Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Soldiers have brains too, they can refuse to obey the officers and it will like WW1 in Russia...yet it hasn't happened so there must be two sides of the story.
Maybe were not being told about this though...as I think many Russian military want out . but surely in Russia they would be shot for disobeying orders...
Maybe were not being told about this though...as I think many Russian military want out . but surely in Russia they would be shot for disobeying orders...
Surely it is a very hard decision and it's hard to blame them. It's the epitome of a broken military, no military wants this.
The British PM supported depleted uranium being used by NATO in Serbia, the invasion of Iraq and countless other acts of aggression... Whatever he has said, it is not in opposition really to the use of brutal military force in violation of international law, but in opposition to the use of it by a real contender, Russia.
The British PM supported depleted uranium being used by NATO in Serbia, the invasion of Iraq and countless other acts of aggression... Whatever he has said, it is not in opposition really to the use of brutal military force in violation of international law, but in opposition to the use of it by a real contender, Russia.
Action in former Yugoslavia was taken by NATO as a whole back in the 1990's and was prompted by Yugoslavia's genocide and ethnic cleansing.
This was back in the 1990's and the US led the bombing.
In terms of Iraq, the coalition was there to According "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". Britain suffered 179 British service personnel killed, and Iraq was freed from the rule of Hussein.
The UK has virtually no role in Syria, other than helping UK citizens leave the country, although there was a surveillance mission with limited strikes against Daesh and the Levant in parts of the region as part of Operation Shader, which also involved a series of humanitarian air aid drops.
Both decisions were taken by Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair over twenty years ago and have nothing to do with Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and unless Russia attacks a NATO country then NATO will not be taking any direct military action and this has been made clear.
So your post is an irrelevant and ill informed attack on Britain and NATO, and constitutes fairly poor trolling in order to try and change the subject and debate away from what is going on in Ukraine.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-27-2022 at 05:36 AM..
Exactly, NATO is not merely a "defensive" organization. It has intervened in many countries, militarily, unilaterally, regardless of international law. NATO itself decides the reason to intervene and the course of action it will take. All matters are subject to nuance and controversy. The British PM has never denounced the use of force by their allies. What bothers him is the use of it by its contenders, Russia, etc.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction former British PM Tony Blair claimed should back the invasion of Iraq? How many people died there? Was it justified?? Boris Johnson is not in opposition to the use of military force but in opposition to the use of it by its perceived enemies. Britons overseas (Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians) live off the resources and land which were stolen from the Natives who were living there, a centuries long process, and yet the British government never denounced that. On the contrary it supported and still supports it. There is no fair play here at all. Just a Darwinian world where "might makes right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Action in former Yugoslavia was taken by NATO as a whole back in the 1990's and was prompted by Yugoslavia's genocide and ethnic cleansing.
This was back in the 1990's and the US led the bombing.
So your post is an irrelevant and ill informed attack on Britain and NATO, and constitutes fairly poor trolling in order to try and change the subject and debate away from what is going on in Ukraine.
Not at all. I am putting it in context, the bigger picture. Seeing not only the tree but the forest too. When it comes to Ukraine, Russia has not designed and pursed a scheme whereby they become the sole rulers as the West has. Russia and China, the only potential contenders, have become encircled, militarily, economically and ideologically, due to the calculations and schemes of the West. The solution would be simple, Ukraine would have a neutral status as Finland. But the objective is to confront, put pressure and finally cause the demise of Russia. I'm not supporting the war in Ukraine, I am against all wars. I think all countries in the world should give up their weapons and establish real peace.
An article by Pat Buchanan on the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe:
Exactly, NATO is not merely a "defensive" organization. It has intervened in many countries, militarily, unilaterally, regardless of international law. NATO itself decides the reason to intervene and the course of action it will take. All matters are subject to nuance and controversy. The British PM has never denounced the use of force by their allies. What bothers him is the use of it by its contenders, Russia, etc.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction former British PM Tony Blair claimed should back the invasion of Iraq? How many people died there? Was it justified?? Boris Johnson is not in opposition to the use of military force but in opposition to the use of it by its perceived enemies. Britons overseas (Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians) live off the resources and land which were stolen from the Natives who were living there, a centuries long process, and yet the British government never denounced that. On the contrary it supported and still supports it. There is no fair play here at all. Just a Darwinian world where "might makes right".
This has nothing to do with what is going on in Ukraine.
In terms of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and he was in the end executed by his own people.
Hussein himself had previously invaded Kuwait.
As for NATO it was part of the UN ISAF Force in Afghanistan and does have a remit beyond mere defence.
America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are independent countries who run their own affairs.
As for slavery and brutality, the Portuguese had the largest slave trade of any country.
As for Brazil, it has people living in disgusting poverty, and has a disgusting history of corruption, so why don't you sought your own country out before attacking others.
Furthermore none of this has anything to do with Ukraine, so stop going off topic in order to change the subject and deflect attention from what is going on in Ukraine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
