theblether

33 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

when people's own children have been murdered, they turn barbaric.

 

it isn't about picking sides. it's about finding a solution.

 

You can't reason with these people. 

This was and as deliberate. 

Look at this image - dear me. 

Oh, look - let's line up babies coffins in front of terrorist propaganda 

I've made it clear I detested the USSR, and I have a lifetime deep and abiding hatred for Marxism. 

I am repelled by the actions of the Russian state. My point is simple, which should make it easy for our simpletons to understand. 

UKr cannot win. 

I would love a deal to be done which results in them immediately joining NATO as a condition of peace, just to ram it up Putin. 

But they can't force Russia back to 2022 lines never mind 2014. 

It's as simple as that. 

1 minute ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

No it won't break up the Russians will eat their pets and live in filth as long as the centre holds. Their biggest fear is the post fall anarchy of Perestroika where the ecomomy and social system simply collapsed almost overnight. Then there's the 5 million security state the Silovoki who have everything to lose if the centre falls. A

Aye but according to him "enlightened Europeans" will save the day. 

He must be drunk. 

Do you hear the drumbeats against the hearse? Can you see the cowardly scum riding the hearse like a fairground ride? 

Pick a side. 

6 minutes ago, jts-khorat said:

 

Note the de-militarization.

 

Do you think the world is currently safer with those nukes in the hands of a lunatic who wants to own Greenland and Gaza?

You're a nutter if you think fragmented states demilitarize. Did you not see what happened after the Arab Spring? and all the ethnic battles across the globe? 

Get a grip on yourself. 

....celebrating babies coffins being returned to Israel. Support this, do you? 

12 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

No one knows the true figures and both sides are and have a huge reason to distort them. It's huge figures on both sides and likely numerical parity. The Russian superiority in arty and FAB bombs over the last year has guaranteed that. Trump keeps mentioning millions and he will have the best briefing around so I'll go with at a million dead and injured on both sides.

4 to 1 casualty rate is impossible in modern warfare, It's actually embarrassing that a grown man would post such fanciful drivel. 

Independent Ukrainian officials are saying the casualty list is north of 500,000. I believe that. The Russians have not lost 2 million, no way. 

If the 500,000 figure is correct, that really means around 250,000 Ukr troops are dead or suffering life changing injuries. PTSD will devastate many of the remaining 250,000. 

What Ukraine is now actually playing with is the viability of their country. 

What makes it worse is that it's estimated that 1 million breeding age women have left the country. Many of these will never return, many are already in long term relationships all across the EU and elsewhere. 

The birthrate was already catastrophic. The only saving grace for the pro-Ukr contingent is that Russia is also on the edge of a demographic meltdown. 

Do your bit for the war effort - if you see a random Russian lady wandering around, marry her and keep her in Thailand. If enough of you do that there won't be enough Russian soldiers wandering around in 20 years. 

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

I think this issue is much more than just the fate of Ukraine, it is about the world that we want to live in and where this will all lead to. The rules of law in world affairs are deteriorating fast, we are moving quickly into a world where “might is right”. And laws don’t matter anymore. 
 

So, for Europe, they better get serious about their defensive capabilities before Putin divides and conquers. I suspect that the US will soon withdraw from NATO and that the Baltic states and the rest of Ukraine will be on the Russian menu. Not immediately, first they will use lifted sanctions to get the war machine up to full strength. And if Europe doesn’t offer any resistance they will start carving up their neighbours. There are many pro Russian sponsored political parties in Europe - Hungary and Slovakia are run by them and others are fighting hard to lead countries. Reform UK being one, the Afd in Germany being the other. But they are everywhere. If these parties can gain positions of power we will all be under the influence of Russia and heading towards authoritarian regimes. The new century will be an Orwellian nightmare. 
 

And that’s why this issue is about more than just Ukraine. 

You mention Germany - the same guys that opened the door to mass migration and laughed at Trump when he warned them about energy security and depending on Russia for their energy needs. 

The same clowns who shut down their nuclear reactors. 

The biggest single threat to the West is that we are now run by a managerial class who are cowardly and brainless. It is the definition of strong men make good times, weak men make bad times. 

Excessive empathy will kill the West and that will have dire consequences for the world. 

AFAIC the Baltic states led the way with rapid moves to join NATO in the 1990's. Ukraine couldn't do so as it was still in the grip of Russian nationalists. The 2006 declaration by the Europeans saying that Ukraine would be welcome in NATO was undone by the 2010 Parliamentary vote saying no thanks. 

This invasion was telegraphed a mile off and Biden could have done more to make Putin think twice. 

I would have loved Ukraine to have defeated Russia but it now looks impossible. As it now looks impossible my thoughts are - do a deal, surrender the Donbass, stop the killing - and I would love Ukraine to now be fast-tracked into NATO.

Anyway, back on topic cos I've had enough of this lunatic nuclear talk. 

Not a single one of you has put forward a coherent plan which involves Ukraine winning back their territories. 

10 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

You said "By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? "

Which two bases are you talking about.

 

If you mean Faslane and Coulport then the answer is; many times between 1972 and 2000!

I have served as an officer in RN nuclear submarines!

Have you?

 

I just do not know where to start with regard to that ridiculously inaccurate "politico" link you provided.

It quotes the wrong Naval Bases, wrong guidance systems, makes no reference to the warheads etc!

