South Ossetia

[AbsolutKazakh 0]

Good to hear.

 

Yay. I need to get back to work. You're going to get me in trouble.

 

 

I would love to continue this later, but leave the insults out. Unless you have nothing to add, of course. In that case, I shall declare early victory.

[Park Life 70]

Good to hear.

 

Yay. I need to get back to work. You're going to get me in trouble.

 

 

I would love to continue this later, but leave the insults out. Unless you have nothing to add, of course. In that case, I shall declare early victory.

 

Yeah man no worries. Just a bit of banter don't take it to heart.

[DanTheMan 0]

Parky's on the ropes.

[Rob W 0]

yeah - the Parky of old wouldn't have beaten up some poor bloody Kazakh student - he'd have been praising Putin and damming the Georgians

[Park Life 70]

Parky is utter class.

[acrossthepond 699]

Also, as an aside is this Russian action any worse than what 'the West' is doing in Iraq?

 

Probably, you can't really compared Saddam's regiem (or the 3-4 way civil war that was suppressed by it) to Georgia's government.

 

Iraq is vastly publicised though, unlike say China's advances all over Africa.

 

 

Two wars vs. China investing in Africa? How do you even bring them up in the same post and keep a straight face?

 

I never said China was fighting direct wars in Africa.

I said their advances weren't publicised, unlike Iraq which still gets massive headlines whenever a chicken farts.

 

But indirect wars and other imperialist advance? Yup, all over the place there. Not that it is well publicised so the clueless of the world tend to be 'd by it.

 

 

 

 

Or (probably not surprisingly) do you not know about China's involvement all over Africa (from Sudan/Darfur to Zimbabwe), fuelling conflict, propping up tyrants/corrupt regimes, giving "aid" (military and otherwise) to secure crippling resources deals (for the populations if not their rulers anyway).

 

And if you're into direct death-tolls just look at Tibet and Xinjiang and for threat of conflict Taiwan.

 

 

 

 

 

Just because China aren't attacking a currently separate state at the moment doesn't mean they aren't directly or indirect killing a lot of people for their own ends as we speak.

 

You are to the political discussions of this board as LM is to the football side. I can hardly hear you over the noise of that axe you're grinding.

 

Your arguments follow no rules of logic. Actually, they do follow one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(logical_fallacy)

 

You reckon that because some of the following - choose your own topping, selected from recent memory - (religious people/Chinese inter-state actions/Iranian inter-state actions) are bad, that all are bad. Few religious fanatics out there with bombs and Bibles? Fop's here to paint all religious people and beliefs with the same brush! Some Chinese influences are clearly not kosher, point conceded. So, therefore, the Chinese involvement in Africa must also be of the same nature! Q-E-not at all-D.

 

China is a positive force in Africa. They've got plenty of money going into poor states that desperately need foreign investment. So what if they're supporting corrupt rulers? Perhaps they should stop supporting them, allow the country to plunge into civil war, and then see what will come out of that. It worked really well in Iraq, after all. As for "crippling resource deals," I have news for you: this is nothing new either. The West has been exploiting the periphery of the world for raw materials since time immemorial. But as soon as an Eastern power starts doing it, it's neo-imperialism, an "indirect war" as serious as () Iraq or Georgia. Trying to lump those three in the same category as you did is not only fallacious but downright offensive. I doubt the Africans are saying no to Chinese direct foreign investment, no matter what strings are attached. Not so with Iraqi/Georgian reactions to USA/Russian involvement.

 

Get off those nihilistic pseudo-political blogs you're reading and go learn about the real world. Not everything is so black and white. I'm afraid the days of WEST = GOOD and EAST = BAD are long over.

[Fop 1]

Also, as an aside is this Russian action any worse than what 'the West' is doing in Iraq?

 

Probably, you can't really compared Saddam's regiem (or the 3-4 way civil war that was suppressed by it) to Georgia's government.

 

Iraq is vastly publicised though, unlike say China's advances all over Africa.

 

:icon_lol:

 

Two wars vs. China investing in Africa? How do you even bring them up in the same post and keep a straight face?

