Turkey shoots down Russian fighter plane

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently it maybe true but it's ok for assad to buy oil and gas from isis with Putin's money

That's secondary though. If I give money to someone, I'm not directly responsible for what they do with it.

With US wheeling and dealing shenanigans with the likes of Saudi Arabia I wouldn't be bringing that up if you're going for a western slant on things.

robindch wrote: »

Presumably Putin wants Turkey to buy oil from him instead.

Putin wants ANYONE to buy oil from him LOL!

snubbleste wrote: »

Turkey sez: Prove it!

Interesting times ahead. I expect Russian paratroopers to seize Clan Erdogan oil tankers as they enter international waters and openly prove that Turkey supports IS

Russia won't they prefer operation muddying the waters as they used in Crimea, East Ukraine and the shooting down of flight MH17,
Put enough bullshít our and people will believe the propaganda.

All the emphasis is on Turkey and isis and not why was a russian plane in turkey as confirmed by the Americans and still denied by the Kremlin

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Do you seriously believe Trump as president of the USA would be a good thing for the World or even the USA?

Compared to literally every other candidate yes. Why not? Why is he so "terrible"?
When the establishment of both parties, the entirety of the main stream media, the jewish lobby, the immigration lobby are all united against you, you know you are doing something right.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Again cite me examples, for the most part its media distortions. Whilst I'm not touting him as some utopian ideal for a candidate, he is saner then the rest of the field. Enforce the border, promote American jobs, re do bad trade deals, whats not to like about Trump, he has so far said he will do more good for the common American then every other candidate combined.
Trump is not dangerous, Hillary Clinton is dangerous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/26/donald-trump-mock-new-york-times-reporter-disability

Prime example of a good guy who really just wants America to be 'great again'.

The guy's a complete moron when it comes to politics.

There's a ton of stuff from him (and that's just in this campaign) where he shows to have 0 empathy (when asked if he feels that people on minimum wage earn too little), no clue about foreign politics (his comments about Mexico and how he will 'fix that issue' by building a big wall and having them pay for it), handling the Middle East ("I would bomb the hell out of those oilfields. I wouldn't send many troops because you won't need 'em by the time I'm finished." That wasn't dangerous I assume, right ?), the environment ("This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."),...

I'm sure the Democrats are begging for him to win the nomination, since it will ensure another Democrat president for at least 4 years.

So you want a president that insults people, simply because you don't like political correctness.

Kinda glad you have zero say in that. It does matter since that would be the face of an entire country. He's the type that would go up to a foreign head of state and make jokes about their ethnicity.

Clinton is not my favourite, she is however a seasoned politician who will know what she is talking about compared to a blowhard billionaire who thinks you can run a country like a company.

edit: As for Clinton supposedly joking about the many deaths in Lybia. Where do you get that from ? She is showing that she is happy Ghadaffi is dead. That's pretty harsh, but that's not what you're making it out to be. I'm sure a lot of people all over the world weren't too upset when he was killed, the man was a monster.

Putin will not do anything rash.
He has handled endless provocation for years without much bother. NATO have missiles pointed at him on most of his borders. He has not responded with missile bases outside his own territory.

He has had a forced regime change on his doorstep where he simply whipped back Crimea and secured his interests.

He pretty much ignored the wests destruction of the middle east until his own interests were threatened. His intervention has angered NATO in their quest for greater carnage and destabilization.

Their shooting down of his aircraft will only hurt that fleabox Turkey.

Further escalation would only play into the NATO warmongers hands.

How is Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, directly responsible for 'a nation's destruction' ?

Maybe you need a refresher but the civil war in Lybia was already in full swing when the West intervened and it was Lybia's representative (afterwards followed by the Arab League) to the UN that asked for a no-fly zone to be implemented. And it was Sarkozy who pushed hardest to have Ghadaffi removed from power, not the US despite what you probably believe, with French troops firstly entering Lybia to engage in combat.

