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.
Posted with some trepidation as I know Clive doesn’t like multis. Understandably overlooked by the national media, but it seems like the Russians are completely caving in, rope-a-doped as effectively as von Paulus in 1942. Who knows what this might lead to?
"What money making scheme involves having your entire production infrastructure destroyed, your energy infrastructure crippled and vast areas of your cities destroyed remotely by rocket fire first?
At what point does Ukraine, and Zelensky, actually make a profit? He's asking for tanks but he's got factories and office buildings in rubble to pay for after all this"
Who said anything about Ukraine making money? The West couldnt give a shite about Ukraine. If it did then it would have been pushing for peace long ago. This is all about the dollar, banks lending money to governments (and making $billions on interest in return) to spend on weapons, and weapons manufacturers making $billions on weapons contracts and sales. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ever wonder why is there ALWAYS $billions available for weapons, when there's no money available for anything else?? People dying of heart attacks cos they cant get an ambulance, but that's alright because we're sending tanks to Ukraine. It's an absolute disgrace.
I see Sky News is doing an excellent job of shaking the hornets nest even further in an interview with that plank Zelensky this morning. Now he's saying no peace talks at all until Russia retreats AND Putin is gone. So basically no chance of peace at all then, which only means escalation until all countries involved are firing nukes at one another. Absolutely triffic.
Wonder if everyone will feel the same when there's a nuke heading to London? 🤦â€â™‚ï¸ Hopefully that won't happen and the lies will finally come to everyone's attention, just like Afghanistan and Iraq, and the public can force our governments to withdraw before that happens.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2023 8:29]
So we walk away and Putin annexes Ukraine... How many of the 40 million Ukranian population would stay? How many would become refugees? What happens to the all food exports form Ukraine (if its now Russian)? Then who will be next??? You talk about 'lies coming to everyone's attention'...Putin lied to his own troops at the start of the 10 day 'special military operation' FFS! They thought they were simply on a maneuver! Putin has no regard for human life at all, bombing hospitals, residential buildings, shopping malls etc. They have carpet bombed entire towns and cities, they have murderers and rapists now fighting their dirty war and promising them freedom if they manage to stay alive for 6 months... What bleed'n century are we in??? How the hell can we just walk away from that and pretend we are all better off???
Have you considered that there’s a simple way to end this war without any further escalation- Russia could withdraw their troops from the sovereign nation they’re trying to invade and destroy.
That’s the easiest way to resolve this conflict but you seem to be suggesting that the world should turn a blind eye and let Putin attack Ukraine without any repercussions.
Genuine question, what do you think would happen next if Russia is allowed to succeed in Ukraine? Putin will stop in his tracks and not invade any other countries? Or is it not more likely that he’ll be emboldened to choose a new target?
Fortunately most of us seem to have learnt from WW2 that appeasement does not work.
So, welcome to the world of realpolitik. What you're basically saying, in response to the Beast's post, is that 1000s of people dying in this country - because we can't properly fund the NHS (because we've got to spend billions supporting the Ukraine) - is acceptable, because the only alternative would be to allow Putin to conquer the Ukraine. Have I got that right? That's quite a trade-off.
And furthermore, that if he *does* conquer Ukraine, then he won't stop there, but will continue to threaten Europe and the rest of the world. Have I got *that* right? That's some argument, based on........ well, a whole series of assumptions. Yes, of course, you can cite historical precedent, as you do, in relation to Hitler in the 1930s, but is it that simple? Not really. Although you do say that you think there *is* a simple solution, which would be for Putin to withdraw his troops. Well, yes, if only everything in the murky world of geopolitics *was* that simple! Except of course, it isn't.
This isn't *simply* about Putin and his mad crusade, is it? It really is far more complex than that. It's about an extremely tangled web of events in which there are all sorts of actors and vested interests involved, and I hope you will agree that many of these vested interests are far from transparent, and involve all sorts of extremely ugly things like banks and weapons manufacturers and individuals (including politicians) making obscene profits on the back of all of this. And at the same time probably hiding all sorts of very ugly things in the process. So I think you do the Beast a disservice by dismissing his argument so glibly, when he posits a couple of very pertinent questions, namely: Is it acceptable that people in this country - quite possibly people who post on here or their friends and family - should suffer in order to try to ensure that the Ukraine repulses Russia (with no guarantee that this will be successful)? And he also asks: why are billions are always available for these situations, but not for absolutely vital things in this country?