 

I never said China was fighting direct wars in Africa.

I said their advances weren't publicised, unlike Iraq which still gets massive headlines whenever a chicken farts.

 

But indirect wars and other imperialist advance? Yup, all over the place there. Not that it is well publicised so the clueless of the world tend to be 'd by it.

 

 

 

 

Or (probably not surprisingly) do you not know about China's involvement all over Africa (from Sudan/Darfur to Zimbabwe), fuelling conflict, propping up tyrants/corrupt regimes, giving "aid" (military and otherwise) to secure crippling resources deals (for the populations if not their rulers anyway).

 

And if you're into direct death-tolls just look at Tibet and Xinjiang and for threat of conflict Taiwan.

 

 

 

 

 

Just because China aren't attacking a currently separate state at the moment doesn't mean they aren't directly or indirect killing a lot of people for their own ends as we speak.

 

You are to the political discussions of this board as LM is to the football side. I can hardly hear you over the noise of that axe you're grinding.

 

Pointless rhetoric and insults - good start lets see how you go.

 

 

Your arguments follow no rules of logic. Actually, they do follow one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(logical_fallacy)

 

My argument that you just made up and I didn't say? Or my actual point that China doesn't get the coverage?

 

 

You reckon that because some of the following - choose your own topping, selected from recent memory - (religious people/Chinese inter-state actions/Iranian inter-state actions) are bad, that all are bad. Few religious fanatics out there with bombs and Bibles? Fop's here to paint all religious people and beliefs with the same brush! Some Chinese influences are clearly not kosher, point conceded. So, therefore, the Chinese involvement in Africa must also be of the same nature! Q-E-not at all-D.

 

Ah.... so YOU are trying to grind your "oooo poor wittle religion axe, you nasty wasty Fop" are you, I see what this is about now.

 

You can never refute my points (like education and brainwashing) so you're just trying to find something (anything) to try and "refute".

 

 

China is a positive force in Africa. They've got plenty of money going into poor states that desperately need foreign investment. So what if they're supporting corrupt rulers? Perhaps they should stop supporting them, allow the country to plunge into civil war, and then see what will come out of that. It worked really well in Iraq, after all. As for "crippling resource deals," I have news for you: this is nothing new either. The West has been exploiting the periphery of the world for raw materials since time immemorial. But as soon as an Eastern power starts doing it, it's neo-imperialism, an "indirect war" as serious as ( :icon_lol:) Iraq or Georgia. Trying to lump those three in the same category as you did is not only fallacious but downright offensive. I doubt the Africans are saying no to Chinese direct foreign investment, no matter what strings are attached. Not so with Iraqi/Georgian reactions to USA/Russian involvement.

 

Aye shipping arms to Mugabe is "positive"?

 

Shipping arms to fuel Darfur is "positive"?

 

Backing the Sudanese regime allowing them to continue with they policies in Darfur is "positive"?

 

Building roads from mine to ports so long as they get a deal with the country where they get all the resources they want practically for free (barring kick back to regimes and said roads the need to build anyway) is "positive".

 

50 year contracts where the Chinese are paying out a fraction of the current market cost of the resources they are taking in total (combining all kickbacks, infrastructure and "aid") is "positive" now?

 

 

You don't have a fucking clue as usual.

 

Like I said nothing but asset stripping imperialism.

 

 

Get off those nihilistic pseudo-political blogs you're reading and go learn about the real world. Not everything is so black and white. I'm afraid the days of WEST = GOOD and EAST = BAD are long over.

 

Yet more pointless rhetoric and insults and thing I've never said.

 

I've never seen anyone that could type so much and yet say nothing at all.

 

Now if you have a point (rather than having some vague dig at me because you can never answer my points about religion or anything else ) please state it.

 

 

 

 

 

If not keep up your rabid frothing, it's pretty funny. Maybe God/Allah or the Giant Spaghetti monster will help you to actually refute one of my points one these days.

[AbsolutKazakh 0]

yeah - the Parky of old wouldn't have beaten up some poor bloody Kazakh student - he'd have been praising Putin and damming the Georgians

 

Is that what happened? The guy who couldn't spell collegiate let alone know anything about a country he has probably never been to?

