Jump to content

SURVEY: Is Russia the enemy?


Scott

SURVEY: Is Russia the enemy?  

283 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What your report misses out is what happened just before they, "quietly deployed advanced anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-air missiles", which was the US buzzing their lighthouse construction with nuclear capable bombers, it would be extraordinarily biased to attempt to pretend that China deployed defences on the island without prior provocation.

 

The provocation is the Chinese setting up them islands/bases, and their ongoing presence there. But again, topic is about Russia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm always amazed that so few recognise this, and can only assume that some feel somehow 'safer' believing any tripe 'sold' to them by their govts.? Edit - even though said tripe is an 'about face' to previous preferences!

 

'1984' springs to mind.... but obviously those believing all the propaganda are too intelligent to fall for such tactics....

 

Only problem with this is the relative consistency of Russia being perceived as an adversary to the West.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I agree in general terms.But  that Governments   "don't lie in order to  protect" I can  not  agree. ( And  yes,  I do understand  the  context/ wording intended).

The   vested interests  of those   motivated  to  attain  political influence I perceive as  being  more interested  in protection of their  own interests . 

How  many  Shepherds   don't  eat   mutton ? 

Actually I was being sarcastic when i wrote that politicians lie to protect us, so I think we are well aligned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

winston churchill summed it up nicely

It seems unlikely to me that he was thinking of Brexiteer leadership when he wrote "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But who am I to disagree with you?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggest threat to world peace is USA, NATO and all it's allies ... empire building is always a threat to world peace until history shows the empire crumbles which has already started happening to today's empire builder

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

The good Dr Samuel Johnson was certainly not thinking of Brexit when he uttered that line-which was duly recorded by James Boswell.However there is no doubt that he was commenting on Jonathan Swift's description of the everlasting wars between "big endians" and "little endians" (Gulliver's Travels) and the profits that can be made in such seemingly pointless conflicts.

 

I should have known it was too good to be true. But your explanation that he was commenting on Swift's work is extremely dubious. Johnson's attention was very much engaged by the politics of his day. It's fare more likely that he was commenting on the deeds of some politician. Perhaps one who backed the revolutionaries in North America. 

EDIT: I found this in Wikipedia. 

"On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."[8] This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" self-professed patrioI .[9]"

 

I can't vouch for the source but it does seem to be more likely to be the case.

Edited by bristolboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woman dies after being exposed to Soviet-era nerve agent, UK authorities say

 

They killed another one. Lovely Russians. 

 

The woman, identified by police as Dawn Sturgess, 44, was exposed to Novichok last week after handling a contaminated item. The same nerve agent was used to poison former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in March.

"This is shocking and tragic news. Dawn leaves behind her family, including three children, and our thoughts and prayers are with them at this extremely difficult time," Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, head of UK Counter Terrorism policing, said Sunday.

poison180704180650-amesbury-victims-charles-rowley-dawn-sturgess-medium-plus-169.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The provocation is the Chinese setting up them islands/bases, and their ongoing presence there. But again, topic is about Russia.

 

No, they were building a lighthouse and then the US buzzed them with nuclear bombers, that is the provocation.  Following that they installed temporary guns on beach mounted on vehicles, and the US responded to sending a flotilla, and it was then that they started putting permanent defense on them.  

 

Even faced with the fact that all the dates posted were after the US provocation you still want to claim that it was China who was provocative, that is entirely without evidence, its just a random claim.

 

And China has had a presence in the area for thousands of years, I note that China is the only country you are criticizing in the Spratly's, that you do not take issue with any of the other military bases on the other islands, not even those built by the Americans, how ridiculously biased of you.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

I should have known it was too good to be true. But your explanation that he was commenting on Swift's work is extremely dubious. Johnson's attention was very much engaged by the politics of his day. It's fare more likely that he was commenting on the deeds of some politician. Perhaps one who backed the revolutionaries in North America. 

EDIT: I found this in Wikipedia. 

"On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."[8] This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" self-professed patrioI .[9]"

 

I can't vouch for the source but it does seem to be more likely to be the case.

Sorry Bristol Boy-I didn't have a clue about who Sam Johnson was referring to-I was being sarcastic as I tend to be in agreement with Dean Swift's description of the irrationality of wars between "big endians" and "little endians" and how easily such patriotic fervour can be aroused, no matter at which end you crack your egg.

 

My apologies for digressing from the topic.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

I should have known it was too good to be true. But your explanation that he was commenting on Swift's work is extremely dubious. Johnson's attention was very much engaged by the politics of his day. It's fare more likely that he was commenting on the deeds of some politician. Perhaps one who backed the revolutionaries in North America. 

EDIT: I found this in Wikipedia. 

"On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."[8] This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" self-professed patrioI .[9]"

 

I can't vouch for the source but it does seem to be more likely to be the case.

