Jump to content
Cecil

My sincere condolences...

Recommended Posts

The reason why this plane is shoot down is mistake.

Putins plane was supposed to fly this path over Ukraine when he was returning to Moscow,but he was delayed 1 hour.

believe it or not. it's up to you.

Thanks Caca, I needed a good laugh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the tensions between Ukraine & Russia.. the believe by the Ukrainians that Putin is substantively arming the "rebels".. and/or deploying troops...

 

And Putin's assertion that the Ukrainians might be the ones deploying missile batteries...

 

Do you really think that Putin would "overfly" Ukranian airspace... and/or let anyone know if he was...

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As would most aircraft flying at that height :D

 

I don't know Rupe....I often go to the Victorian Alpine region and spot the planes flying overhead...I would say they would be at maximum altitude...29,000 to 39,000 plus feet and I can still tell if they are Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar by the colouring on the planes...These are around the Boeing 737 size....

 

 

Given the tensions between Ukraine & Russia.. the believe by the Ukrainians that Putin is substantively arming the "rebels".. and/or deploying troops...

 

And Putin's assertion that the Ukrainians might be the ones deploying missile batteries...

 

Do you really think that Putin would "overfly" Ukranian airspace... and/or let anyone know if he was...

 

:D

 

Probably not,...But did the people on the ground think that way?...

 

I remember watching a documentary on Airforce One, and if 1/2 of what they say is true on that show And assuming Russia would have similar systems for their presidential plane,then I seriously doubt The Russian President would be flying anywhere near there...

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the tensions between Ukraine & Russia.. the believe by the Ukrainians that Putin is substantively arming the "rebels".. and/or deploying troops...

 

And Putin's assertion that the Ukrainians might be the ones deploying missile batteries...

 

Do you really think that Putin would "overfly" Ukranian airspace... and/or let anyone know if he was...

 

:D

I'm telling a reason, not real truth. Of course he wont fly over war zone. pfffff

 

All I'm saying that they have information (better missinformation) this is Putins plane.

Opportunity arise, one shot and Putin is gone forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US, under Obama will never get involved militarily in Ukraine. Putin knows this and he also knows Europe will not go without US support/approval. .

Why would we want to? And furthermore the American people are war weary. Besides a good portion of the Ukraine populace are on the side of the Russians, Russian speaking, and even many have Russian citizenship.

Now if Ukraine was a NATO country it would be a different story. And God help Putin if he starts rolling over NATO countries.

Ultimately Russia is the biggest loser here. Russia is now in a recession due to the sanctions and it will only get worse,

I'm greatful we have a CIC now that doesn't commit our young men and women and monetary treasure at the drop of a hat half way around the world without serious thought.

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately Russia is the biggest loser here. Russia is now in a recession due to the sanctions and it will only get worse,

 

Russia has secured it's fleet base... and sea access in Crimea.. from any back door threat....

 

And access to the Mediterranean Sea.... Suez.... and Middle East.. and influence in that region...

 

The rest is just about putting in a buffer zone around Crimea... and the Ukranian/Russian border.. to block any Nato threat/influence/pressure

 

It's all entirely in keeping with the Russian psyche...

Edited by RupertofOZ (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again S

 

Let me just say I disagree with virtually everything you posted. But in the interests of brevity, I will address your statement that Putin is a democratically elected leader. That was true the first time he was elected. But then he did what so many dictators do, he changed the rules so he could stay in power indefinitely. Just as Chavez did. These predators take advantage of the free election system to get in power, then they change the rules to stay in power. That Sir is the very definition of a dictator. He has no regard for individual rights, personal property rights, or the integrity of other sovereign borders.
Obama will be gone in two years. That is the very big difference between a true democracy based on the rule of law and Putin's Russia. The man does not have a conscience. His aggressive actions have caused innocent deaths and you can bet that he sleeps like a baby at night.

