I donât plan to move but as always am open to it, where is your next move? Tolerant Chechyna, Sudan or Pakistan?
A comparison of US firepower with Russian fire power
Viewing those statistics from an impartial standpoint, which is the civilisation best placed to project itâs power and interfere in the affairs of other nations?
From a historical perspective give examples where Russia or Iran has interfered in the affairs of other nations anywhere close to the extent with which the main Western players have.
The interference doesnât stop at the projection of military might. As SOS has also pointed out, the West exerts pressure on the rest of the world through finance and its domination of the banking sector.
The Westâs interest in Human Rights and religious freedom is a relatively modern phenomenon (how long ago was gay marriage legalised in the UK?) You will still find plenty of absolutely mental communities in the US that donât live up to the headline billing of tolerance the West likes to portray.
What do you really know about life as a gay person in Pakistan?
By that token what do you really know about life in the enormous multicultural expanse of Russia that Pap describes? You claim that English Southerners donât have a clue about life in Liverpool yet your opinions on Russia and the Islamic world are untouchable.
If we really are better than these other civilisations at Human Rights and Religious Freedoms perhaps it is because we can afford the luxury, since our position within the world is so dominant.
Itâs nice to see a like from @minsk on one of my comments above. I often enjoyed his contributions on the other forum. Iâm sure he could add an interesting perspective to this discussion.
6 Likes
Good, well reasoned post @stickywhitedovepiss
Could do with more reasoned argument on some other recent threads tbf.
Iâm interested Baz, when you read SWDPâs first post earlier, was there anything about it that struck a chord and made you think 'hmm, good point, maybe things arenât as black and white as they seemâ. I ask as someone, who a page ago held the lazy, stereotypical view of Russia that SWDP pertained to but now, for today at least, has been given food for thought.
Iâm not picking on you, you know that. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that everything you post is complete bollocks, Iâm actually quite sympathetic to many of your thoughts on various matters.
I just canât understand how you can read an intelligent and informed post and not acknowledge that even parts of it might have some relevance. Iâm not the first to point the finger at your rather bullish, unyielding manner in responding to posts youâve physically read but seemingly, not really processed.
3 Likes
I still think Puelâs great and Derbyâs shit, so donât get complacent 
Why would wealthy Russians invest in the U.K rather than their own nation?
Black and white? Thatâs what rational places do ie grey areas and middles grouns acceptance, do Russia and say Saudi? They thrive on black and white, dogma and legalisation.
Discretionary measures are far slimmer abroad than here unless you have money, thatâs the maturity of a democracy.
It wouldnât be as high if people paid their fair share to Nato, human rights are a new phenomemon of course but where have they been adopted and why?
Where are my opinions on others untouchable? They are suppose in the sense theyâre quotes by liberal media which is a win win for me (Russians hate liberals I know that much).
If human rights cost money as you say why hasnât Saudi adopted them? Qatar?
Really, Thatâs the main conclusion you take away from the graphic??? Move the NATO members from the left hand side to the right hand side and then maybe add Saudi Arabia as a US ally as well. Your recommendation is that the non US NATO members need to increase their spending due to the threat posed by Russia?
What does expenditure on defense prove? The Germans donât contribute enough to Nato, would you dipsute that? Saudi, why so high? What equipment are the US buying? I am not too sure what that graphic is trying to say and prove?
Russia invaded a sovereign state the last time I checked with less expenditure than the US? Is that it? Theyâre so misunderstood the Russians arenât they?
What is your take on that?
If youâre talking Crimea, Barry - it has been ethnically and culturally Russian for centuries, and was only gifted to Ukraine in the 1950s.
The Crimean population was trapped in a country that doesnât much like ethnic Russians, illegally governed by far right Ukrainian nationalists.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the population voted to rejoin Russia in a referendum, which preceded the marching in of Russian troops. I donât remember there being any war in this actual invasion, although Donestk is a different issue.
I would call it an invasion, in the sense the Russians invaded a part of a nation that wasnât theirs, ethic Russians have been planted everywhere over the centuries, remind me again how Crimea came to be Ukranian?
I wonder if the British did this, in this day and age under those circumstances would you be so laissez-faire as it wereâŠ
Iâm struggling to understand this. Are you saying that you buy âhuman rightsâ off the shelf like you buy baked beans?
It was said by SWDP that Human Rights were a luxury by the West as they could afford it, Qatar and Saudi coukd easily afford Human Rights.
You always struggle to understand things as you either donât agree with them or you canât understand them, here is another thing, Human Rights should be free, free to all, they arenât, why arenât they?
Pap is a whopper.
I shared @sadoldgit 's sense of confusion over your assertion that anyone with money would spend that money on upholding human rights.
Sadly, that is not the case. Instead, the likes of Theresa May go over there to sell them peasant smashing equipment.
There is more than one way to spend a budget. Oddly enough, human rights come pretty far down the list of autocracies.
I agree with you for fucks sake, have you read SWDP view saying its a luxury the West can afford, by that token why donât Saudi and Qatar buy human rights? They CAN afford them, Jesus fucking wept.
SWDP said it was a luxury we can afford through dominance. Itâs not something you can just buy instantly with hard cash.
Qatar, the richest country on the planet(per head). Not one of the most dominant countries on the world stage is it Barry.
Can you stop going on about your messiah weeping. Heâs not real.
The social progress index might help you understand better(not about jesus, sorry).
The Index reveals that high-income countries tend to achieve higher social progress than low-income countries. Yet this relationship is neither simple nor linear.
Have read(all of it).
What Countries are wealthy and have poor social progress?
There does seem to be a link, maybe you can help me.