Poisoned Russian spy.

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Funnily enough, they sent a wee memo around asking for volunteers to go to Porton Down when I was in, to go down for testing etc, extra money blah blah blah. We all declined....funnily enough.

 

Whats your area of expertise? Watched The Rock with Sean Connery? What’s the difference between persistent and non persistent then? I’ll await your answer with the usual rofl smileys afte4 you’ve Googled it. 

 

 

 

 

Ooft.    A severe bout of defensiveness to go with your unjustified grandiosity.    I have encountered this type of moral outlook before.     

[shaun.lawson]

9 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

How so? 

 

Because Russia is a huge and growing threat to the United Kingdom. Russia has killed Russian and British citizens in the UK with apparent impunity. Russia is engaged in an online war against the West which aims to achieve complete chaos. Russia has horrible amounts of power viz. the UK which require us to unite with our allies to stop them doing anything more than they've already done.

 

Back in the late 1940s, when we were still a world power, we had plenty of difficulty in getting the US to accept what a threat the USSR had become to Western Europe. That we succeeded, thanks especially to the efforts of the great Ernest Bevin, ensured our and Western Europe's protection through NATO and Marshall Aid. Russia is now seeking to take advantage of these very troubled, unsettled times, and we need help to stop them. 

 

7 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

It is remarkable that so soon after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the supposed "end of history" and victory of the West, that rather than scale back NATO, the main reason for its existence having disappeared, the US and its allies embarked instead on a major expansion of NATO, moving its reach  ever closer to Russia. George Kennan, a major figure in the history of the original Cold War nailed the risks and likely consequences (and idiocy) of this strategy in that interview in 1998.

 

I don't disagree about the military-industrial complex at all (albeit, Russia has its own one: gotta give all those unemployed red blooded young men something to do, haven't you?). I do disagree in part about Kennan, and especially about NATO expansion.

 

It was to our great fortune that Kennan had such an incredibly malign view of Stalin's USSR. But it was largely an inaccurate one: based much more on ideology than facts. Stalin had no interest in taking over the world, or even Europe; Stalin needed defensive security against Germany. But the problem was that Western Europe had been so ravaged by war, its societies so destablised, that its peoples started turning towards Communism regardless. Hence the need for Marshall Aid: to my mind, the most brilliantly far-sighted piece of foreign policy in history. Which was also offered to the USSR and its Eastern satellites, incidentally; it was Stalin's choice to turn it down.

 

But now? After the end of the Cold War, the newly liberated nations of Eastern Europe, denied their independence for so long, quite rightly expected protection against Russia. They have very recent memory of Soviet tyranny; and the only way of ensuring it doesn't happen again is to guarantee their security through NATO. If it wasn't for that, Putin might already have gone well beyond Crimea.   

[Space Mackerel]

33 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Ooft.    A severe bout of defensiveness to go with your unjustified grandiosity.    I have encountered this type of moral outlook before.     

 

Nothing moral or defensive about it.

 

What the drills for being contaminated with biological or nerve agent attack? Domestic in this case. You tell me. You’re the expert. 

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Nothing moral or defensive about it.

 

What the drills for being contaminated with biological or nerve agent attack? Domestic in this case. You tell me. You’re the expert. 

I've already stated that I'm not going to pretend to be an expert.      

 

Trying to impose an exam in this manner is extremely defensive behaviour.      Trying to assert your own perceived superiority.    Cringey as.

[Space Mackerel]

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

I've already stated that I'm not going to pretend to be an expert.      

 

Trying to impose an exam in this manner is extremely defensive behaviour.      Trying to assert your own perceived superiority.    Cringey as.

 

Theres nothing defensive about it. You’ve called out 2 professionals trained in NBC or whatever the acronym is now and said we know nothing about it.

 

Whats your call on this? Do you need a wee shot of Fullers Earth? ?