 

I'm fine with you disagreeing ;) 

 

Putin is elected in acordanse with the Russian constitution Wich states that a President can only serve for 2 consecutive terms.

He stood down and Dmitrij Medvedev (from the same political party)  http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitrij_Medvedev was elected,

After serving 1 term Medvedev, agreed not to run for another term because the party wanted Putin as their candidate, being the moste popular amongst the Russian people and therfore a safer choise for the ruling pary to stay in power.

Chavez is a different story he changed laws like you say.

 

You don't have to look far to se that heads of states can be elected for longer terms than 2 x 4 years (the US model)

If you look to Canada youl fine some have served for decades.

Look at Margaret Thatcer (UK) Berlusconi (Italy)................................  It's werry common for The party leader to be the Prime Minister candidate, and they can keep coming back for as many times the party(s) want.

The "problem" in Russia is that the oposition is so fragmented they can't agree upon a single candidate so there is no real oposition that can win by the required more than 50%. (wich both Putin and Mededev) did, first time around.

Putin has anounced that he might run for a second term again wich then will be his fourth in total, in theory he can then come back for 2 new terms after someone else has served a term.

 

Keep in mind that Putin is extremly popular in Russia. The standard of living, wages etc has roard under his presidensy, and he was popular amongst western leaders, in particulare President G. W. Bush, mainly because of his turn of Russia on to Marked economy (capitalism) but also, for his fast support of "War On Terror" after 9/11. It suitid him well, thats how he could act in Tsjetjenia, Dagestan, Georgia, Ukraine just call the opposition terrorists and then your free to move :P  clever guy.

 

I would much prefer the US model,before Russia, but I don't see either as a thru democracy, such hardly excists IMO

And the US stars is not so shiny anymore after wikileaks/snowden "rule of law" ?  :lol:

 

Well I hope the war in Ukraine, is brought to a hault, before they are back in the stoneage as Caca put it, and that the responsible behind the downing of the civilian airliner and all other war crimes comited are found and judged.

Unfortunatly Caca is probably right in his prediction :( 

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rest is just about putting in a buffer zone around Crimea.

 

The rest is just about................

Here comes the real costs long term huge budgets suckers for years on end, we will see if it is worth the price in a decade or two

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again S

 

 

I'm fine with you disagreeing ;)

 

Putin is elected in acordanse with the Russian constitution Wich states that a President can only serve for 2 consecutive terms.

He stood down and Dmitrij Medvedev (from the same political party)  http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitrij_Medvedev was elected,

After serving 1 term Medvedev, agreed not to run for another term because the party wanted Putin as their candidate, being the moste popular amongst the Russian people and therfore a safer choise for the ruling pary to stay in power.

Chavez is a different story he changed laws like you say.

 

You don't have to look far to se that heads of states can be elected for longer terms than 2 x 4 years (the US model)

If you look to Canada youl fine some have served for decades.

Look at Margaret Thatcer (UK) Berlusconi (Italy)................................  It's werry common for The party leader to be the Prime Minister candidate, and they can keep coming back for as many times the party(s) want.

The "problem" in Russia is that the oposition is so fragmented they can't agree upon a single candidate so there is no real oposition that can win by the required more than 50%. (wich both Putin and Mededev) did, first time around.

Putin has anounced that he might run for a second term again wich then will be his fourth in total, in theory he can then come back for 2 new terms after someone else has served a term.

 

Keep in mind that Putin is extremly popular in Russia. The standard of living, wages etc has roard under his presidensy, and he was popular amongst western leaders, in particulare President G. W. Bush, mainly because of his turn of Russia on to Marked economy (capitalism) but also, for his fast support of "War On Terror" after 9/11. It suitid him well, thats how he could act in Tsjetjenia, Dagestan, Georgia, Ukraine just call the opposition terrorists and then your free to move :P  clever guy.

