Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Greece moves to Russia
Options
Comments
-
-
We all agree that a war between the US and Russia and China would be a horrible, horrible thing.
Right.
Now, back to the subject at hand - Greece has turned to the dark side. I wonder if Germany will actually give them a break now, or will they turn up the heat even more? Will there be a Grexit because of this? Will other PIG countries see Russia as a go-to man? I personally think the result of all this will be that Britain will end up staying in the EU, to keep their foot in the door now that the dynamic has changed.
Yes terrible, while while the other chap is changing his underpants, I believe he said the US would wipe the face of the earth with Russia and China, thats how it seemed to me, and shooting down an airliner in a countries airspace from their own territorial waters isnt so bad after all? just depends on who's doing the shooting down I suppose? or maybe its on how European the occupants are? that all seems to have been mentioned.
The dark side, lol0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »Which was a strategic victory for the US.
1. North Korea gains almost total control over the Peninsula
2. The US/UN invades to restore South Korea
3. At the end, South Korea is restored.
Ok so first it was an outright victory, now its a strategic victory, what next? a moral victory too??
Im off, its too much, honestly, I cant ignore you, you make me feel like I know so much about history.0 -
Ok so first it was an outright victory, now its a strategic victory, what next? a moral victory too??
Im off, its too much, honestly, I cant ignore you, you make me feel like I know so much about history.
I fear your knowledge of history comes from primary school and Sputnik News.
The US' goal was to contain Communism and stop its expansion. North Korea tried expanding into South Korea, North Korea failed. Thus, the US achieved its objectives.
You are an idiot if you think otherwise.0 -
Ok so first it was an outright victory, now its a strategic victory, what next? a moral victory too??
Im off, its too much, honestly, I cant ignore you, you make me feel like I know so much about history.
In fairness, after those posts about the Korean War, I can see why you're slipping away!0 -
Advertisement
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »It appears your short-term memory isn't working properly. Have you de-calcified your pineal gland with some "natural" modified bananas and completely organic water?
It wasn't an attack on your character, its just true.
You appear to have a huge dose of Walter Mitty syndrome.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »I fear your knowledge of history comes from primary school and Sputnik News.
The US' goal was to contain Communism and stop its expansion. North Korea tried expanding into South Korea, North Korea failed. Thus, the US achieved its objectives.
You are an idiot if you think otherwise.
I never ever stated what their goal was, I refuted that you claimed the US were victorious, you made it seem like they won, there was no victory as you described.
You should stop attacking me and name calling, its very childish, it only makes it look/confirms you are losing, its an ourtight, strategic and moral victory for me.
You have changed your tack from victory to achieved its objectives, end of.Deleted User wrote: »In fairness, after those posts about the Korean War, I can see why you're slipping away!
If you mean Im tired of refuting spurious claims about victory among other things, yes.
If not well its tiring dealing with someone constantly changing their story and trying to cover their previous poor understanding of what ended up occuring in Korea, the US did not end up victorious? why anyone would dispute this I dont know, its written in history, for all their input, they didnt win! It certainly doesnt mean I think NK is a natural or good State or viable or justified, but the US/UN forces did not win, no matter how brutal the war was, it ended up near where it started, if anything they ended up being as contained where the war started after almost covering the entire territory of Korea,
How thats a victory I dont know, but it is as I described as taught by history, that neither side won, it ended in a stalemate and an armistice.
I have to go to bed or I'll have to dispute and debunk other claims of US ships being justified in shooting down airliners and winning in Korea and this thread will never get back on track.0 -
I never ever stated what their goal was, I refuted that you claimed the US were victorious, you made it seem like they won, there was no victory as you described.
Nor did I ever say you claimed it. It was a victory, they achieved their objectives.You should stop attacking me and name calling, its very childish, it only makes it look/confirms you are losing, its an ourtight, strategic and moral victory for me.
You opened with:
And you're going to cry about being called names? :rolleyes:You seem to be having a wet dream warmongering fantasy, what are ya? 12?You have changed your tack from victory to achieved its objectives, end of.
... You gain victory from achieving your objectives. Seriously, have you even read a book that didn't have pop-out pictures?0 -
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »Nor did I ever say you claimed it. It was a victory, they achieved their objectives.
You opened with:
And you're going to cry about being called names? :rolleyes:
... You gain victory from achieving your objectives. Seriously, have you even read a book that didn't have pop-out pictures?
You are funny and deluded,
its a victory and they achived their objectives? look, there's no point really, frightening what some people think occurred or words mean though.