[Ken 119]

yeah - the Parky of old wouldn't have beaten up some poor bloody Kazakh student - he'd have been praising Putin and damming the Georgians

 

Is that what happened? The guy who couldn't spell collegiate let alone know anything about a country he has probably never been to?

 

Anyway back on topic here, what are Russia's objectives (without resorting to CNN, BBC, Sky News etc). Is it;

 

A. To remove the Georgian President by way of submissive force.

B. To re-draw the border that divides Russia and Georgia.

C. To purposely defy the USA, and the EU who have proposed the ceasefire to show it is a major player again and to demonstrate it takes orders from nobody.

D. All of the above.

[Park Life 70]

yeah - the Parky of old wouldn't have beaten up some poor bloody Kazakh student - he'd have been praising Putin and damming the Georgians

 

Is that what happened? The guy who couldn't spell collegiate let alone know anything about a country he has probably never been to?

 

Anyway back on topic here, what are Russia's objectives (without resorting to CNN, BBC, Sky News etc). Is it;

 

A. To remove the Georgian President by way of submissive force.

B. To re-draw the border that divides Russia and Georgia.

C. To purposely defy the USA, and the EU who have proposed the ceasefire to show it is a major player again and to demonstrate it takes orders from nobody.

D. All of the above.

 

How would you or Borat here have a fucking clue about Russia's intentions?

[Ken 119]

yeah - the Parky of old wouldn't have beaten up some poor bloody Kazakh student - he'd have been praising Putin and damming the Georgians

 

Is that what happened? The guy who couldn't spell collegiate let alone know anything about a country he has probably never been to?

 

Anyway back on topic here, what are Russia's objectives (without resorting to CNN, BBC, Sky News etc). Is it;

 

A. To remove the Georgian President by way of submissive force.

B. To re-draw the border that divides Russia and Georgia.

C. To purposely defy the USA, and the EU who have proposed the ceasefire to show it is a major player again and to demonstrate it takes orders from nobody.

D. All of the above.

 

How would you or Borat here have a fucking clue about Russia's intentions?

I don't, it's mere speculation, only the Russians know what they're trying to achieve. There's no need to respond like you've been arse raped though just because a few here don't agree with you.

[Park Life 70]

yeah - the Parky of old wouldn't have beaten up some poor bloody Kazakh student - he'd have been praising Putin and damming the Georgians

 

Is that what happened? The guy who couldn't spell collegiate let alone know anything about a country he has probably never been to?

 

Anyway back on topic here, what are Russia's objectives (without resorting to CNN, BBC, Sky News etc). Is it;

 

A. To remove the Georgian President by way of submissive force.

B. To re-draw the border that divides Russia and Georgia.

C. To purposely defy the USA, and the EU who have proposed the ceasefire to show it is a major player again and to demonstrate it takes orders from nobody.

D. All of the above.

 

How would you or Borat here have a fucking clue about Russia's intentions?

I don't, it's mere speculation, only the Russians know what they're trying to achieve. There's no need to respond like you've been arse raped though just because a few here don't agree with you.

 

If you knew the first thing about Russia you'd realise the place to start is that the Russians don't even know. You and this othernumpty want to start by thinking about who was arming the sepratists and work backwards from there. Russia doesn't to fuck about in Georgia to defy the U.S it does things like cut off Polands gas.

 

It's clear Kazakhistan needs re-invading.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Park Life

[Rob W 0]

Lets start with a few reasonable assumptions - and the Russians ARE logical by most standards

 

1. No-one likes a smart arse kid next door thumbing their noses at you

 

2. No-one likes the idea that a potential enemy is going to build bases right on the doorstep

 

3. No-one likes the people of the Caucasus & the b**** Mingrellians anyway but if they ARE going to fight lets back the ones who spik our language

 

4. Lets turn the screw on BP and the dodgy Azeris a bit tighter

 

5. It's summer, you have to do SOMETHING to get your face in the paper even in Russia

 

6. That's wiped a few zillion fawning column inches off coverage of the little yellow men and their Disney World Games

 

