By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Are they bad or wot? Going into Syria, kicking ass, destroying IS in a matter of days, looking for the duck that walks like a terrorist, and delivering the orange sauce. Cheeky bastards, showing up the US and Cameron and co, incompetently feeding IS for 12 months outside International Law in the bid to topple Assad. Because doing away with Saddam and Gaddafi so made the world a safer place.
Putin can never be forgiven for Ambrovich and he is solely responsible. But he knows how to kick a terrorist and will personally deliver a cruise missile up the jacksie of the wanna be rulers of the world. The Islamists are taking an utter pasting. In days. What the US claims to have sought and tried for 12 months and singularly failed.
The Ruskies have their own objectives, but these little vermin, sewer rats hiding behind Islam have all the backbone of a snake. Why didn't the US take them out so efficiently? Word is Rumsfeld is on the board and Murdoch is a major shareholder.
What a scummy world these types reduce it to. Maybe it's me but it is pure joy to see these Islam extremists grabbing their ankles to take a cruise missile up the backside. You have to doff your cap to Putin on this one. Them knuts are getting properly served up at last. There's rescinding passports of those gone to 'fight' and there's saying 'hello, here's a cruise missile you knut.'
This debt situation is fascinating. By definition, where there's a liability (debt) there's an asset so, given that all the major economies are carrying huge debt who the fck has all the money?
I think we're all being conned.
Who has the money?Oxfam came out with the figures.85 individuals hold half the world's wealth for starters.
What,35 tonnes at $37.199m a tonne?Not a bad booty as you try to go through the choke point on your attempted route to Iran.Americans have killed lots more people for less than that.They had Saddam's and Gaddafi's gold,hundreds of tons,they love gold. I doesn't buy you a country but it helps pay the expenses.Why do they keep on doing it?They're $18trillion in debt.
[Post edited 9 Oct 2015 14:03]
When I said it doesn't buy you a country I meant Assad isn't going to bug out unless he absolutely has to. While he's President he's got power, influence and lifestyle and doesn't have to touch his nest egg. In Iran, he'd be not much more than a wealthy superannuant.
To the Yanks, half a bill is chump change. They want to deny the Russians a home base in the Med, break the Palestine-Syria-Iran (and Russia) axis and root out Islamic State. They want a nice, peaceful and compliant Middle East.
When I said it doesn't buy you a country I meant Assad isn't going to bug out unless he absolutely has to. While he's President he's got power, influence and lifestyle and doesn't have to touch his nest egg. In Iran, he'd be not much more than a wealthy superannuant.
To the Yanks, half a bill is chump change. They want to deny the Russians a home base in the Med, break the Palestine-Syria-Iran (and Russia) axis and root out Islamic State. They want a nice, peaceful and compliant Middle East.
Half a billion?It's more like $1.5b in seized gold alone ,not exactly chump change,but it's part of a wider game.Someone said recently the russians are playing chess and the americans are playing checkers.It's all about Iran anyway. All I'm worried about is you've got two gung-ho armed forces which could accidentally trigger a wider conflict and then all bets are off.
I hate to admit it but at least Putin is a decisive leader. The problem spans from a weak Democratic President and Nato has always been spineless and always will be. Obama and Nato won't do Jack, just carry out full reviews all the time and do nothin. If they do anything I will be very surprised.
Half a billion?It's more like $1.5b in seized gold alone ,not exactly chump change,but it's part of a wider game.Someone said recently the russians are playing chess and the americans are playing checkers.It's all about Iran anyway. All I'm worried about is you've got two gung-ho armed forces which could accidentally trigger a wider conflict and then all bets are off.
[Post edited 9 Oct 2015 14:52]
Its still chump change (and I did say "half a billion quid").
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance professor Linda Bilmes it costs the United States $720 million a day to wage the Iraq war." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Financial_cost )
You yourself were talking of an $18 trillion debt.
Neither Russia nor America want to clash in Syria, but both will strongly resist being deterred from pursuing their own agendas. Putin is being more overt in his interference in the civil war, but he knows he can't win a stand-up fight there. If things were to get hotter, it will escalate closer to Russia (say, Ukraine separatists becoming more active), and I doubt that Nato would do anything about it.
