FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > What to do with Putin
What to do with Putin
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably."
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably.
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception. "
Probably a good idea that we wait until we've colonised a new planet before flinging nukes around on this one then - unless the few survivors don't mind eating radioactive ash for the very brief remainder of their lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc."
Er...NATO fighting the Russians is kinda what it was set up for, but never actually got to do with any degree of directness.
As for 'taking him out' , that is rather more difficult with Putin than with any of the examples you highlighted. Nine of those examples were un security council members, controlled vast amounts of resources upon which other states are dependent, only gadaffi had a large powerful ally at the time they were deposed, and bin laden was stateless and despite having a large following actually did not enjoy the resources and privileges which states do as a matter of international normative practice. Not to mention putin's experience in other areas of his career. I agree it's likely to end very very badly because he's not going to do anything other than escalate but the doing is far far more complex than you seem to realise |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc."
Assassinating the Head of Russia would avoid WW3
Welcome to the Tony Blair school of peacekeeping 
Armoutpiercing Gimp  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably.
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception.
Probably a good idea that we wait until we've colonised a new planet before flinging nukes around on this one then - unless the few survivors don't mind eating radioactive ash for the very brief remainder of their lives."
I agree. There was a big debate around the proliferation or nonproliferation of nuclear weapons that ended in the nonproliferation treaty. Though a couple of states broke that treaty and established their own nuclear arsenal. Its a tough question to answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably.
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception.
Probably a good idea that we wait until we've colonised a new planet before flinging nukes around on this one then - unless the few survivors don't mind eating radioactive ash for the very brief remainder of their lives.
I agree. There was a big debate around the proliferation or nonproliferation of nuclear weapons that ended in the nonproliferation treaty. Though a couple of states broke that treaty and established their own nuclear arsenal. Its a tough question to answer. "
I'd say it's an unanswerable question altogether, a global Mexican standoff isn't a great situation for the human race to find itself in, but that's basically what the nuke achieved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ukraine have wanted to join NATO for some time, as well as the EU. If we had got off our backsides and allowed them in sooner, this whole situation could have been avoided. Putin is not stupid, or mad. He would never have supported the opposition in Ukraine if they were a NATO member. As it is, he knows public opinion in the west would not support intervention and the western governments, would not go against the opinion of their voters without the requirement of a NATO treaty as they want to stay in power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably.
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception.
Probably a good idea that we wait until we've colonised a new planet before flinging nukes around on this one then - unless the few survivors don't mind eating radioactive ash for the very brief remainder of their lives.
I agree. There was a big debate around the proliferation or nonproliferation of nuclear weapons that ended in the nonproliferation treaty. Though a couple of states broke that treaty and established their own nuclear arsenal. Its a tough question to answer.
I'd say it's an unanswerable question altogether, a global Mexican standoff isn't a great situation for the human race to find itself in, but that's basically what the nuke achieved."
Yes, in a way. The argument for proliferation is that it equalises everyone and m.a.d. pretty much assures noone will use them because noone wants to effectively kill themselves and the rest of humanity. The argument against largely hinges on the possibility that either a state destabilises And therefore loses control of those weapons or that a psycho gets into leadership who doesn't care about the m.a.d. consequence or thinks its a bluff.
You can guess which argument won.
I can see pros and cons to both approaches but think neither is the best answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably.
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception.
Probably a good idea that we wait until we've colonised a new planet before flinging nukes around on this one then - unless the few survivors don't mind eating radioactive ash for the very brief remainder of their lives.
I agree. There was a big debate around the proliferation or nonproliferation of nuclear weapons that ended in the nonproliferation treaty. Though a couple of states broke that treaty and established their own nuclear arsenal. Its a tough question to answer.
I'd say it's an unanswerable question altogether, a global Mexican standoff isn't a great situation for the human race to find itself in, but that's basically what the nuke achieved.
Yes, in a way. The argument for proliferation is that it equalises everyone and m.a.d. pretty much assures noone will use them because noone wants to effectively kill themselves and the rest of humanity. The argument against largely hinges on the possibility that either a state destabilises And therefore loses control of those weapons or that a psycho gets into leadership who doesn't care about the m.a.d. consequence or thinks its a bluff.
You can guess which argument won.