Now, I'm not saying you are *wrong*, what I am saying is that your perspective on this situation is somewhat over-simplified and avoids some very uncomfortable truths. Yet I know that you are expressing a very popular viewpoint on here. However, nearly everyone who is arguing for the continuation/escalation of the war in Ukraine seems to argue, in other threads, that this government should be funding all sorts of other things, like giving public service workers (nurses, doctors and so on), and private sector workers (like postmen and train drivers), pay rises, and that all sorts of other things should be subsidised, to counter the so-called 'cost of living crisis' that was engendered, in large part, by the process of locking down most of the world to deal with what we were told was another emergency situation for which there was, apparently, no other solution. But if we have to spend billions on supporting Ukraine, where is this money going to come from?
Yes, there are in fact no simple answers and no simple solutions. And no one, certainly no one on here, is privy to all the bizarre, labyrinthine and recondite reasons that underlie this awful situation that actually exists, not in some kind of vacuum, but as part of an infernal tangled web of geopolitical and corporate vested interests. That is the truth, isn't it, that know one really knows the truth? And also, that none of us can see the future, because the future is not written and nothing is certain (by definition, there can be no certainty in a world that is by its very nature uncertain). So perhaps we could be a little more respectful of other people's opinions, even if they differ widely from our own?
For my part, being the old hippy that I am, I still believe that unless, as individuals, we look to our own blindspots and shadows that lurk in our subconscious, and thereby bring them into the light, we are doomed to see those things writ large upon the world stage. Peace and love folks.
Bang on. They don't give a stuff about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and they know full well that Russia poses no threat to us at all if left to sort out its issues with Ukraine itself. It's £billions of OUR hard earned they are spending to achieve nothing other than prolong the war and line the pockets of their weapons manufacturer mates, whilst at the same time saying that the country is skint (but not skint enough to spend £billions on weapons) and putting us all in grave danger. Absolutely shocking 😞
At least a nuke on London will shut down all these riots you’ve been banging on about for two years now
Just think of all the land that would be available for a new stadium too. Probably pretty cheap as well.
EDIT - no floodlights needed either as I presume the glow of the nuclear waste ridden land would give us enough light to illuminate the pitch for centuries. We'd save a fortune on electricity.
The mind boggles that people think the best option is to not give Ukraine any help and just let Russia take the piss. You say that Ukraine should engage in dialogue with Russia. The only dialogue Russia wants is for them to have the land of Ukraine, please tell me what 30% of England you would happily give to Russia to stop there being a war?
This is US focused but please watch this video on how much it is costing the average American to support Ukraine. Here's the answer for those not watching the video....it's not a lot https://www.tiktok.com/@cpscott15/video/7191160975398325550
So, welcome to the world of realpolitik. What you're basically saying, in response to the Beast's post, is that 1000s of people dying in this country - because we can't properly fund the NHS (because we've got to spend billions supporting the Ukraine) - is acceptable, because the only alternative would be to allow Putin to conquer the Ukraine. Have I got that right? That's quite a trade-off.
And furthermore, that if he *does* conquer Ukraine, then he won't stop there, but will continue to threaten Europe and the rest of the world. Have I got *that* right? That's some argument, based on........ well, a whole series of assumptions. Yes, of course, you can cite historical precedent, as you do, in relation to Hitler in the 1930s, but is it that simple? Not really. Although you do say that you think there *is* a simple solution, which would be for Putin to withdraw his troops. Well, yes, if only everything in the murky world of geopolitics *was* that simple! Except of course, it isn't.
