Morch

@Thorgal

Rubbish. Both with regard to your made up conditions on what constitutes a violation , and the mode in which things were actually addressed on this front.

Signatories to the NPT accept restrictions regarding efforts to acquire or develop related capabilities. It is only in your mind that the agreement becomes relevant only after it is breached. Further, the "NPT council" dreamed up, is actually the IAEA, which forwards its conclusions to the UNSC. Somehow, both failed to see things as prescribed in your post:

Quote

For nearly three years, Syria refused the IAEA requests for further information on or access to the Dair Alzour site. On 24 May 2011, IAEA Director General Amano released a report concluding that the destroyed building was "very likely" a nuclear reactor, which Syria was required to declare under its NPT safeguards agreement. On 9 June 2011, the IAEA Board of Governors found that this constituted non-compliance, and reported that non-compliance to the UN Security Council. The vote was 17–6, with 11 abstentions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA_non-compliance_finding

41 minutes ago, midas said:

 

since when has Israel taken any notice of what the UN says ?

But obviously no issues with Syria, an NPT signatory, violating terms.

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

When you say credible answer, it was delivered in the typically withering Morch style which automatically, at least in my book, triggers a defensive reaction. But hey, I am always willing to learn more about the increasingly complex and interconnected world around me so thank you for bringing that additional perspective to the discussion.

Your personal issues aside, still not much of a relevant, on-topic response. The very same links were posted on earlier posts, by the way.

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Your regular tactic of bandying about accusations of deflection as a means of trying to reduce the value of the contribution of those whom you challenge is getting somewhat tiresome. My comment was in the context of his not having a credible opponent in the race. Now nitpick about language all you wish; it makes my contribution no less correct.

 

 

So basically, you've got nothing of substance to add, but go for (nonexistent) "nitpicking" to counter "deflection". Got to love the waffle about "tactic". You raised a question, got a credible answer which doesn't sit well with your views, and to which you find difficult to address using your premise - hence sulking. Once more, as was posted earlier:

'Traitors will kick the bucket' — watch Vladimir Putin's chilling warning to spies who betray Russia

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-threatened-russian-traitors-the-year-sergei-skripal-went-to-uk-2018-3

Voter turnout key for Kremlin as Russia heads to polls to hand Putin 4th presidential term

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/voter-turnout-key-kremlin-russia-heads-polls-hand-putin-4th-n857606

Putin cruises to victory in Russia, tells supporters: ‘Success awaits us!’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-scrambles-to-get-voters-to-polls-to-legitimize-election-ahead-of-expected-putin-landslide/2018/03/18/f8d31426-2963-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.a417afa4e7fd

Russia Credits the West for Putin’s Big Victory

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/world/europe/russia-putin-vote-president.html

7 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Not to mention that this is the same "whistle blower" that was fired from that place for trying to blackmail MZ into giving him a job at FB.

Would love to see documented proof that these slogans existed in 2014 even though nobody ever heard of them until 2016.

"Would love to see documented proof that these slogans existed in 2014 even though nobody ever heard of them until 2016."

16 minutes ago, DM07 said:

...ahm...so..."the West" was not involved in these conflicts (little question: who's weapons are the Saudis using and who made a truck- load of money with selling them to the Saudis?) and that means, these are -to quote Douglas Adams- "other peoples problems"?

Got it!

Does the words "proxy war" mean anything to you?

Facts!

Make you feel so much better about yourself!

Stop trolling. I never said that the West was "not involved". There are different levels and modes of involvement. There are different levels of responsibility. Lumping it all together, ignoring the major role played by other parties, and pasting it all on child's photo is about as serious as the "argument" gets.

Similarly, there wasn't anything said about weapons not being sold to Saudi Arabia. Quite the opposite, on a parallel topic. As far as I'm aware, though, there is no real influx of Yemenite refugees to Europe. Kindly consult the OP for reference on context, as this isn't a general bash-all-you-can topic (I hope).

@zaphod reborn

Them munitions withheld by the Obama administration represented a small part of overall US military support and arms provisions during Obama's terms in office. It is not as if all deals were canceled, all assistance and support cut off.

If Kushner did, in fact, get such a loan based on his involvement, it was not because of "reversing" the Obama administration's partial ban - but for promoting the lion's share of the deal. Your are conflating between two elements of this story.

