Fair enough. He's making points poorly and trying to use sources to back his argument. The UN council video on page 1 is a worthy, if a long and quite one sided, watch, but many of the later sources cited are dubious to put it mildly. He's been confrontational and the Hilary wants war post is a bit silly...but that doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist, nor invalidate the central point that he's obviously trying to make.
Are Russia preparing for WW3?
- Thread starter MoBeats
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It was more than just this thread that got him labeled a conspiracy theorist.
Ah, this I did not know. I've no idea why I'm defending him anyway. It's this sort of behaviour that gets me punched for the actions of complete strangers. I never learn.
Veiled attempt at requesting a username change.
FingeredMoBeats?
Punchedmouse?
Difficult to imagine one worse than that which I chose.
With the MODS we have here you are really tempting fate my friend.
I'm shutting the feck up.
I'm not really having that, if you read through all his posts there's not really anything said, it's mainly just links, there's really not a clear argument made.
There are a few posts in pages 6 or so of some kind of substance but he's already resorted to slapping people down with 'haha you believe the media, poor you' kinda lines
Yes I may have went a bit over board in breaking it down but I really wanted to get the point across that he's not actually providing much substance himself other than posting just links
I don't think it's overly unjustified either in the fact that he hasn't taken that on board from other posters
I realise I could attack posts but there's not really a lot there, I'd just be replying to a link saying 'and?'
You even point it out yourself you 'think' you know what his point is
Last edited:
Point taken. I've been behaving in a Facebook style mainly I admit I suppose.
There is no way a dictator like Putin would risk everything he has gained to go into a total war. He and his clique have amassed billions and absolute power and that is not changing for the foreseeable future. Everything he says is mainly for local consumption.
Speaking about MAD, I am not even sure a lot of those birds would actually lift off. Liquid propellant missiles require extensive and regular maintenance, that wasn't provided in full even during the cold war.
Speaking about MAD, I am not even sure a lot of those birds would actually lift off. Liquid propellant missiles require extensive and regular maintenance, that wasn't provided in full even during the cold war.
You've made it sound like I've made a load of aliens and chemtrails posts there. You're referring to the hilary stuff aren't you? I know the tag line says conspiracy buff but there's no conspiracy in calling Hilary out is there?
I'm sure you're right, but this sort of high stakes posturing in the powder keg of the Middle East runs the risk of getting seriously out of control. Can't he just go back to punching beard as photo opportunities?
Of there is the possibility of events spiraling beyond the control of those in charge, where they each think the other person is about to go nuclear or one side is losing bad enough it somehow things there is no other options.
Given the numbers of nukes at the disposal of both the US and USSR along with the variety of ways they can be delivered, I really would not count too much on a massive failure to launch saving everyone.
I genuinely believe Putin is a sane man, and he knows fully the capabilities and limitation of his armed forces. As pointed out already in this thread, Russia does not stand a chance against the full force of NATO, in conventional terms. We already agreed nobody wins a GTW.
The launch failure possibility was mentioned just as a side fact. Just keep in mind there is still a huge technological gap between allied strategic forces and their Russian equivalents.
So where's the best place to be when it all kicks off? Australia? Switzerland? The ISS?
I actually read an article on the best place to be. Would you believe it, Ireland was second to Fiji!
Ireland? Given the wipeout in the UK, especially the west coast of Scotland that surprises me. Surely only temporary sanctuary given the fallout?
Ireland because of its stance, not its geographical position. I like the look of Iceland and Greenland, bit cold but I've got snowboarding gear. It'll be fun, I'll meet you all there.
We don't even have to worry about the long dark winters because we'll be glowing in the dark.
That would be handy for all sorts of things. 
Historical precedent says completely otherwise.
It's not him we're worried about anyway. It's how the rest cope with not being allowed to hit Assad.
They'll be fine, ultimately Syria's just not a major US interest in the same way certain other countries are. Putin and Lavrov know this as well as Obama and Kerry. And in any case, the US hasn't been trying to overthrow Asad since at least 2013, and never went all-in to get it done even from 2011-2013.
Of course this could very well change in January, but I have my doubts.
I think it is entirely fair -not even slightly harsh.
Peaceful decades in human history were breached when US invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, tried to overthrow Assad. Now Putin is bad because he responded to a call for help from Assad. Assad is still legitimate president of Syria by the way, it's the rep of his government represents the country in UN. As mentioned earlier Russia have a military base there and are making sure it stays there.