[Space Mackerel]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Because Russia is a huge and growing threat to the United Kingdom. Russia has killed Russian and British citizens in the UK with apparent impunity. Russia is engaged in an online war against the West which aims to achieve complete chaos. Russia has horrible amounts of power viz. the UK which require us to unite with our allies to stop them doing anything more than they've already done.

 

Back in the late 1940s, when we were still a world power, we had plenty of difficulty in getting the US to accept what a threat the USSR had become to Western Europe. That we succeeded, thanks especially to the efforts of the great Ernest Bevin, ensured our and Western Europe's protection through NATO and Marshall Aid. Russia is now seeking to take advantage of these very troubled, unsettled times, and we need help to stop them. 

 

 

I don't disagree about the military-industrial complex at all (albeit, Russia has its own one: gotta give all those unemployed red blooded young men something to do, haven't you?). I do disagree in part about Kennan, and especially about NATO expansion.

 

It was to our great fortune that Kennan had such an incredibly malign view of Stalin's USSR. But it was largely an inaccurate one: based much more on ideology than facts. Stalin had no interest in taking over the world, or even Europe; Stalin needed defensive security against Germany. But the problem was that Western Europe had been so ravaged by war, its societies so destablised, that its peoples started turning towards Communism regardless. Hence the need for Marshall Aid: to my mind, the most brilliantly far-sighted piece of foreign policy in history. Which was also offered to the USSR and its Eastern satellites, incidentally; it was Stalin's choice to turn it down.

 

But now? After the end of the Cold War, the newly liberated nations of Eastern Europe, denied their independence for so long, quite rightly expected protection against Russia. They have very recent memory of Soviet tyranny; and the only way of ensuring it doesn't happen again is to guarantee their security through NATO. If it wasn't for that, Putin might already have gone well beyond Crimea.   

 

If only life was that simple eh. In Argentina too.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Victorian said:

A warrant officer aye?     They all get top level security clearance intel right enough.

 

"What's the code for the cleaning supplies room?" 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 

**** me, if you got medals for irony you'd need a lorry to collect yours. 

 

 

.....but that wouldn't be a problem if he was looking for medals in syntax or grammar. 

[Space Mackerel]

42 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

.....but that wouldn't be a problem if he was looking for medals in syntax or grammar. 

 

 

What do you think of Mister X... ?

Edited March 30, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[Ulysses]

Aye, Space.

 

Aye.

 

[Space Mackerel]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Aye, Space.

 

Aye.

 

 

There you have it.

[felix]

22 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

New cold war.

 

Good, it's in the best interests of the United Kingdom.

 

Would be interesting to hear your logic on that one .

[Ulysses]

23 minutes ago, felix said:

 

Would be interesting to hear your logic on that one .

 

If someone else is engaged in covert operations against you, then pretending they're good mates is not in your country's best interests.

 

Russia acts against the interests of the UK, so the UK should adopt a defensive posture and act against Russia's interests.  That's when you get "cold war". 

 

Apart from supine surrender, the only realistic alternative to a cold war is a hot one, which means that unless it becomes absolutely necessary, a cold war is better for the interests of the UK.

[Ulysses]

40 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I have no idea what the discipline's actual name is, but I'm gonna claim expertise in it because I once met a fella who was in the Army and was given charge of the keys to the storeroom where they kept the Harpic and toilet brushes.

 

 

Fixed that for you - unless you're going to claim that it was some other kind of storeroom. 

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Because Russia is a huge and growing threat to the United Kingdom. Russia has killed Russian and British citizens in the UK with apparent impunity. Russia is engaged in an online war against the West which aims to achieve complete chaos. Russia has horrible amounts of power viz. the UK which require us to unite with our allies to stop them doing anything more than they've already done.

 

Back in the late 1940s, when we were still a world power, we had plenty of difficulty in getting the US to accept what a threat the USSR had become to Western Europe. That we succeeded, thanks especially to the efforts of the great Ernest Bevin, ensured our and Western Europe's protection through NATO and Marshall Aid. Russia is now seeking to take advantage of these very troubled, unsettled times, and we need help to stop them. 