I can see pros and cons to both approaches but think neither is the best answer. "
I don't see any pros, all I see is a bunch of power d*unken idiots pointing very, very big guns at their fellow man, hoping that holding said guns is enough of a deterrent to stop anyone pulling the trigger. Of course, the day may well come when they decide to simultaneously put those guns down and talk about their problems instead, but chances of that ever happening before at least one goes off...? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do."
Untrue, it's more to do with money and more precisely, energy.
"My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc."
Putin can be controlled with trade sanctions that infact lose him and his minions billions and billions of dollars but we (and most of europe) can't stick to them because they provide our power.
Russia don't bother me in the slightest. It's a country built on corruption - we just need to plant the seeds to cut the ties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Looking at the Ukraine and Russia's stance what would we do if after Scotland voted for independence they signed a pact with say; North Korea..
extremely unlikely obviously however look at the USA post war and their action in South America etc.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Actually I think what will probably happen is that all sides in this dispute will find a way of "saving face" similar to what happened during the Cuban missile crisis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably.
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception.
Probably a good idea that we wait until we've colonised a new planet before flinging nukes around on this one then - unless the few survivors don't mind eating radioactive ash for the very brief remainder of their lives.
I agree. There was a big debate around the proliferation or nonproliferation of nuclear weapons that ended in the nonproliferation treaty. Though a couple of states broke that treaty and established their own nuclear arsenal. Its a tough question to answer.
I'd say it's an unanswerable question altogether, a global Mexican standoff isn't a great situation for the human race to find itself in, but that's basically what the nuke achieved.
Yes, in a way. The argument for proliferation is that it equalises everyone and m.a.d. pretty much assures noone will use them because noone wants to effectively kill themselves and the rest of humanity. The argument against largely hinges on the possibility that either a state destabilises And therefore loses control of those weapons or that a psycho gets into leadership who doesn't care about the m.a.d. consequence or thinks its a bluff.
You can guess which argument won.
I can see pros and cons to both approaches but think neither is the best answer.
I don't see any pros, all I see is a bunch of power d*unken idiots pointing very, very big guns at their fellow man, hoping that holding said guns is enough of a deterrent to stop anyone pulling the trigger. Of course, the day may well come when they decide to simultaneously put those guns down and talk about their problems instead, but chances of that ever happening before at least one goes off...? "
In light of the whiplash rise of nationalist sentiment in recent decades, and other ideological factors which result from that and other factors, talking isn't seeming to work as well as it once did. Whilst the majority of human and state interaction on a daily basis is undeniably peaceful, you can clearly see the factors beginning to influence even general interactions in ways that many of us are unconscious of. The influence isn't all negative but there is a highly polarising effect which does seem to have little or no middle ground at the minute. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc."
Comparing Putin with Bin Laden is crass ignorance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
it's simple population management, Governments through history have maintained populations by fear of an outside force, when the USSR collapsed there was a vacuum, no proper enemy terrorists filled the gap. For a while it seemed like a great answer could be anyone anywhere and people were frightened, it worked well for a while, but now it is out of hand.
Ukraine was left to ferment a while, but now it's purpose comes through split the population of a poor country with promises of wealth from EU and Russia. A bit of inexpensive agitation and a few well placed weapons and the cold war is back on making the terrorists redundant.
Putin may be our saviour a new cold war both sides have a defined nation state to keep at bay, giving neat and tidy borders that won't move much and all it takes is returning one country back to the new USSR.
yours
a cynical NotRealName |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc.
Er...NATO fighting the Russians is kinda what it was set up for, but never actually got to do with any degree of directness.
....."
Er. No. NOT fighting the Russians is what NATO was set up for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc."
Why Putin was elected there will be no WW3 with Russia NATO won't go to war with them if you don't mind me saying what reality brought you to this conclusion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc.
Why Putin was elected there will be no WW3 with Russia NATO won't go to war with them if you don't mind me saying what reality brought you to this conclusion?"
I was wondering that....
Successful invasions of Russia in history so far? Answers on a postage stamp please... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Successful invasions of Russia in history so far? Answers on a postage stamp please..."
The Russ Vikings from Scandinavia, but technically they founded the country so it wasn't Russia when they invaded. Since then it has got a lot bigger and more powerful |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc.
Er...NATO fighting the Russians is kinda what it was set up for, but never actually got to do with any degree of directness.
.....
Er. No. NOT fighting the Russians is what NATO was set up for."
I think it was to counter the warsaw pact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To be honest I like Putin more than Obama. Obama is just a puppet controlled by the General Staff that want global conflict as an excuse to invade Countries and take over their resources.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc.