 

I would much prefer the US model,before Russia, but I don't see either as a thru democracy, such hardly excists IMO

And the US stars is not so shiny anymore after wikileaks/snowden "rule of law" ?  :lol:

 

Well I hope the war in Ukraine, is brought to a hault, before they are back in the stoneage as Caca put it, and that the responsible behind the downing of the civilian airliner and all other war crimes comited are found and judged.

Unfortunatly Caca is probably right in his prediction :(

 

cheers

 

Dmitrij Medvedev was puppet who was taking orders from Putin. 

Nothing will happen to Putin or Russia for this violation and escallation. Not now, not with Obama as president. Europe has never had the stomache to do what is needed and America is not leading now.  

Yes, Putin is popular in Russia, and even more so with the annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine it seems. What does that say about the Russian people? 

B TW, the fact that many in Eastern Ukraine speak Russian, a language made popular with the overthrow of Ukrain after WWII, has absolutely nothing to do with their independance as a nation.  

I wonder, if Russia were invading Norway, would you feel the same about the US not helping?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi S

I would excpect Nato wich include the USA, to help if any nation invaded Norway, as Nato responded when the USA was atacked.

Quote:

Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks,[6] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF.

 

I see Ukraine as a sovereign state and I think that Russia is the agressor and should stay/get out, but that dosen't mean, that the USA or Europe should get involved with miltary force either.

We should all stay out and respect Ukraine IMO

 

cheers

 

Edit: Russia have invaded Norway, they where the first to kick out the Germans here, at the end of WWII.

Then they packed up their stuff and left our country

 

http://www.russia.no/history/ww2/

Edited by ande (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again S

I'm fine with you disagreeing ;)

Putin is elected in acordanse with the Russian constitution Wich states that a President can only serve for 2 consecutive terms.

He stood down and Dmitrij Medvedev (from the same political party) http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitrij_Medvedev was elected,

After serving 1 term Medvedev, agreed not to run for another term because the party wanted Putin as their candidate, being the moste popular amongst the Russian people and therfore a safer choise for the ruling pary to stay in power.

Chavez is a different story he changed laws like you say.

You don't have to look far to se that heads of states can be elected for longer terms than 2 x 4 years (the US model)

If you look to Canada youl fine some have served for decades.

Look at Margaret Thatcer (UK) Berlusconi (Italy)................................ It's werry common for The party leader to be the Prime Minister candidate, and they can keep coming back for as many times the party(s) want.

The "problem" in Russia is that the oposition is so fragmented they can't agree upon a single candidate so there is no real oposition that can win by the required more than 50%. (wich both Putin and Mededev) did, first time around.

Putin has anounced that he might run for a second term again wich then will be his fourth in total, in theory he can then come back for 2 new terms after someone else has served a term.

Keep in mind that Putin is extremly popular in Russia. The standard of living, wages etc has roard under his presidensy, and he was popular amongst western leaders, in particulare President G. W. Bush, mainly because of his turn of Russia on to Marked economy (capitalism) but also, for his fast support of "War On Terror" after 9/11. It suitid him well, thats how he could act in Tsjetjenia, Dagestan, Georgia, Ukraine just call the opposition terrorists and then your free to move :P clever guy.

I would much prefer the US model,before Russia, but I don't see either as a thru democracy, such hardly excists IMO

And the US stars is not so shiny anymore after wikileaks/snowden "rule of law" ? :lol:

Well I hope the war in Ukraine, is brought to a hault, before they are back in the stoneage as Caca put it, and that the responsible behind the downing of the civilian airliner and all other war crimes comited are found and judged.

Unfortunatly Caca is probably right in his prediction :(

cheers

Dmitrij Medvedev was puppet who was taking orders from Putin.

Nothing will happen to Putin or Russia for this violation and escallation. Not now, not with Obama as president. Europe has never had the stomache to do what is needed and America is not leading now.

Yes, Putin is popular in Russia, and even more so with the annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine it seems. What does that say about the Russian people?

B TW, the fact that many in Eastern Ukraine speak Russian, a language made popular with the overthrow of Ukrain after WWII, has absolutely nothing to do with their independance as a nation.