7. Gives the Army sommat to do and test out some kit

 

8. All that ammunition had a "best before date"

 

 

Perm any 5 from 8

[Park Life 70]

Lets start with a few reasonable assumptions - and the Russians ARE logical by most standards

 

1. No-one likes a smart arse kid next door thumbing their noses at you

 

2. No-one likes the idea that a potential enemy is going to build bases right on the doorstep

 

3. No-one likes the people of the Caucasus & the b**** Mingrellians anyway but if they ARE going to fight lets back the ones who spik our language

 

4. Lets turn the screw on BP and the dodgy Azeris a bit tighter

 

5. It's summer, you have to do SOMETHING to get your face in the paper even in Russia

 

6. That's wiped a few zillion fawning column inches off coverage of the little yellow men and their Disney World Games

 

7. Gives the Army sommat to do and test out some kit

 

8. All that ammunition had a "best before date"

 

 

Perm any 5 from 8

 

That's more like it.

[Ken 119]

Lets start with a few reasonable assumptions - and the Russians ARE logical by most standards

 

1. No-one likes a smart arse kid next door thumbing their noses at you

 

2. No-one likes the idea that a potential enemy is going to build bases right on the doorstep

 

3. No-one likes the people of the Caucasus & the b**** Mingrellians anyway but if they ARE going to fight lets back the ones who spik our language

 

4. Lets turn the screw on BP and the dodgy Azeris a bit tighter

 

5. It's summer, you have to do SOMETHING to get your face in the paper even in Russia

 

6. That's wiped a few zillion fawning column inches off coverage of the little yellow men and their Disney World Games

 

7. Gives the Army sommat to do and test out some kit

 

8. All that ammunition had a "best before date"

 

 

Perm any 5 from 8

 

That's more like it.

And I said nothing contrary to these points made by Rob in this thread. Oh Parky my lad, you have burst a blood vessel for absolutely no reason... and I wasn't even trying to get a rise out of you.

[Tooj 17]

They should have got Kestbaia in btw, he'd have taken on the whole Russian army himself. Either that or John Rambo.

[Park Life 70]

Lets start with a few reasonable assumptions - and the Russians ARE logical by most standards

 

1. No-one likes a smart arse kid next door thumbing their noses at you

 

2. No-one likes the idea that a potential enemy is going to build bases right on the doorstep

 

3. No-one likes the people of the Caucasus & the b**** Mingrellians anyway but if they ARE going to fight lets back the ones who spik our language

 

4. Lets turn the screw on BP and the dodgy Azeris a bit tighter

 

5. It's summer, you have to do SOMETHING to get your face in the paper even in Russia

 

6. That's wiped a few zillion fawning column inches off coverage of the little yellow men and their Disney World Games

 

7. Gives the Army sommat to do and test out some kit

 

8. All that ammunition had a "best before date"

 

 

Perm any 5 from 8

 

That's more like it.

And I said nothing contrary to these points made by Rob in this thread. Oh Parky my lad, you have burst a blood vessel for absolutely no reason... and I wasn't even trying to get a rise out of you.

[acrossthepond 699]

Yet more pointless rhetoric and insults and thing I've never said.

 

I've never seen anyone that could type so much and yet say nothingat all.

 

Now if you have a point (rather than having some vague dig at me because you can never answer my points about religion or anything else ) please state it.

 

If not keep up your rabid frothing, it's pretty funny. Maybe God/Allah or the Giant Spaghetti monster will help you to actually refute one of my points one these days.

 

You are so dumb it beggars belief. I used to think you were playing a persona and trying to be the devil's advocate or whatever you like to call it, but it has become clear that you really believe what you say. You're every bit as fanatical as any Bible-thumper. You need the real world and you need it badly.

