IMHAL
-
Posts
10,706 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by IMHAL
-
-
8 hours ago, satsuma said:
The problem here is that the west is a decent place where men are brought up to be thoughtful and educated, we are not well equipped to deal with PooTin and the like. I am pleased with the thoughtful response to the war, each step taken carefully. However, I do worry that we are not considering the Ukrainian sacrifice. Its an impossible situation. Meanwhile we have braindead posts from the trolls.
It seems that from time to time an individual emerges that disrupts the accepted norms that keep peace. When that happens you either change your mind set or be subjugated. I am sure that the military brains always have this this scenario in mind. It's the population and politicians that need bringing up to speed.
-
9 hours ago, Si1 said:
Here's a general question for mainly the pro Ukraine posters on this thread.
What do you rate the chances of Putin using a nuke in the coming months? Even a tactical one in Ukraine? He seems like he's losing the plot rapidly.
(Not that I think appeasing him would have helped, it wouldn't have stopped him ultimately)
I'm sure he'd really love to but only on the basis that there would be no substantive and propotionate retaliatory response from the West. I believe that it was made clear that there would be a military response so probably not.
I'm not qualified in these matters but it seems that this is a hard red line that Putin dare not cross. Having said that, it is more likely that Putin would use one because he is scared of losing control within Russia than for any external factor because at the end of the day the greater risk to his life is from within his inner circle.
-
25 minutes ago, satsuma said:
Honestly, its a matter of record that the west became too complacent and allowed Russia to install Trump, another PooTin Patsy
Easy to see in hindsight. The signs were there for sure. Appeasement was there. Russian money and bribes encouraged those with influence to look the other way or even benefitting from Russian money and meddling. Russias move to a dictatorship and eradication of all opposition be it political or media. Putin's speeches made it clear what he wanted to do. It was all there.
It is clear that we were complacent. Too cosy and comfortable and willing to look the other way. That has all changed, sadly late in the day.
-
6 minutes ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:
I'm not confused, you'll find that both statements above are in fact false. We have been misled again!
I know we can produce counter links to info, so it's not going to be resolved. No time for further ping pong, though I am confident that the truth is already out there. Same for the DNC leak and many other false narratives.No - it's fact that Russia hacked the files and leaked them to favour Trump. That is what has been proven. It's a matter of record.
All you did was point to some speculative guff that says that Clinton tried to dig dirt on Trump. Whooppeeedooo - they all do that, it's part and parcel of their style of politics. Dems do it. Republicans do. They all do. It's not relevant!
-
9 minutes ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:
Some more:
The money trail behind the Steele dossier has been a subject of intense political scrutiny for years. More than $1 million flowed from the Clinton campaign and DNC to the law firm Perkins Coie, which then hired the opposition research company Fusion GPS. That company later hired Steele and asked him to use his overseas contacts to dig up dirt about Trump’s ties to Russia.
Steele has maintained that his research was unverified, required further investigation and was not meant for public disclosure. But his memos were leaked in January 2017, weeks before Trump took office. Over the years, a series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of Steele’s central allegations about collusion and exposed the unreliability of Steele’s sourcing.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html
This is where I think you are confused. It is fairly normal for both parties to try to 'dig up dirt' on the other party and even to leak it. Trump and the Republicans threw tons of speculative dirt out there on the Democrats, they leaked true or not, they didn't care, mostly total BS and total lies. That is internal politics for you and seems to be acceped in the US more so than here.
The issue at hand here is Russian's doing this to influence an outcome. It was proven beyond that they did. That is the issue. So don't be so easilly confused.
-
10 minutes ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:
It's BULL$HIT i tell ya!
The FBI knew RussiaGate was a lie — but hid that truth
The FBI knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was utter bunk even as it suggested otherwise to Congress, the courts and the public early in 2017. Evidence revealed by special counsel John Durham proves it beyond dispute.
At RealClearInvestigations, Paul Sperry lays out the case.