I wonder, if Russia were invading Norway, would you feel the same about the US not helping?

Strider,

What do expect Obama to do short of starting a war with Russia? And no, sorry, it's not just a common language issue. There are many Ukrainans that would be happy to be back in the Russian fold. Didn't you see them jeering the captured Ukrainian troops?

Obama is doing a heck of a lot more than Bush did when Georgia was overrun. Bush didn't do diddly squat unless you call chickenhawk Cheney shooting his mouth off anything.

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi S

I would excpect Nato wich include the USA, to help if any nation invaded Norway, as Nato responded when the USA was atacked.

Quote:

Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks,[6] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF.

 

I see Ukraine as a sovereign state and I think that Russia is the agressor and should stay/get out, but that dosen't mean, that the USA or Europe should get involved with miltary force either.

We should all stay out and respect Ukraine IMO

 

cheers

 

Edit: Russia have invaded Norway, they where the first to kick out the Germans here, at the end of WWII.

Then they packed up their stuff and left our country

So then it is OK if a stronger nation invades a weaker one? No one outside has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to lend a hand?  The World is a smaller place now, and we all have an obligation to help the helpless.  What kind of World do we want to live in, one where tyrants rule and kill at will?  

 

And your idea that Putin is a rightful elected President is false. He uses media propaganda and coersion to stay in power. Even when he went down to Prime Minister he was the power behind the President who he got to increase the term limits to 6 yrs.  That means he can stay as President for 12 years total, sit out 6 years and do 12 more. 

 

BTW, you never answered my question, if Russia invaded Norway, would you expect outside help? 

Edited by Strider (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then it is OK if a stronger nation invades a weaker one? No one outside has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to lend a hand? The World is a smaller place now, and we all have an obligation to help the helpless. What kind of World do we want to live in, one where tyrants rule and kill at will?

And your idea that Putin is a rightful elected President is false. He uses media propaganda and coersion to stay in power. Even when he went down to Prime Minister he was the power behind the President who he got to increase the term limits to 6 yrs. That means he can stay as President for 12 years total, sit out 6 years and do 12 more.

BTW, you never answered my question, if Russia invaded Norway, would you expect outside help?

It may not be O.K. but the USA cannot realistically put out every fire in the world. And we can't exactly stand on higher moral ground considering Vietnam and Iraq.

I have no doubt we would come to the aid of Norway or any other NATO country. None whatsoever. It would ultimately be WWIII and maybe even ultimately a nuclear confrontation but we would come to their aid.

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strider,

What do expect Obama to do short of starting a war with Russia? And no, sorry, it's not just a common language issue. There are many Ukrainans that would be happy to be back in the Russian fold. Didn't you see them jeering the captured Ukrainian troops?

Obama is doing a heck of a lot more than Bush did when Georgia was overrun. Bush didn't do diddly squat unless you call chickenhawk Cheney shooting his mouth off anything.

I expect more severe sanctions for a start.  I expect himn to lead Europe to also agree to more severe sanctions.  Then after that, let's go from there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect more severe sanctions for a start.  I expect himn to lead Europe to also agree to more severe sanctions.  Then after that, let's go from there.

There are more coming and the Europeans are coming around even though some countries are still suffering from an economic meltdown worse than our Great Depression.

As I said Russia is hurting from the sanctions and is now in a recession. Seems to me our president is doing the smart thing vs. getting us into another war front. Eventually if their economy gets bad enough Putin won't be so popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be O.K. but the USA cannot realistically put out every fire in the world. And we can't exactly stand on higher moral ground considering Vietnam and Iraq.

Sure we can. How do you equate taking out a dictator with invading a country like Ukraine? Military response is a last resort to be sure, but we can do more in the World arena to sanction bad actors. On second thought...as for US involvement over seas, I am all for pulling out US bases from all nations along with US aide.  We get nothing for it but a black eye. Let Europe take care of themselves. 