 

 

I don't disagree about the military-industrial complex at all (albeit, Russia has its own one: gotta give all those unemployed red blooded young men something to do, haven't you?). I do disagree in part about Kennan, and especially about NATO expansion.

 

It was to our great fortune that Kennan had such an incredibly malign view of Stalin's USSR. But it was largely an inaccurate one: based much more on ideology than facts. Stalin had no interest in taking over the world, or even Europe; Stalin needed defensive security against Germany. But the problem was that Western Europe had been so ravaged by war, its societies so destablised, that its peoples started turning towards Communism regardless. Hence the need for Marshall Aid: to my mind, the most brilliantly far-sighted piece of foreign policy in history. Which was also offered to the USSR and its Eastern satellites, incidentally; it was Stalin's choice to turn it down.

 

But now? After the end of the Cold War, the newly liberated nations of Eastern Europe, denied their independence for so long, quite rightly expected protection against Russia. They have very recent memory of Soviet tyranny; and the only way of ensuring it doesn't happen again is to guarantee their security through NATO. If it wasn't for that, Putin might already have gone well beyond Crimea.   

Why is it a huge and growing threat? OK it still has a lot of nuclear weapons which could wipe us all out but that is not a growing threat - it has existed for all my life. And the Russians are no more likely now to launch a suicidal nuclear attack than they ever were. As far as conventional war is concerned the threat is much diminished because Russia now lacks the resources it once had to conduct such a war and sustain it. The Russian economy is of about the same size as the Italian economy. It is in world terms a minnow.

What has this online war achieved? And please don't say it has succeeded in giving us Trump and Brexit.

We did not drag the US into a fight against communism. (I agree that the fact that Boris Johnson shares the office of  Foreign Secretary with his great predecessor Bevin is an outrage).

A better response to the demise of the Soviet empire and its puppet East European regimes would have been to offer a modern version of the Marshall Plan to the former Warsaw Pact powers and draw Russia into the European economy and democratic principles. Instead we extended the military alliance of NATO eastwards.

Kennan was hardly wrong or isolated in having a malign view about Stalin's USSR. Unlike many more hot-headed anti-communists he had a realistic view about what the West could do about it including the "taking over" of the eastern half of Europe, and his strategy of containment preserved peace until the USSR and its satellites collapsed.  

The Marshall Plan after WW2 was certainly one of the most far sighted policies in history. It is a pity the West's reaction to the end of the Cold War was nowhere near as far sighted but instead not only preserved but expanded an anti-Russian military alliance which the Russians inevitably saw as a threat ... and led the way to Putin's current domination of Russian politics.

[Victorian]

2 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Theres nothing defensive about it. You’ve called out 2 professionals trained in NBC or whatever the acronym is now and said we know nothing about it.

 

Whats your call on this? Do you need a wee shot of Fullers Earth? ?

 

"... or whatever the acronym is now... "

 

Top echelon knowledge right there.    

 

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

"What's the code for the cleaning supplies room?" 

It must be a clever parody.    

[jake]

5 hours ago, bobsharp said:

Not off hand Jake.

 

Just after your post of not going by someone's job title etc but by going on how you take someone and their views.

He is someone I think is worth a listen to and it's really hard to get alternate views from our media.

Without the usual snide remarks.

 

I would post an interview with him about recent events .

But only if you are interested as it all gets lost in the nonsense.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by jake

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

If only life was that simple eh. In Argentina too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes - and? That the US rebuilt Western Europe after the war through both Marshall Aid and NATO is beyond dispute. That the US behaved despicably in South America in the 1970s is also beyond dispute.

 

The problem arises when one ignores the first completely (an absurd state of affairs, given the US has protected everyone living in Britain since the late 1940s) and treats the second as some sort of rule. It's not. 

