This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 22 Jun 24 11.02am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Six months old? Hardly ancient history. No, but not current.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Jun 24 11.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
True but my point is that Farage made the comments ten years ago yet all the media screaming is if he made them yesterday He repeated and expanded on them yesterday, when it might have been wiser to be a little more circumspect. I think that’s the point that observers are making.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Jun 24 11.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
What do you expect from the BBC? The sad thing is that Farage was right. We handed Putin an excuse to invade Ukraine with our usual meddling. I don't think people who have already decided to vote Reform will be bothered by this leftist propaganda. Farage is no more right on this issue than you, or anyone else who shares the opinion. For opinion is all it is, and a very controversial one at that. Other opinions are that independent sovereign nations are entitled to join both NATO and the EU if they meet the criteria and that both organisations have the right to accept applications and the duty to offer protection to such states from the threat of authoritarianism. Whether it will impact voting intentions is unknown but as Farage seems to be acquiring a Trump like Teflon coating you might be right. However, the UK electorate is generally brighter than Trump’s base. At least most of it is. Describing everything negative about your preferred candidate as “leftist propaganda” does echo some of the claims heard in the USA.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 22 Jun 24 11.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
He repeated and expanded on them yesterday, when it might have been wiser to be a little more circumspect. I think that’s the point that observers are making. I've had trouble with other AI systems; they seem to pick out individual words in a statement and formulate an opinion without realising that a past tense is being used and consequently the AI thinks the statement relates to today rather than some historical aspect.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Jun 24 12.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The clear and obvious anti Farage tone of the BBC was way off scale with any impartiality. I suspect they've had hundreds of complaints but seeing as those people are far-right they won't be bothering to do anything about it. I couldn't believe the news report I saw - I'm struggling to think of the news reader's name - might be Fiona Bruce - but she was literally relishing giving a very selective view on what Farage said. I watched the interview and it wasn't reported on fairly by the BBC. I was surprised by how bias they were - but shouldn't have been.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Jun 24 12.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Don't see what the issue is. Why don't the BBC put it next to the statue of Jimmy Saville.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 22 Jun 24 12.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Farage and Galloway hit the spot and are occasionally right, but not all that often. The West, looking at the size of Russia, does not understand their fear of invasion, 'they are coming for us', who is, not us. Is thi fear about Napoleon, or WW2 where 20 million Russians perished? Putin is however wrong and this is his fault. There were ways to prevent this and Ukraine and the USA must be just as liable for delaying and deliberately not implementing the Minsk accords.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jun 24 1.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Farage is no more right on this issue than you, or anyone else who shares the opinion. For opinion is all it is, and a very controversial one at that. Other opinions are that independent sovereign nations are entitled to join both NATO and the EU if they meet the criteria and that both organisations have the right to accept applications and the duty to offer protection to such states from the threat of authoritarianism. Whether it will impact voting intentions is unknown but as Farage seems to be acquiring a Trump like Teflon coating you might be right. However, the UK electorate is generally brighter than Trump’s base. At least most of it is. Describing everything negative about your preferred candidate as “leftist propaganda” does echo some of the claims heard in the USA. Which is exactly what I suggested. The problem comes when that country is right next to Russia, and from their point of view, threatens their security. Imagine if the Republic of Ireland or Mexico declared itself as a military ally of Russia. Putin is no friend of the West. He is a ruthless dictator who stops at nothing to maintain power. He is also a dedicated defender of Russia. Showing weakness is not sensible, but nor is poking the bear. Farage has been consistent in that message for a long time, and it turns out that he was right. We should have read the room far better. Know your enemy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  22 Jun 24 5.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No, but not current. A lot more current than lots of the rubbish repeats they put out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Jun 24 6.23pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
