Printable View
In that case if his actions are supposedly 'mad', then what does that make practically every US intervention in the Middle East since WW2. Take Iraq and Libya, two dictatorships, but the US turned them into failed states.Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
Being "mad" doesn't exclude one from pursuing a "career in extortion, corruption and self aggrandisement" neither does being a politician exclude madmen/women".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
I would tend to agree with your point about any intervention in another country since WW2 (by any other country/countries) - it doesn't stop with the Middle East, just think Afghanistan, Tibet etc. Only one that I can think of as being justified, off the top of my head, would be the former Yugoslavia.
I think that what makes Putin different and therefore being referred to as "mad" is his willingness to make veiled threats about the use of nuclear weapons.
I don't know, the US rains shit upon the middle east for decades, getting rid of dictators with the promise of democracy, which never comes, only chaos and destruction, Iraq, Libya, even the 20 yr occupation of Afghanistan couldn't establish democracy or any sort of functioning state, as soon as they depart, the Taliban just steps in. It seems once this chaos comes close to home, we take more notice. Russia of course also occupied Afghanistan, in an even more bonkers project, to turn the natives into communists, but they just ended up torching entire villages! How either country think they have right to do this is beyond me. Putin is no 'madder' than Kissinger, Bush, the Clintons, whoever. Was there ever a point in post war US history that the US weren't involved in the Middle east? What does Ukraine for Putin, partly the same thing the Middle East held for the US, mineral reserves, and a strategic defence position against encroaching Nato membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
there were major differences tho. no matter the russians upset at nato too close for their comfort, their attack on a no military country just because they fancy it back isnt on, especially with their indiscriminate shellings.
West gets involved in the Middle East because of the oil, not because they're crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Don't buy the idea that Putin/Russians are worried about NATO. As if NATO would ever invade Russia. It's strictly a defensive alliance. Plus Russia has nuclear weapons in any case so they're untouchable.
If they were in the slightest bit worried about NATO attacking them they wouldn't have gone into Ukraine would they?
Not really possible to equate threats of nuclear weapons use to being "closer to home", ballistic missiles make everyone an interested party/potential victim.
I want to be clear though, "western" interventions in the Middle East have been ridiculous and solve nothing. As for treatment of Palestinians by Israel and backed by US, well that is atrocious.
well 1990 was about liberating Kuwait (well their oil anyway) and 2004 was about taking control of the world's second largest oil reserve away from a loose cannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
Given oil is absolutely fundamental to our civilisation that's not a crazy thing to do. Whether it's 'right' or not is a whole different argument.
Nobody would give a toss what they were doing in the middle east if it wasn't for the oil. They'd be left to their own devices. A Kurdish bloke said to me 'We will never have peace as long as there is oil.'
I think you are right - very interesting program on "Yesterday" earlier this evening. Covered the Caucus oil fields from time of WW2, effectively for many years Rusia/controlled the distribution of oil to satellite States at prices way below worldwide rates. Once satellite states became dependant on the oil supplies they were effectively "over a barrel" and had to toe the party line.
TBH Macca, I'd say the death of over 100,000 civilians in the first Iraq/US war was pretty crazy, getting rid of Saddam and Gadaffi was pretty crazy, seeing as the result of that was to create chaos, into which stepped extremists. Almost every US military intervention creates instability, but they keep on doing it, again and again! With Vietnam being the reference, they just bombed the shit out of that country, people need to get a perspective on the US, they are war mongering bastards, the only country to ever use that disgusting weapon, the h bomb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
As far as I can understand, Russia views Nato on its doorstep as a humiliation, but also I believe a direct threat. Ukraine has large reserves of oil and gas as well, and is a strategic defence position.