Messages

She was Secretary of State with responsibility for foreign policy during the period which saw the rise of ISIS and the transferring of weapons from Libya to them in Iraq. She was also Secretary of State in the period directly preceding the Maidan protests in which the (democratically elected) Yanukovych government was first destabilised and then overthrown. It's fairly widely accepted that Clinton and the Obama administration were laying the groundwork there for a few years previous to that and triggered the coup when Yanukovych backed out of the European Union deal. Her chief spokesperson Victoria Nuland was already a well known aggressive anti-Russian from her time as Dick Chaney's security advisor. Nuland was then made Assistant Secretary of State by Obama on Clinton's retirement and given responsibility carrying through with their Ukrainian 'policy'. Given the timescales involved it's pretty inconceivable she wasn't already working on Ukraine under Clinton. Maybe she wasn't, but as I said arguably both Nuland and Clinton's fingerprints are all over it.

Trump may be a nut-job but he is essentially an isolationist who believes in "America first" before forming alliances and intervening in other countries. Clinton on the other hand is an ideologically driven neoliberal interventionist who wants to bring American corporate values to all corners of the globe, whether they want it or not. Destabilising other nations, "preemptive" wars and "intervention" are all fair enough to her if they fit her perception of what is for the greater good. The current situation in Libya, Syria, Iraq and arguably Ukraine can be laid at her door and I don't see any reason why the pattern won't continue only with even higher stakes. Saunders was the best hope for the US, failing that, they're either f**ked domestically (if Trump gets in) or the rest of us are f**ked if Clinton gets in.

The vast majority of Russian tanks are Soviet era T-90s which are no match for the American Abrams isle even the German Leopard. Any that were deployed in Syrian were easily picked off by the jihadis. They do however currently have what is recognised as the world's best and most advanced tank, the T-14 Armata, complete with active armour which protects against direct strikes from guided anti-tank missiles. A handful of these have managed to make big advances for the Syrian government, however it is so new the Russians have less than 50 in use at the moment. In terms of aircraft carriers, the Russians only have one Soviet era ship which could be described as a carrier with about 30 aircraft, the US alone had 10 modern Nimitz class carriers each with about 80 aircraft and their own support fleets. Also as you rightly say, Russia is completely surrounded by NATO bases, starting a war on one border would immediately leave them vulnerable to attack on at least two other sides.
The Russians are no threat to world peace but they are strong enough not to be pushed around by the Yanks and so are in a good position to ensure the US doesn't continue to bring wrecks and ruin to the rest of the world. IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII.

Syria is so far from Russia, they have to borrow two airbases from the Iranians and Syrians as well as the compliance of Turkey to keep their naval base at Tartus adequately supplied. Don't get me wrong what Russia did with 24 aircraft in Syria will be studied in military history for decades. They flew more missions than the whole NATO forces combined, but that kind of intensity isn't sustainable. NATO outguns them with hardware and infrastructure exponentially. Russia simply cannot fight an overseas ground war especially against the like of NATO. If they could there'd be no need to be deploying the S400s into Kaliningrad and along it's borders. The Russians are spooked by all this NATO activity in Europe and they fear not being able to defend against a NATO first strike.

Russia doesn't have the military capability to project power more than a few hundred miles past it's borders. IMO all the scaremongering about a Russian threat is NATO propaganda attempting to make itself relevant in client states in order to justify it's continued existence/funding.

Go ask Sinn Fein who gave them permission to cross the picket line and talk with Netanyahu's Likud party.

The Palestinians can talk to whoever they want because it's their struggle.

They didn't ask nor did they instruct Sinn Fein to talk to the Zionists who currently murder them by the thousands.

So you're saying the PLO can speak to Likud but SF can't. Yeah that makes a lot of sense alright.

What part of "Sinn Fein are not the PLO" do you not get?

What part of "No one asked Sinn Fein to talk to Likud do you not get?"

What part of BDS do you not get?

No need for the aggression Dixie, I just fail to see the logic in someone saying well we can meet them but you can't. You say no one asked them to meet Likud, does this mean SF asked for the meeting or is it possible that Likud asked for the meeting (or maybe just someone else you don't like)?

