Rayvin
-
Posts
21876 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
It was something to do with the EU I think. MF set up a caricature of a young CT and how he ended up being someone who votes Tory etc. It was really well done but it was also pretty brutal. CT never responded to it directly but made a couple of further posts and then yeah, gone.
-
It was definitely that (brilliant) post from MF about his past employment history. It was the day after that when he went.
-
Newcastle V Leeds // Friday 14th April // 7.45 KO
Rayvin replied to Anorthernsoul's topic in Newcastle Forum
In fairness, the older thread was created bizarrely early -
We get people try us out for a handful of posts and then don't seem to stick with it. In fairness, I think you need a commitment to the General Chat section to really get into the place (and in there, you're either cracking on with people you've known for years or arguing about politics and current events). Is it a clique though? I think there's a core group of us who post but I don't think we'd be at all exclusionary of any newcomers. That said, I've noticed that since CT left, MF and even Gemmill are posting less.
-
Signed in last week apparently. I find it interesting that so many people check this place without posting.
-
I guess for Sunderland, Henderson was something more than a bang average and entirely unremarkable midfielder.
-
Fair enough - I don't suppose we're ever going to hear the truth of this, frankly.
-
And your analysis of that photo is...?
-
I bet that's actually one of the underlying subtle causes of brexit.
-
Thanks for sharing that parky, was an interesting insight.
-
Fish will be bringing that up on RTG at some point in the next couple of days if he hasn't already. It'll be couched in a 500 word essay of some sort, but it'll be there.
-
Generic small time football blather thread 2015/16
Rayvin replied to The Fish's topic in Newcastle Forum
-
In order to educate myself, I just looked into the respective nuclear capabilities of the two. Russia apparently has the doomsday weapons; the US response, while assuring destruction, are designed to cause much less significant damage. Russian nukes sound horrifying, the US ones sound tactical. As such, I'm not entirely convinced we'd all die. But again, I don't think it's even remotely likely that this is going to happen, as no one is talking about invasions of either country, and I genuinely don't think either Trump or Putin is about to go nuclear over fucking Syria. EDIT - this isn't the cold war. It isn't a battle of ideologies. It's two countries trying to make their way in the world.
-
Well yes but this is kind of what I mean about this problem lasting for much longer than Trump. To be honest you've been right on the money through this, it seems that irrespective of the administration, the US has a constant stance of provocation towards Russia.
-
Why? Why would they think at all that they're going to be under threat of a nuclear strike? The only way I see nukes coming into it is if the US have literally invaded Russia and are about to take the Kremlin. I mean, are you guys all tapped into Russian high command or something If Russia goes nuclear, the only thing it guarantees is it's own annihilation. The US can shoot down something like 60% of their missiles in mid-air, so they'd literally have to fire everything they've got. And you are suggesting that they might do this based on a conflict in a totally different country?
-
Why? Given the 'mutually assured destruction' component here, why would Putin decide to tank his entire country just because he lost a ground conflict in Syria?
-
Great read that, really interesting. The stones on the guy to go back in the end though...
-
Why would it escalate to nuclear unless either state's border integrity is actually under threat? If they come to blows in Syria, they won't go nuclear. I think we're getting really carried away here Also feel obliged to point out that this wouldn't be happening at all if the non-psychotic Obama and previous administrations hadn't been actively destabilising the ME and keeping up hostilities with Russia.
-
Why do you think Russia wants this war? There is no upside for them. Their economy is already on the ropes, the last thing they need is the entire Western world cutting them off (which is what would happen) and then having to get into a serious fight with the US. Putin would have to prize his own ego far beyond his own people. I suspect the Russians are petrified that they're coming into a situation where they might have to make good on their sabre rattling. They can't touch the US iyam, but the US has encircled them for decades. Europe, agreed, is in trouble. Doubtful the US administration cares too much though if they're prepared to go through with this. Besides, the EU might use this as a unification crisis moment, justifying their EU army. The more I think about this, the more I just can't see how Russia can do anything other than back down here. Ideally the US will be smart enough to let them do so with something that looks vaguely like a win, for selling it to the domestic populace.
-
Aye but there's a difference between 'Best striker we've ever had' and 'Best ever'. Unless you're saying that they genuinely are delusional I guess..?
-
Could be a false flag I suppose. Weird target for one thing.
-
"Best striker I've ever seen"
-
The longer we wait to tackle this, the better their tech will get though. To be honest, China could solve this so much more easily than the US could, but the Chinese government are, unfortunately, cowards (in almost all matters). Kind of agree with Renton that their capabilities should be able to be thwarted if done correctly and with sufficient force. But I think it would be incredibly unsettling for the world, and would represent an entirely irresponsible risk, if the situation escalated to the point where a nuke was fired in anger.
-
I believe they'd be psychotic enough to do that, I just don't know if they'd get the chance. Assuming Trump just attacks out of the blue, they'd flatten Pyongyang wouldn't they? Given that leadership is centralised into such a small group of people, who would call for the nuclear strikes if they cut off the head?
-
That isn't the full equation though - in the scenario we're talking about, where Trump attacks NK, it's a failed state plus war with the US against US ally on their border.