 

On the vexed, thorny question of international relations: of course there is no such thing as "Good" and "Evil". There are only nation states, power blocs, and interests. As a liberal democracy, the UK's interests align with those of the US and most of Europe; they do not align with those of a mafia state. But those who believe that because of certain awful things the US or UK have done in the past, this makes us somehow equivalent to that mafia state, are simply wrong. Appallingly wrong. Disgracefully wrong.

 

It's not so much a question of "Evil" v "Good" as "complete, never-ending shit" v "less shit". Naturally, because the less shit option is still, very often, shit, all many see is shit, shit and nothing else. The alternative on offer means they don't even know they've been born. 

[Sharpie]

48 minutes ago, jake said:

Just after your post of not going by someone's job title etc but by going on how you take someone and their views.

He is someone I think is worth a listen to and it's really hard to get alternate views from our media.

Without the usual snide remarks.

 

I would post an interview with him about recent events .

But only if you are interested as it all gets lost in the nonsense.

 

 

 

Thanks Jake, I was interested enough in your message that I googled him. I will try to read some of his stuff, but I was a wee bit disconcerted with his relationship to a Church. He certainly has an interesting backgground but at seventy nine he is probably just another of those know nothing old in my day seniliity sufferers.

[ri Alban]

My money is on a botched attempt by the daughter. But I have no issues with Putin or any other government taking out traitors.

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by ri Alban

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Why is it a huge and growing threat? OK it still has a lot of nuclear weapons which could wipe us all out but that is not a growing threat - it has existed for all my life. And the Russians are no more likely now to launch a suicidal nuclear attack than they ever were. As far as conventional war is concerned the threat is much diminished because Russia now lacks the resources it once had to conduct such a war and sustain it. The Russian economy is of about the same size as the Italian economy. It is in world terms a minnow.

What has this online war achieved? And please don't say it has succeeded in giving us Trump and Brexit.

We did not drag the US into a fight against communism. (I agree that the fact that Boris Johnson shares the office of  Foreign Secretary with his great predecessor Bevin is an outrage).

A better response to the demise of the Soviet empire and its puppet East European regimes would have been to offer a modern version of the Marshall Plan to the former Warsaw Pact powers and draw Russia into the European economy and democratic principles. Instead we extended the military alliance of NATO eastwards.

Kennan was hardly wrong or isolated in having a malign view about Stalin's USSR. Unlike many more hot-headed anti-communists he had a realistic view about what the West could do about it including the "taking over" of the eastern half of Europe, and his strategy of containment preserved peace until the USSR and its satellites collapsed.  

The Marshall Plan after WW2 was certainly one of the most far sighted policies in history. It is a pity the West's reaction to the end of the Cold War was nowhere near as far sighted but instead not only preserved but expanded an anti-Russian military alliance which the Russians inevitably saw as a threat ... and led the way to Putin's current domination of Russian politics.

 

Interesting post, thanks for this. You make a particularly good point on the question of why we didn't have a Marshall Plan 2 after the Cold War ended - but the will in the US just wasn't there. It was tough enough to get Marshall Aid through Congress in the late 1940s; impossible to get something similar through four decades later. No country ever likes agreeing to colossal, humungous investment somewhere else - and cultural attitudes towards Russia made it a non-starter.

 

As for the threat Russia poses now: we're still only in the infancy of understanding just what Russia is doing to the West through cyberwarfare. The extent of its success thus far is astonishing, resulting in a hitherto unthinkable state of politics in the US and UK, and governance so breathtakingly incompetent that it threatens the national interests, national security and future of both. 

 

As I've mentioned several times on this thread already, Russia also murders both its own and British citizens on British soil. This is well worth a read if you have the time and inclination:

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil

 

The latest act of aggression in Salisbury - endangering so many bystanders - is simply the last straw as far as we're concerned. Hot war is impossible; cold war a long overdue response. 