As for what I opened with, well that was nothing, it was back in post 27, a full 2 posts previous where you called me an idiot, but I see very recent history isnt your forte either, not just relatively recent and even slightly more distant history,
and then you follow with that lol, oh dear.
I merely stated what I thought your mindset and replies suggest and seems to have been picked up on by others, look Ive even read a few Tom Clancy "novels" myself, Im into the history and the equipment, but I also realise they are tools of war and I dont readily or easily hope for war.
nor did I call you an idiot, did I? I asked you what age you are as I hope an adult doesnt talk like you do.
Its not about crying about being called names, it just makes you look like losing your argument, and there is the matter of attacking the post not the poster, I thought that was a rule around these parts?0 -
Advertisement
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »I don't think the Germans care much about this. Russia lacks the capital to do anything meaningful, and if the Greeks do start another pull, most of Europe will probably back Germany.
The Russians are clever in trying to split the EU but I don't think anyone except the Greeks/Germans/French (and maybe the Hungarians) care about Greece's temper tantrums.I believe he said the US would wipe the face of the earth with Russia and China, thats how it seemed to me, and shooting down an airliner in a countries airspace from their own territorial waters isnt so bad after all? just depends on who's doing the shooting down I suppose? or maybe its on how European the occupants are? that all seems to have been mentioned.
The dark side, lol
I dont know. I think both of you are taking this too lightly. Its no different whether its the US or Russia or Katmandu backing Greece, the point is an outside influence has just gotten a serious foothold over one of the EU countries. Its like a Liverpool scout having tea and cakes with one of Man Utd.'s players. I dont like the vibe coming from this atall.
Here's another thing to think about - WW1, centred around Germany. WW2, centred around Germany. WW3???? Germany is yet again being a cunnt to its neighbours, and we have major world powers taking note. Hmmm.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Precisely.
The US succeeded in defending South Korea.
North Korea, backed by China, failed in their aims.
hence why it was a stalemate, neither side could or did or was willing or able to do what would achieve victory. Not losing doesnt mean victory.0 -
I dont know. I think both of you are taking this too lightly. Its no different whether its the US or Russia or Katmandu backing Greece, the point is an outside influence has just gotten a serious foothold over one of the EU countries. Its like a Liverpool scout having tea and cakes with one of Man Utd.'s players. I dont like the vibe coming from this atall.
Here's another thing to think about - WW1, centred around Germany. WW2, centred around Germany. WW3???? Germany is yet again being a cunnt to its neighbours, and we have major world powers taking note. Hmmm.
It's understandable to see Germany being at the center of things, being one of the largest economic powers in Europe, their attitude to Greece may be justified, but it seems too stark too me and its not suprising that Greece has some affiliation to Russia and might make gestures to them to try rock the boat a bit.0 -
Greece getting cash from another source is the best chance the EU has in getting their money back.Now, back to the subject at hand - Greece has turned to the dark side. I wonder if Germany will actually give them a break now, or will they turn up the heat even more?
I would love for the Kremlin to take 15,000,000,000,000 roubles it doesn't have & roll over all Greek debt.
Let them be Moscow's vassal & Moscow's problem.
Fingers crossed.Will there be a Grexit because of this?
Of course not.Will other PIG countries see Russia as a go-to man?
Why would Ireland/Italy etc pay much more interest than it currently pays on the open market?0 -
It's understandable to see Germany being at the center of things, being one of the largest economic powers in Europe, their attitude to Greece may be justified, but it seems too stark too me and its not suprising that Greece has some affiliation to Russia and might make gestures to them to try rock the boat a bit.
I agree. They are being far too harsh on Greece. It is obvious as the day is long that Greece is a special case, they are unhealthy and need treatment, not discipline. The whole point of the EU project was that we'd all work together to help each other out, specifically to prevent European countries from falling out. Germany's robotic-ness is yet again causing problems.
I can see why Greece might look outside for help, but why Russia? What affiliations do they have?0 -
I dont know. I think both of you are taking this too lightly. Its no different whether its the US or Russia or Katmandu backing Greece, the point is an outside influence has just gotten a serious foothold over one of the EU countries. Its like a Liverpool scout having tea and cakes with one of Man Utd.'s players. I dont like the vibe coming from this atall.
Here's another thing to think about - WW1, centred around Germany. WW2, centred around Germany. WW3???? Germany is yet again being a cunnt to its neighbours, and we have major world powers taking note. Hmmm.