Declassified for Durham’s probe, a March 2017 memo prepared by Lisa Page for FBI head James Comey’s meeting with Congress’ “Gang of Eight” — the bipartisan House and Senate leaders who oversee the most classified stuff — was a total cook-up job.
It advised Comey to present accusations that Trump’s campaign chair Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page were working with the Russian government as coming from a confidential Russia-based source with real intel-community chops. In fact, the FBI had already established that the root source was US-based former Brookings flunky Igor Danchenko’s utterly speculative gossip with an ex-girlfriend and a Democratic Party hack.
That, plus publicly reported info, was all Christopher Steele (a retired British spy who doesn’t even speak Russian) ever had to back up his “dossier.” And the FBI knew it since at least January 2017, when it interviewed Danchenko.
Comey hid all this during his meetings, and after. Yet the public only learned it years later, once the Durham probe began.
The Comey meeting where he served up these nonsense stories prompted both House and Senate Intelligence committees to open probes. But that was hardly the only poisoned fruit.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok, analyst Brian Auten and Justice attorney Kevin Clinesmith pretended the Danchenko “intel” was credible to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court’s OK for wiretaps on Carter Page and dupe the Justice Department to keep granting approval for Trump campaign surveillance (which did not corroborate the wild claims). Again, all while they knew Danchenko had admitted it was baseless.
For years, the media lionized these people as saviors of the Republic, even after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe turned up zero evidence in support of their claims.
It was a purely political hit job from the start, by top members of the highest law- enforcement agency in the land, against a candidate-and-then-president they opposed. For all the justified anger at Trump over the Jan. 6 riot, this methodical and effective deception plot looks far more like an attempted coup.
Yet, other than losing their jobs, none of the plotters has paid any real price. Comey and Strzok both wrote best-sellers; McCabe even had his retirement benefits restored (after being fired for lying under oath) under the Biden administration.
Of course, most media have no interest in sharing the truth. They won Pulitzers and endless clicks from hyping Russiagate, using it to kneecap a president they despised.
At this point, it’s up to Durham to keep exposing this unprecedented abuse of power for nakedly personal partisan ends, though Congress may help out once Democrats no longer run it.
Until the plotters are held accountable, there actually is good reason to worry about the future of democracy in America.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie-but-hid-that-truth/
The investigation looked at two things 1: Did the Russians hack the system and leak to smear the democrats: YES. 2: Could they prove that Trumps organisation was involved: NO
The important bit is that Russia was proven to have interfered and Trump was the benefitiary.
Mueller and Comey both got strong armed out of the investigation by Trump. Not so strange when you have something to hide.
-
18 minutes ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:
One thing at a time. Seriously, there is/was no Russian involvement in that leak, that is a fact. Such miss information has propagated to generate Russia phobia, which has subsequently contributed toward the current conflict today. Sadly the bulk of the BS is in a very thick layer of western propaganda, unchallenged, uncorrected by complicit media.
Just like Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, yet a majority of American's still believe otherwise. Why is that?
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian interference in July 2016, including a special focus on links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Russian attempts to interfere in the election were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress in September 2016, confirmed by US intelligence agencies in October 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017. The dismissal of James Comey, the FBI director, by President Trump in May 2017, was partly because of Comey's investigation of the Russian interference.
The FBI's work was taken over in May 2017 by former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led a Special Counsel investigation until March 2019.[5] Mueller concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations. The investigation also led to indictments and convictions of Trump campaign officials and associated Americans, on unrelated charges. The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
Me: All this despite Trump trying to stymi a transparent investigation. Trump is a crook and a thug and most worrying is that he went into bed with a foe that wants to destroy his country. It is treasonous.
-
22 minutes ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:
Ref: Russiagate, FBI, DNC, crowdstrike, fictitious Steele dossier...
I think you'll find that's been proven in US courts to be a total fabrication orchestrated by the Dems. Check up on it (not the NYtimes).
Then reference the Twitter files recently released by Elon, it's not a theory anymore.Ahh..I see. So the largest hacking on government files and the leaking of documents on Hillary Clinton was not Russias doing to smear the democrats then?
