FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Would you support war with russia
Would you support war with russia
Jump to: Newest in thread
With us already in a cold war with Russia and the west are sending more weapons each week
Is it eneviiatable that the west will be drawn into Full conflict with Russia
It's seems the only way that bully Putin Will stop
I personally would support it as I think if we don't then this will carry on and on for years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
After the very profitable Afghanistan situation was ended I'm sure the weapon manufacturers and arms dealers are quite hoping for a new long drawn out situation, and Ukraine is looking good to them
A short sharp nuclear war must be avoided at all costs, but funding guerilla warfare (such as that the afghans employed so well against Russia) is perfect for the coffers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"After the very profitable Afghanistan situation was ended I'm sure the weapon manufacturers and arms dealers are quite hoping for a new long drawn out situation, and Ukraine is looking good to them
A short sharp nuclear war must be avoided at all costs, but funding guerilla warfare (such as that the afghans employed so well against Russia) is perfect for the coffers"
That and there's a lot of arms past their use by date that need replacing and updating. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"After the very profitable Afghanistan situation was ended I'm sure the weapon manufacturers and arms dealers are quite hoping for a new long drawn out situation, and Ukraine is looking good to them
A short sharp nuclear war must be avoided at all costs, but funding guerilla warfare (such as that the afghans employed so well against Russia) is perfect for the coffers"
Exactly,no better way to get free PR and the as used in conflict Stamp, switchblade drones and the like, the west should have seen this and helped Ukraine before it was to late, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Nobody in their right mind would want war with Russia.
They are clear and open when they say that there is asymmetric power between NATO and Russia when it comes to regular weaponry so they see nuclear weaponry as the balance.
A war with Russia could only lead to Nuclear War. In which case, we all die. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke. |
"Nobody in their right mind would want war with Russia.
They are clear and open when they say that there is asymmetric power between NATO and Russia when it comes to regular weaponry so they see nuclear weaponry as the balance.
A war with Russia could only lead to Nuclear War. In which case, we all die."
 Hmmm? I think only people with a personal death wish would want war with Russia. At any level, nuclear or otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There comes a time when good people must stand up for what they believe in.
Russia, the largest country on Earth, appears to want more land and more people without any justification. So after Ukraine, who is next if we do nothing? Poland, Moldova, Hungary, Austria, Germany? When will we feel it is right to try and stop them?
Over the last 70 years the super powers have always stepped back from nuclear war because of mutually assured destruction. Putin may be a narcissistic megalomaniac but he is not a fool. He knows the west can annihilate him and his 145 million Russians with nukes so it is not worth the risk.
He sabre rattles nuclear weapons because he knows his poorly trained, abysmally managed, badly equiped, conscripted, conventional forces would lose quickly against Nato troops and equipment.
There will be no nuclear war and the Russia people will eventually see that Putin and his oligarch friends have bled their country dry and are now using their children and fathers as cannon fodder in pursuit of a dream to rebuild the Soviet Union. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, I would. I only wish the spineless EU leaders had the guts to act to avoid it.
You want the UK to go to war with Russia? "
Thing is... Appeasement doesn't work. We learned that in the second world war, when Putin annexed crimea and now when trying to reclaim the former soviet blok.
After Ukraine who next? Moldova? Georgia? Poland? Romania? Estonia? Do we just leave him to it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not really I don’t want a nuclear tan.
Think the best thing to do is hit them in the pocket. "
That might take a while.... The rouble is about 10 per cent higher now against the euro, pound, and usd than when the war started... So sanctions don't seem to have done a lot just yet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
After Ukraine who next? Moldova? Georgia? Poland? Romania? Estonia? Do we just leave him to it? "
This is the point.. he isn’t going to stop at Ukraine…. Moldova and Georgia don’t have NATO cover…. Romania and Estonia do.. and they would invoke Article 5 as soon as 1 russian foot stepped into their territory!
I am waiting on one misguided missile to land on polish territory and then see what hell is let loose |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With us already in a cold war with Russia and the west are sending more weapons each week
Is it eneviiatable that the west will be drawn into Full conflict with Russia
It's seems the only way that bully Putin Will stop
I personally would support it as I think if we don't then this will carry on and on for years "
No I do not support a war against Russia. To do so is suicide! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ay40Man
over a year ago
Kinross |
"With us already in a cold war with Russia and the west are sending more weapons each week
Is it eneviiatable that the west will be drawn into Full conflict with Russia
It's seems the only way that bully Putin Will stop
I personally would support it as I think if we don't then this will carry on and on for years "
Agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With us already in a cold war with Russia and the west are sending more weapons each week
Is it eneviiatable that the west will be drawn into Full conflict with Russia
It's seems the only way that bully Putin Will stop
I personally would support it as I think if we don't then this will carry on and on for years
No I do not support a war against Russia. To do so is suicide! "
really suicide why ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"With us already in a cold war with Russia and the west are sending more weapons each week
Is it eneviiatable that the west will be drawn into Full conflict with Russia
It's seems the only way that bully Putin Will stop
I personally would support it as I think if we don't then this will carry on and on for years
No I do not support a war against Russia. To do so is suicide! really suicide why ?"