The US was very careful when establishing a no-fly zone and ensured they had Arab participation first, since they didn't want to simply violate Lybia's sovereignty just like that.

You seem to use the same logic that is used when people talk about Iraq, how good it was under Saddam while conveniently brushing all the crimes committed by Saddam, Ghadaffi,... under the carpet.

Both of them were rather old when they died, both were 69 and would likely not have been in power for much longer. In Iraq you had Saddam's bat**** crazy sons who would have no doubt plunged the country in civil war in their fight for the throne, in Lybia there were already multiple factions battling Ghadaffi who no doubt would have done the same there if he had died peacefully.

It's all very easy saying that without international intervention we wouldn't have the mess we have now, but you can't prove that.

So to sum it up: You're pretty much wrong about everything you said about how Lybia was plunged into a mess due to the 2011 military strikes by Western countries and some Arab allies.

And the reason I don't like Trump is because his level of knowledge about these things probably extends to about the same.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

How is Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, directly responsible for 'a nation's destruction' ?

Maybe you need a refresher but the civil war in Lybia was already in full swing when the West intervened and it was Lybia's representative (afterwards followed by the Arab League) to the UN that asked for a no-fly zone to be implemented. And it was Sarkozy who pushed hardest to have Ghadaffi removed from power, not the US despite what you probably believe, with French troops firstly entering Lybia to engage in combat.

The US was very careful when establishing a no-fly zone and ensured they had Arab participation first, since they didn't want to simply violate Lybia's sovereignty just like that.

You seem to use the same logic that is used when people talk about Iraq, how good it was under Saddam while conveniently brushing all the crimes committed by Saddam, Ghadaffi,... under the carpet.

Both of them were rather old when they died, both were 69 and would likely not have been in power for much longer. In Iraq you had Saddam's bat**** crazy sons who would have no doubt plunged the country in civil war in their fight for the throne, in Lybia there were already multiple factions battling Ghadaffi who no doubt would have done the same there if he had died peacefully.

It's all very easy saying that without international intervention we wouldn't have the mess we have now, but you can't prove that.

So to sum it up: You're pretty much wrong about everything you said about how Lybia was plunged into a mess due to the 2011 military strikes by Western countries and some Arab allies.

And the reason I don't like Trump is because his level of knowledge about these things probably extends to about the same.

Yes you can, you look at Libya before foreign mercenaries were inserted and then look at it after. The "civil war" was over, the West's pet mercenaries had been mopped up to the East of the country, then the "no fly zone" was implemented and it was curtains for civilised Libya. You are basically parroting the neo con/western liberal/guardian version of events, thats not how it happened at all.

Also LOL at "the arab league", mentioning them as if its not just a bunch of Islamist throat cutters.

In the Arab world a Dictator is the best option when the alternative is Islamists

Jelle1880 wrote: »

At least we've now established you don't really know what happened pre the intervention by Western troops.

At no point was the civil war 'over'. In early March of 2011 anti-Ghadaffi forces held 1/3rd of Lybia, if you see that as 'the civil war was over' then you need to re-evaluate your ideas about war.
You waffle on about how the West intervened and messed everything up, you seem perfectly fine with what Ghadaffi did to his own people ?

It will probably interest you that Putin backed the NTC, who opposed Ghadaffi as well.
Hindsight is a great thing, but at the time pretty much everyone was agreed that he had to go.

As for your claim that I just 'parrot' neo con/liberal/guardian stuff (since when are those in any way similar ?)... When I have a look at some of your other posts it seems you're the one adhering to certain neo con ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_Civil_War_before_military_intervention

Here you go, have a gander. Gaddafi woulkd have wiped them out without Western intervention, mores the pity, Islamism is cancer. The MSM, the guardian, Neo-cons, liberals all backed regime change in Libya.

As for my posts being indicative of a neo con, lol, because I oppose Islamists?