Er...NATO fighting the Russians is kinda what it was set up for, but never actually got to do with any degree of directness.
.....
Er. No. NOT fighting the Russians is what NATO was set up for.
I think it was to counter the warsaw pact."
The warsaw pact was entered into in, like, 1955. The North Atlantic treaty was signed by the original 12 signatories in 1949. It was implemented as a collective defense mechanism, complimentary to the collective security mechanism of the United Nations which was also established in 1949. Among other interests, nato was implemented to provide a deterrant factor to Russia, yes, but also to rise to the defense of necessary. So yes, to both fight the then Soviet Union if the need arose and to deter it if possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just nuke the cunt. Over with then
If by 'over' you mean humankind, due to the massive retaliatory nuclear strike then yes, probably.
M.A.D.
Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
Thought to be one of the most effective deterrant strategies, with good reason considering only one state has used the weapons in aggression since their inception. "
M.A.D also the bad guy in Inspector gadget.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All power mad dolts need money, and his country is controlled by some very rich people. Financially intelligent sanctions will bite and have influence. I dont know what they are, but we have to be 99% focused on the money. Dependencies upon their resources would also sensibly be minimised and we have probably been stupid to allow that to happen anyway. It may bode badly for companies like BP in Russia, but it would be a loss worth taking in the medium term. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc."
Yep,take him out,and stabilise the region.
Fingers crossed it all works out,just like it did for Iraq,and Libya.
Plus,word on the street is,
this time we'll actually find weapons of mass destruction.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Fingers crossed it all works out,just like it did for Iraq,and Libya.
Plus,word on the street is,
this time we'll actually find weapons of mass destruction.
"
Really? It didn't work out in libya or Iraq. Saddam and Gaddafi wanted to trade their oil in Gold (instead of worthless Dollars & Euros) and that is the ONLY reason they were taken out. Don't think for one second it was for the freedom and liberation of the inhabitants of those Countries because anyone that thinks that is an idiot.
Oh and someone on here mentioned sanctions. Sanctions like the one that exists in Cuba only affects the poorest people so that doesn't work either.
Putin isn't the enemy the USA is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ourbonKissMan
over a year ago
a land up north..... of leicester |
Seeing as he's a black belt in karate we could hope that he's selected for the next mortal combat tournament and then subsequently gets frozen and broken into lots of little pieces by sub zero |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Fingers crossed it all works out,just like it did for Iraq,and Libya.
Plus,word on the street is,
this time we'll actually find weapons of mass destruction.
Really? It didn't work out in libya or Iraq. Saddam and Gaddafi wanted to trade their oil in Gold (instead of worthless Dollars & Euros) and that is the ONLY reason they were taken out. Don't think for one second it was for the freedom and liberation of the inhabitants of those Countries because anyone that thinks that is an idiot.
Oh and someone on here mentioned sanctions. Sanctions like the one that exists in Cuba only affects the poorest people so that doesn't work either.
Putin isn't the enemy the USA is."
this is the most accurate post in the entire thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Seeing as he's a black belt in karate we could hope that he's selected for the next mortal combat tournament and then subsequently gets frozen and broken into lots of little pieces by sub zero"
He is also an ugly midget with an inferiority complex. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Russia, china, brazil, india and few other countries are members of b.r.i.c
they are soon in 2016 have their own version of banking system to rival IMF and the world bank.
Heres a qoute from a news artical a week or so ago.
The emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, are a couple of days from agreeing the $100 billion BRICS development bank, as well as a $100 billion currency pool. It could challenge global lenders like the IMF and World Bank.
The bank will be called the New Development Bank, and will provide finance for infrastructure projects. Its creation will meet the needs of emerging and poorer economies according to Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov.
In a speech Wednesday he confirmed the funding would be divided equally, Russia will contribute $2 billion in initial capital for the BRICS bank over seven years.
The bank will start with $10 billion in cash and $40 billion in guarantees. The $50 billion will be eventually built up to $100 billion.
The bank will be able to start lending in 2016, the minister says.
The final decisions concerning the creation of the bank are expected to be made by the BRICS leaders at a summit in Brazil on 14-16 July.
Apart from the BRICS countries other UN members may also participate in the bank’s development, but their total share won’t exceed 45 percent.
The location of the headquarters is still not decided, but Siluanov said the two favorite cities are Shanghai and New Delhi.
