It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The clever thing about most of the Cold War Bond films is the way the Soviets are always quite sympathetically portrayed - often cooperating eventually in order to beat the REAL baddies.
So sorry, Gustav. This is from a "real" news outlet. Again.
But feel free to overlook it. Again.
Speak for yourself mate. It's only now that I can afford and properly appreciate the Bondian lifestyle like fine champagne, caviar, hotels, cars etc that I dreamed of when I was 12.
I think you missed my point. 12 was when I decided I was going to stop mimicking Bond and actually BE Bond.
That's funny. I was at a Smiths concert at Kilburn in 1986 and was accosted by three student types all wearing Billy Bragg t shirts.
They asked me why I was at a Smiths concert if I wasn't a 'socialist...'!!!!!
Bit puzzling since The Smiths were never really an overly political band.
Back then I was a skinny, shy, socially inept loner, so I think I had much more affinity for The Smiths than they ever did..!
This man needs a medal and a pension for the rest of his life! Hero of the finest sort!
I think you're losing your rag just for the sake of it. Which is to be fair what many people use the Internet for.
This is what I said:
"That equating the appreciation, enjoyment or performance of a dramatic artwork with any particular political tendency or ideology is plain daft. It's the kind of simplistic idiocy you'd expect from people like ISIS, the hard right of the Republican Party or a Stalinist."
Where are the 'one sided labels'?
I didn't realise 'the hard right of the Republican Party' even was a label. Not one I've heard before anyway. And explicitly not one sided as I've expressly acknowledged gradations within the party.
Is this just another of your imaginary delusions? Or perhaps you're standing up for the rights of Islamists and hard leftists not to be typecast.
Not to be the leftist propaganda fan or anything, but IMO, you reap what you sow. There has been one party, the last 20 years in the USA, that's been consistently falsely smearing the opposition, lying, and putting fear and hate agianst 'the other party' into the American electorate. It's been cheating (Florida, Bush) and adjusting the rules (districts) to come out on top. And now this party has brought foreward a president who's been doing the same thing all his life. He's been proven wrong time and time again. If he's asked a difficult question by a reporter he doesn't answer it, he resorts to personal attacks, even to the point he's making fun of handicapped people.
Now you complain that this party is getting all the flak? I'm sorry, but that's a bit rich. I was never a fan of Hilary, but that Pizza place beeing a cover for her 'child-porn network'? Really? You can get that low in the US without beeing prosecuted? It even resulted in a shooting, and still none of the Republicans have the decency to say 'hey, maybe this is taking it too far'.
/end of rant. But I am serious about this. Whatever your political choices are, decency should always be at the forefront, and I find it highly concearning that the USA has lost all decency. The country is morally bankrupt.
@bondjames , when do you think it's actually valid to call a politician or a party out for going too far?
I'm not equating Trump with Hitler, or suggesting you'd take it this far, but for the sake of argument (and because it's the obvious example to use) at what point exactly in the rise of Nazism do you think it would have been valid to start getting concerned or saying things had perhaps gone too far? Or does the sensible centre of political gravity just have to move invariably further and further towards extremism in respect of the electoral legitimacy of the ruling party - bearing in mind that Hitler was actually elected originally? The drift to totalitarianism and extremism is always always accompanied by the soothing words of respectable observers claiming things aren't so bad and it will all come out in the wash - we just need to bide our time.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
@Getafix, you contended that you're not being politically biased with your remarks and then take a whole post to demonstrate your bias. At least your being honest now. My point is that extremism & lying are on both sides. There is no moral high ground to be occupied by the left. Both parties in the US are fully bought and paid for by those who set policy (hint: it's not the govts that are elected by the people). All of this nonsense is a media distraction while the US ramps up its military footprint abroad. Clinton would have done exactly the same. Trump plays the game better, that's all. This is a big WWE reality show (with Trump as chief bad) for the masses to lap up while the real decisions are taken behind the scenes.
@CommanderRoss, yes, it was a rant indeed. Glad you ended it. Best to keep it that way imho. There have been shootings & violence on account of leftist extremist views as well, including quite recently. I hope the congressman makes a speedy recovery.
It was a rant, but I think all the points I pointed out are still valid. Not that it matters much more, as the USA has chosen to turn inwards, especially obvious with the Paris agreement, China is already stepping in as the biggest world power. In ten year's time the USA will be as France has been for the last 50 odd years: a country shouting a lot, pretending it's the world power it used to be. But nobody is really listening. This is not in any way an attack on the USA (allthough it may look like it) but my summation of current events.
To be clear: my position is that of a classic liberal in the European sense, which would make me right-leaning in Western Europe, somewhere in the centre in the UK and probably a leftist in the US. And I'm an historian, so I prefer looking at the bigger picture. Hence my rant in the direction of the republicans. But again, I could have done a similar thing in the direction of the democrats, selling themselves and their policies out to the highest bidder pretending to stand for 'the average American'. I read an article about a bill going to the senate making it impossible for trading with parties who fund terrorism. Neither side wants to sign that one, for obvious reasons.
