MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Politics, The Final Frontier (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 73, 74, 75 ... 104, 105, 106  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Has he/she taken a voluntary procedure? The activists and their useful idiots in the media constantly ignore the fact that few of these transexuals undergo any procedures at all. That’s because the procedures are unpleasant and don’t work very well.
In short they’ve still got cocks.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Although it is fair to say that all these aspects feed into the moral maze, none of it is important compared to the age old dictum: don't make waves if you're the baby in the bathwater.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I cant see what Sir Keirs problem is with "Stop the War". They are just openly advocating what they believe, and it seems to me that their motivation, namely "stopping wars" has to be applauded. Its not like they are a front, trying to take over Labour, and not being transparent about their aims. You can of course question their tactics, ie holding a rally, condemning an imperial power, and calling to the good folks now living under a dictatorship, to rise up and peacefully overthrow their opperssors, but its really no different to Sir Keir annouuncing that pacifists shouldnt be allowed (there go the Quakers), or making a new clause 4, that Labour party membership is now conditional in the belief that the UK is part of NATO.

Anyway its the end for Jezza as he is not going to change his anti war stance. It also might well be the start of the end for that large chunk of pacifist, CND, Labour churchy folks with beards. I am unsure about their numbers but their lofty idealism, and informal dress sense, will surely be missed next time Labour discusses its defence policy.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

They may be pacifist churchy folk with beards to you but it doesn't feel like that when they're trying to break up one of our Neo-Nazis for Peace rallies. And the men can be evil bastards as well.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think you are confusing the "church organ players against the genocide" with the "anarcho-syndicalist gob at the rich" faction. A cursory glance tells us they are different, if equally dedicated, followers of their own fashion.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

To inject a serious note. We always follow America in social trends so we can expect British society to become increasingly polarised between blind left and blind right. Youse guys might have to decide, in the not too distant future, which side you're on.

It is not a straightforward choice because one side is well-intentioned but really fuck things up (the left, in case you were wondering) whereas the right make you vomit but don't end up doing much harm.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here is one for students of Intenational Relations.

At what point did Ukraine become a de facto member of NATO?

Before Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine?

After he launched the invasion?

And just in, the correct answer from Torben Lasso from Finland.

"Nobody will answer, I am just relieved that the Swedes And Finns will now be formally in, in the next couple of monthes"
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is, insofar as I can judge, the emerging consensus of the halfway sensible classes. That it was NATO's reckless post-1991 expansion, culminating in the promise of future membership for Georgia and Ukraine, that forced Putin on his own reckless policy of trying to forestall it. As you say, all he seems to have managed is to get those stalwart neutrals, Sweden and Finland, to join NATO.

The idiotic thing, from Putin's point of view, is that NATO has always been exactly what it says it is, a defensive military alliance against Russia. It demonstrated over and over again it would not act militarily no matter what Russia did, short of an attack on a member of NATO. A policy it maintained when Russia attacked Georgia and Ukraine!

The idiotic thing from NATO's point of view is that whenever NATO did act contrary to its stated policy -- military interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan -- it shouldn't have. Though its individual members would have been free to make an expensive bollix of things on their own account if they had wanted to.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The sequel to "The Battle of Kiev" is currently being edited, I hear that the Empire is building a new new bigger Death Star and there is a new villain, "The Butcher of Syria". Whether the Empire should continue with these massive projects when they always get blown to smithereens by small groups of agile freedom fighters, I am unsure. I guess it's just what they do, you have a single big plan, everything hinges on it, no matter what the enemy does, you pursue it ruthlessly, every last detail must be taken into account, all must follow orders. It's just if there is a tiny flaw, there is the embarrassing possibility some non conforming, freedom fighting individualist is going to spot it and blow up your Death Star, probably just as you are conducting your victory parade in Moscow. Still, never fear Vlad, if the Second Death Star works you can always edit the first film out, and if it doesn't, you can always go for another sequel, there are plenty of hopeful extras, just next time make the Death Star bigger and the villain more evil.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I repeat here, just as I have been repeating till I'm blue in the arse over on medium.com

We don't know how Putin is doing. It's far too early to tell.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

From The Master

A political position brings happiness but only at the expense of wisdom.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I repeat here, just as I have been repeating till I'm blue in the arse over on medium.com


We don't know how Putin is doing. It's far too early to tell.


The Rusians are revising their war aims, based on their success or lack of success so far. It seems to me that if as many commentators think that the Ukrainians have scored a victory around Kiev, after a botched atempt on the capital, which is a common view, the Russians must have organised a highly successful retreat and regroup. They were out in a couple of days, in the muddy season, without losing a portion of the army surrounded? All this with poor logistics. They suddenly found mobility? Still, I don't buy into the big feint idea, either.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If the finest commander in history with the greatest troops in history had been conducting the campaign, he would
(a) have attacked the capital in the north with second-line reservists to fix the Ukrainian defenders in place
(b) parked his fleet offshore threatening the main port in the west forcing the Ukrainians to mass resources there and
(c) used his real offensive units in the east and south where his war aims are: the incorporation into metropolitan Russia of a 'Big Donbas' and a land link to the Crimea.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

After destroying the enemy’s air defences thus achieving total air superiority. Then he would have put his nuclear weapons on high alert just to stop any bystanders who were thinking of getting involved
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Now the Russians are admitting Moskva is on fire but due to an accidental ammunition fire. The Ukrainians are claiming they have hit it with missiles. If true it it means that the Russian ability to launch amphibious landings in the Black Sea area will be made much more dangerous, as it was there to provide air missile cover in the event of landings.

According to some reports, there is now no satellite imagery, so it has sunk.

Open source info on the war had already pointed out that she was following regular patterns so trackable, why the Russians allowed this is difficult to know, perhaps they underestimated the danger of a missile attack.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/russias-most-powerful-warship-in-the-black-sea-is-operating-in-a-pattern/
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 73, 74, 75 ... 104, 105, 106  Next

Jump to:  
Page 74 of 106

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group