I beg to differ and call you out for BS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Putin wanted Trump in office. Trump loved Putin. Trump wanted to dismantle NATO FFS. Putin's wet dream and a green light to do what the hell he wanted.
It must all be a coincidence. Take your blinkers off pal.
Putin is at war with the West. Fact. Putin invaded Ukraine. Fact. Putin has been signalling his intentions for the last decade at least. Fact.
-
11 minutes ago, zugzwang said:
Britain Trump inadvertently let slip the truth last night, now the entire world knows it.
Another one in the 'win' column for yours truly.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why not make your point less cryptic...spell it out Mr Wang.
-
8 hours ago, miguel said:
Long interview but well worth watching. The Trump section is classic 😃
Also worth watching on youtube PBS Putin: the road to war.
Trump is described as a wrecking ball by Russians...a wrecking ball to his own country and to international alliances.
The Russian orchestrated meddling in the 2016 elections did not go as planned....they exceeded all Russias expectations when Trump was elected. They rejoiced, describing Trump as a naive simpleton with an ego, easy to manipulate with a few simple complements. Happy to take Putin's word hook line and sinker.
Democracies achillies heel, stupid people and stupid populist leaders.
-
6 hours ago, zugzwang said:
As I've said all along, the Ukraine War is really about China! Bunter only ever opens his mouth to tell a lie or fill it with food but it's what he says inadvertently when he's ornamenting his lies with other lies that reveals the truth.
Putin is being directed by Beijing: That's what Johnson and the Amerikkka fascists would like the world to believe.
Get over yourself.
The Ukraine war is about Putin. One man's ambition, insecurities and need to be seen as relevant rolled into one.
China's roll in this conflict is to an extent passive, a passive but not dissinterested or impartial observer that's eyeing an opportunity come win or lose for Russia. That does not make China an honest broker in any way shape or form. There was no serious attempt to dissuade or broker talks.
You are living in lala land.
-
7 hours ago, zugzwang said:
How many innocents did you 'negotiate' to smithereens in Iraq, OTANiste?
500,000? A million?
But whatabout the Iguhurs or Tianaman square or HongKong....
Get yourself a shrink as you excuse genocide of one people on Chinese turf and go on to excuse genocide in Ukraine. You have no moral high ground at all.
-
11 minutes ago, satsuma said:
Would you negotiate with a robber?
No, you don't really 'negotiate' with terrorists. I'd arm myself to the teeth and only then 'negotiate'. The 'negotiation' would look like this. You set foot on my territory and I'll blow you to smithereens, or words to that effect.
Negotiations would look more like a 'clear understanding'.
-
54 minutes ago, pig said:
Lol you have got to be kidding.
There is no agreement Putin won’t break if it is not enforced militarily.
Any agreement therefore needs a strategic military backup.
Start with that and work backwards to the ‘agreement’.
That sums it up. Putin is a man that will take by force that which is not protected.
Hence, negotiations without a military deterant are useless against Putin.
-
4 hours ago, pig said:
Tbh avoiding THAT specific debate is probably more about pragmatism than relevance ! But we can't avoid the politics of nationalism/nativism.
You make your points well and I agree with everything you have said. It comes down to framing the debate in a way so that the actual and substantial issues can be discussed rather than point scoring.
4 hours ago, pig said:It simply strikes me the Putin needs a Europe ruled by nationalism/nativism for two reasons: firstly it would be naturally disunited - easy to play parts of it against eachother, less of a collective impediment to Russias imperialist projection - and secondly as it echoes his own nativist/nationalism it conveniently also leads to the various Putin arse-lickers we've seen both sides of the Atlantic.
Absolutely agree. Trump, Farage, Bolsanaro are exactley the type of divisive men Putin wants in charge. All of them have divided their own nations (the achillies heel of democracy) and all of them have been destructive with regard to international cooperation. The type of international cooperation necessary to resist Putin's aggression. It's a clear strategy from Russia and Brexit played it's role in this geopolitical game of chess. There can be no doubt that it was divisive in the UK and it created tensions with our partners in the EU. Thankfully these tensions seem not to have seriously damaged our collective response.