This isn't *simply* about Putin and his mad crusade, is it? It really is far more complex than that. It's about an extremely tangled web of events in which there are all sorts of actors and vested interests involved, and I hope you will agree that many of these vested interests are far from transparent, and involve all sorts of extremely ugly things like banks and weapons manufacturers and individuals (including politicians) making obscene profits on the back of all of this. And at the same time probably hiding all sorts of very ugly things in the process. So I think you do the Beast a disservice by dismissing his argument so glibly, when he posits a couple of very pertinent questions, namely: Is it acceptable that people in this country - quite possibly people who post on here or their friends and family - should suffer in order to try to ensure that the Ukraine repulses Russia (with no guarantee that this will be successful)? And he also asks: why are billions are always available for these situations, but not for absolutely vital things in this country?
Now, I'm not saying you are *wrong*, what I am saying is that your perspective on this situation is somewhat over-simplified and avoids some very uncomfortable truths. Yet I know that you are expressing a very popular viewpoint on here. However, nearly everyone who is arguing for the continuation/escalation of the war in Ukraine seems to argue, in other threads, that this government should be funding all sorts of other things, like giving public service workers (nurses, doctors and so on), and private sector workers (like postmen and train drivers), pay rises, and that all sorts of other things should be subsidised, to counter the so-called 'cost of living crisis' that was engendered, in large part, by the process of locking down most of the world to deal with what we were told was another emergency situation for which there was, apparently, no other solution. But if we have to spend billions on supporting Ukraine, where is this money going to come from?
Yes, there are in fact no simple answers and no simple solutions. And no one, certainly no one on here, is privy to all the bizarre, labyrinthine and recondite reasons that underlie this awful situation that actually exists, not in some kind of vacuum, but as part of an infernal tangled web of geopolitical and corporate vested interests. That is the truth, isn't it, that know one really knows the truth? And also, that none of us can see the future, because the future is not written and nothing is certain (by definition, there can be no certainty in a world that is by its very nature uncertain). So perhaps we could be a little more respectful of other people's opinions, even if they differ widely from our own?
For my part, being the old hippy that I am, I still believe that unless, as individuals, we look to our own blindspots and shadows that lurk in our subconscious, and thereby bring them into the light, we are doomed to see those things writ large upon the world stage. Peace and love folks.
Blimey, haven't seen that many asterisks since Goscinny and Uderzo stopped writing the comics
So, welcome to the world of realpolitik. What you're basically saying, in response to the Beast's post, is that 1000s of people dying in this country - because we can't properly fund the NHS (because we've got to spend billions supporting the Ukraine) - is acceptable, because the only alternative would be to allow Putin to conquer the Ukraine. Have I got that right? That's quite a trade-off.
And furthermore, that if he *does* conquer Ukraine, then he won't stop there, but will continue to threaten Europe and the rest of the world. Have I got *that* right? That's some argument, based on........ well, a whole series of assumptions. Yes, of course, you can cite historical precedent, as you do, in relation to Hitler in the 1930s, but is it that simple? Not really. Although you do say that you think there *is* a simple solution, which would be for Putin to withdraw his troops. Well, yes, if only everything in the murky world of geopolitics *was* that simple! Except of course, it isn't.
This isn't *simply* about Putin and his mad crusade, is it? It really is far more complex than that. It's about an extremely tangled web of events in which there are all sorts of actors and vested interests involved, and I hope you will agree that many of these vested interests are far from transparent, and involve all sorts of extremely ugly things like banks and weapons manufacturers and individuals (including politicians) making obscene profits on the back of all of this. And at the same time probably hiding all sorts of very ugly things in the process. So I think you do the Beast a disservice by dismissing his argument so glibly, when he posits a couple of very pertinent questions, namely: Is it acceptable that people in this country - quite possibly people who post on here or their friends and family - should suffer in order to try to ensure that the Ukraine repulses Russia (with no guarantee that this will be successful)? And he also asks: why are billions are always available for these situations, but not for absolutely vital things in this country?