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

My money is on a botched attempt by the daughter. But I have no issues with Putin or any other government taking out traitors.

 

 

 

 

You have "no issue" with Putin "taking out traitors" (according to whom? Him?) on British territory?

 

You're at it. Sucks to be RU. 

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

You have "no issue" with Putin "taking out traitors" (according to whom? Him?) on British territory?

 

You're at it. Sucks to be RU. 

I couldn't give a shit where it's done. He probably cost many a Russian their life. And don't tell me good old Team GB haven't done it. They invented it.

 

Anyway, c'mon Russia!

Edited March 31, 2018 by ri Alban

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

I couldn't give a shit where it's done. He probably cost many a Russian their live. And don't tell me good old Team GB haven't done it. They invented it.

 

Anyway, c'mon Russia!

 

[Sraman]

12 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Interesting post, thanks for this. You make a particularly good point on the question of why we didn't have a Marshall Plan 2 after the Cold War ended - but the will in the US just wasn't there. It was tough enough to get Marshall Aid through Congress in the late 1940s; impossible to get something similar through four decades later. No country ever likes agreeing to colossal, humungous investment somewhere else - and cultural attitudes towards Russia made it a non-starter.

 

As for the threat Russia poses now: we're still only in the infancy of understanding just what Russia is doing to the West through cyberwarfare. The extent of its success thus far is astonishing, resulting in a hitherto unthinkable state of politics in the US and UK, and governance so breathtakingly incompetent that it threatens the national interests, national security and future of both. 

 

As I've mentioned several times on this thread already, Russia also murders both its own and British citizens on British soil. This is well worth a read if you have the time and inclination:

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil

 

The latest act of aggression in Salisbury - endangering so many bystanders - is simply the last straw as far as we're concerned. Hot war is impossible; cold war a long overdue response. 

 

 

Hold on a goddamn cottonpickin'minute there pardner.

 

We should believe our bunch of incompetents because there is no way they would be so incompetent if it wasn't for the Russians? 

 

Do you realise how silly that sounds? The Russians interfered in the US elections, that's the only reason Trump won. Brexit was only possible due to Russian Interference. Corbyns a commie because the Russians have interfered with him.

 

IT WAS THE TORIES. They have even told you it was them on all three occasions. 

 

Well, maybe not on the last one but I'm sure you can work out where I'm headed with that one.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Sraman

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

And to you.

 

[shaun.lawson]

5 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Hold on a goddamn cottonpickin'minute there pardner.

 

We should believe our bunch of incompetents because there is no way they would be so incompetent if it wasn't for the Russians? 

 

Do you realise how silly that sounds? The Russians interfered in the US elections, that's the only reason Trump won. Brexit was only possible due to Russian Interference. Corbyns a commie because the Russians have interfered with him.

 

IT WAS THE TORIES. They have even told you it was them on all three occasions. 

 

Well, maybe not on the last one but I'm sure you can work out where I'm headed with that one.

 

Are certain sections of the American and British hard right in cahoots with the Ruskies? Oh yes. But then, that's just another reason why this new cold war is needed: to nip such behaviour in the bud. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[ri Alban]

Nothing like a war to bolster the w

economy, especially as Brexit isn't going England's way.

 

look at the shiny, shiny.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, ri Alban said:

Nothing like a war to bolster the w

economy, especially as Brexit isn't going England's way.

 

look at the shiny, shiny.

 

Yes, we're going to have a hot war with a nuclear power. Of course we are.

 

, again. 

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Are certain sections of the American and British hard right in cahoots with the Ruskies? Oh yes. But then, that's just another reason why this new cold war is needed: to nip such behaviour in the bud. 

Did u complain as much after uncle Sam tried to top Castro over 600 times?

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Yes, we're going to have a hot war with a nuclear power. Of course we are.

 

, again. 

GB wouldn't last long. 2 bombs should suffice.