4 hours ago, pig said:Which essentially means its a debate that needs to be aired if we're going to - patriotically - resist Russias violent imperialism.
I agree - when not framed as cheap point scoring, which gets us no where and is in itself divisive, especially amongst those that are united in their abhorance at Putin's actions.
-
1 hour ago, pig said:
The two are essentially incomparable - I'd agree its a bit of a glib comparison.
But.
Not separate circles but a Venn diagram when you look closely. In particular at the politics.
Where they connect is a death spiral of nationalism and nativism. One potential political consistency I think we have with Russia is that they seem to promote these notions around the world and have reaped sympathy through them.
US is a good example as its an extreme example - its a relatively recent immigrant nation who seemed to take great pride and prejudice from the Cold War.
But you have these 'Far Right' republicans who have this weird sympathy for Putin - and of course this is analogous to the Faragists - and the feck business Brexiters...
I agree with that observation. However, IMHO @Riedquat point stands in light of the fact that there is a greater foe to contend with at present, even if the two issues are connected.
The fact is, Brexit has happened and using it to point score against those who obviously oppose Putin on this thread plays directly into Putin's hands and his aim of disunity, however true or false the point being made is. It should be water under the bridge as far as this discussion goes, to be address on another thread or at a different time, but addressed it must be, just not in this context.
-
Great programme on PBS Freesat 155 on Putin. Shown again at 5pm.
Tells you all about the Russia kelptocratic system, how it emerged out of Yeltsin presidency and how Putin got into power and 'changed' the system ie made theft by the state systematic. Quite stagering the scale and depth of corruption displayed.
No wonder Ukraine was corrupted so throughouly under their rule. You can't get along in Russia or under Russian control unless you are paying bribes for protection that make their way to Putin.
There is no doubt that Russia is a country that is highly disfunctional and corrupt to the core. It's makes any anomaly in the West pale into insignificance, a parking transgression compared to the Brinks Matt robbery.
-
2 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:
So, here is what I see from “Middle England”. For the record I am someone who always saw both sides in this debate. I voted for remain, but quickly recognised after the Leave vote that we had to leave the EU whilst trying to find the closest relationship possible with the EU as we left. Of course we have not done this.
The big picture for Brexit from a global perspective that I see is not great. We have clearly lost ground compared to peers economically. We are poorer because of Brexit, and this is true for all our main activities be they tertiary education, financial services, Science R and D, or manufacturing for export. The only possible advantage I can see is our International image from a global security perspective. Although initially destabilising, Brexit has allowed us to now have an independent voice that can take rapid positions and clearly has influence. This value is constantly being made clear by the slow, vacillating nature of the EUs negotiated positions between countries with widely varying interests and histories.
On a more local level, the picture is more mixed and I see both lots of problems resulting from Brexit, and some improvements too.
Improvements include industries that have had to improve pay and conditions for workers (such as HGV drivers), industries that are recruiting more locally from our young people (such as construction, the trades and to a degree hospitality) and less pressure (or perhaps more justifiable pressure) on some services. For example our local school still has some issues with the number of pupils who do not have English as their first language, but these new students are from Afghanistan and Ukraine, and that feels like it is as it should be. However, public services are not being given the freedom to adapt to Brexit in the same way as the private sector. Pay and conditions are not improving and workers have simply left or are still leaving. This includes highly qualified and skilled roles like Doctors, Teachers and Nurses. The strikes are a symptom, but it is not just about the money, it is also about the unfilled vacancies and the poor working conditions that persist. The only way of solving these issues is to entice more of our young people into these careers, or of course go back to importing from elsewhere and perpetuate the pre-Brexit problems.
So my overall report for Brexit 2022? Underperforming.
Who is the report for, what is it mean to inform and what decisions will be based on it?
You probably can't be too specific but the gist will be sufficient.
Overall much more balanced than the usual fair.