Now, I'm not saying you are *wrong*, what I am saying is that your perspective on this situation is somewhat over-simplified and avoids some very uncomfortable truths. Yet I know that you are expressing a very popular viewpoint on here. However, nearly everyone who is arguing for the continuation/escalation of the war in Ukraine seems to argue, in other threads, that this government should be funding all sorts of other things, like giving public service workers (nurses, doctors and so on), and private sector workers (like postmen and train drivers), pay rises, and that all sorts of other things should be subsidised, to counter the so-called 'cost of living crisis' that was engendered, in large part, by the process of locking down most of the world to deal with what we were told was another emergency situation for which there was, apparently, no other solution. But if we have to spend billions on supporting Ukraine, where is this money going to come from?
Yes, there are in fact no simple answers and no simple solutions. And no one, certainly no one on here, is privy to all the bizarre, labyrinthine and recondite reasons that underlie this awful situation that actually exists, not in some kind of vacuum, but as part of an infernal tangled web of geopolitical and corporate vested interests. That is the truth, isn't it, that know one really knows the truth? And also, that none of us can see the future, because the future is not written and nothing is certain (by definition, there can be no certainty in a world that is by its very nature uncertain). So perhaps we could be a little more respectful of other people's opinions, even if they differ widely from our own?
For my part, being the old hippy that I am, I still believe that unless, as individuals, we look to our own blindspots and shadows that lurk in our subconscious, and thereby bring them into the light, we are doomed to see those things writ large upon the world stage. Peace and love folks.
Any actual evidence that thousands of people are dying because we can’t properly fund the NHS due to spending billions supporting Ukraine?
Maybe I’m being naive here but the NHS has been chronically underfunded for years. I don’t see a direct link between the UK sending weapons to Ukraine and the state of the NHS. Or maybe tanks could be used as ambulances!
I don’t think anyone is arguing for the continuation/escalation of the war in Ukraine. It’s a situation with sh1t options whichever way you look at it. The alternative to supplying weapons is to let Russia steamroll Ukraine and kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people in the process whilst causing a humanitarian disaster in the process with millions of refugees flooding into Europe.
And that’s assuming that it’s a zero sum game which will end in Ukraine. Personally I don’t think Putin would stop if he takes Ukraine but I appreciate that others might feel differently.
I’m not going to get into speculation about actors and vested interests because quite frankly life’s too short to be discussing so many unknowns on a QPR forum (I’m sure North would agree!). Maybe one to discuss over a beer or joint.
Finally, I respect other people’s opinions and that’s why I asked Beast a few questions to try and understand where he’s coming from. It wasn’t my intention to be rude or dismissive but apologies if it came across that way. Always easier to discuss sensitive topics in person as opposed to in writing.
Any actual evidence that thousands of people are dying because we can’t properly fund the NHS due to spending billions supporting Ukraine?
Maybe I’m being naive here but the NHS has been chronically underfunded for years. I don’t see a direct link between the UK sending weapons to Ukraine and the state of the NHS. Or maybe tanks could be used as ambulances!
I don’t think anyone is arguing for the continuation/escalation of the war in Ukraine. It’s a situation with sh1t options whichever way you look at it. The alternative to supplying weapons is to let Russia steamroll Ukraine and kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people in the process whilst causing a humanitarian disaster in the process with millions of refugees flooding into Europe.
And that’s assuming that it’s a zero sum game which will end in Ukraine. Personally I don’t think Putin would stop if he takes Ukraine but I appreciate that others might feel differently.
I’m not going to get into speculation about actors and vested interests because quite frankly life’s too short to be discussing so many unknowns on a QPR forum (I’m sure North would agree!). Maybe one to discuss over a beer or joint.
Finally, I respect other people’s opinions and that’s why I asked Beast a few questions to try and understand where he’s coming from. It wasn’t my intention to be rude or dismissive but apologies if it came across that way. Always easier to discuss sensitive topics in person as opposed to in writing.
"Maybe tanks can be used as ambulances"
That's just brilliant. Thanks for the mental image.
Any actual evidence that thousands of people are dying because we can’t properly fund the NHS due to spending billions supporting Ukraine?
Maybe I’m being naive here but the NHS has been chronically underfunded for years. I don’t see a direct link between the UK sending weapons to Ukraine and the state of the NHS. Or maybe tanks could be used as ambulances!