It also states the following (which you obviously missed) where it confirms that the UK's Independent nuclear Deterrent! 

It  quotes;

"“It is in America’s interest to have an independent nuclear actor in the region, so that it complicates the decision-making for an aggressor,” Karako says. “Any attack on one NATO ally would raise the risk of retaliation from another under Article Five, and it’s not a case of piling all the responsibility on the United States. That will only work with operational independence.”

 

BTW; since the warheads and guidance systems are totally independent of any US control how could/would the US actually prevent the UK from launching them?

Once launched it would be  bit late for the US to complain!

 

PS;  Don't bother asking for any proof of my RN service career as I am obviously not posting any such proof on an open forum!

 

 

And away you go again. 

RN, my brother served, 25 years service. You are beyond deluded claiming the above to be a true reflection of what happened politically. The Americans wanted a bulwark in Europe, the French were acting up, only the UK was stable enough but highly indebted - and had the added benefit of being a permanent of the security council. Wilson had to bend after being caught out claiming the the British army was suited to jungle warfare while the SAS and RN destroyed the communists in Borneo. 

The nukes were rammed down his throat. By the way, my bro-in-law collected his Malaysia campaign medal a couple of years ago. 

I cannot take you seriously. Utter stupidity to believe that our nukes are independent in the face of all evidence including your benighted NATO saying that they are not truly independent. And you chose to ignore this pointed retort - why? Too many complicated words for you? 

But some other experts are deeply skeptical about the current state of affairs. “As a policy statement, it’s ludicrous to say that the US can effectively donate a nuclear program to the UK but have no influence on how it is used,” says Ted Seay, senior policy consultant at the London-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), who spent three years as part of the US Mission to NATO.

Advertisement

20 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What a load of codswallop,  The SSBN's are based at Faslane  and the warheads at RNAD Coulport, both in Scotland.

The Trident missiles are rotated between the US/UK and maintained in the US but the Warheads are built, stored and maintained in the UK!

 

"One of the most common myths around the system is that the United States has control over the UK’s Trident missile system, that is not the case.

It’s often said that the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system is not ‘independent’ or that the UK doesn’t have the ability to use the system without the US agreeing to it, in reality the UK does retain full operational control over the system.

One common argument is that the US can simply ‘turn off’ the GPS system and therefore can stop the UK using Trident, this is also a myth, Trident isn’t guided by satellite."

 

No, America doesn’t control Britain’s nuclear weapons

 

 

You'll believe anything, gullible be thy middle name. By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? 

Is this another example of you gibbering a lot of drivel? If you seriously believe that the UK retains independent first strike status on our leased Trident's there's something wrong with your head. 

And as was clearly pointed out when the deal was signed, "we've just signed up for a £100 billion Trident commitment and we don't even own the weapons." 

No one had the bottle to say - "oh, and we can't use them without permission too." 

I suggest members read this article from Politico which explains "when an independent nuclear deterrent isn't and independent nuclear deterrent." 

And don't listen to the village idiot........from the article

"But there is one simple question that nobody is asking. When is an independent nuclear deterrent not an independent nuclear deterrent?

To many experts, the answer is all too obvious: when the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines depend on Washington, and when the nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam................

The report makes for striking reading. The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming. And since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.

A huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly by Washington, and much of the technology that Britain produces itself is taken from US designs (the four UK Trident submarines themselves are copies of America’s Ohio-class Trident submersibles)."

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

I'm genuinely shocked and often entertained at the level of stupidity some posters on this forum display. 

I lay short odds that 99% of you didn't know we lease our nukes. There was a major political row a few years when the bill for the upgrade was presented. 

I suggest some of your study Denis Healy and Harold Wilson's attitude in this matter - they knew they couldn't sell a deal to the British public where they had to admit we were paying but had to ask permission to use the weapons. As Wilson famously said "you don't kick your creditor in the balls." 

In that matter he was referring to the Vietnam War, but he knew the servile relationship we had to the USA after the war. Anyone who watched Tony Blair's world tour of obsequiousness on the lead up to the Iraq War knows that.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68357294#:~:text=It cost £12.52bn,renew the Trident submarine fleet.

Idiots at it again. 

The social security system is operating on a 1970's computing framework. Musk knows all about default dates etc

He is driving towards modernising the system and deleting obsolete SSN's.

There is no doubt there is fraud. One woman was jailed for claiming her mother's pension for 48 years after her death. 48 years. Unbelievable. 

All numbers should auto deleted at 120 years. I think states should be checking "proof of life" at 100. It doesn't need to be intrusive. Literally a visit from a state official with a Presidential birthday card. We send out Royal birthday greetings to everyone who turns 100 in the UK. 

It's a nice touch but useful. 

Analyst says that Kavanaugh also wants District Court judges to be stripped of the ability to issue national injunctions.

37 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So that absolves yourself from that label.

Worthless.

The interesting part to that is that all district courts are allocated to circuits, so when Congress ordained district courts all were responsible to their circuit appellate court. 

Said Appeals court ruled on disputes within their circuit. 

Where is it mentioned that district courts were ordained with national powers when it's clear they were all ordained as circuit courts? 

Interesting one here - in 1996 Congress took for granted that District Courts had the power of national injunction. 

Took for granted!!! 

Congress did not grant. 

Article III "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." 

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=lawreview