News:

Herr Otto Partz says you're all nothing but pipsqueaks!

Main Menu

Politics around the world

Started by CTG, November 17, 2006, 11:30:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Somehow I think Obama won't be a president for a long time. What do you think?

He'll be the president for 8 years.
7 (31.8%)
He'll be the president for 4 years.
7 (31.8%)
He'll fail earlier because of the economical crisis.
1 (4.5%)
He'll be murdered earlier by terrorists/Ku Klux Klan/McCain/Hillary Clinton :D
7 (31.8%)

Total Members Voted: 21

CTG

#525
Bye-bye, Mrs. Muppet:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68264363

But don't worry, her successor won't be better either...

Although I am generally supporting death penalty, pedophiles should not be executed. They will get a "special treatment" in prison for sure - even hardcore criminals are sick of child molesters... so let the prison community to treat them as they deserve.

Cas

 :o I didn't know of so much scandal!  Corruption is everywhere. It's a shame :(
Earth is my country. Science is my religion.

alanrotoi

Is the government of Orban (I remember you called "Orbanistan") falling down? Was it a vendetta pushed by the NATO because of Sweden?

Overdrijf

It looks like Mark Rutte is going to be the next NATO chief. Funny, I always figured we should give him to the US so they can make him president. They'd like him there. He'd also be a better option than any if the pensioners we've seen running since 2016. He's right wing enough to be a centrist candidate there, yet more and more internationally oriented. He's well spoken, and quiet about his private life even when he has reasons to brag. He clearly defends the interests of his own office, country and consituents, is clear about his diplomatic objectives, is well connected (but right wing, so fortunately being surrounded by millionaire buddies and CEO acquaintances doesn't make him the elite), keeps all scandals as quiet as possible, lies like nobody else, only fakes having a bad memory rather than really having one, drags his feet on resolving issues yet keeps media attention to this fact to a minimum, and he's always solidly on the side of shareholders of multinationals, who should be pandered to at all times. He's basically the perfect candidate.

As for the job at NATO: I never got the impression he can tell a tank apart from a submarine, but as its mostly a political job he'll probably do fine. Not spectacular, I mean, if Russia does attack the Baltic countries he mught not actually get every country in the fight, but he'll find a way to let some countries stay home while officially and on paper keeping NATO a strong alliance with everyone on board. And the people who get screwed will probably mostly be poor anyway.

There are certainly much worse candidates possible. That's not sarcasm, I truly believe that by the standards of popular politicians he doesn't suck all that bad.

alanrotoi

Does really anybody think Russia could attack a NATO member country?

Just think about it 30 seconds... The idea can't stand any logic argument.

Matei

You may feel safe in Argentina, but in Romania we don't have a crazy guy with a chainsaw to protect us.

Overdrijf

But you'll have Mark Rutte! Don't you just feel much safer now?


alanrotoi

Quote from: Matei on February 20, 2024, 01:35:37 PMYou may feel safe in Argentina, but in Romania we don't have a crazy guy with a chainsaw to protect us.

There are different kinds of unsecurity.

1st) we are talking about the possibility or not of an international armed conflict.

2)if a nato country is attacked all the group (bah, let's be honest, the US) will defend you.

3) let's keep in the honest way, just like in the UE there are unnoficial class members. Baltic states and most ex Warsaw pact countries are a class B members from the western point of view (usa, uk, fr, ger...).

4) in Romania you have the Russian-Ukranian conflict pretty close. Not a joke  the black sea conflicts with the ukranian grain pact or the maritime drones and mines exploding everywhere very close of your part of the sea. Also the Transnistria problem (a separatist part of Moldova that is separated from the government where Russia has troops).

Anyway, any armed conflict with Russia is out of the table because both sides doesn't want it for several reasons (we can list some of them but I think it's not worth). Both sides will loose a lot whoever will be the war winner, the economic spend will be not a business. And that is what moves the world: money and power.

One different thing is when Nato invaded Iraq or bombed Serbia or Syria. Another different thing is to fight a big strong and nucleat country. It would carry the conflict in a long term war and it is not economic worth.


About Argentina the unsecurity is from another angle. i'm disappointed about the last elections. I felt debastated but we must carry on. The domination from the US is different here. They own us by debt, making from time to time our economy implode. They buy some politicians to work for them. Pretty sad. Our problem is not with a neighbor but with ourselves. Some of our politicians are "employee" of foreign powers and makes desitions against the people. Sad.

dreadnaut

#533
Quote from: alanrotoi on February 20, 2024, 06:09:01 PMOne different thing is when Nato invaded Iraq or bombed Serbia or Syria.

NATO as an organisation was part (cause? aggravator?) in the mess in Serbia, but was never actually involved in Iraq or Syria. That was all US and "special relations" like the UK, plus Russia and Iran 🤦

Shoegazing Leo

Quote from: alanrotoi on February 20, 2024, 06:09:01 PM
Quote from: Matei on February 20, 2024, 01:35:37 PMYou may feel safe in Argentina, but in Romania we don't have a crazy guy with a chainsaw to protect us.

There are different kinds of unsecurity.

1st) we are talking about the possibility or not of an international armed conflict.

