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
I'm not talking about today's Christians, but then (in this case) Thunderfinger shouldn't compare present Islamists - or even worse, current Muslims, which is not the same - to Nazis either just because their predecessors killed people in the Middle Ages. Just saying that in the name of Christianity, the number of victims is endless over time, even if I assume that present Christians have learned more in the meantime than "the Islamists" have. I also don't see where I mentioned "disgusting fantasies" and attributed to all "right-wingers" by the way. I mentioned only some right-wingers and don't throw them all together, for the record. I may have mentioned before that I'm certainly nowhere near left-wing in my society (which no sane person would consider socialist over here), but would pass for being conservative-liberal (which in Europe is definitely ANTI-socialist).
I think that a conservative position that respects other people's rights is all right (which doesn't mean I always share it), such as that of the likes of John McCain and quite a number of past Republican politicians BEFORE the rise of the Tea Party. That being said, I won't keep mum when someone is spewing stuff that appears to be at least tacitly or implicitly racist or makes Nazism, Fascism, racism or similar kind of stuff seem normal or acceptable. It isn't, it has to be opposed by every decent person, and I regret if you feel offended - depending on whether your position does or doesn't fit the aforementioned definition, which you have to decide for yourself.
@j_w_pepper ok you didn't say disgusting fantasies I was just reacting to (right wing fantasy) you said in your previous statement. People should be talking rather than go to violence. Violence goes nowhere in society plain and simple.
I'm all with you on your conclusion. Whatever the other differences may be.
@j_w_pepper ok
This is interesting
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/wwii-nazi-atomic-secrets-alsos-mission-kidnap-heisenberg
There was a TV mini-series in 1979, featuring Robert Duvall as Ike and Lee Remick as Kay Summersby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_(miniseries)
God bless you F.D.R.
It also showed that the American public recognised a great Statesman when they saw it. Those were the days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=AjpGzuLJCS0
Yes, there was much brilliant propaganda on both sides. Disney were perhaps the masters, but then again they were heavily infuenced by German expresionism in their work in the 30s and 40s.
I see parallells to this day in both political and religious indoctrination, both here and elsewhere.
... The world's deadliest conflict in history started.
“I went into one house in this village, and it was piled right to the ceiling with all these naked bodies where the Germans had put their dead. A terrible thing to see, but that’s war.
The futility of war, some say.
But who wouldn’t go to war when they thought of Belsen or dachau? That answers the question”
Inspiring man and a privilege to spend a morning with him.
Yes, sadly we're back to the bad old days in Europe again. We surely thought we'd seen the last of this type of thing in 1945. It seems we were wrong.
No, things are different this time but I was just referring to there being war in Europe for the first time in nearly 80 years. It's dangerous to draw too many parallels with past history but naked aggression and territorial expansion is certainly nothing new. It's just not something many of us have experienced before in our lifetimes.
That's the thing: this is new to most of us.
My grandmother used to tell me stories of knifings that happened "all the time" when she was young (in the 1930s). No one was impressed by them. Someone stabbed someone in a town nearby? Well, water is wet; what else is new? Nowadays, a stabbing can easily make the headlines. Everyone is in shock; it's national news. People say, "what's the world come to!" and "things were better in the past." Except that they weren't. Knifings and other violent incidents upset us more today because they happen less frequently, because they have become more inconceivable, and because we condemn them almost unanimously.
We see similar trends in wars. Fewer wars, with fewer casualties, resulting in more explicit disapproval from foreign nations, fought with different weapons, and so on. Objectively speaking, we are living in better and more peaceful times than ever before. Most of us have never even been close to any wars before, fortunately. So the war in Ukraine upsets us tremendously. And yes, I too fear for the future, though I always try to be as optimistic as I can. I kept my cool during the pandemic; I'm trying to hope for the best in this conflict as well. I watch the news with the proper filters, looking for the bits that are true while trying to blind myself from the cheap spectacle and sensational doomsday reporting that journalism excels at.
That said, Putin and his entourage deserve nothing but the cruellest punishments, in my opinion. These forms of aggression cannot be condoned. We are witnessing war crimes that cannot be excused and mustn't ever be forgotten.
I'm sorry to have to awaken you rudely my friend, but up until februari of this year you were right. However, it seems that the Russian losses the Ukrainians post every day aren't that far off the mark. So, if it indeed is around 60k, and the average killing goes 1:6 as the Ukrainians have claimed (some areas more, some less) that would amount to 70k soldiers dead in almost 8 months. Adding the 1:3 rule for wounded, gives another 140k wounded and maimed. In comparison, the USSR lost 10k in over ten years of fighting in Afghanistan . The Americans and Vietnamese losses (military) combined in 9 years amount to 900k - 1 million. That's 100k a year. As you can see they're right on track. And then the impact on the civilian population. Over 5 million fled Ukraine to the west, over 1 million ended up in Russia, either voluntarily or forced, and over ten million are displaced within Ukraine . That's more people together than that live in your home country. How many civilians have died is impossible to say, but considering the fact that the Russians have been aiming for them, it's most likely it comes close to the Russian numbers. Not mentioning the systematic rape and torture that the Russians use in their military doctrine to terrorise the population into submission .
Then the wider impact: Ukraine used to be responsible for 1/5th of the world grain export. The blocking of most of this threatens the direct liven of over 100 million people.
This is all not just media hype. This is real. I understand it's easier to stick your head in the sand, but the fact is the west has done that for all the Putin years, and hence let him go his marry way, developing his imperialistic ambitions and summising his view that the west is weak. Chechnya (2x), Moldova, Georgia, Syria and finally Crimea and Donbass were all warnings of what was coming. And yes, he still thinks he can win and will not stop escalating, putting you and me in a 'cold winter' first. But considering the attacks on the pipelines and now possibly on the internet cables, even an invasion of the Baltic States is not implausible. I'd recommend to start paying attention, as escalation is around the corner, and yes, this time last year WAS better than now .
But I don't think Putin will attack one of the Baltic states (or, say Poland or Romania), because they are NATO members, as he knows that there will be a sudden end to his Soviet Union 2.0 dreams if he does. The rest of the world may go down with him, but at least his plans will fail terminally if he gets crazy ideas.
He didn't start the raid on Ukraine because it was too close to NATO. But instead because it's not been close enough to NATO, i.e. not a member. It's not a coincidence that the Baltic states chose to get into NATO as soon as possible, thanks to Russia's record of regularly subduing and enslaving (and "Russifying") their neighbouring nations, as they are trying in Ukraine now as well.
Vlad the Impaler may ramble about using nuclear weapons if the area of Mother Russia is threatened. But if his propaganda has any meaning, his newly annexed areas are already threatened.
And nuclear deterrent works both ways. It has always been NATO's official stance during the Cold War that an attack on NATO territory may immediately trigger a nuclear response. Why should it be different just because the present authoritarian dictator of Russia, KGB-trained, claims to be no longer a Communist (probably correctly, since he is clearly a Fascist)? In fact, I'd feel quite a bit safer if we had the old Soviet Union back. Without the surrounding "Warsaw Pact" countries, but definitely without Putin. Wasn't Khrushchev (a Ukrainian, by the way, who decided that the Krimean peninsula should be part of Ukraine rather than Russia in the 1950s) a really lovable person in comparison, with his cute thumping his shoe on the desk at the UN?
But no kidding, during the classical Cold War I felt safer than now.
I don't know the details, but Crimea has always been part of Ukraine. The fact that the Soviets started to actively deport Ukrainians and Tartars out of the area does not change that. Just like Sudetenland, it was all a myth.