As for Crimea, if anything, it is the closest comparison to "the good intentions" that you mentioned. A referendum was held, not a single bomb dropped. Came back from there a little over a week ago. Fantastic hotels, not a signle refugee. Again, I do not support what Putin did, but it cant be compared to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the overthrow of Gaddafi. Millions dead, refugees all over the Europe, countries that will hardly be rebuilt in decades to come.
NATO's expansion towards East, extremely close to Russia's borders, the withdrawal of US from ABM treaty in 2002, and you expect Putin to do sweet feck all about it. No way.
So Iraq didn't invade Kuwait ? Syria and Libya weren't already in full scale civil wars where dictators were committing mass atrocities ?
As for Putin - NATO is not a threat to anyone. Its merely a defensive, collective security alliance of states with shared values (for the most part). Putin is a corrupt dictator who fears the spread of Democracy to Russia because it threatens his corrupt regime. He can't even allow Democracy to states neighboring Russia for fear of influencing his citizens. Once Putin is gone and Russia turns into a normal Democratic state, a vast majority of these problems will rapidly dissipate.
Last edited:
Iraq invaded Kuwait and were defeated within what, days? Libya and Syria were much more peaceful before this idiotic invasions.WMD where are they? Fallujah will say thank you for the radiation higher than in Hiroshima. And if you think that the withdrawal from ABM treaty is a defensive act and NATO's expansion towards East will also be considered as nothing serious by Russia, then you are mistaken. Putin is corrupt? Yes. How about Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, fecking Trumps and Clintons of this world, are they not corrupt? Feck the "democracy" that the US led coalition has been trying to impose. Crimea will flourish, while Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan will not be rebuilt in decades. And the people, several generations of people living in these countries will say a big "thank you" to the US for the crimes committed.
So you admit Kuwait was invaded, that's a good start. Had the US not intervened, Saddam was well on his way into Saudi Arabia. How do you think that would've affected a massive chunk of the world's oil supply ?
Putin is corrupt on a completely different level to any of the leaders you named (some of which aren't corrupt at all). You have an authoritarian dictator with a megalomanical foreign policy of invading neighboring states, stealing their land, occupying other parts of their land by way of frozen conflicts, and with one of the world's largest collection of nukes. He doesn't allow neighboring states to become Democratic or join whichever economic or security alliances they want (unless of course its his own). The sooner he is gone the better.
Going in circles here. Bush, Clinton and Obama have shed much much more blood than Putin. Invaded countries, used depleted uranium and will never restore these countries and will never return millions of innocent lives back to life. The supreme evil of todays world is the US government (not the US population as a whole). The good thing is that after Syria, US will think twice before invading and ruining another country. I guess, we will have to agree to disagree and move on.
Well yes, if you think corruption and authoritarian dictatorship is preferable to Democracy and individual freedoms then there's really no point in having a sensible discussion.
The freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Thats your freedom I guess. Thats the Democracy the US is imposing. No,thank you, keep it to yourself. I'd much rather live in a country that will not be bombed by US,
and where governments will not be overthrown by US led coalition. I have never said that Putin is not corrupt, but the latest US presidents are not better than him.
Again, if you think Putin - an authoritarian dictator who has embezzled hundreds of billions from his own people, stolen land from neighboring countries, etc etc is better than Obama or any other western leader then you are living a serious reality distortion field - the same sort that Trump supporters live in here in the US.
By Putin you refer to Vladimir Putin, the former KGB guy who assassinates / locks up his political rivals / journos, invades neighboring countries, forcing himself on a nation while making its citizens lives more miserable from year to year? In mild words I'll just say that he is one of the most corrupt dictators in modern history.
A good way to judge one nations government is by the quality of life and the individual freedom of its citizens. So I guess that 'evil' is just a subjective point of view in that case.
Democracy doesn't work everywhere. It's a nice idea but simply doesn't work in some countries.
Remember Allende, Mossadegh or Lumumba? Heck look at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Bahrain.
Turns out your country and employers don't think too highly of democracy either.
Again, if you believe that the US president can invade Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan kill millions, bomb with depleted uranium, then enjoy it. I am yet to see the democracy and any sort of happiness in those countries. Bush and Obama killed millions of innocent people and they are the modern worlds biggest terrorists. No single person in Afghanistan or Iraq will thank them for what they did. They can stick their democracies up their arses. They are the world's largest terrorists, and I am for one glad that their game has been ruined in Syria.