People who present the idea that nations just decide to join Nato and that they isn't anything going on in the background are either clueless or dishonest. People who ignore the obvious CIA and American five billion NGO and bribery involvement in the 2014 Ukrainian coup take people for fools. The whole project was US state policy, as was the Nato expansion east before it....that European states all go along with because we want to keep our defence costs low and with Britain our UN security seat. What Farage was saying.....and he was saying this many years before this idiotic war....that Nato enlargement policy was a bad idea and would lead to confrontation with Russia. He was right and it should be remembered that he was criticised about that at the time.....by people who have been proven wrong. What Farage was saying has essentially been repeated by top diplomats in that political space for policy towards Russia since 1991 and the fall of the Berlin wall. I fully agree, policy towards Russia has been a complete failure and has resulted in the worst outcomes....A China/Russia and now BRICs competing pack. Most of the criticism directed at Farage over this is based along the lines of 'Putin bad'.....like they are talking to children. They don't want to engage on the detail because that they shows that essentially Farage's argument has a lot going for it. It's not about whether you like Putin or not, it's based upon what is intelligent policy for avoiding terrible outcomes like we have today. The Ukraine war was the most avoidable war I've ever seen....one of the most forewarned wars and one of the most lied about. People are sleeping walking into their children being called up and excuses being made for a war footing that has no upside at all....only costs that you'll be expected to bear for no gain at all. With the worst outcome being the destruction of all of us because essentially we are run by globalists obsessed with the very attributes they accuse others of. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2024 6.29pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Jun 24 8.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Which is exactly what I suggested. The problem comes when that country is right next to Russia, and from their point of view, threatens their security. Imagine if the Republic of Ireland or Mexico declared itself as a military ally of Russia. Putin is no friend of the West. He is a ruthless dictator who stops at nothing to maintain power. He is also a dedicated defender of Russia. Showing weakness is not sensible, but nor is poking the bear. Farage has been consistent in that message for a long time, and it turns out that he was right. We should have read the room far better. Know your enemy. I have no doubt at all that we “read the room”! Our intelligence services are pretty good at that kind of thing. They would know what Putin’s likely reaction would be and how he would control public opinion within Russia. So why did we allow the former Soviet Bloc countries to apply to join both NATO and the EU? This is my personal analysis. You either have and defend principles or you don’t. The West either embraces those who aspire to adopt their values or they effectively hand them back to a Russia who under Putin has made no secret of his regret and anger over the collapse of the USSR. The line has been drawn again. Ukraine were unlucky. That line fell to their west so Putin wasn’t restrained by it. As a consequence the best we could do was support them with equipment, aid, and encouragement to ensure that Putin could not just walk in, but suffered an expensive bloody nose. Making it much less likely he would try anything similar elsewhere anytime soon. The cost to Ukraine has been terrible but they wanted to fight. The cost to us has also been high but that’s not the calculation that matters. The calculation I suspect was made was what would have been the likely outcome if the Eastern European states had not been admitted to either NATO or the EU? Would a resurgent Russia now be a massive USSR and again be able to pose a bigger threat. Or does admission ultimately reduce that threat? I suspect we have been playing for time, for the time when Putin gets replaced and the common sense of economic cooperation once again becomes the driving force rather than hurt pride and a desire to restore the past. Ukraine will obviously lose the war. How badly and when remains to be seen. As does whether it was worth it, both for them and us. So Farage being a clever dick, and predicting this, wasn’t very clever at all, because he went public with it when the smart move would have been to keep your own counsel. I bet the front pages of the Moscow papers and all the news bulletins have his ugly mug all over them! As I said, just my own analysis.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jun 24 8.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have no doubt at all that we “read the room”! Our intelligence services are pretty good at that kind of thing. They would know what Putin’s likely reaction would be and how he would control public opinion within Russia. So why did we allow the former Soviet Bloc countries to apply to join both NATO and the EU? This is my personal analysis. You either have and defend principles or you don’t. The West either embraces those who aspire to adopt their values or they effectively hand them back to a Russia who under Putin has made no secret of his regret and anger over the collapse of the USSR. The line has been drawn again. Ukraine were unlucky. That line fell to their west so Putin wasn’t restrained by it. As a consequence the best we could do was support them with equipment, aid, and encouragement to ensure that Putin could not just walk in, but suffered an expensive bloody nose. Making it much less likely he would try anything similar elsewhere anytime soon. The cost to Ukraine has been terrible but they wanted to fight. The cost to us has also been high but that’s not the calculation that matters. The calculation I suspect was made was what would have been the likely outcome if the Eastern European states had not been admitted to either NATO or the EU? Would a resurgent Russia now be a massive USSR and again be able to pose a bigger threat. Or does admission ultimately reduce that threat? I suspect we have been playing for time, for the time when Putin gets replaced and the common sense of economic cooperation once again becomes the driving force rather than hurt pride and a desire to restore the past. Ukraine will obviously lose the war. How badly and when remains to be seen. As does whether it was worth it, both for them and us. So Farage being a clever dick, and predicting this, wasn’t very clever at all, because he went public with it when the smart move would have been to keep your own counsel. I bet the front pages of the Moscow papers and all the news bulletins have his ugly mug all over them! As I said, just my own analysis. The point is that Ukraine shoud never have been encouraged to join NATO. In fact, neutrality would have been the best solution for all parties.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.