BRICS leaders are also expected to sign an agreement to establish an additional $100 billion fund to steady the currency markets.
"We have reached an agreement that, in the current conditions of capital volatility, it is important for our countries to have this buffer a so-called “mini-IMF”- a financial organization which could quickly react to capital outflow, providing liquidity in hard currency, in particular in US dollars,” Siluanov said.
The need arose after the long inflow of cheap dollars which fueled a boom in the BRICS countries for a decade reversed into a sharp outflow in 2013.
Even though the new bank will be a small rival to the World Bank which has capital of $223 billion, or the International Monetary Fund, it will serve as a reminder to the US of the shift in the global economy towards the developing world.
Currently BRICS countries make up over 40 percent of the world’s population and account for about 20 percent of global GDP.
So yeah goldman sachs and the rothchilds who control the worlds banking sysyems and pulls the strings over in the US wont be liking this as it will be taking some of their control away from dominating the worlds money.
im glad these countries have formed an alliance as the west have been bullying other country's with sanctions and making the poor suffer for decades which has led to most of the terrorism in the world.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
Untrue, it's more to do with money and more precisely, energy.
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc.
Putin can be controlled with trade sanctions that infact lose him and his minions billions and billions of dollars but we (and most of europe) can't stick to them because they provide our power.
Russia don't bother me in the slightest. It's a country built on corruption - we just need to plant the seeds to cut the ties."
The UK is not as dependant as some countries for their energy. Germany would struggle as a 3rd of their energy comes through Russia. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with sanctions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Russia, china, brazil, india and few other countries are members of b.r.i.c
they are soon in 2016 have their own version of banking system to rival IMF and the world bank.
Heres a qoute from a news artical a week or so ago.
The emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, are a couple of days from agreeing the $100 billion BRICS development bank, as well as a $100 billion currency pool. It could challenge global lenders like the IMF and World Bank.
The bank will be called the New Development Bank, and will provide finance for infrastructure projects. Its creation will meet the needs of emerging and poorer economies according to Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov.
In a speech Wednesday he confirmed the funding would be divided equally, Russia will contribute $2 billion in initial capital for the BRICS bank over seven years.
The bank will start with $10 billion in cash and $40 billion in guarantees. The $50 billion will be eventually built up to $100 billion.
The bank will be able to start lending in 2016, the minister says.
The final decisions concerning the creation of the bank are expected to be made by the BRICS leaders at a summit in Brazil on 14-16 July.
Apart from the BRICS countries other UN members may also participate in the bank’s development, but their total share won’t exceed 45 percent.
The location of the headquarters is still not decided, but Siluanov said the two favorite cities are Shanghai and New Delhi.
BRICS leaders are also expected to sign an agreement to establish an additional $100 billion fund to steady the currency markets.
"We have reached an agreement that, in the current conditions of capital volatility, it is important for our countries to have this buffer a so-called “mini-IMF”- a financial organization which could quickly react to capital outflow, providing liquidity in hard currency, in particular in US dollars,” Siluanov said.
The need arose after the long inflow of cheap dollars which fueled a boom in the BRICS countries for a decade reversed into a sharp outflow in 2013.
Even though the new bank will be a small rival to the World Bank which has capital of $223 billion, or the International Monetary Fund, it will serve as a reminder to the US of the shift in the global economy towards the developing world.
Currently BRICS countries make up over 40 percent of the world’s population and account for about 20 percent of global GDP.
So yeah goldman sachs and the rothchilds who control the worlds banking sysyems and pulls the strings over in the US wont be liking this as it will be taking some of their control away from dominating the worlds money.
im glad these countries have formed an alliance as the west have been bullying other country's with sanctions and making the poor suffer for decades which has led to most of the terrorism in the world.
"
Unless they bring out a new Currency or start trading in Bitcoin they will be using US Dollars which will do Sachs and Rothchilds no harm at all 
Gimp |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Putin continues to stick two fingers up to international condemnation and some feeble sanctions.
It seems because Russia are such a military might the world doesn't know what to do.
On top of this Ukraine are trying to join NATO which could result in NATO fighting the Russians!!
My _iew is that to avoid World War 3 Putin needs taking out like Sadam, Gadaffi and Bin Laden etc."
Mmm so ur saying russia shouldn't invade n attack smaller nations n live by UN international laws.
But the uk, usa n israel can do wat they want when they want.
That seems right n just.
Dont so naive as to believe that anything ur government does is in ur I interest.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
Simples 