One person's 'bias' is another's objectivity. It will always be like that. You think Trump is a regular centrist Republican, I'd argue he's something much more extreme.
From my perspective you are the good man advocating a dangerously cynical moral relativism.
Just to point out, the US was actually already turning inwards under Obama. That was the criticism of his tenure, which has curiously been forgotten these days. It's inevitable, as it is a nation ceding power & leadership to a new hegemon. China was already making massive inroads well before this year too. Examples include The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (which the UK joined, to the chagrin of the US), Shanghai Gold Exchange, String of Pearls strategy, Belt & Road Plan etc. etc. In fact, I contend that the current spat with Russia is because they aren't playing ball with the West in trying to 'contain' China, which is the real threat to continued (but declining) Western dominance. Hillary would have escalated conflict with Russia, and it looks like Trump will do the same (despite the side show Russia election rubbish out there to feed the idiot masses).
Race violence was at an all time high over the past eight years (despite a black president). Military intervention was still ongoing during that time also (including the Libyan debacle which probably did as much to destabilize the middle east as the withdrawal of troops from Iraq - and yes, I realize that the actual incursion occurred under Bush).
As you noted, Tulsi Gabbard's bill to stop terrorist funding has received nearly no support in the Congress (surprise, surprise). The same goes for Rand Paul's similar bill in the Senate. I'm sure I don't need to remind everyone that the Iraq War was nearly unanimously sanctioned by both sides of the aisle.
Entrenched power is very difficult to break. It's clear, to those who care to look.
A revolution is the only way, sadly.
As I said one person's bias is another's objectivity. In this case when said by me its my bias and when said by you its your objectivity apparently.
Anyway, as long as we agree, that's the important thing.
They are both on the same page however when it comes to foreign policy. That's where the real power play is. The domestic stuff is all a distraction because there's no economic growth there any more (it's all tapped out and debt ridden). So that inevitably becomes about social hot buttons to stir up people's morality.
Any government that attempts to change foreign policy in a manner which doesn't suit the real power behind the throne will be met with severe resistance of the first order.
You seem to be saying you think they are 'all the same'. If so, I strongly disagree.
And on a specific point, given the situation he inherited Obama's track record on economic growth wasn't that bad. http://politicsthatwork.com/economic-record-president/obama
Re foreign policy do you really feel there was no difference between (for example) Obama and Clinton? I mean I'm not saying they're a million miles apart, but I do think there are serious blunders which Clinton might have made that Obama avoided.
Regarding his economic record, the statistics don't tell the whole story. Ultimately, he presided over a massive escalation of the US debt. He also presided over a presidency where interest rates were kept artificially low, which caused every nation to respond accordingly (since the $ is the reserve currency). This has led to massive global asset bubbles, distortions in valuations (they bear almost no relation to reality now), distortions in currencies and even larger personal debt loads. It also led to massive wealth transfer to the richest and the worst income inequality since the 1920's. The job statistics are a farce, because they don't include those who've dropped out of the work force as 'unemployed'. The majority of the jobs created were in the service sector which has poor benefits and less stability. US monetary policy over the past 8 years, and the distortions it has created, will be the reason for the either the next financial crisis or the next war. I will also point out that the financial crisis was indirectly caused by measures (Glass Steagal repeal and increased financial deregulation) which took place during the Clinton years.
I don't think the Russians wanted Trump to win because he'd do what they wanted, I think they wanted him to win because he's the weaker chessplayer. And that's what they do. They invite you to make the first step, promise to do the same and when you're not looking they take your pawn. Trump, who knows nothing of the international diplomatic game is beeing cheated out of a win time and time again. The Russians will take one bombing in their stride. They're still winning the game. In the end they'll have Ukraine under their control, and as it now seems to go have a strong influence in the middle east, for the first time in 30 years.
All in all, the US will in a year or two or so resort to either pulling back completely, or having to go all in (which would mean full-out war and occupation).
Not that Europe will be able to do anything, allthough Merkel and Macron could end up beeing a dream team.
Trump is unpredictable, and that's his greatest strength. He is pulling the Reagan 'mad dog' stance. Nobody really knows his position because he changes every day, and is feigning senility (although I'm sure some think he is just that). The powers that really make decisions can capitalize on that unpredictable stance.
Ultimately the US shouldn't have gotten into the Ukraine mess. That's Russia's back yard and they were always going to be more committed to a win. The same goes for Syria. They will not back down when it comes to their strategic imperatives, just like China and the US won't when it comes to their areas of focus respectively.
The US will have to understand that as it adjusts to the new world order taking shape.
Haha.
He's actually a grandmaster playing Putin for a fool. The Donald is actually 10 moves a head of you Vlad. Master strategist!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40763369
Time to ship all "known Islamists" to the so-called Islamic State. Enough of this liberalist human rights claptrap. Rights and accountability cut both ways. As it stands, human rights laws are wide o[pen to abuse by those who seek to harm us most. A radical re-think is required methinks.