/Featured Quiz4 October - Weekly Featured Quiz - General Knowledge

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How does criticizing the Russian actions bears on doing the same with regard to IS? Considering you yourself actually use the same argumentation with regard to other issues, the above seems like yet another display of disingenuousness.

You miss my point that Kerry only bleats on about the Russians and ignores all the other bad stuff happening around the world. By all means criticise Russia for what they did, but lets also hear about the other bad countries.

[thaibeachlovers]

26 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps he bleats on about Syria because it's the worst humanitarian disaster since WW2?  Kinda makes sense.  Russia has killed more civilians in Syria than IS has! So yes, he's got a right to be critical.  Hard for him to do anything about it when Russia vetoes every UN SC resolution regarding Syria.  Place the blame properly.

worst humanitarian disaster since WW2?

Doubt that.

Vietnam would be my choice with agent orange, the gift that keeps on giving, plus the adjacent calamities of Cambodia and Laos.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

Russia wouldn't have to kill civilians if the USA shared intelligence with them instead of trying to hide the extremists'/rebels trainded by them, locations  

Or perhaps Russia could share it's intelligence with the US instead of bombing innocent civilians?

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

worst humanitarian disaster since WW2?

Doubt that.

Vietnam would be my choice with agent orange, the gift that keeps on giving, plus the adjacent calamities of Cambodia and Laos.

Nothing compared to Vietnam.  There are many disasters way worse than that.

 

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/2015/03/syrian-people-are-victims-of-worst-humanitarian-crisis-of-our-time/#.WFzMJ32jv9A

Quote

Syrian people are victims of "worst humanitarian crisis of our time"

 

[Morch]

59 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

Russia wouldn't have to kill civilians if the USA shared intelligence with them instead of trying to hide the extremists'/rebels trainded by them, locations  

 

Russia doesn't "have to" kill civilians. It's a choice. Trying to pin it on the US is absurd. The two countries do not have a great history of "sharing intelligence", why would the onus to change this be on the US? And what good will this supposed intelligence do when the Russian airstrikes rely on usage of unguided munitions, or with Assad's forces use of barrel bombs? As for the US "trying to hide" extremists - either making things up or parroting Russian propaganda.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You miss my point that Kerry only bleats on about the Russians and ignores all the other bad stuff happening around the world. By all means criticise Russia for what they did, but lets also hear about the other bad countries.

 

Didn't miss anything, but thanks for highlighting my point. Seeing as you often subscribe to Kerry's supposed MO (bleating on one issue while ignoring the other bad stuff happening around the world), when it comes to another conflict - seems disingenuous to whine when he does it. By the way, the usual comment made when this is pointed out is that the topic is about a certain country, or a certain conflict - so to burrow from that wisdom, this topic is about Syria. Just sayin'.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Nothing compared to Vietnam.  There are many disasters way worse than that.

 

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/2015/03/syrian-people-are-victims-of-worst-humanitarian-crisis-of-our-time/#.WFzMJ32jv9A

 

So because the UN say so it must be true?

I have made my view on that space wasting organisation known before, and the time to do something about it was when Obama drew his line in the sand.

Just throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it, but that is the UN's solution.

There are going to be no winners from this one except the arms manufacturers, and the west would do well to stay out of it, especially as this is probably the only disaster they didn't cause. The ideal countries to "do something" about it, IMO, would be the neighbouring ones, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Certainly, IMO, crusader nations should leave it to the Muslim nations to "fix".

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Didn't miss anything, but thanks for highlighting my point. Seeing as you often subscribe to Kerry's supposed MO (bleating on one issue while ignoring the other bad stuff happening around the world), when it comes to another conflict - seems disingenuous to whine when he does it. By the way, the usual comment made when this is pointed out is that the topic is about a certain country, or a certain conflict - so to burrow from that wisdom, this topic is about Syria. Just sayin'.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So because the UN say so it must be true?

I have made my view on that space wasting organisation known before, and the time to do something about it was when Obama drew his line in the sand.

Just throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it, but that is the UN's solution.

There are going to be no winners from this one except the arms manufacturers, and the west would do well to stay out of it, especially as this is probably the only disaster they didn't cause. The ideal countries to "do something" about it, IMO, would be the neighbouring ones, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Certainly, IMO, crusader nations should leave it to the Muslim nations to "fix".

There are definitely winners in this mess.  Assad and Putin.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html

 

Quote

 

Syria's war: A showroom for Russian arms sales

Moscow's arms exports hit a record $14.5bn in 2015 with orders surging to $56bn, according to President Putin.

 

 

[deathmule]

18 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Or perhaps Russia could share it's intelligence with the US instead of bombing innocent civilians?