51 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, if Beijing attacks South Korea or Japan, in that case, yes, NATO should step in, and defend those countries. If Beijing attacks Taiwan, why should NATO step in ?

I can very easily say that I don't recognise the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a nation or country. That's because they don't have an embassy in London. So, Beijing attacking Taiwan is the same as Beijing attacking whatever place in mainland China.  South Korea and Japan do have embassies in London, that's why Beijing attacking South Korea or Japan IS an invasion.

I really do feel that, if Washington wants to fight a war against Russia, because it feels that Russia is a threat to America, well, let's think about that. Washington fighting a war against Islam, because it believes that Islam is a threat to America, well, I'm not sure. As for Washington fighting a war against China, because a load of Chinese in Taiwan want to switch from de facto independence to official independence, well, what can I say ? How about tell Taiwan to not declare official independence ? And tell them that, IF they declare it, NATO will not get involved if or when Beijing attacks them. That should be enough to stop the Republic of China (Taiwan) declaring their independence officially.

I don't know that NATO got anything to do with anything. Some NATO members may.

That you don't recognize Taiwan as this or that it pretty much meaningless. The fact stands that some countries do, and that some (such as the US), even have standing agreements/pacts/laws/whatever with Taiwan pertaining to defense issues. So once again, other than inane deflections and obfuscations, not much of substance.

The rest of your post is the usual mumbo jumbo going on about "Washington" and your warped (not to say PRC aligned) propaganda take on what it's policies ought to be.

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Here are some facts for you: Syrian cities are reduced to rubble in many places, Yemen is facing starvation!

But sure: some people mooching of some welfare and that is way more important then "faux moralizing"!

Save the moralizing and drama. Try reading my posts again. In context. Most of  the damage inflicted on Syria was not meted by Western countries. Yemen's war is with Saudi Arabia. While I understand that some feel that "the West" should be held accountable for pretty much anything and everything, it does not necessarily amount to a convincing argument. The faux moralizing doesn't help much either.

1 minute ago, DM07 said:

Yeah...and who wants emotions or empathy getting in the way, when it comes to "them"...not us!

Yeah....why bother with facts, context, nuance and all them other things that stand in the way of a perfectly good meme. Or faux moralizing.

@zaphod reborn

The only fake here is your misrepresentation of what I've posted. There wasn't anything said about Trump not selling arms to Saudi Arabia, or Kushner not traveling there.

Apparently, you don't even bother reading the links you put up:

Quote

In 2016, the Obama administration proposed a series of arms deals worth $115 billion, including warships, helicopters, and maintenance

Depending on which bit quoted, it's quite easy to spin this along partisan lines. The fact stands that US arms sales to Saudi Arabia are nothing new.

15 minutes ago, mwbrown said:

Funny, Israel refuses to declare their own nuclear weapons program.  Sounds like somebody should fly in and bomb that to smithereens.

If hostile neighboring countries could, they would. Perhaps. Then again, hitting an active reactor is not quite the same as hitting a "cold" one.

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Maybe. If you recall, whilst attempts were made to reduce damage, the destruction in places such as Mosul from airstrikes by the coalition, called in by Iraqi forces was enormous. You may recall airstrikes in Mosul were wound back for a while due to concerns about the number of civilian deaths. Not being a relative expert on combat as you, I would assume similar scenarios occurred across all areas of fighting against Islamist forces.

I'm not denying there were civilian casualties in such airstrikes. Even many of them. I'm just not convinced that the suggested narrative making them a major factor with regard to the refugee crisis is correct. People were fleeing much earlier than that, and them large refugee camps in neighboring countries were set up and (over) populated by then.

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Not sure this is even close to being factually correct, but these "arms deals" are difficult to track, and typically just consist of letters of interest, or letters of intent, with no real contracts to back them up.

 

Yes, believe the Obama administration was involved in a $115B "intent" circa 2016, which was subsequently slow-rolled/stalled after SA's Yemen incursion. Of course, Congress also has to approve these arms deals. Ultimately not much actual kit, if any, was ever shipped on this "intent".

 

Subsequently, Trump/Jared did wring out $350B in letters of interest on their SA trip  (The Glowing Orb Tour). As of yesterday, this is being represented as a $200B "intent". Jared has been working hard to close some sort of deal, and has been pressuring contractors to offer more favorable pricing. I'm not sure any contracts have been signed, or orders issued, or anything approved by Congress yet?