Putin has said Russia will not attack NATO and that people who believe so are living in a dream world. So while, yes, it seems like a changing of strategic positioning, Russia lacks the capital to actually be a viable alternative to the European Union or the US. Russia's economy is less than $2 trillion. The US is closer to $17.5 trillion and the EU is closer to $18.5 trillion. The only person who could possibly compete as an investor/market would be China, and they are more intent on investing in South America, Africa, and Central Asia, than making sure Greece can afford to keep its lights on.
This is probably just posturing by the Greeks to force concessions out of Germany, but it isn't like to work.hence why it was a stalemate, neither side could or did or was willing or able to do what would achieve victory. Not losing doesnt mean victory.
No, but achieving your objectives is. South Korea is not a Communist state, thus the US achieved their objectives and the North Koreans-Soviets did not (you can argue that China also achieved strategic objectives, in that it maintained North Korea's existence after the US practically stomped them). It was a US victory.You are funny and deluded,
its a victory and they achived their objectives? look, there's no point really, frightening what some people think occurred or words mean though.
You should probably pick up a book and learn to read. It will help you in circumstances such as these.As for what I opened with, well that was nothing, it was back in post 27, a full 2 posts previous where you called me an idiot, but I see very recent history isnt your forte either, not just relatively recent and even slightly more distant history,
and then you follow with that lol, oh dear.
I said if you believe China/Russia can take the US in a fight, that you're an idiot. Which is true, if you believe that then you are an idiot. I did not however straight out call you an idiot.I merely stated what I thought your mindset and replies suggest and seems to have been picked up on by others, look Ive even read a few Tom Clancy "novels" myself, Im into the history and the equipment, but I also realise they are tools of war and I dont readily or easily hope for war.
If you're not "into history" maybe you should not argue with someone who is. Chances are those people know more than you.nor did I call you an idiot, did I? I asked you what age you are as I hope an adult doesnt talk like you do.
Its not about crying about being called names, it just makes you look like losing your argument, and there is the matter of attacking the post not the poster, I thought that was a rule around these parts?
There's only so many times you can attack the argument before it gets redundant. You don't do the same thing over and over again and expect the same result.
The fact stands: you don't know what you're talking about, regarding capabilities of the US (nor do I claim to know all, just more than the average person) and their competitors, nor the history of the Korean war, it seems.0 -
I agree. They are being far too harsh on Greece. It is obvious as the day is long that Greece is a special case, they are unhealthy and need treatment, not discipline. The whole point of the EU project was that we'd all work together to help each other out, specifically to prevent European countries from falling out. Germany's robotic-ness is yet again causing problems.
I can see why Greece might look outside for help, but why Russia? What affiliations do they have?
There are historical connections, royalty and Orthodox Christianity0 -
I agree. They are being far too harsh on Greece. It is obvious as the day is long that Greece is a special case, they are unhealthy and need treatment, not discipline. The whole point of the EU project was that we'd all work together to help each other out, specifically to prevent European countries from falling out. Germany's robotic-ness is yet again causing problems.
You can't simply blame Germany for this. Greece has a history of being stupid with money and double-dealing. The Greeks have sued the Germans for ww2 reparations, then when the Germans agree to pay a one-off lump and that's the end of it (the Greeks agree that they won't look for more cash), they spend the money and then threaten to sue for more.I can see why Greece might look outside for help, but why Russia? What affiliations do they have?
Orthodox Christianity. Russia is the historic leader of the Orthodox world, and Russia is a geopolitical rival to the EU. Putin is also being a shrewd diplomat, leaping on internal fractures to try and leverage the EU.0 -
Marge: Lisa, you got a letter.
Lisa: It's from my pen-pal Anya!
[reads]Anya: [voice over] Dear Lisa, as I write this, I am very sad. Our president has been overthrown and[voice changes to that of a man] replaced by the benevolent general Krull. All hail Krull and his glorious new regime!
Sincerely, Little Girl.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »
No, but achieving your objectives is. South Korea is not a Communist state, thus the US achieved their objectives and the North Koreans-Soviets did not (you can argue that China also achieved strategic objectives, in that it maintained North Korea's existence after the US practically stomped them). It was a US victory.
I said if you believe China/Russia can take the US in a fight, that you're an idiot. Which is true, if you believe that then you are an idiot. I did not however straight out call you an idiot.
If you're not "into history" maybe you should not argue with someone who is. Chances are those people know more than you.