 

When you're pushing for a strategic advantage you need to push it.

 

Now Russia was kind enough (If they were the villains they would have bombed without asking anything, no?) to ask the US about the locations of the "rebels" and the extremists. US had the intel but refused to share it with Russia. US refused to share intel in hope that Russia will not proceed to take the advantage.

 

Russia needed to obtain the strategic advantage. Russia bombed everything 

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

When you're pushing for a strategic advantage you need to push it.

 

Now Russia was kind enough (If they were the villains they would have bombed without asking anything, no?) to ask the US about the locations of the "rebels" and the extremists. US had the intel but refused to share it with Russia. US refused to share intel in hope that Russia will not proceed to take the advantage.

 

Russia needed to obtain the strategic advantage. Russia bombed everything 

Your last statement says everything.  Russia didn't care about innocent civilians.  They used crude bombs that indiscriminately killed everybody nearby.  They just didn't care.  That's been proven.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Stay on topic. 

[deathmule]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Your last statement says everything.  Russia didn't care about innocent civilians.  They used crude bombs that indiscriminately killed everybody nearby.  They just didn't care.  That's been proven.

 

My last statement doesn't say anything without the rest of the post

[Morch]

4 hours ago, deathmule said:

 

When you're pushing for a strategic advantage you need to push it.

 

Now Russia was kind enough (If they were the villains they would have bombed without asking anything, no?) to ask the US about the locations of the "rebels" and the extremists. US had the intel but refused to share it with Russia. US refused to share intel in hope that Russia will not proceed to take the advantage.

 

Russia needed to obtain the strategic advantage. Russia bombed everything 

 

The above is a Russian propaganda fairy tale. You do not know that the US had such precise intelligence. You do not account for the reasons why intelligence would not be shared with a rival power, nor for the manner in which the Russian airstrikes are carried out.

 

Why would the US be obligated to support Russia's strategic ambitions? 

[deathmule]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The above is a Russian propaganda fairy tale. You do not know that the US had such precise intelligence. You do not account for the reasons why intelligence would not be shared with a rival power, nor for the manner in which the Russian airstrikes are carried out.

 

Why would the US be obligated to support Russia's strategic ambitions? 

 

1. Really? Why then they said they may share intel and army and then flipped it? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/u-s-share-military-intelligence-plans-russia-syria-article-1.2727299
2. Because they were supposed to work together against terrorism (ISIL/Al Nussra/Extremists) 

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

1. Really? Why then they said they may share intel and army and then flipped it? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/u-s-share-military-intelligence-plans-russia-syria-article-1.2727299
2. Because they were supposed to work together against terrorism (ISIL/Al Nussra/Extremists) 

It was flipped because Russia backed out of the peace talks.  And you know Assad and Russia were never in this to only battle ISIL.

[deathmule]

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

It was flipped because Russia backed out of the peace talks.  And you know Assad and Russia were never in this to only battle ISIL.

 

Of course not. Assad and Russia were working together to protect the Syrian government.

 

USA and Russia were "working together" to fight ISIL and all the other terrorist groups

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

Of course not. Assad and Russia were working together to protect the Syrian government.

 

USA and Russia were "working together" to fight ISIL and all the other terrorist groups

Agreed!  They were protecting the brutal regime of Assad and didn't care about the population.  That much is obvious. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, deathmule said:

 

1. Really? Why then they said they may share intel and army and then flipped it? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/u-s-share-military-intelligence-plans-russia-syria-article-1.2727299
2. Because they were supposed to work together against terrorism (ISIL/Al Nussra/Extremists) 

 

4 hours ago, deathmule said:

 

Of course not. Assad and Russia were working together to protect the Syrian government.

 

USA and Russia were "working together" to fight ISIL and all the other terrorist groups

 

You keep on making up answers and motivations. Nothing is ever to do with Russia's actions, nothing is ever to do with Assad's actions. It's all about the US.

[IMA_FARANG]

A long sad story.

People dieing and many countries only carring about their profits and ttheir own self interest first.

That includes the U.S.,the U.K. the EU,  and Russia, as well many international businesses who value  profits more than human beings.

Profits before people......always the choice of international Capitalism worldwide.

So it goes.

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

A long sad story.

People dieing and many countries only carring about their profits and ttheir own self interest first.

That includes the U.S.,the U.K. the EU,  and Russia, as well many international businesses who value  profits more than human beings.

Profits before people......always the choice of international Capitalism worldwide.

So it goes.

 

 

Not 100% true.  The US, UK and the EU have rules about sales and use of weapons.  Scrutinized by the public.  Russia and China do not.  Examples are Thailand where military relations have been drastically reduced by the former, but moved forward with the latter.  The latter starting up weapons manufacturing here.