Yep, that is exactly what we need to do. No aide to Norway, no caves with our prepositioned equipment to help them fend off invasion...no bases in Germany, take our assets and our money and come home and seal our borders and let the rest of the World go to Hell. Let ISIS run through the Middle East. Let them get control of nearly half of the Worlds oil supply... No more protecting the Saudi Princes and their monopoly, The UAE, Quatar, all of them can all fall under radical Islam. Europe would be next.  And the US last.  

Why should we care about all the millions who would be killed and tortured?  The World is overpopulated anyway right?  Yes, we have no right to help anyone ever since VietNam and Iraq. We need to retreat within our borders and let everyone fight their own battles. I agree whole heartedly! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest is just about................

Here comes the real costs long term huge budgets suckers for years on end, we will see if it is worth the price in a decade or two

cheers

This is true for Russia which doesn't have the best economy in the first place. Without oil and gas they don't have squat to export. If Europe has a mild winter like the last one and they are able to get most of what they need elsewhere Russia will be in a world of hurt. Russia will be the ultimate loser in all this.

The Russian people will have to decide if occupation of other countries is worth bleeding their treasury along with collapsing economy.

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more coming and the Europeans are coming around even though some countries are still suffering from an economic meltdown worse than our Great Depression.

As I said Russia is hurting from the sanctions and is now in a recession. Seems to me our president is doing the smart thing vs. getting us into another war front. Eventually if their economy gets bad enough Putin won't be so popular.

Putin has the press to keep the allusion alive. And he will not be affected by the failing economy, he is rich and could care less about the Russian people. He will, if he has to declare a state of emergency and martial law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin has the press to keep the allusion alive. And he will not be affected by the failing economy, he is rich and could care less about the Russian people. He will, if he has to declare a state of emergency and martial law.

As Lincoln once said, " You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

That attitude will only get you so far. I'm already seeing Russians question Putin's wisdom.

http://www.rferl.org/content/putins-plan-or-kremlin-chaos/26556263.html#

Edited by Cecil (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Lincoln once said, " You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

That attitude will only get you so far. I'm already seeing Russians question Putin's wisdom.http://www.rferl.org/content/putins-plan-or-kremlin-chaos/26556263.html#

I think you believe Putin is an honorable person who will do what is good for the Russian people. He is not, and will not. As i said, he has no intention of relinquishing power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then it is OK if a stronger nation invades a weaker one? No one outside has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to lend a hand?  The World is a smaller place now, and we all have an obligation to help the helpless.  What kind of World do we want to live in, one where tyrants rule and kill at will?  

 

And your idea that Putin is a rightful elected President is false. He uses media propaganda and coersion to stay in power. Even when he went down to Prime Minister he was the power behind the President who he got to increase the term limits to 6 yrs.  That means he can stay as President for 12 years total, sit out 6 years and do 12 more. 

 

BTW, you never answered my question, if Russia invaded Norway, would you expect outside help? 

Hi S I'm a bit confused you even quoted my answer do you read my post ?

 

Posted Today, 08:09 PM

ande, on 30 Aug 2014 - 7:51 PM, said:snapback.png

Hi S

I would excpect Nato wich include the USA, to help if any nation invaded Norway, as Nato responded when the USA was atacked.

Quote:

Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks,[6] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF.

 

I see Ukraine as a sovereign state and I think that Russia is the agressor and should stay/get out, but that dosen't mean, that the USA or Europe should get involved with miltary force either.

We should all stay out and respect Ukraine IMO

 

cheers

 

Edit: Russia have invaded Norway, they where the first to kick out the Germans here, at the end of WWII.

Then they packed up their stuff and left our country

 

http://www.russia.no/history/ww2/

 

 

cheers

Edited by ande (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you believe Putin is an honorable person who will do what is good for the Russian people. He is not, and will not. As i said, he has no intention of relinquishing power.

Oh no he's a scoundrel and a thief. He will still feel the pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...