 

 

Obviously, there's been some personnel turnover on the SA side recently.

Arms deals of this scope, or even lesser ones, take months if not years to iron out and finalize. If you imagine that the Trump administration was able to sort all them details in the time frame available since inauguration - that's quite a departure from your usual take on things.

Arms deals between countries, and involving large firms/main battle systems are not "difficult to track", quite the opposite.

As for the nothing was shipped deflection - may want to dig a bit and check how much of the items supposedly included in the "deal" Trump signed were actually delivered. It's a slow process, takes years to come through. Some of this stuff will arrive in SA (if, that is...) during the next administration's term.

From all of the above, not sure what's the party line, then? That Trump sold arms to the evil Saudis? Or that he just brags about a "deal" that's not 100% on yet? That Obama's administration wasn't involved in such arms sales?

1 hour ago, Credo said:

 

You might want to cast your net a little wider.   The following countries have been involved in Syria:   UK, France, USA, and weapons supplied from Croatia.   

You might want to more accurately define "involved", or try addressing the lack of migrants/refugees making their way to other countries, even more "involved" in the Syrian Civil War.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We've been hearing very little about migrants in the Med recently. Is that because they have reduced in number, or because it's no longer "newsworthy"?

 

I'm wondering if the measures taken by some countries have worked, to the point that economic migrants have realised that paying smugglers to take them to Europe is no longer a ticket to Germany, or further north, and they'll just end up rotting in Italy or Greece, unable to travel onwards.

Was winter time in the Mediterranean, expect flow would be up as weather improves. Also, while fighting still goes on in Syria, it is more localized now, so perhaps a contributing factor. And there were reports about EU efforts tackling issues in North Africa, rather than waiting for people arriving on boats.

2 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

Arms shipments as a reward for arresting and imprisoning Prince Al-Waleed, CitiBank's largest shareholder, so that CitiBank would extend a $325 million loan to Jared to bail him out of his 666 5th Avenue blunder.  Bin Salmaan was duly rewarded by Trump for acting like a Russian mobster in extorting Al-Waleed.

 

 

Many of the related arms deals (if not most) originated and were already in the works during Obama's term. We've been through that on previous topics.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Who's point? Certainly not mine, as I made no prediction of voter turn-out or vote split. I merely stated that there was no realistic scenario where he would not win.

Keep deflecting. Or, alternatively, read previous replies and links supplied. And just to remind - "...why would he need to manufacture a foreign outrage to boost his popularity?" - your words.

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

You seem to be confusing turnout with distribution. Gosposha Pamfilova credits the turn-out on the outrage, but not the win itself.

 

As the artice makes clear, the entire election campaign was lacklustre, with no opposition figure emerging as a serious contender. Therefore, I am quite confident in my statement that there was little doubt that he was going to win.

Deflect all you like. The point was rather about voter turnout and implied greater legitimization. Was made also on the previous post. It's not about whether Putin would have won or lost, but on how "big".

On 3/19/2018 at 12:47 PM, RuamRudy said:

How stupid must these elites be if the need reminding every couple of years? Before this incident, was there anyone in any doubt that to mess with Putin was a serious mistake?

 

There was little doubt that Putin would win the election - why would he need to manufacture a foreign outrage to boost his popularity? ll the other issues you raise are neither new or particularly unknown so I see no need for Putin to create a diversion. It did, however, come at a very difficult time for the UK government, and allowed attention to be diverted from the ongoing omnishambles that is Brexit.

 

Nobody is talking in the UK about the likelilhood of open access to UK fishing territories or free, unrestricted borders, both subjects which were swamped in the news by spy attacks. Similarly, last week the government voted to scrap free school meals for 1 million disadvantaged primary school kids in England but to protect them in Northern Ireland - again, no discussion because of spies.

"There was little doubt that Putin would win the election - why would he need to manufacture a foreign outrage to boost his popularity?"

Here's another. Guess some Russian officials just didn't get your memo, or failed to check the talking point list:

Russia Credits the West for Putin’s Big Victory

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/world/europe/russia-putin-vote-president.html

The timing "may" also have something to do with both the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister at the time (Olmert and Bark, respectively) publishing (or about to publish) their autobiographies. The operation is one of them things fueling their long standing animosity.

7 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Let the Chinese have their war. The important thing is, is that NATO stays out of it.

The new talking point - let the PRC do whatever it likes, place restrictions only on the West.