I don’t think anyone is arguing for the continuation/escalation of the war in Ukraine. It’s a situation with sh1t options whichever way you look at it. The alternative to supplying weapons is to let Russia steamroll Ukraine and kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people in the process whilst causing a humanitarian disaster in the process with millions of refugees flooding into Europe.
And that’s assuming that it’s a zero sum game which will end in Ukraine. Personally I don’t think Putin would stop if he takes Ukraine but I appreciate that others might feel differently.
I’m not going to get into speculation about actors and vested interests because quite frankly life’s too short to be discussing so many unknowns on a QPR forum (I’m sure North would agree!). Maybe one to discuss over a beer or joint.
Finally, I respect other people’s opinions and that’s why I asked Beast a few questions to try and understand where he’s coming from. It wasn’t my intention to be rude or dismissive but apologies if it came across that way. Always easier to discuss sensitive topics in person as opposed to in writing.
No, its a typical tactic to link one emotive subject to something where there is very little correlation. Used by people who have no foundation to derail an argument they can't win.
The NHS will always be underfunded, its the nature of the beast and can its own topic related to how to eliminate the billions in waste and bureaucracy but has nothing to do with Ukraine.
Beasts Peace Talks.:
Beast: So Putin, what will it take for you stop stop bombing, raping and murdering our civilians? Putin: Total Capitulation, your removal, a Puppet Government under Russian control, New laws allowing Russians to settle and appropriate Ukrainian owned property at will. Forced resettling of Ukrainians and mass shootings. Ukrainians to become 2nd class citizens to Russians, and have no rights and no recourse in the courts. Oh, and our security services will be allowed to torture, rape, and murder anyone they feel like. No freedom of press, and no rule of just law. Beast: Oh that sounds like a great deal .. yes that will do for us.
No, its a typical tactic to link one emotive subject to something where there is very little correlation. Used by people who have no foundation to derail an argument they can't win.
The NHS will always be underfunded, its the nature of the beast and can its own topic related to how to eliminate the billions in waste and bureaucracy but has nothing to do with Ukraine.
Beasts Peace Talks.:
Beast: So Putin, what will it take for you stop stop bombing, raping and murdering our civilians? Putin: Total Capitulation, your removal, a Puppet Government under Russian control, New laws allowing Russians to settle and appropriate Ukrainian owned property at will. Forced resettling of Ukrainians and mass shootings. Ukrainians to become 2nd class citizens to Russians, and have no rights and no recourse in the courts. Oh, and our security services will be allowed to torture, rape, and murder anyone they feel like. No freedom of press, and no rule of just law. Beast: Oh that sounds like a great deal .. yes that will do for us.
Frickin numpty!
Has that mad dog Putin been shot yet ?
AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!!
The incongruity of it all.On the day that the German foreign minister effectively declares war on Russia we have the BBC runiing a headline story about someone getting a sofa wedged up a stairwell. Am half expecting on morning tv one of those "charity" adverts touting "Sponsor a Leopard 2" or "We buy Any Tank .com".
The incongruity of it all.On the day that the German foreign minister effectively declares war on Russia we have the BBC runiing a headline story about someone getting a sofa wedged up a stairwell. Am half expecting on morning tv one of those "charity" adverts touting "Sponsor a Leopard 2" or "We buy Any Tank .com".
'The bunker 3000 from JML!'
'Hey Les, what are you doing in here?'
Saw that documentary too last night, really interesting watch.
So, welcome to the world of realpolitik. What you're basically saying, in response to the Beast's post, is that 1000s of people dying in this country - because we can't properly fund the NHS (because we've got to spend billions supporting the Ukraine) - is acceptable, because the only alternative would be to allow Putin to conquer the Ukraine. Have I got that right? That's quite a trade-off.
And furthermore, that if he *does* conquer Ukraine, then he won't stop there, but will continue to threaten Europe and the rest of the world. Have I got *that* right? That's some argument, based on........ well, a whole series of assumptions. Yes, of course, you can cite historical precedent, as you do, in relation to Hitler in the 1930s, but is it that simple? Not really. Although you do say that you think there *is* a simple solution, which would be for Putin to withdraw his troops. Well, yes, if only everything in the murky world of geopolitics *was* that simple! Except of course, it isn't.
