Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Maybe we wont, maybe the EU would have gone in a different direction should 'remain' would have won. Personally, I thought 'remain' was going to win by a good 20-25 points, and whilst being a third party to other conversations in the office, it was clear many didn't really know what they were voting on. Personally, I thought the whole process was a joke, there was no real clear this is what you are voting on, and this is what your getting if you leave. But hey that's modern day Politicians. Bit like the first Scottish vote, but you get to keep the pound just with no fiscal or monetary controls on it. So all good then.
  2. I dont think it is disingenuous, I thought it was the most natural direction of the EU on whatever timescales. When was the next realistic 'referendum'. So, as one leave voter, the joint army and direction of becoming a single state with no future prospects of a referendum. It felt the right choice.
  3. That was true, he was unelectable purely on the grounds he would give up nuclear weapons. But nevertheless, he stood for what he believed in. You should blame the labour party for giving him the platform.
  4. Maybe he would, but at least Corbyn will always have my respect for standing on what he believed. As opposed to 90% of politicians, who stand on what they think gets them elected. Then start back tracking on every promise over the course of their term.
  5. I was merely expressing my opinion at the time, I was pro free movement of people & goods, but I was opposed to the direction it was heading in terms of a state.
  6. I dont mean literally, but if you come out with a pro-EU policy... and did it well and had the charisma to charm people. It would be fine especially when you all he has to do, is just point at the conservatives. I wouldn't vote for him and will abstain again, but in a democracy it should be fine for someone to stand on a policy they believe in.
  7. I voted leave on the sovereignty issues, I like most Brits would have been happy with the traditional free movement of people & goods, but when it started becoming a de-facto state, a single currency and speculation of a joint army. Along with the courts etc. You really have to wonder what it was becoming. Think it's perfectly fine for Starmer to come out and effectively call anyone who voted leave an 'idiot', if so many people in the country have changed their mind he would win by a landslide. But his problems go way beyond his policies. Whilst Corbyn wasn't the most popular in that, he didn't win the election. At least most people could articulate what Corbyn stood for and there was a believe Corbyn believed in his policies. Starmer on the other hand, doesn't appear to have any inherit values and says whatever he thinks will gain political traction. Starmer he also appears to lack any charism and considering, the Johnson government any competent opposition leader should be in a 15-20 point poll lead by now.
  8. Yes absolutely, but that's the consequences of signing a 'security guarantee' with Ukraine. If we were not willing to go to war then we should have found a peaceful comprise before Russia invaded and avoided the war.
  9. Yes, I agree that was its purpose. But if we cared so much about a document we signed. Then the United Kingdom and United States, should have gone to war with Russia. Or put our armies in Ukraine stating we have guaranteed the survival of the Ukraine state.
  10. This whole concept is laughable. Not sure, how anyone can state by doing a 'false flag' 4 months into a war, justifies your action 4 months earlier... secondly, if you are at war. Then Ukraine is morally and militarily justified in targeting any part of Russia it sees fit.
  11. It was not a legal document, it was merely a memorandum. If it was a legal document i.e a Treaty both the United Kingdom and United States as joint signatures were duty bound to declare war on Russia. As a political realist, it is a well held view; is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns. I/You might not like what Russia considers to be their 'national interests' but it doesn't mean they are not acting in what they perceive to be their national interests.
  12. No, I don't believe the Hungarians or Poles did, but nevertheless they took land that was seen as important for various reasons, improving defence lines etc. All clear context, that the world knew what was going on and preparation for it. Unlike Iraq, Ukraine does have significant benefits to Putin/Russia in terms of national defence. That doesn't make it morally correct, but when you consider national security concerns they rarely care about moral concerns. Like America with Cuba. It would have been a huge mistake to let the Soviets put nukes there. When you see the declassified documents and the plans the Americans where thinking about (including bombing Miami), to blame on Cuba to justify starting a war they have no moral justification but equally from a US national security stand point, removing them at any cost was justified. Russia has no moral justification and if you focus on the excuses governments make when they do something then you will never understand why. I still believe... that Russia believes (for whatever reason) that is was the only choice for their national security reasons and hence the wider context of the America/China collusion course and potentially Russia sees or knows that a larger military conflict is likely. Moscow is close to Ukraine.
  13. Hungary and Poland also took a 'chunk' from Czechoslovakia. Not sure I ignored that fact or have disputed that fact. But equally, I don't dispute the fact the West also invades 'Sovereign' nations under false pretext like Iraq. I was clearly making a point there is far more going on than just Ukraine, China are supporting the conflict increasing their trade with Russia as is India. Whilst China and America are on a collusion course, the American hegemony is clearly being challenged and will continue to be challenged over the coming years. The Ukraine conflict is the first of many dominoes.
  14. Whilst there is clear propaganda from all sources for the current conflict. Everyone is focussing on their own talking points and we will have a much clearer picture in 10-20 years when documents start getting declassified on what really happened and what is being said behind closed doors. Very similar to how the narrative in Iraq with WMDs has changed in the last 20 years. If anyone thinks the western media or governments are telling the whole truth, how the Western leaders are championing how much they are doing/supplying to Ukraine, when in reality most of these are empty pledges without any real substance or to be delivered in 9 months. Hindsight is 20-20, which is why historical dilettantes of various stripes have numerous opinions as to when World War II “really” began—Others say that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, finalized in 1919, assured that an aggrieved Germany would inevitably resume the “War to End All Wars.” Some say the first act of World War II was Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria in blatant defiance of the League of Nations, while similar claims are made of Italy’s 1935 invasion of Ethiopia. Some might cite 1936 for Adolf Hitler’s risky but successful occupation of the Rhineland combined with the Spanish Civil War, while others might bring up Japan’s 1937 invasion of China. So in answer to your question, the clear difference with Sudetenland was that the 'West' gave it to Germany, without even consulting the Czech's. But other than that, it is quite clear it is one of many flash points going on in the world similarly to the 1930s, with many threats and counter threats being made. We have the US threatening china if it builds a base in the Soloman Islands, this would be a clear threat and crossing red lines and would lead to war. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/usa-threats-china-solomon-islands-military-b2065742.html). Americans response to Soloman Islands, is very similar to the Russia's with regard to Ukraine prior to military action. “We have respect for the Solomon Islands’ sovereignty. But we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence... then we would have significant concerns, and we would very naturally respond to those concerns.” At the same time, we have China continuing to threaten the US over Taiwan and their involvement in the breakaway region. Japan/US replying that if China invades Taiwan it will go to war. China replying that Taiwan is a part of china etc... We have the nuclear deals with Iran, and subsequently the issues this is having with America and the rest of the middle east. Its clear threats to the Saudis. At the same time, Iran is now joining BRICS along with Argentina, both Russia and China are pushing this to a rival to the Western economic system. Talks of creating a BRICS reserve currency in direct challenge to the dollar.
  • Create New...