of a single thing they’ve gained.

But I can see what they’ve lost when you add it all up - worldwide condemnation, sanctions, loss of trade, a weakened stock market, a falling rouble, a possible head-on military confrontation.. Why would Vlad (and his puppet) risk that? For what? To kill a few dozen women and children? To bump off a crusty old turn-coat in a Salisbury park? And by the way, just exactly how do we know that this guy (and his daughter) were ... don't get me started on that one...
 
My thoughts exactly. If indeed the Russians were supposedly behind all of this in both Syria over the last year and in the UK this past month, what have they gained by all of this supposedly-smart terror-inducing chemical hysteria? Wow. I can’t think of a single thing they’ve gained.
You do realise Assad’s govt has been found guilty by a unanimously appointed United Nations (which includes Russia and China) Joint Investigative Mechanism? Of using CW four times?

That OPCW have confirmed the UK findings on Novichok?

Looks to me like you’re the one who’s rather blinkered to be honest
 
RTFQ.

Not side with an ally, not intervene in someone else's civil war or any of those other things I started by stating major powers have routinely done throughout history - when have they sent massed state forces across the world to attack and invade a sovereign state in the same we we assisted in doing in 2003.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top