This debt situation is fascinating. By definition, where there's a liability (debt) there's an asset so, given that all the major economies are carrying huge debt who the fck has all the money?
I think we're all being conned.
A-fu*king-men brother.
It's all explained here.
And in terms of the bombings, the Americans and Russians are going to clash, it's been planned for a while now. Very unfortunate.
What,35 tonnes at $37.199m a tonne?Not a bad booty as you try to go through the choke point on your attempted route to Iran.Americans have killed lots more people for less than that.They had Saddam's and Gaddafi's gold,hundreds of tons,they love gold. I doesn't buy you a country but it helps pay the expenses.Why do they keep on doing it?They're $18trillion in debt.
[Post edited 9 Oct 2015 14:03]
35 tonnes of gold (c$1.3bn) is equivalent to what the US government collects in tax and other revenues in one hour and forty-five minutes ($17.8bn per day, $6.5bn per year). Direct spending by the US Department of Defense on Iraq was about $100bn a year over seven years. I doubt they are in it for the gold.
I hate to admit it but at least Putin is a decisive leader. The problem spans from a weak Democratic President and Nato has always been spineless and always will be. Obama and Nato won't do Jack, just carry out full reviews all the time and do nothin. If they do anything I will be very surprised.
I know a lot of dictators who were decisive ,that doesn't make them right!
35 tonnes of gold (c$1.3bn) is equivalent to what the US government collects in tax and other revenues in one hour and forty-five minutes ($17.8bn per day, $6.5bn per year). Direct spending by the US Department of Defense on Iraq was about $100bn a year over seven years. I doubt they are in it for the gold.
Yes of course, the americans are there because Assad is a very naughty boy. Come back and talk to me at Re Set Day.
Hmm, I'll reserve judgement on that until such time as there's any evidence that ISIS has been seriously damaged (e.g. pushed out of a major centre, say, Palmyra) let alone destroyed.
That said, If Patrick Cockburn of the Indy is to be believed (and he was the guy who called the rise of ISIS first) there is no such thing as a non-Jihadist opposition in Syria, the ones who aren't ISIS are Al-Qaida or similar, in which case the "if it looks like a terrorist" line is spot on. (I'm only repeating Cockburn's views, I've no knowledge myself.)
I'm not sure why Obama/Cameron et al are so down on Putin's intervention, the West has had years to try to get this right without the slightest success and so far Putin's prediction way back that undermining Assad would only let in jihadists and terrorists has been proved right. And this has the double bonus of keeping the Russians busy and not invading Ukraine or the Baltics. It's a golden opportunity for NATO to build bridges with Russia on an issue where we share a common enemy and maybe open up the prospect of a compromise over Ukraine.
And we look particularly silly condemning Russian bombing when the yanks have just wiped out an MSF hospital.
Hmm, I'll reserve judgement on that until such time as there's any evidence that ISIS has been seriously damaged (e.g. pushed out of a major centre, say, Palmyra) let alone destroyed.
That said, If Patrick Cockburn of the Indy is to be believed (and he was the guy who called the rise of ISIS first) there is no such thing as a non-Jihadist opposition in Syria, the ones who aren't ISIS are Al-Qaida or similar, in which case the "if it looks like a terrorist" line is spot on. (I'm only repeating Cockburn's views, I've no knowledge myself.)
I'm not sure why Obama/Cameron et al are so down on Putin's intervention, the West has had years to try to get this right without the slightest success and so far Putin's prediction way back that undermining Assad would only let in jihadists and terrorists has been proved right. And this has the double bonus of keeping the Russians busy and not invading Ukraine or the Baltics. It's a golden opportunity for NATO to build bridges with Russia on an issue where we share a common enemy and maybe open up the prospect of a compromise over Ukraine.
And we look particularly silly condemning Russian bombing when the yanks have just wiped out an MSF hospital.