 

I left you alone after your little stunt about "ohhh religious is all about us vs. them, symbols just reinforce it" because I thought your last post was dumb enough to speak as its own refutation. Symbols are about "us vs. them?" No kidding! When you look at the UK flag flying above the courthouse on your way to work, do you think about how it's a symbol of "us vs. them" too? What about the black and white stripes on your Toon top? Those aren't symbols of us vs. them too? Or does this abhorrence of symbols only apply to religion? But you wouldn't let the facts get in the way of your agenda, would you Fop? In addition, my point had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with personal freedom, including the right of people to wear religious symbols, and how they in no way contributed to so-called "brainwashing" in education. Straw man attack #1.

 

Your own argument is that China is only using Africa to further its own aims, which are the acquisition of raw materials. Did you notice that this in no way answers anything I said about China's relationship with Africa? In fact, I made that exact point myself:

 

The West has been exploiting the periphery of the world for raw materials since time immemorial. But as soon as an Eastern power starts doing it, it's neo-imperialism...

 

What my point was - you appear to have missed it - is that China's involvement will in fact have a net beneficial effect in Africa, notwithstanding such obvious rhetorical appeals to fear as you made by mentioning Mugabe and Darfur. This is your composition fallacy problem again. You and others would argue that propping up the Mugabe and Khartoum regimes is a bad thing, although as I brought up in my post and you summarily ignored, the alternative might well be worse as we have seen in other cases. I never said that China was going to be all roses for Africa. There's straw man #2. But some negative action taken by China does not dull the benefits of their DFI, bringing sorely needed capital into countries that are literally dying for investment. Your tendency to see only black and white sets you up for the fall here again as it did with Iran.

 

You were also unable to respond to how I pointed out how China's involvement in Africa is totally and completely not comparable to the Iraq or Georgia wars. So I guess the Flying Spaghetti Monster did help me to prove you wrong after all. Religion proves the victor over scepticism. Praise God.

 

As regards the bit in bold: well, it's not like you at all to set up straw men, is it? Two in your last post alone.

[Rob W 0]

The Chinese are all over Africa - but then so are the Surf Efrikans, the Indians and the Koreans

 

I'm not sure the investments by either side are doing as much for the populace as for Swiss bankers but there is a great deal of western hypocrisy here - the Chinese et al are either out bidding western companies or, more often, going into places that as deemed to risky by the likes of RTZ, EXXON and General Motors

[Fop 1]

Yet more pointless rhetoric and insults and thing I've never said.

 

I've never seen anyone that could type so much and yet say nothing at all.

 

Now if you have a point (rather than having some vague dig at me because you can never answer my points about religion or anything else ) please state it.

 

If not keep up your rabid frothing, it's pretty funny. Maybe God/Allah or the Giant Spaghetti monster will help you to actually refute one of my points one these days.

 

You are so dumb it beggars belief. I used to think you were playing a persona and trying to be the devil's advocate or whatever you like to call it, but it has become clear that you really believe what you say. You're every bit as fanatical as any Bible-thumper. You need the real world and you need it badly.

 

Straight for the insults and rhetoric with NO OTHER POINT I see. Well done.

 

 

 

 

I left you alone after your little stunt about "ohhh religious is all about us vs. them, symbols just reinforce it" because I thought your last post was dumb enough to speak as its own refutation. Symbols are about "us vs. them?" No kidding! When you look at the UK flag flying above the courthouse on your way to work, do you think about how it's a symbol of "us vs. them" too? What about the black and white stripes on your Toon top? Those aren't symbols of us vs. them too? Or does this abhorrence of symbols only apply to religion? But you wouldn't let the facts get in the way of your agenda, would you Fop? In addition, my point had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with personal freedom, including the right of people to wear religious symbols, and how they in no way contributed to so-called "brainwashing" in education. Straw man attack #1.

 

Rabid frothing, rhetoric and insults with NO OTHER POINT. Well done.

 

 

Will you actually say anything in this post? Lets find out.

 

 

 

Your own argument is that China is only using Africa to further its own aims

Well actually my argument was that China gets nothing like the media coverage for doing it's bad stuff that others do - but as you've clearly whipped yourself in to a frenzy I suppose it's understandable you might have forgotten that again.

 

 

 

,which are the acquisition of raw materials. Did you notice that this in no way answers anything I said about China's relationship with Africa? In fact, I made that exact point myself:

 

The West has been exploiting the periphery of the world for raw materials since time immemorial. But as soon as an Eastern power starts doing it, it's neo-imperialism...