Go ask Sinn Fein who gave them permission to cross the picket line and talk with Netanyahu's Likud party.

The Palestinians can talk to whoever they want because it's their struggle.

They didn't ask nor did they instruct Sinn Fein to talk to the Zionists who currently murder them by the thousands.

So you're saying the PLO can speak to Likud but SF can't. Yeah that makes a lot of sense alright.

Dixie do the PLO not meet with Likud?

Sinn Fein are not the PLO, and no one in Palestine asked them to send in a couple of lads to speak to Netanyahu's
Likud party on their behalf.

No one has come forward from Palestine to back up their bullshit.

They crossed the picket line, and they have been caught out.

And I will say it again, they are sell outs. All for their own gain......

Sorry, was that a yes or no?

Dixie do the PLO not meet with Likud?

You are a Sinn Fein cheerleader. Always have been and always will be. In this particular instance, all that's needed is:

I was surprised Daithi resigned so quickly given on what I read his contribution was reasonably innocuous.

You are the only one who cannot see the inappropriateness of this.

That is cheerleadering for Sinn Fein? Wise up. It's obvious from what I'm posting here I disagree with Sinn Fein for making him resign and with Daithi for actually doing it.

As for your "judges direct witnesses all the time" comments, you have failed to dispute the difference between a judge openly directing a witness in court and the equivalent head of a committee engaging in clandestine conversations with a witness and referring  him to a party colleague in order to be coached (you're the only one who thinks the inverted commas are necessary here).

That's because it's a silly, strawman point. A judge can advise and give instructions to a witness anywhere he or she deems appropriate. As Chair of numerous disciplinary committees, one of my first duties was to write to witnesses with advice on what they need to present, how to compile their submission and and how to present it. Also I would advise them if necessary to seek advice from the union or any other person they thought appropriate. These things happen all the time and witnesses are often coached on their evidence by advisors, solicitors and barristers. There is no rule that I know off which prevented Daithi offering similar advice to Bryson. The only thing Daithi did "wrong" was doing it via social media and not telling anyone about it. Foolish as I've said.
The fact that you lads are content to be lead around by the nose by the Allison Morris of the Irish News is laughable considering her history of deviousness, which let's not forget lead to the death of a vulnerable woman. She's attempting to whip up a scandal out of a few Tweets and you and the Shinners have fallen for it.
   

Come on then gallsman, I'm still waiting on your answer. Who exactly am I cheerleading for and what have I posted to give grounds to the accusation?

Right so you are saying now that Daithi's wrongdoing was not a matter of "coaching" a witness but the manner in which it was conducted? Good, that's progress.
So what did he Tweet exactly?

"What should tick the box of the committee for public session in terms of your response and I will be saying this to other witnesses ..."
and
"Send me a draft of the letter you are sending. Keen to get you into public session."

Send me you evidence, I would like you to put it on the public record! A fcking hanging offense right there!

Reminds me of the scene from American History X when the neo-nazi in prison saw the other white supremicists were dealing drugs with the blacks and hispanics and he realised it was all a facade. SF and Jamie Bryson... some bedfellows

Someone did call Godwin's Law already.

It's a bit like a Judge in a trial contacting a witness and telling him what to say.
Jaysus Shinners will ye just take ye're lead from McKay who resigned - "voluntarily" no doubt.

Fair point

No it's not, judges direct witnesses all the time ffs. Anyway the Chair of not a judge he's there to ensure the committee fulfil it's remit efficiently. In the two Tweets produced by the Irish News the Chair in this case asked the witness to forward a his letter of testament. He doesn't tell him what to put in it.

It's a bit like a Judge in a trial contacting a witness and telling him what to say.
Jaysus Shinners will ye just take ye're lead from McKay who resigned - "voluntarily" no doubt.

Well here's a thing. I was a witness in a trial a few years back and I got quite a bit of advice from the judge about how to answer questions. Quite a bit more that two Tweets worth as well. Should the judge resign also?