Or

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

    A variation on quote attributed to Huey Long.

 

Anyway, no point  engagning in any "poll" from the SVR SF ,  when they can't spelll "insidious" correctly 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

The good Dr Samuel Johnson was certainly not thinking of Brexit when he uttered that line-which was duly recorded by James Boswell.However there is no doubt that he was commenting on Jonathan Swift's description of the everlasting wars between "big endians" and "little endians" (Gulliver's Travels) and the profits that can be made in such seemingly pointless conflicts.

 

What gave you the impression that he was commenting on Gulliver's Travels?  Why would he be commenting on a satire of a subject they were discussing instead of the actual subject itself?  Makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

Sorry Bristol Boy-I didn't have a clue about who Sam Johnson was referring to-I was being sarcastic as I tend to be in agreement with Dean Swift's description of the irrationality of wars between "big endians" and "little endians" and how easily such patriotic fervour can be aroused, no matter at which end you crack your egg.

 

My apologies for digressing from the topic.

 

 

On the contrary,  I owe you. You corrected an error of mine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very strange to read about your country (Russia) as an enemy. It is sad.

My country is regularly attacked from many sides, but this is normal. Our economy is on the rise. The country becomes richer and stronger. But any new geopolitical competitor is bad for the United States. When Russia was weak (20-30 years ago), everyone was happy. The Russians were also pleased, until they realized that they had been deceived. Yes, now we have a tough leader, but it was he who made Russia strong.

Russia stands for dialogue, and equal partner relations, and any tricks, deceit and forgery is about the US and EU. Of course, Russia is also cunning, but within the law.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maltsovsky said:

It is very strange to read about your country (Russia) as an enemy. It is sad.

My country is regularly attacked from many sides, but this is normal. Our economy is on the rise. The country becomes richer and stronger. But any new geopolitical competitor is bad for the United States. When Russia was weak (20-30 years ago), everyone was happy. The Russians were also pleased, until they realized that they had been deceived. Yes, now we have a tough leader, but it was he who made Russia strong.

Russia stands for dialogue, and equal partner relations, and any tricks, deceit and forgery is about the US and EU. Of course, Russia is also cunning, but within the law.

The law of the jungle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maltsovsky said:

It is very strange to read about your country (Russia) as an enemy. It is sad.

My country is regularly attacked from many sides, but this is normal. Our economy is on the rise. The country becomes richer and stronger. But any new geopolitical competitor is bad for the United States. When Russia was weak (20-30 years ago), everyone was happy. The Russians were also pleased, until they realized that they had been deceived. Yes, now we have a tough leader, but it was he who made Russia strong.

Russia stands for dialogue, and equal partner relations, and any tricks, deceit and forgery is about the US and EU. Of course, Russia is also cunning, but within the law.

Yes. Russia is doing great. The government just raised the age for pension eligibility because its economy is strengthening?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2018 at 7:50 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

It all depends on who is believing what propaganda. 

 

 

Out of curiosity:

 

How often do you tune into RT or visit their website?

 

I had to think for a moment there!  Presumably RT is something along the lines of russia today?

 

The answer is - NEVER.

 

Why on earth would anyone "tune into RT or visit their website" (assuming my guess is correct)?  We have enough propaganda from our own countries to sift through, without looking into other countries' propaganda!

Edited by dick dasterdly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2018 at 5:52 PM, dick dasterdly said:

I'm always amazed that so few recognise this, and can only assume that some feel somehow 'safer' believing any tripe 'sold' to them by their govts.? Edit - even though said tripe is an 'about face' to previous preferences!

 

'1984' springs to mind.... but obviously those believing all the propaganda are too intelligent to fall for such tactics....

 

On 7/8/2018 at 8:54 PM, Morch said:

 

You seem to embrace one set of propaganda narrative, while (lamely) trying to discredit another. How's that much different then what you criticize?

How on earth did you come to this conclusion from ANY of my posts?? ?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I answered they are innocent and used as scape goats , I am talking about the Russian population, not the corrupted politicians that I do not support. And I do not support regimes.  

 

But you have to look at their history , everything from Stalin and up to our time. Russians want to feel safe , their generation still remember the living conditions they had to survive in the 70's and 80's .  Everything changed for the better in the 90's and after Putin took over.  We are talking about a big population here, be friendly with them, we don't want to go back to a cold war . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cunning is apparently the current Russian propaganda code word to rationalize invading sovereign nations and claiming their land using illegal fake elections. It's nice we have the official Putin regime talking points here. Saves the click to go to them directly.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Cunning is apparently the current Russian propaganda code word to rationalize invading sovereign nations and claiming their land using illegal fake elections. It's nice we have the official Putin regime talking points here. Saves the click to go to them directly.

You have not answered my questions, are not ready to discuss, you are not inside this situation, are not objective. But you boldly accuse.