My take on this is that much needs to change to ameliorate the negative aspects that Brexit has resulted in. I also can't quite see how we can fully do so, and the portion we can address, we can't do without a wholesale change in the way we do things, something that I don't see happening, possibly because much will be resisted by the population (political will?) or the resources needed are just not available.
Pardon me for being a bit forward here, but I think your report should be revised to say 'Underperforming and forecast to continue underperforming'.
-
4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:
Yes, I'm also defining wrong as meaning that the relative performance of the UK is not in line with the forecast. For example if it turns out that growth in the UK and France in 2023 is similar then the forecast will have been wrong.
To be clear if the Uk's absolute growth is within a smidge of France then I would agree that would in my eyes be a wrong. As for would it be done for political reasons? I don't see any credible reasons for it to be politicised. Do you?
-
5 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:
If the IMF turns out to be wrong, this could be taken as an accusation that their forecasts are politicised.
It's a forecast based on a set of current know facts and assumptions about the drivers of the economy in 2023.
It also depends on what you mean by 'wrong'.
It could be that globally growth is stronger than expected which would boost all countries growth (not by much I expect). In which case the UK might not shrink as much as expected but it would still be as relatively weak compared to the conparison countries. Would that make it wrong?
For me the definition of wrong would be a significant positive change in growth of the UK in comparison to those listed countries in absolute relative terms. By significant I mean more than 25% change in absolute relative terms. eg if the USA is forcast to grow by 4% and it grows by 5% then if it turns out that the UK grows by 0.4% from it's forecast -0.6%, that does not equate to it being wrong as the relative lack of growth of the UK has been maintained. But in this case if the Uk grows significantly more I would probably call that 'wrong'. In any case, I'm sure that the IMF have put +/- errors in their forecasts if you care to check.
What do you define as wrong?
-
17 minutes ago, zugzwang said:
All I wanted to do was find out why I couldn't afford to buy a house like my father did in the 1970s and his father before him in the 1940s, on a modest single wage in a small market town in the English midlands. I found it incomprehensible at the time and scarcely less so two decades later with the architects of this misfortune now threatening the world with nuclear Armageddon simply to maintain their graft.
I can sympathise with the first bit. I also find the financialisation of housing wrong on many levels. Bad policy laced with greed is all. If they stuck to 2.5x single and 3.5x dual earning then housing would not be so expensive. The rest is pure hyperbole.
Everyone goes through their 'I found Buddha moment', you are going through one now with your 'I love China' thing. Don't worry, you will soon come back to reality.
-
1 hour ago, zugzwang said:
If only you'd possessed the practical sense to grasp its significance.
Apart from the possibility that Russia was influencing Uk politics by washing it's dirty money - tell us what you think the significance is.
-
As if by magic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64452995
IMF: UK to be the only major economy expected to shrink in 2023
Must be the pandemic err...I mean the war...err leaves on the track? Whatever it is, it CANNOT be Brexit....oh no siree.
-
15 minutes ago, Sackboii said:
I know, and everyone I speak to about the reasons cite just that. So research must be accurate.
And...that begs the question as to why. Lots on here have cited 'they are taking our jobs' to school places, taking up space in the NHS even resentment at the Polish isle at Tescos would you believe etc. Yet here we are with less tax revenue to pay for the services we need. And less people to do the jobs that need doing which we are apparently not willing or able to fill.
That does not look like a win to me.
Personally I think there are bigger fish to fry at the moment than lock horn with those who don't see the self inflicted harm Brexit has done. Those type are free to gloat all they like about 52-48 but the noises and creaks and strains are staring to tell and people are asking questions, which is exactley what they should be doing, scrutinising our decisions.
Will Russia invade Ukraine and what happens if it escalates with NATO/US getting involved
in Current affairs
Posted
Stalin, Lenin and Mao are the dictators that murdered the most people. Hence they are more likely to continue doing so. The worst bit is that they murdered their own people, like killing their own familly, so those nations are an even greater risk to the world as the regimes are essentially unchanged.
Makes perfect sense.