There's only so many times you can attack the argument before it gets redundant. You don't do the same thing over and over again and expect the same result.
The fact stands: you don't know what you're talking about, regarding capabilities of the US (nor do I claim to know all, just more than the average person) and their competitors, nor the history of the Korean war, it seems.
It was you that was stating recently that for a country to achieve victory that they need not win outright,
In relation to how China might take the US? I never said it has to be a head to head contest, remember SunTzu was mentioned earlier, and fight to your strengths and an enemy's weaknesses too, how about the British Empire as an example, so exhausted by the "Great War" starting out as the preeminent world power, its superiority had waned by the end, supplanted by a superior economic and growing military strength/capability due to its economic might in the form of the US at the time.
The US could not afford a war with its benefactor, the Chinese could wage an economic war on the US (I admit I dont know much about economics but you are wrong to suggest history) and as little or much about economics, it seems that China might be able to dump whatever they hold of US assets in currency on the world market? Id really need help on whether thats an accurate assesment of it, but from what Ive gathered this will destroy the dollar and they will be selling those 10 aircraft carriers for scrap to pay for essentials, its pure speculation or anyones guess if States will ceced from the Union and strike it out on their own, but I wouldnt rule it out in such a crazy "what if" scenario world. So before any of those 500k missles reached or hit that dam, the consequences would be dire for the world, but the USA would be over outright too.
Agreed on the later points, its a shame you cant see your failings as you repeatedly criticise me for my lack of history knowledge and change tack when recounting the outcome of a major war and vary in your opinion on the shooting down of different airliners depending on who shot them down, the dead and their families on either side dont care who did it, I doubt either was intentional but thats small comfort to those on the receiving end.0 -
The Russians are welcome to them. At this stage they're like the alco who owes everyone in town and is faced with the choice of getting sober enough to start paying people back and rebuilding some trust or find a fresh source of booze money elsewhere.
Give it a year or two they'll be on the streets of Athens burning effigies of Putin blaming him because they can't retire at 45 and the exchange rate means they can't afford Porsche Cayennes anymore.0 -
I agree. They are being far too harsh on Greece. It is obvious as the day is long that Greece is a special case, they are unhealthy and need treatment, not discipline. The whole point of the EU project was that we'd all work together to help each other out, specifically to prevent European countries from falling out. Germany's robotic-ness is yet again causing problems.
I can see why Greece might look outside for help, but why Russia? What affiliations do they have?
I suppose there is also along with the other common elements theres the historically common enemy between them.0 -
It was you that was stating recently that for a country to achieve victory that they need not win outright,
In relation to how China might take the US? I never said it has to be a head to head contest, remember SunTzu was mentioned earlier, and fight to your strengths and an enemy's weaknesses too, how about the British Empire as an example, so exhausted by the "Great War" starting out as the preeminent world power, its superiority had waned by the end, supplanted by a superior economic and growing military strength/capability due to its economic might in the form of the US at the time.
The US could not afford a war with its benefactor, the Chinese could wage an economic war on the US (I admit I dont know much about economics but you are wrong to suggest history) and as little or much about economics, it seems that China might be able to dump whatever they hold of US assets in currency on the world market? Id really need help on whether thats an accurate assesment of it, but from what Ive gathered this will destroy the dollar and they will be selling those 10 aircraft carriers for scrap to pay for essentials, its pure speculation or anyones guess if States will ceced from the Union and strike it out on their own, but I wouldnt rule it out in such a crazy "what if" scenario world. So before any of those 500k missles reached or hit that dam, the consequences would be dire for the world, but the USA would be over outright too.
Agreed on the later points, its a shame you cant see your failings as you repeatedly criticise me for my lack of history knowledge and change tack when recounting the outcome of a major war and vary in your opinion on the shooting down of different airliners depending on who shot them down, the dead and their families on either side dont care who did it, I doubt either was intentional but thats small comfort to those on the receiving end.
China couldn't wage an economic war with the US.
The US is China's biggest customer. China would suffer far more than the US. China does hold a lot of US debt but it's actually a relatively small percentage. The vast majority of US debt is held by the US itself.
Despite the "closeness" of the Russia and China, the relationship between the US and China is actually closer. They are tied together by economic bonds that neither side wants to break. If, however they did beak, the US and EU companies that deal with China would move somewhere else. There are certain things like rare earth elements which China has that would be had to replace but it's not impossible to do so.