Because she won't have access to q nuclear bunker when it starts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yes, but only limited to using Ukrainian territory to repel Russian Federation invaders.
Basically a limited, push back and repel operation, conducted on Ukrainian soil.
The Russian Federation will be told in no uncertain terms that whilst it is expected they will defend their units on Ukrainian soil, no attacks on RF targets on their own territory will be sanctioned.
However any RF attack on the national territory of any defending forces (eg, UK) will be an act of war and said country and will invoke a full response on their sovereign territory.
In essence, Nato partners are to conduct "special military operation" on Ukrainian soil only, at the behest of the Ukrainian government, to repel non-Ukrainian invaders from their territory.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"Nobody in their right mind would want war with Russia.
They are clear and open when they say that there is asymmetric power between NATO and Russia when it comes to regular weaponry so they see nuclear weaponry as the balance.
A war with Russia could only lead to Nuclear War. In which case, we all die.
Hmmm? I think only people with a personal death wish would want war with Russia. At any level, nuclear or otherwise."
Unfortunately, I don't personally believe, it will be NATO (or in other words, us) that will make that choice..
It will be made for us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"
After Ukraine who next? Moldova? Georgia? Poland? Romania? Estonia? Do we just leave him to it?
This is the point.. he isn’t going to stop at Ukraine…. Moldova and Georgia don’t have NATO cover…. Romania and Estonia do.. and they would invoke Article 5 as soon as 1 russian foot stepped into their territory!
I am waiting on one misguided missile to land on polish territory and then see what hell is let loose "
They'll be a tolerance, even to the point of accepting a couple of Nukes can be overlooked, is the consequences of tic tac toe ending in total destruction.
Let say a nuke was dropped on Newcastle with the demand, back off or tomorrow will be Glasgow. At what point is the cost of responding worth the consequences?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Support" is a funny old word.
It could mean that I would want war with Russia. I don't.
However Putin has to be stopped, one way or another.
Nukes aside for a moment, if Putin gets an easy ride in Ukraine it will embolden him to move on to whichever country is top of his wish list. And then further and further. He will not stop.
As seems to be happening he is getting well and truly bogged down in Ukraine and taking serious losses.
On the upside this will seriously hamper any plans he may have for further conquest. The personnel and kit he is loosing will take a long time to replace, so we could say the longer he is stuck in Ukraine the better.
However there is always a downside and this is where the nukes come in to play.
He is already blaming the west (Britain in particular) for prolonging the war by supplying Ukraine with weapons, and some of his sabre rattling (200 seconds to nuke London) is becoming quite scary.
He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation. He may just take the gamble and fire one, and Britain would be in trap one as first target.
Boris and others in the west need to make it very clear that retaliation to a nuclear strike would be swift and devastating. Rattling our sabres now could be the only way of avoiding drawing them in anger at some later time.
Meanwhile some brave Russian could save the world from a lot of pain by putting a 9mm between his eyes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Support" is a funny old word.
It could mean that I would want war with Russia. I don't.
However Putin has to be stopped, one way or another.
Nukes aside for a moment, if Putin gets an easy ride in Ukraine it will embolden him to move on to whichever country is top of his wish list. And then further and further. He will not stop.
As seems to be happening he is getting well and truly bogged down in Ukraine and taking serious losses.
On the upside this will seriously hamper any plans he may have for further conquest. The personnel and kit he is loosing will take a long time to replace, so we could say the longer he is stuck in Ukraine the better.
However there is always a downside and this is where the nukes come in to play.
He is already blaming the west (Britain in particular) for prolonging the war by supplying Ukraine with weapons, and some of his sabre rattling (200 seconds to nuke London) is becoming quite scary.
He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation. He may just take the gamble and fire one, and Britain would be in trap one as first target.
***Boris and others in the west need to make it very clear that retaliation to a nuclear strike would be swift and devastating. Rattling our sabres now could be the only way of avoiding drawing them in anger at some later time. ***
Meanwhile some brave Russian could save the world from a lot of pain by putting a 9mm between his eyes.
"
***
If Putin drops dead there will be others just as 'angry' who will continue on the same path.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Support" is a funny old word.
It could mean that I would want war with Russia. I don't.
However Putin has to be stopped, one way or another.
Nukes aside for a moment, if Putin gets an easy ride in Ukraine it will embolden him to move on to whichever country is top of his wish list. And then further and further. He will not stop.
As seems to be happening he is getting well and truly bogged down in Ukraine and taking serious losses.
On the upside this will seriously hamper any plans he may have for further conquest. The personnel and kit he is loosing will take a long time to replace, so we could say the longer he is stuck in Ukraine the better.
However there is always a downside and this is where the nukes come in to play.
He is already blaming the west (Britain in particular) for prolonging the war by supplying Ukraine with weapons, and some of his sabre rattling (200 seconds to nuke London) is becoming quite scary.
He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation. He may just take the gamble and fire one, and Britain would be in trap one as first target.
Boris and others in the west need to make it very clear that retaliation to a nuclear strike would be swift and devastating. Rattling our sabres now could be the only way of avoiding drawing them in anger at some later time.