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Did u complain as much after uncle Sam tried to top Castro over 600 times?

 

It would've been a bit difficult to, given I wasn't alive at the time for most of those. If I had been, then yes - albeit I'd have had no real need to do so, given Uncle Sam kept completely botching it. 

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Yes, we're going to have a hot war with a nuclear power. Of course we are.

 

, again. 

Even talk has taken everyone's attention off pathetic Tory governance.
d of

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

It would've been a bit difficult to, given I wasn't alive at the time for most of those. If I had been, then yes - albeit I'd have had no real need to do so, given Uncle Sam kept completely botching it. 

So it's unlikely America did this then.

[Sraman]

59 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Are certain sections of the American and British hard right in cohorts with the Ruskies? Oh yes. But then, that's just another reason why this new cold war is needed: to nip such behaviour in the bud. 

 

Certain sections? What, you mean like Tommy Robinson,, or ***? They are in the pay of the Tories as well and not just some rogue Tories either. Well, maybe no Tommy. I think he may just be a radge that the Tories secretly love, despise and fall about laughing at all at the same time. They are a very well worked distraction for the disaffected. The disaffected who think Labour have went too nice. Too soft. The testosterone filled jobless youths, as well as the older "groomers", not a term I would prefer to use but seems popular on here in the bigotry threads. Labour have lost them, forever. The Tories know this and are laughing up their sleeves

 

This whole them and/or us shite is just that. It's Imperialistic noncense and the last time I had a look I couldn't find a crown that belonged to me. If the figures already presented are anywhere near true we could squash them like a gnat. But we don't. We are the ones that need a boogeyman and so far, Putin is going along with it. As is the puppet the Tory machine put in the Whitehouse. See when you look back at a list of American Presidents, does it not make you wonder if this is really the first time the British have interfered in their elections?

 

Cold war indeed. Still haven't had the chance to spank the old Bears bottom for falling horribly out of line. What a bloody nuisance that old chap Adolf was. Just when we had it all planned out as well. We wouldn't have had to rely on bloody Boris almost a hundred years later. Ah well, he'll jest his way out of it as he always does and be back on the television with that nice chap that likes the cocaine at our parties what. What's that you say? Oh, the cheque, just put it on my card. I'll claim it back in  expenses. Just to keep the election funds down a bit you know. Got to keep the critters off your back old boy! That's what I say. Hunters and beaters aaAH, Hunters and beaters.

 

Who knew Nige without an e was a sweary word? Not me, nor my old mate ***, oh no.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Sraman

[shaun.lawson]

On 3/26/2018 at 19:29, Gorgiewave said:

SL, 60 diplomats expelled today and the Seattle consulate closed.

 

 

 

 

[Geoff the Mince]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Fixed that for you - unless you're going to claim that it was some other kind of storeroom. 

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Interesting post, thanks for this. You make a particularly good point on the question of why we didn't have a Marshall Plan 2 after the Cold War ended - but the will in the US just wasn't there. It was tough enough to get Marshall Aid through Congress in the late 1940s; impossible to get something similar through four decades later. No country ever likes agreeing to colossal, humungous investment somewhere else - and cultural attitudes towards Russia made it a non-starter.

 

As for the threat Russia poses now: we're still only in the infancy of understanding just what Russia is doing to the West through cyberwarfare. The extent of its success thus far is astonishing, resulting in a hitherto unthinkable state of politics in the US and UK, and governance so breathtakingly incompetent that it threatens the national interests, national security and future of both. 

 

As I've mentioned several times on this thread already, Russia also murders both its own and British citizens on British soil. This is well worth a read if you have the time and inclination:

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil

 

The latest act of aggression in Salisbury - endangering so many bystanders - is simply the last straw as far as we're concerned. Hot war is impossible; cold war a long overdue response. 