And as for Russia? Despite it's size it's actually a small country. It has a small economy and even has a small population despite it's size. That's not to say it doesn't have a bite, it's just not in the same league as the EU, US or China.0 -
Despite the "closeness" of the Russia and China, the relationship between the US and China is actually closer. They are tied together by economic bonds that neither side wants to break. If, however they did beak, the US and EU companies that deal with China would move somewhere else. There are certain things like rare earth elements which China has that would be had to replace but it's not impossible to do so.
There's absolutely no chance of western companies turning away from the massive Chinese market. China can also find all the precious elements it needs in the vast, mineral rich resources of Russia. So don't be surprised as China & Russia continue to forge a closer alliance. Last month both nations conducted a joint military exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean and they've been conducting joint Pacific drills since 2012. The Chinese navy operating so far from their home waters with the Russians. Was no doubt intended to send a strong political & military message to the West.
As part of the BRIC nations, we will see a growing economic power block that is unrivaled. World power is shifting ease and the influence of America and it's dollar is waning. A currency that is not based on a tangible value/reality. The BRIC nations will have a gold backed currency based on a tangible reality and that's where its stability & strength will lie. China might want western consumers, but when it comes to strategic reserves and military alliances, the Chinese will fall in with their Russian counterparts. They have already established a much closer strategic energy, military and economic relationship that will only continue grow.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »I said if you believe China/Russia can take the US in a fight, that you're an idiot.
Similarly, anyone who thinks the US and the West could take Russia or China. Should probably also be viewed as an equal idiot. Russia like the US, has the military capability of rendering all life on Earth extinct. So it's very likely that nobody would be taking anybody and such talk is nothing more that my dad could beat your dad type childish nonsense.0 -
Corvus Maximus wrote: »
As part of the BRIC nations, we will see a growing economic power block that is unrivaled. World power is shifting ease and the influence of America and it's dollar is waning. A currency that is not based on a tangible value/reality. The BRIC nations will have a gold backed currency based on a tangible reality and that's where its stability & strength will lie. China might want western consumers, but when it comes to strategic reserves and military alliances, the Chinese will fall in with their Russian counterparts. They have already established a much closer strategic energy, military and economic relationship that will only continue grow.
I agree with a lot of this but there are problems between Russia and China, the Chinese are making some very one-sided deals with the Russians because they know right now Russia has few other options, also the Russians don't really like the growing number of Chinese people moving into Siberia and the far east, this may be the seeds for future conflict between the two countries
the move the US really fear is a German Russian alliance but the problems with the Ukraine have set that back for a while0 -
Corvus Maximus wrote: »The BRIC nations will have a gold backed currency
When are those nations switching to that?0 -
Some interesting and thoughtful posts here quite apart from the blowhard gung ho military US rah-rah rhetoric. I do feel that U.S. influence is starting to wane their military and economic might notwithstanding.
My question is where does India sit in all of this and what part does it have to play? They were traditionally friendly with Russia but seem to have growing bonds with the U.S.0 -
Advertisement
-
Corvus Maximus wrote: »There's absolutely no chance of western companies turning away from the massive Chinese market. China can also find all the precious elements it needs in the vast, mineral rich resources of Russia. So don't be surprised as China & Russia continue to forge a closer alliance. Last month both nations conducted a joint military exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean and they've been conducting joint Pacific drills since 2012. The Chinese navy operating so far from their home waters with the Russians. Was no doubt intended to send a strong political & military message to the West.
As part of the BRIC nations, we will see a growing economic power block that is unrivaled. World power is shifting ease and the influence of America and it's dollar is waning. A currency that is not based on a tangible value/reality. The BRIC nations will have a gold backed currency based on a tangible reality and that's where its stability & strength will lie. China might want western consumers, but when it comes to strategic reserves and military alliances, the Chinese will fall in with their Russian counterparts. They have already established a much closer strategic energy, military and economic relationship that will only continue grow.
1) China is the one that has vast reserves of rare earth metals. They don't need to go looking to Russia. I was talking about a resource that the US needs
2) The vast majority of China's trade is export driven. Their primary market is the EU and US.
China might enjoy certain ties with Russia but it's never going to abandon where it's money comes from. It really needs those markets. Likewise the US needs China.
I'll put it a simpler way. There's the McDonalds analogy. No two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war. The reason isn't McDonalds. It's because when there's two countries like that they have enough economic ties that the a isn't worth it.
China has such huge economic ties with the US. Neither side can afford a war, economic or military.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement