O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[keldsyke]

Speaking of burning it all down, the warmongers running the Dems - sorry, I mean "Biden" - look like they want to squeeze WW3 in before Trump's inauguration.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjdl98dk40gt

Why not go out with a bang, eh?

Makes you wonder who really made that decision for the Democrats?

[Jampie]

Speaking of burning it all down, the warmongers running the Dems - sorry, I mean "Biden" - look like they want to squeeze WW3 in before Trump's inauguration.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjdl98dk40gt

Why not go out with a bang, eh?

How does that lead to world war three?

Russia would have to choose to escalate it there. No doubt you will blame "Biden" if that happens, but I don't see why they would.

[keldsyke]

How does that lead to world war three?

Russia would have to choose to escalate it there. No doubt you will blame "Biden" if that happens, but I don't see why they would.

Putin said that any use of these long range missiles supplied by the US or UK would be seen as direct involvement, the UK has been mulling over since August apparently.

[Jampie]

Putin said that any use of these long range missiles supplied by the US or UK would be seen as direct involvement, the UK has been mulling over since August apparently.

Putin has been claiming NATO direct involvement since the first weeks of the war. He threatened to regard the provision of each and every new piece of equipment as an "escalation". He has been lying the entire time and nothing he says can be trusted.

The reality is Putin is the one who started the war and has escalated it himself. Us providing Ukraine with weapons to defend themselves is not escalation. Allowing Ukraine to use those weapons to strike targets in Russia, when Russia has been striking targets in Ukraine for a thousand days straight and counting, is not escalation.

[Lullapie]

Putin has been claiming NATO direct involvement since the first weeks of the war. He threatened to regard the provision of each and every new piece of equipment as an "escalation". He has been lying the entire time and nothing he says can be trusted.

The reality is Putin is the one who started the war and has escalated it himself. Us providing Ukraine with weapons to defend themselves is not escalation. Allowing Ukraine to use those weapons to strike targets in Russia, when Russia has been striking targets in Ukraine for a thousand days straight and counting, is not escalation.

As per usual, it is the left that is portraying Putin as being the 100% bad guy. Now I am definitely not pro, but I am also not anti-Putin. As I don't live in Russia or wholly understand Russian politics, listening to the western media and forming a view on world politics from what they 'report', in my experience, is not a good way to go though.

What I do know, is that many countries have their own form of democracy. Many of the Russian people believe that their form of democracy is the only way and that Western democracy is weak. In Russia, if something is seen as 'weak' then it is bad.

Putin has been very good for Russia - that is why many of the ethnic Russians love him to an extent of making him a virtual deity. The country was broken when he took over and the Russians yearned for a strong leader in the form of Peter the Great or Joseph Stalin. That is not how the Western media like to portray Putin though. He is often ridiculed and mocked.

Back to point. When looking at most of the reporting of what is happening and what has happened in the Ukraine, the media talk about Russian aggression. What they are failing to point out (I believe intentionally) is that from the 1700's, Ukraine has in the main, been part of Russia. Since then and especially under the rule of Stalin, Ukraine had been populated with many ethnic Russians.

When Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014, the population was nearly all Russian. It may have been a pre-cursor to taking more land, but the Ukraine cause wasn't helped by the snuggling up of the Ukraine to NATO. To the Russians, this was the equivalent of the Cubans taking on Russian Nuclear missiles in 1962 and threatening the US. To Russia, it was a direct threat.

Again, I'm not defending what Russia did in the Crimea, but if you believe in self-determination, then why shouldn't the Crimea be Russian? Why shouldn't the Scots rule Scotland?

Day by day, all I see is warmongering by the current US administration. The Democrat administrations since Obama first came to power have been a litany of starting new wars. Obama alone started 7 campaigns.

The latest moves by the Democrat Party is to cause as many problems as possible before leaving office. I don't blame Biden. I personally think he was quite happy that Trump won the election over Harris.

It's folly to pick out one part of the conflict and say one side is wrong because of it. If you learn anything from history, it is that wars are caused by a chain of events, not just one particular action and this 'chain' escalates into something much bigger than first anticipated.

[Lullapie]

Funny how Trump and his MAGA lot don't accept defeat graciously, but the Democrats are holier than thou.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ory-recount-a/

[Jampie]

As per usual, it is the left that is portraying Putin as being the 100% bad guy. Now I am definitely not pro, but I am also not anti-Putin. As I don't live in Russia or wholly understand Russian politics, listening to the western media and forming a view on world politics from what they 'report', in my experience, is not a good way to go though.

And the right has so utterly lost its way that it no longer knows friend from foe.

You claim not to be pro putin, but spread his lies for him. Weird.

What I do know, is that many countries have their own form of democracy. Many of the Russian people believe that their form of democracy is the only way and that Western democracy is weak. In Russia, if something is seen as 'weak' then it is bad.

Putin has been very good for Russia - that is why many of the ethnic Russians love him to an extent of making him a virtual deity. The country was broken when he took over and the Russians yearned for a strong leader in the form of Peter the Great or Joseph Stalin. That is not how the Western media like to portray Putin though. He is often ridiculed and mocked.

Right so let me get this straight.