After WW2 there was little public support for Marshall Aid to Germany. And "cultural issues" with the ally who made a major contribution to victory were negligible compared to the "cultural issues" most of us had with Germany. In contrast despite decades of propaganda I don't believe there was widespread cultural antagonism against Russia after it had itself removed the Communist regime without the West lifting a finger, at least compared to our losses in defeating the Nazis.

  After all the US and western Europe had just suffered millions of dead at the hands of the Germans and the full story of the Holocaust was emerging.  The reaction of my parents who lived through WW2 and one of whom fought in it to the fall of the Berlin Wall was not delight that the East Germans would be liberated but regret that a wall had not been built around the whole of Germany to ensure the Germans would stay behind that wall indefinitely. Marshall Aid was the result of far sighted decision which was opposed by the public (or would have been if they had been asked)  at least in relation to Germany. The desire to rebuild a strong Western Europe also of course had quite a lot to do with the threat from the Soviet Union and its communist supporters in the West as you said earlier. A similar strategy to promote prosperity and true democracy might have lessened the risk of a resurgence of an aggressive nationalist Russia.

 

Not seen evidence yet that a single vote was affected by Russian meddling in the US election or the Brexit referendum.

 

The Buzzfeed thing looks a bit lurid and OTT but I'll read it later

 

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

After WW2 there was little public support for Marshall Aid to Germany. And "cultural issues" with the ally who made a major contribution to victory were negligible compared to the "cultural issues" most of us had with Germany. In contrast despite decades of propaganda I don't believe there was widespread cultural antagonism against Russia after it had itself removed the Communist regime without the West lifting a finger, at least compared to our losses in defeating the Nazis.

  After all the US and western Europe had just suffered millions of dead at the hands of the Germans and the full story of the Holocaust was emerging.  The reaction of my parents who lived through WW2 and one of whom fought in it to the fall of the Berlin Wall was not delight that the East Germans would be liberated but regret that a wall had not been built around the whole of Germany to ensure the Germans would stay behind that wall indefinitely. Marshall Aid was the result of far sighted decision which was opposed by the public (or would have been if they had been asked)  at least in relation to Germany. The desire to rebuild a strong Western Europe also of course had quite a lot to do with the threat from the Soviet Union and its communist supporters in the West as you said earlier. A similar strategy to promote prosperity and true democracy might have lessened the risk of a resurgence of an aggressive nationalist Russia.

 

Not seen evidence yet that a single vote was affected by Russian meddling in the US election or the Brexit referendum.

 

The Buzzfeed thing looks a bit lurid and OTT but I'll read it later

 

If HC had visited 3 states earlier she would be PoTUS now. As for brexit, it was never in doubt that English/British Nationalism would prevail. Countdown to Scottish independence is in motion.

As for this Russian demonisation by the west, be thankful they won WW2 or Europe would be German.

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

If HC had visited 3 states earlier she would be PoTUS now. As for brexit, it was never in doubt that English/British Nationalism would prevail. Countdown to Scottish independence is in motion.

As for this Russian demonisation by the west, be thankful they won WW2 or Europe would be German.

Would be?

[ri Alban]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Would be?

Pathetic.

 

Yet it doesn't seem to be a problem when England run the so called UK. But hey, big bad Germany still being hated because of hitler, but the Empire of England was ages ago. And yes Scots born Brits helped but it's still England's Empire with a stolen Scottish Kingdom and crown.

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Pathetic.

 

Yet it doesn't seem to be a problem when England run the so called UK. But hey, big bad Germany still being hated because of hitler, but the Empire of England was ages ago. And yes Scots born Brits helped but it's still England's Empire with a stolen Scottish Kingdom and crown.

My post was a bit tongue in cheek. But Germany is the dominant or at the very least strongest political and economic force in the EU. I wasn't expressing hatred of Germany. They have done a lot of things we could have learned from ... like maintaining  manufacturing industry and not largely abandoning it for flakey "service" industry. Like having sensible industrial relations policy. Like not having aspirations to remain or become a global power.