Coz for years, amerika has announced and portrayed itself as the world's policeman, the good guy, the one who restores order and makes things right. therefore, by definition, anyone who is 'on the other side' is the bad guy, the one who causes and instigates terror and disorder. cccp, ussr, russia, whatever. since churchill's iron curtain comment, they have been perceived as the bad guys, reds under the bed, better dead than red and all the other simple yet effective propaganda. and for decades it worked till gorbachev took down the wall and opened up russia to the west and for its people. for a while, till putin appeared on the scene and appears to want to roll back history, reignite the cold war and start another arms race. and this involves choosing a side in the middle east, as was always the case. if amerika backs/sides/supports/arms/finances/or whatever other term you choose to use israel, then russia by default will back/side/support/arm/finance/or whatever other term you choose to use the flip side to israel, which happens to be syria, they also conveniently allow russia access to a mediterranean seaport, which is vital given what is happening in europe now with migration. so Amerika and obama in particular, have been caught off guard with putin's intervention, and because they haven't orchestrated it or are part of the decision making, they object to it. period. the whole area has been a tinderbox for decades, but it now seems to be entering a very volatile and dangerous state with much uncertainty. russia wants to be, no NEEDS to be part of it, as there is so much at stake involving fuels, gold, money, territory and serious influence. for years, russia hasn't been involved in the region as directly as it is now. it had domestic issues, as well as issues on its eastern front (afghanistan, very public home war against islam). now it wants to be a world leader again under the egotistical self-centred hard-man image that is putin. small penis syndrome? napoleon complex? mother didn't breast feed him? who knows. but they have emerged from a long hibernation, and caught everyone else off guard so naturally stories and propaganda will be the name of the day. and i don't believe any news organisation, journalist, think tank or strategic bureau really know what is going on, and where this will all end. we are all speculating at the moment. but how convenient is it that assad's opposition are now getting seriously pounded by a professional force with serious weapons? at the end of the day, talks will have to take place, and assad will regain his country with russian support, russia will have a mediterranean port, iran will be a serious strength, and amerika will need to elect a new president without all these serious medical ailments. being both spineless and without testes hasn't happened since jimmy carter. wonder if hillary can change the situation.
actually, after bill's continued female attention behaviour during his presidency, i reckon hillary is the only clinton with balls. bill's are in a pickle jar on the window ledge.
It's not what you've got; it's where you stick it.
I'm not pro-Russian, nor have i been penertrated. I never said ukraine was like northern ireland, just that it's 'their' NI in the sense one country is in a tug of war between two other sides, the reasons can all be diffent.
In June I spent two weeks with about 15 russians of all ages and they were just like everyone esle ive met over the years. Family minded, like a drink and to have fun, plenty of eating. I never felt any negativity of any kind towards whoever or whatever. Just really mindful of thier osn lives, friends & family.
All i was trying to say earlier is that its very easy to be stereotypical and tar all with the same brush.
I'm not pro-Russian, nor have i been penertrated. I never said ukraine was like northern ireland, just that it's 'their' NI in the sense one country is in a tug of war between two other sides, the reasons can all be diffent.
In June I spent two weeks with about 15 russians of all ages and they were just like everyone esle ive met over the years. Family minded, like a drink and to have fun, plenty of eating. I never felt any negativity of any kind towards whoever or whatever. Just really mindful of thier osn lives, friends & family.
All i was trying to say earlier is that its very easy to be stereotypical and tar all with the same brush.
Like Israel, when people criticise Russia, they usually mean the state not the people.
Blob,are you talking about the resetting of the Gold Price ?
That's correct. While he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Baldwin's Conservative government, Winston Churchill consulted with Mr Blob Esq. about controversially returning the pound sterling in 1925 to the gold standard at its pre-war parity, a move widely seen as creating deflationary pressure on the UK economy.
For this assistance, Blob Esq. was issued a promissory note for £10, upon which the Chancellor failed to make good. To this day, Blob attempts to use this note as collateral for an extension of credit.
That's correct. While he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Baldwin's Conservative government, Winston Churchill consulted with Mr Blob Esq. about controversially returning the pound sterling in 1925 to the gold standard at its pre-war parity, a move widely seen as creating deflationary pressure on the UK economy.
For this assistance, Blob Esq. was issued a promissory note for £10, upon which the Chancellor failed to make good. To this day, Blob attempts to use this note as collateral for an extension of credit.
Did you know Baldwin used to shave his legs and wore thick hairy socks?
Lend us ten Dollars mate.