2)if a nato country is attacked all the group (bah, let's be honest, the US) will defend you.

3) let's keep in the honest way, just like in the UE there are unnoficial class members. Baltic states and most ex Warsaw pact countries are a class B members from the western point of view (usa, uk, fr, ger...).

4) in Romania you have the Russian-Ukranian conflict pretty close. Not a joke  the black sea conflicts with the ukranian grain pact or the maritime drones and mines exploding everywhere very close of your part of the sea. Also the Transnistria problem (a separatist part of Moldova that is separated from the government where Russia has troops).

Anyway, any armed conflict with Russia is out of the table because both sides doesn't want it for several reasons (we can list some of them but I think it's not worth). Both sides will loose a lot whoever will be the war winner, the economic spend will be not a business. And that is what moves the world: money and power.

One different thing is when Nato invaded Iraq or bombed Serbia or Syria. Another different thing is to fight a big strong and nucleat country. It would carry the conflict in a long term war and it is not economic worth.


About Argentina the unsecurity is from another angle. i'm disappointed about the last elections. I felt debastated but we must carry on. The domination from the US is different here. They own us by debt, making from time to time our economy implode. They buy some politicians to work for them. Pretty sad. Our problem is not with a neighbor but with ourselves. Some of our politicians are "employee" of foreign powers and makes desitions against the people. Sad.
Argentina needs to undollarize his economy. The dollarized prices are helping to bring inflaction. And do something like the 94's Brazilian Real Plan to desindex the economy. That plan won a bigger inflaction than the current argentine inflaction.

Duplode

Quote from: dreadnaut on February 20, 2024, 08:55:47 PMUS and "special relations" like the UK

"Coalition of the willing" 😬

alanrotoi

Quote from: dreadnaut on February 20, 2024, 08:55:47 PM
Quote from: alanrotoi on February 20, 2024, 06:09:01 PMOne different thing is when Nato invaded Iraq or bombed Serbia or Syria.

NATO as an organisation was part (cause? aggravator?) in the mess in Serbia, but was never actually involved in Iraq or Syria. That was all US and "special relations" like the UK, plus Russia and Iran 🤦


I mean 2003's invassion of Iraq. You are right it wasn't NATO saying "I will invade" but it was an international coalition invading the country where half of them were NATO members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

PS: Anyway, officially NATO was there with a small contingent of around 150 advisers under the collective command NATO Training Mission – Iraq (withdrawn 12/11). Still invaders.

dreadnaut

#537
Quote from: alanrotoi on February 21, 2024, 01:42:52 AMI mean 2003's invassion of Iraq. You are right it wasn't NATO saying "I will invade" but it was an international coalition invading the country where half of them were NATO members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

Yep, I also meant that one. The article you link is to the third group, in 2004, which also included support from Jordan and UAE. All of the country involved where also UN members, but you don't say "the UN invaded".

The first (and second) forces to actually invade Iraq a year earlier where US, UK, Australia and Poland. Good chunks of of the EU (or NATO, if you prefer) at the time were going "WTF are you doing?! 😱"  And then the whole false documentation about weapons of mass destruction thing followed.

Well, the only point I wanted to make is that NATO messed up badly in the ex-Yugoslavia area, and did some work to avoid doing the same mistakes later. Iraq 2003 was a US led (misled?) thing, and NATO as a structure only participate as you described, with instructors and trainers for what (at that point, and with all caveats) was the recognised government. Happy for you to call them "invaders", but I prefer to remember the difference between 160'000 soldiers entering a country with weapons, with the idea of "we don't like what's going on here, we'll shoot people", and 160 people two years later, with the mission of "ok, there's a mess here now, can we help create some stability?"

alanrotoi

#538
Exactly. NATO wasn't invading there officially or it wasn't an invasion from NATO. Some members and other countries did.

The strange and complexity of the Syrian civil war is kida difficult. There are so many sides! And those sides sometimes (not always) work together. Morever some member of the same side out of this conflic are fighting or supporting different sides in other conflicts! Insane!

Sides (more or less):
-USA + friends (can't remember well but Belgium, UK, Australia... something like that):
They attack Syrian government and ISIS and are against Russia and Turkey but they don't attack them directly. They support Free Syrian Army and the Kurds in the north.

-Turkey: attacks Syrian government, the Kurds and ISIS. Against Russia and USA but don't attack them directly (remember Turkey is a NATO member!) They collaborate with USA against ISIS and Syria.

-Kurds: backed by USA in the war against Syria and ISIS. They are at war with Syria and Turkey and ISIS. (not sure what happens with Free Syrian Army)

-Syrian Rebels or Free Syrian Army: Against Syrian government, Russia and ISIS.

-Russia: supports Syria against Turkey, the rebels, USA and friends, ISIS, not sure about Kurds.

-Syria: attacks Kurds, Rebels, ISIS. Against USA, Turkey and against Israel...

Oh yes! I didn't tell you, Israel is there too.

-Israel: attacks Syrian government and Hezbollah. Supports the rebels and made business with ISIS.

-Hezbollah: attacks Israel.

This list is brief and uncomplete so know this is a very complex area of conflict because there are more than one conflicts and interests.