 

"So called UK"? "Scots born Brits"? "Empire of England"? You seem to suffer from hatred not me.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Geoff the Mince]

16 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Pathetic.

 

Yet it doesn't seem to be a problem when England run the so called UK. But hey, big bad Germany still being hated because of hitler, but the Empire of England was ages ago. And yes Scots born Brits helped but it's still England's Empire with a stolen Scottish Kingdom and crown.

You will always be a Brit  

[Gorgiewave]

3 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

 

 

 

Russian state TV, eh?

 

And now sport: Deek Rearend believes Kujabi's foul was outside the box, wasn't a foul and Hibs should have been awarded a goal for having a Japanese-style card display. We'll hear Paul Kane's view on that.

[AlphonseCapone]

4 minutes ago, Geoff the Mince said:

You will always be a Brit  

 

Folk probably said the same thing about being in the EU. 

 

The only certainty in life is death. 

[Adam Murray]

43 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Folk probably said the same thing about being in the EU. 

 

The only certainty in life is death. 

 

Serious question here, I know people on these Islands refer to themselves as Brits, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Geordie etc, etc, but are there people who solely refer to themselves as European. not just here, but in any other European country?

 

I know that's not what you were referring to AC, just curious if anyone knows of anyone, or of any instances of people claiming to be just European?

[ri Alban]

On ‎26‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 17:45, shaun.lawson said:

 

A position of healthy scepticism where the UK government is concerned is, of course, entirely reasonable. But your position goes well, well, well beyond that.

 

No, Britain is not some paragon of virtue. It's entirely possible that a criminal conspiracy has resulted in us leaving the EU; our history has often been a horribly dark one. But for all our many ills, we're not a mafia state.

 

- We don't go around illegally annexing territory, as Russia did in Crimea

 

- If someone starts a business in London, they don't have to pay bribes to local leaders and gangsters for 'protection'

 

- We don't train thugs to go and smash up opposing fans at major football tournaments, before praising said thugs in Parliament

 

- We do at least attempt to avoid civilian casualties as far as possible on another of our ill-advised foreign adventures

 

- We don't conduct mass cyberwarfare against an entire political bloc, in the aim of causing as much chaos as possible

 

- And we sure as heck don't murder at least 14 people on the streets with complete impunity - but Russia has, as the link which jake refuses to read  sets out in comprehensive detail.

 

100%, cast iron, crystal clear evidence for what happened in Salisbury? It's impossible to produce. Which, of course, is precisely why Russia behaves like this in the first place. Always the victim, never the aggressor - Putin's all a bit Celtic if you ask me. Fortunately, however belatedly, the EU member states (many of which, through bitter recent experience, know all too well how much of a threat Russia is) have realised what side their bread's buttered on. 

 

International relations are always, I entirely accept, murky, complicated and unpleasant. But however appalled I've often been by Britain's behaviour, I'm always much more appalled by those who think we're the same as some of the worst regimes on the planet. We're not. Quite frankly, we're too incompetent to be so. 

This is great sarcasm.

[Cairneyhill Jambo]

38 minutes ago, Adam Murray said:

 

Serious question here, I know people on these Islands refer to themselves as Brits, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Geordie etc, etc, but are there people who solely refer to themselves as European. not just here, but in any other European country?

 

I know that's not what you were referring to AC, just curious if anyone knows of anyone, or of any instances of people claiming to be just European?

I would probably say I'm Scottish first, then European. 

 

Hate being called British. 

[Gorgiewave]

5 minutes ago, Cairneyhill Jambo said:

I would probably say I'm Scottish first, then European. 

 

Hate being called British. 

What does "European" bring to mind? What is this identity? Does it include only EU countries, or all European countries?

 

Do you feel you have more in common with a person from Belarus, Liechtenstein or Albania than with a person from Newcastle, Liverpool, Swansea or Belfast?