Biden... zero new wars, ended Afghanistan (remember when that was important five minutes ago) and got inflation down 2.6% - terrible for America, better vote in an absolute clown

Putin: Invaded a neighbour, gained about 20% of their land in exchange for hundreds of thousands of casualties, at a minimum tens of thousands of dead, thousands of lost tanks, thousands of lost armoured vehicles etc etc. 20+% inflation - he's been good for Russia.

Got it, makes perfect sense.

Back to point. When looking at most of the reporting of what is happening and what has happened in the Ukraine, the media talk about Russian aggression. What they are failing to point out (I believe intentionally) is that from the 1700's, Ukraine has in the main, been part of Russia. Since then and especially under the rule of Stalin, Ukraine had been populated with many ethnic Russians.

New Zealand was part of New South Wales until 1841 - so you'd be ok with Australia invading?

Russia has no legal claim to any part of Ukraine and had signed a treaty recognising their independence and promising to respect their territorial integrity. One of the difficulties with ending the war is that Putin broke his word by invading and so any promise he makes can't be trusted in the future.

When Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014, the population was nearly all Russian. It may have been a pre-cursor to taking more land, but the Ukraine cause wasn't helped by the snuggling up of the Ukraine to NATO. To the Russians, this was the equivalent of the Cubans taking on Russian Nuclear missiles in 1962 and threatening the US. To Russia, it was a direct threat.

Again, I'm not defending what Russia did in the Crimea, but if you believe in self-determination, then why shouldn't the Crimea be Russian? Why shouldn't the Scots rule Scotland?

If the scots hold a referendum and vote to leave the UK then that's one thing. But if Norway invaded to "protect Scottish independence" without even such a vote taking place would you defend that? Because that's what you're defending in Crimea.

Day by day, all I see is warmongering by the current US administration. The Democrat administrations since Obama first came to power have been a litany of starting new wars. Obama alone started 7 campaigns.

The latest moves by the Democrat Party is to cause as many problems as possible before leaving office. I don't blame Biden. I personally think he was quite happy that Trump won the election over Harris.

It's folly to pick out one part of the conflict and say one side is wrong because of it. If you learn anything from history, it is that wars are caused by a chain of events, not just one particular action and this 'chain' escalates into something much bigger than first anticipated.

Obama started 7 campaigns? Which 7 would that be?

Yes, Biden is causing problems for Putin, because Putin invaded his neighbours.

Biden happy that Harris lost? You are delusional.

[slack_pie]

How does that lead to world war three?

Russia would have to choose to escalate it there. No doubt you will blame "Biden" if that happens, but I don't see why they would.

To me, it seems a calculated move by "the good guys" to escalate the war in the lead up to Trump taking power, to make it as difficult as possible for him to do what he said he'd do and be a broker for peace.

You can use all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain why firing US missiles, using US systems, into Russian territory at the say-so of the US president isn't a major escalation, but ultimately it is.

How would it lead to WW3? Well, Putin will be forced to retaliate in some way against the US/NATO, who will then be forced to retaliate in turn, and so on. I'm not saying it'll happen, but this move by the Dems pushes us one step closer to the brink.

Again, you have to ask who actually authorised this. Who's running the US at this point and what are their intentions? Old Joe's not fit for office and is on a trip to the Amazon for some reason, so it can't be him. Kamala has presumably been disassembled and stored back in the White House attic, so it's not her. So what group of people are pushing this forward, and why?

[drillerpie]

To me, it seems a calculated move by "the good guys" to escalate the war in the lead up to Trump taking power, to make it as difficult as possible for him to do what he said he'd do and be a broker for peace.

You can use all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain why firing US missiles, using US systems, into Russian territory at the say-so of the US president isn't a major escalation, but ultimately it is.

How would it lead to WW3? Well, Putin will be forced to retaliate in some way against the US/NATO, who will then be forced to retaliate in turn, and so on. I'm not saying it'll happen, but this move by the Dems pushes us one step closer to the brink.

Again, you have to ask who actually authorised this. Who's running the US at this point and what are their intentions? Old Joe's not fit for office and is on a trip to the Amazon for some reason, so it can't be him. Kamala has presumably been disassembled and stored back in the White House attic, so it's not her. So what group of people are pushing this forward, and why?

If anything it makes it easier for Trump. If he wanted to allow the use of these weapons in Russia the decision has already been taken and he can just leave it there without it being an escalation.

If he wants to remove the permission he'll be seen as de-escalating.

I don't understand your position on this. Do you think America shouldn't help Ukraine defend itself in any meaningful way, but somebody else should? Or nobody should and we should just let Russia do what it wants there?

[slack_pie]

If anything it makes it easier for Trump. If he wanted to allow the use of these weapons in Russia the decision has already been taken and he can just leave it there without it being an escalation.

If he wants to remove the permission he'll be seen as de-escalating.

I don't understand your position on this. Do you think America shouldn't help Ukraine defend itself in any meaningful way, but somebody else should? Or nobody should and we should just let Russia do what it wants there?

I think the best way forward is to find a solution for both parties that's better than either a perpetual war of attrition or a major global conflict. That means both sides will have to concede something they want, but it's better than the alternatives. There's no easy way out of this, so I prefer the one that ends it sooner, with the least loss of life.

As the great Tony Benn said, war is the ultimate failure of diplomacy. The way forward is more diplomacy, more talks, and hopefully some kind of agreement. Controversial, I know, but I think that's better than launching missiles into Russian territory at this point.