This isn't *simply* about Putin and his mad crusade, is it? It really is far more complex than that. It's about an extremely tangled web of events in which there are all sorts of actors and vested interests involved, and I hope you will agree that many of these vested interests are far from transparent, and involve all sorts of extremely ugly things like banks and weapons manufacturers and individuals (including politicians) making obscene profits on the back of all of this. And at the same time probably hiding all sorts of very ugly things in the process. So I think you do the Beast a disservice by dismissing his argument so glibly, when he posits a couple of very pertinent questions, namely: Is it acceptable that people in this country - quite possibly people who post on here or their friends and family - should suffer in order to try to ensure that the Ukraine repulses Russia (with no guarantee that this will be successful)? And he also asks: why are billions are always available for these situations, but not for absolutely vital things in this country?
Now, I'm not saying you are *wrong*, what I am saying is that your perspective on this situation is somewhat over-simplified and avoids some very uncomfortable truths. Yet I know that you are expressing a very popular viewpoint on here. However, nearly everyone who is arguing for the continuation/escalation of the war in Ukraine seems to argue, in other threads, that this government should be funding all sorts of other things, like giving public service workers (nurses, doctors and so on), and private sector workers (like postmen and train drivers), pay rises, and that all sorts of other things should be subsidised, to counter the so-called 'cost of living crisis' that was engendered, in large part, by the process of locking down most of the world to deal with what we were told was another emergency situation for which there was, apparently, no other solution. But if we have to spend billions on supporting Ukraine, where is this money going to come from?
Yes, there are in fact no simple answers and no simple solutions. And no one, certainly no one on here, is privy to all the bizarre, labyrinthine and recondite reasons that underlie this awful situation that actually exists, not in some kind of vacuum, but as part of an infernal tangled web of geopolitical and corporate vested interests. That is the truth, isn't it, that know one really knows the truth? And also, that none of us can see the future, because the future is not written and nothing is certain (by definition, there can be no certainty in a world that is by its very nature uncertain). So perhaps we could be a little more respectful of other people's opinions, even if they differ widely from our own?
For my part, being the old hippy that I am, I still believe that unless, as individuals, we look to our own blindspots and shadows that lurk in our subconscious, and thereby bring them into the light, we are doomed to see those things writ large upon the world stage. Peace and love folks.
Haven't posted on this thread before but having now read the last couple of pages I'd like to make a couple of points
Re the NHS funding: The support for Ukraine is not stopping the funding of the NHS, it's just giving the government an excuse. If the support for Ukraine was the real reason then NHS under-funding would be a recent phenomena.
Re Putin's eye on further expansion: My last holiday (Sept 2022) was in Georgia and most there believe they are next on the list (again!). They were invaded by Russia in 2008 and lost ~10% of their land when Russia annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They are a small country with a population of under 4 million and a widely held belief is that Putin will want a quick and easy victory after the Ukraine shambles and Georgia fits the bill. Also bear in mind this isn't the first war under Putin, Chechnya, Georgia the annexation of Crimea all come to mind, he has to be stopped somewhere.
I really don't see how it can be a bad thing to show empathy for people whose country has been ravaged by war. Empathy is one of the things which makes us human.
Friends have a Ukrainian lodging with them and I was really moved by their kindness.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
I really don't see how it can be a bad thing to show empathy for people whose country has been ravaged by war. Empathy is one of the things which makes us human.
Friends have a Ukrainian lodging with them and I was really moved by their kindness.
Are we going to do the same for the victims of the Turkish earthquake? I think we should.
Are we going to do the same for the victims of the Turkish earthquake? I think we should.
Er, Turkey, and even Syria, should be able to take the main burden upon themselves, assisted by their wealthy (Arab/Muslim) neighbours in the Gulf.
Whereas Ukraine could never hope to have staved off the Russians by themselves, and so should be a priority for assistance for their neighbours, in this case us.
P.S. There is nothing to stop you making a donation to Turkey, over and above what the country is doing on your behalf in Ukraine.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.