I do not defend Putin. I do not defend our government. But you can not be objective. It is sad. ?


 

Ask the Crimean population about fake elections. They will not understand you. You imagine Russia a militaristic, totalitarian country. As much as you do not want to believe it, it's not.
Watch a video about hundreds of thousands of Crimeans during a referendum. Look at them now. It was their choice.


I do not deny that Russia helped to make a referendum, and that this was the will of Russia (the Crimea would not have the political power to do so), but nevertheless no one forced the people to vote. Have you ever been in Crimea? If not, then I invite you there. Look at how people live. Ask them about the referendum. Ask about "Russian aggression".
 

There are Crimeans dissatisfied with entering Russia, but this is normal. There are very few of them, but different opinions are good.
 

Notice. If Russia "seized" the Crimea, then why is the population silent about this? Where are the riots, protests and insurrections? Diversions?

OK. Russian troops are threatening the population, so everyone is silent (probably, you think so). Look at the reaction of the West. Why did they impose sanctions against the Crimea? If Crimean victims, why do they isolate them from the whole world like North Korea? Despite the status of the Crimea (now it is part of Russia) there live people who need help. But the West only limited the Crimea. Now Crimeans are negative towards the west. Did they expect that the Crimeans would love Europe and the United States for pressure on them?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crimeans did not have the legal right to make that choice because they were NOT a separate county from Ukraine. It would have only been legal if the matter was addressed by the national government of Ukraine. You know that too but you try to obscure that. Most people aren't that stupid to buy into that game no matter how hard you try to shower them with Putin talking points. I get it though. These kinds of Putin talking points are being used on "trump" and he's too gullible and ignorant to not buy them. The dufus actually suggested what happened in Crimea was OK because they speak Russian. There are many U.S. counties that mostly speak Spanish. I suppose it would be OK for them to vote to remove themselves from the USA. I wouldn't blame them for wanting that, but they shouldn't be able to. 

Also, dude, do not even bother trying to bait me into your cunning game of demanding I answer your questions.

Try that on someone else that doesn't see your talking points as pure Putin propaganda. 

Edited by Jingthing
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, balo said:

I answered they are innocent and used as scape goats , I am talking about the Russian population, not the corrupted politicians that I do not support. And I do not support regimes.  

 

But you have to look at their history , everything from Stalin and up to our time. Russians want to feel safe , their generation still remember the living conditions they had to survive in the 70's and 80's .  Everything changed for the better in the 90's and after Putin took over.  We are talking about a big population here, be friendly with them, we don't want to go back to a cold war . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"we don't want to go back to a cold war"

But the US sure does.

For two reasons-the first being their primitive dualistic notions of the world as they are are more comfortable with this notion than any other.

The second being is that there is money in them thar guns..lots and lots of glorious money..world without end..glorious money...

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Crimeans did not have the legal right to make that choice because they were NOT a separate county from Ukraine. It would have only been legal if the matter was addressed by the national government of Ukraine. You know that too but you try to obscure that. Most people aren't that stupid to buy into that game no matter how hard you try to shower them with Putin talking points. I get it though. These kinds of Putin talking points are being used on "trump" and he's too gullible and ignorant to not buy them. The dufus actually suggested what happened in Crimea was OK because they speak Russian. There are many U.S. counties that mostly speak Spanish. I suppose it would be OK for them to vote to remove themselves from the USA. I wouldn't blame them for wanting that, but they shouldn't be able to. 

Also, dude, do not even bother trying to bait me into your cunning game of demanding I answer your questions.

Try that on someone else that doesn't see your talking points as pure Putin propaganda.  

Crimea was an autonomous republic in Ukraine.
+ Study the UN charter and the 1970 declaration.


Why was Kosovo recognized by the world community?
Why Crimea does not recognize?


I agree with you that the referendum must be recognized by the government, but what if the government is absent? (The legitimate government is overthrown, oligarchs come to power, which at that time are not the power.) In fact, the country is in chaos, anarchy.
Unfortunately, this case is not described in the constitution.


If we say that a referendum should be considered by the government, then we must say that the violent overthrow of power is also illegal. I would say so - the overthrow is illegal, the new government is illegal, the referendum is illegal, the Crimea's joining Russia is illegal. It was necessary to solve the problem peacefully. Do you agree?

That's a moot point. He does not have an unambiguous answer. Everyone has violated laws and regulations. Everyone is to blame. Russia, Ukraine and the United Nations. Now we need to come to a truce.


P.S. In my opinion you are obsessed with Russian aggression and Putin. It seems to you everywhere. I'm not trying to convince you. I tried to understand your point of view. And I'm not trying to fool you. But you blame me. Thus, discussions are not conducted. Stupid and insidious, you (probably) think me, the Russians and Putin. It is your right.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...
""