Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Little Paul
@yell:
It is never my intend to harm russian civilians. Its my intend to make a dictatorship more democratic or at least hold it from turning other countries into dictatorships.
@justinian:
putin will fall because the west will react in the end. It was stupid to play the powercard now. That shows what a looser he is with all the power he's got.
By playing bully, he allows western leaders to justify actions against russia.
"I prefered the mutual agreement to destroy parts of the atomic arsenal, rather than this cold war tactic."
me to alan, but at this point in time, its not going to happen. They never destroyed enough to ensure human survival. If they do, its a whole other story. Till then, we have to decide if we want a peacefull sollution to russian agression or if we just let things go by. The second is a lousy option if you can solve future conflicts peacefully without huge military costs or civil casualties.
One peacefull sollution would be include georgia within the nato so it will be far less easy for them ignite a war or to be attacked. Another peacefull sollution is a trade embargo to russia. It doesn't need to last for long. We just need to show the EU will react if they invade another any country.(even if the EU doesn't react in the end). The strength of a despotism is they can easely test then withdraw
"russia is self sufficient country"
They are largely dependant on food import. If they can't sell their exports and buy their imports, they will starve. Despite they have a lot of recources, they also lack a lot of things, of wich food is the biggest issue.
@phoenix:
"what is really funny is that russia can afford to get isolated but EU can't"
its not funny, its a crying shame of one of the world economic supperpowers. However russia can't afford to be isolated right now. Putin regime isn't as stable when russian economy collapses.
If you can support an ally without igniting a world war, that question is irrelevant.
@Fokker,
what do you mean?
you only surrender when you say we loose. And NUT isn't a possibility atm. They will nuke you if you attack the motherland. what woudl you do? But you can defend your own and wait for a despotism to enevitably fall. The soviet union was far bigger as russia today, wich depend on a global economy. It cannot afford to get isolated.
it has nothing to do with surrender. It all has to do with the MAD principle. The only language every country speaks, even a totalitarian one.
"Installing a shield at enemy borders can weaken retaliation attack to a point where couple nuclear bombs penetrating your defences is a reasonable cost to achieve victory. This si the whole point about Chech and Polish shield US is installing there"
it is impossible to stop even a small amount of the ICBMs. Maybe, MAYBE you can avoid a few. Certainly not the submarines or the clusters. Then its still insignificant. But blasting them at home would destroy the rest of the world to anyway.
@yell:
it would mean nuclear retaliation if you attack the motherland. Thats why it would have been good if georgia would have been part of the nato. They wouldn't have ignited the war (if they did so) and russia wouldn't have attacked it either.
We face a nuclear threat daily. Let us at least use the only thing positive about it as well and be a bit pragmatic here.
@alan:
I love that movie. 
But again, a war with russia is not the same as making a stance in georgia. And it is not the same as vietnam or iraq either.
I see good reasons to consider diplomatic and economic threats seriously:
The georgians asked for help themselfs. They are a democratic nation we gladly seem to sacrifice in the name of peace. Wheter his leader ignited the war or not. The EU leaders showed they're even prepared to bow for anyone that holds the energy supply even while it is not as serious as it will be after georgia is taken. So if they do take georgia, they will bow to the ground to a despotist nation.
That would be devestating for world peace. All of the former soviet countries are in danger then but also europe, wich would be completely dependant on moscow.
the point is, you cannot acchieve it. Missile shields don't work and probably won't for the future to come.
Next to that, most nations are completely against any form of nuclear use. MAD is the word.
A last argument is nuclear fallout and the indirect consequences of such an operation.
speak for yourself.
In any case most people won't get frustrated over killing nobody. But most people who are denied sex will.
"Based on that "logic" people also have the need for murder."
no, because you don't need murder to be healthy.
lol
idd Alan, that, and a nuclear threat beyond immagination.
I didn't find fundraisers...
never get me wrong tough, I wished all nuclear weapons ceased to exist alltogether.
Not invade primo, that would be if georgia was already taken and they try to take it back or if we attack georgia. Not if the country itself ask for military aid first and we deliver. Or if we do make a diplomatic attack. Its called an alliance. Second, georgia doesn't own it in that quantities but secures a safe pasage for it.
However when I said make a stance you interprete me wrong. There is a distinct difference in a trade embargo and military aid or military threathening and starting a full scale military conflict. Fear is the best diplomatic weapon we have to prevent conflict. If georgia would be part of the nato, russia wouldn't dare to invade because of the still existant nuclear retaliation. There wouldn't have been a conflict inside georgia.
<<And atheists make up what, 2% of your population>>
I live in Belgium, not the US. I don't know the figure there, but here it higher.
<<"Logic without faith is worthless" <<< the atheists and agnostics need to know">>
Comming from a guy who doesn't know the meaning of the word logic, I can't feel offended.
The US wants to freeze the nato corporation with russia as a sanction for the russian military action. But countries like france, germany, turkey, greece don't want to break connections because russia is to important for energy supply.
Personally, I hold them responsible to become dependant in the first place. If they want to become less independant, they need to make a stand over georgia wich is important for energy security. Also they need a national back-up plan in case they really try to blackmail us.
@bw:
"Ukraine military is dominated by pro-Russians. Its the govt. that is pro-west, Pro-EU."
thats probably what the guy hopes. I fear for a civil war though, wich will legalise russian intervention.
And some stupid EU countries leaders hold back the navo because of their energy supplies. Cowards. Its their mistake in the first place to become so energy dependant on moscow.
it might be a good thing for humanity tough if soth actually tried it.
@Yellawskov:
"And such a war would require Russia to protect her citizens from Ukranian aggression within its own borders..."
the cost of such a war would be much higher then the gains. Not like in georgia were europes energy insurance and hence russians power to blackmail europe hangs in the balance for a fairly easy military intervention.
I agree however its a longterm possibility we have to take into account. Also for other countries there.
@fokker:
yell edits so far are only correction of insults, he doesn't change the meaning. His neutrality shows because he edits posts of rightwingers as well, and in the same way. What are you so upset about?
We call that FOGI (feeling of groop instinct). You identify yourself with a certain groop of people based on a virtual border. I feel LP, and thats all.
@bief:
"We did not come to a conclusion, now did we?"
so its you who has a short memory
"I'm just to big a Nationalist I suppose."
Maybe. On a personal note: heb je een waarheidsdrank gedronken?:p
Imperial Forum → Posts by Little Paul
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.