Meanwhile some brave Russian could save the world from a lot of pain by putting a 9mm between his eyes.
"
I don’t often agree with your posts but have to say that the only solution I can see to Putin’s Russia is to remove the head of the snake and hopefully a few of his henchmen in the process but I can’t see it happening anytime soon. Perhaps a little polonium in his tea might help! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Support" is a funny old word.
It could mean that I would want war with Russia. I don't.
However Putin has to be stopped, one way or another.
Nukes aside for a moment, if Putin gets an easy ride in Ukraine it will embolden him to move on to whichever country is top of his wish list. And then further and further. He will not stop.
As seems to be happening he is getting well and truly bogged down in Ukraine and taking serious losses.
On the upside this will seriously hamper any plans he may have for further conquest. The personnel and kit he is loosing will take a long time to replace, so we could say the longer he is stuck in Ukraine the better.
However there is always a downside and this is where the nukes come in to play.
He is already blaming the west (Britain in particular) for prolonging the war by supplying Ukraine with weapons, and some of his sabre rattling (200 seconds to nuke London) is becoming quite scary.
He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation. He may just take the gamble and fire one, and Britain would be in trap one as first target.
Boris and others in the west need to make it very clear that retaliation to a nuclear strike would be swift and devastating. Rattling our sabres now could be the only way of avoiding drawing them in anger at some later time.
Meanwhile some brave Russian could save the world from a lot of pain by putting a 9mm between his eyes.
"
"He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation"...
He doesn't need spies to be able to work out western countries are only out to save their own bacon. As for taking him out... Whose to say the next uncumbant is any less of a colonialist.? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Support" is a funny old word.
It could mean that I would want war with Russia. I don't.
However Putin has to be stopped, one way or another.
Nukes aside for a moment, if Putin gets an easy ride in Ukraine it will embolden him to move on to whichever country is top of his wish list. And then further and further. He will not stop.
As seems to be happening he is getting well and truly bogged down in Ukraine and taking serious losses.
On the upside this will seriously hamper any plans he may have for further conquest. The personnel and kit he is loosing will take a long time to replace, so we could say the longer he is stuck in Ukraine the better.
However there is always a downside and this is where the nukes come in to play.
He is already blaming the west (Britain in particular) for prolonging the war by supplying Ukraine with weapons, and some of his sabre rattling (200 seconds to nuke London) is becoming quite scary.
He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation. He may just take the gamble and fire one, and Britain would be in trap one as first target.
Boris and others in the west need to make it very clear that retaliation to a nuclear strike would be swift and devastating. Rattling our sabres now could be the only way of avoiding drawing them in anger at some later time.
Meanwhile some brave Russian could save the world from a lot of pain by putting a 9mm between his eyes.
"He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation"...
He doesn't need spies to be able to work out western countries are only out to save their own bacon. As for taking him out... Whose to say the next uncumbant is any less of a colonialist.? "
It's a fair question and no-one really knows the answer. We could quite possibly get another one just as bad, but I would doubt worse.
However even a slim chance of getting someone we could talk to would make it worthwhile. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"war? it's a bad idea
I'm against killing lots of people to raise BAEs share prices.
I'm on team prefer not to have more war."
Do you oppose us having any military at all? They all make profits for the arms companies. We really could spend £350,000,000 per week on the NHS if we did not have an defences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Support" is a funny old word.
It could mean that I would want war with Russia. I don't.
However Putin has to be stopped, one way or another.
Nukes aside for a moment, if Putin gets an easy ride in Ukraine it will embolden him to move on to whichever country is top of his wish list. And then further and further. He will not stop.
As seems to be happening he is getting well and truly bogged down in Ukraine and taking serious losses.
On the upside this will seriously hamper any plans he may have for further conquest. The personnel and kit he is loosing will take a long time to replace, so we could say the longer he is stuck in Ukraine the better.
However there is always a downside and this is where the nukes come in to play.
He is already blaming the west (Britain in particular) for prolonging the war by supplying Ukraine with weapons, and some of his sabre rattling (200 seconds to nuke London) is becoming quite scary.
He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation. He may just take the gamble and fire one, and Britain would be in trap one as first target.
Boris and others in the west need to make it very clear that retaliation to a nuclear strike would be swift and devastating. Rattling our sabres now could be the only way of avoiding drawing them in anger at some later time.
Meanwhile some brave Russian could save the world from a lot of pain by putting a 9mm between his eyes.
"He seems to be of the opinion (with some justification) that the western leaders are flaky and soft and wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike for fear of escalation"...
He doesn't need spies to be able to work out western countries are only out to save their own bacon. As for taking him out... Whose to say the next uncumbant is any less of a colonialist.? "
I don't know what world the people saying just take Putin out live in. Obviously Hollywood or video games world not the real world for sure.
If you can't take out Castro and the Americans tried umpteen time or Kim Jong Un. How do you expect to take out someone with even higher and more sophisticated security.
If someone,somehow did even manage. Do you think the fallout would be anything but nuclear war. Imagine how the U.S would react in a role reversal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