(psssst.....it's the US Dollar that might get a 70% haircut)
Its still chump change (and I did say "half a billion quid").
"According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance professor Linda Bilmes it costs the United States $720 million a day to wage the Iraq war." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Financial_cost )
You yourself were talking of an $18 trillion debt.
Neither Russia nor America want to clash in Syria, but both will strongly resist being deterred from pursuing their own agendas. Putin is being more overt in his interference in the civil war, but he knows he can't win a stand-up fight there. If things were to get hotter, it will escalate closer to Russia (say, Ukraine separatists becoming more active), and I doubt that Nato would do anything about it.
[Post edited 9 Oct 2015 17:01]
Quite right.
Russia launched 26 cruise missiles, which cost upwards of a million dollars each, in just one day. God only knows what it is costing them to maintain a naval base with a garrison and the aircraft to carry out air strikes. Whatever it comes to, a billion or even several billion dollars of gold won't make a dent in it.
The idea of fighting a war to make money is remarkably silly.
Russia launched 26 cruise missiles, which cost upwards of a million dollars each, in just one day. God only knows what it is costing them to maintain a naval base with a garrison and the aircraft to carry out air strikes. Whatever it comes to, a billion or even several billion dollars of gold won't make a dent in it.
The idea of fighting a war to make money is remarkably silly.
What else do you make war for? We're talking about DOG here,not just gold....Drugs Oil Gold.It's an old,old story.But then it's only expense money while you push towards Iran.
Russia launched 26 cruise missiles, which cost upwards of a million dollars each, in just one day. God only knows what it is costing them to maintain a naval base with a garrison and the aircraft to carry out air strikes. Whatever it comes to, a billion or even several billion dollars of gold won't make a dent in it.
The idea of fighting a war to make money is remarkably silly.
When the US debt hits the expected ceiling of 20 trillion the Dollar may take a haircut.The physical gold(you try and buy some) will go throught the roof.The US economy is based on a toilet paper currency ,nothing to back it up,the Fed is printing $1billion a month to keep pace.It can't go on.You need tangibles not derivatives.It don't matter how much worthless money you garner in taxes.China is already selling US bonds at record levels.Another crash is on the cards.
What else do you make war for? We're talking about DOG here,not just gold....Drugs Oil Gold.It's an old,old story.But then it's only expense money while you push towards Iran.
Are you serious? You think anyone has ever made a profit out any war, any time in history?
The concept of national debt was invented to pay for war. We were still paying for WW2 in 2006. We still owe the US £4.4 bn for WW1 - we stopped paying in the 30s, we just watch it reduce against inflation and don't pay interest on it. No war in history has ever been run at a profit.
You make war for power. And come to that, you acquire money for power too, not just to sit on the stuff. Hence it may make sense to spend money on war if you get more power that way than holding on to the money
There's a perfectly obvious explanation for Russian intervention in Syria and it's nothing to do with imaginary grabs for tiny pots of Syrian government gold by Russia, which is the third largest producer of gold in the world. It won't have much to do with oil, of which Syria produces less than Papua New Guinea while Russia is again the world's 3rd largest producer. I've no idea what Syria brings to the drugs trade, but neither opiates nor cannabis are hard to produce if you want them; you could certainly grow and process either of them more easily in Russia than Syria, much of which is desert.
Syria is a long standing Russian ally going back to the cold war in which Putin "served" as a KGB officer. Back then the USSR was the main military supplier to Syria, Egypt and Iraq, the three biggest Arab countries; only Syria remains, if Assad goes Russia ceases to be a player in the Mid East. Meanwhile, Russia has had a very nasty war against Chechen jihadists, many of whom are operating in Syria under the ISIS flag. Those are two clear and obvious reasons for Russia spending blood and treasure on a Syrian war. You don't need fantasies about gold and drugs or speculation about a future crash with everyone rushing back to gold like Winston Churchill in the 20s (spoiler alert; it didn't end well.)
I've no idea what you mean by pushing towards Iran, which is on the same side as Russia in Syria. If you mean that the Russians want to invade Iran, they can't do it from Syria as Iraq is in the way. They'd do better to start from a country with a land frontier with Iran like, I dunno, Russia.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.