 

What my point was - you appear to have missed it - is that China's involvement will in fact have a net beneficial effect in Africa, notwithstanding such obvious rhetorical appeals to fear as you made by mentioning Mugabe and Darfur. This is your composition fallacy problem again. You and others would argue that propping up the Mugabe and Khartoum regimes is a bad thing, although as I brought up in my post and you summarily ignored, the alternative might well be worse as we have seen in other cases. I never said that China was going to be all roses for Africa. There's straw man #2. But some negative action taken by China does not dull the benefits of their DFI, bringing sorely needed capital into countries that are literally dying for investment. Your tendency to see only black and white sets you up for the fall here again as it did with Iran.

 

Again it is NOT "positive"....... or at least it is no more "positive" than prior ages of imperialism in Africa. The British Empire is looked up with utter disdain these days, but did more for infrastructure (and health and education) at the time than China is doing now.

 

But like I said supplying arms to Mugabe (who has single handedly destroyed one of Africa's richest and most successful countries - he's managed to take a year off average life expectancy for nearly every year he's been in power - very "positive".

 

Nor is supporting the genocide in Darfur (I know, I know God/Allah/The Flying Spagetti Monster likes a bit of genocide, but still)

 

Nor is raping countries for billions worth of assets yet paying a combine price for those assets of less than 10% "positive", it is exploitative imperialism.

 

 

You were also unable to respond to how I pointed out how China's involvement in Africa is totally and completely not comparable to the Iraq or Georgia wars.

 

Because (again) I never said it was (strawman ) I said the media coverage was nothing alike - argue with yourself over something I didn't say if you want. I'll stick to things I did say and you're "positive" bollocks.

 

 

So I guess the Flying Spaghetti Monster did help me to prove you wrong after all. Religion proves the victor over scepticism. Praise God.

 

As regards the bit in bold: well, it's not like you at all to set up straw men, is it? Two in your last post alone.

Ah back to rabid frothing and rhetoric and now lies I see. Well done.

 

 

 

Now if you ever actually get a point please come again.

[acrossthepond 699]

Alreet lad I've got you figured.

 

Any argument you can't answer is "rhetoric."

 

Any fact you can't answer is outright ignored.

 

Instead you fill up your posts with bold, italics, smilies, caps, backtracking, and all kinds of other abject bollocks designed to disguise how you have nothing to say except inflammatory nonsense.

 

Carry on then.

[Rob W 0]

Ay straight to the top of the class - should be one of our best posters in future............

[Fop 1]

Alreet lad I've got you figured.

 

Any argument you can't answer is "rhetoric."

 

Nope

You are so dumb it beggars belief. I used to think you were playing a persona and trying to be the devil's advocate or whatever you like to call it, but it has become clear that you really believe what you say. You're every bit as fanatical as any Bible-thumper. You need the real world and you need it badly.

is insults and rhetoric, no "argument" there.

 

I've not seen you produce an argument in this thread.

 

 

1. You've made up things I've not said.

2. You've thrown out a lot of pointless insults and rhetoric about nothing.

3. You've tried some pretend strawman rubbish (until I pointed out that as your whole rabid flow is built upon a premise that I did not say, and so that whole tack is laughable).

4. You've pretended selling arms to Mugabe and Darfur is a great idea.

5. You've pretended that paying less than 10% of the current market price for 50 years worth of resources is good business for Africa.

 

6. And now you're going to run away with your (circumcised?) tail between your legs as you usually do once you've made yourself look like a clueless fool.

 

 

But I've not seen any genuine argument.

 

 

Any fact you can't answer is outright ignored.

 

There is not one fact disagreeing with anything I've said in any of your posts, as usual - please do try to point one out (it'll be as much fun as Where's Wally? ).

 

 

Instead you fill up your posts with bold, italics, smilies, caps, backtracking, and all kinds of other abject bollocks designed to disguise how you have nothing to say except inflammatory nonsense.

 

Yet more pointless insults and rhetoric.

 

 

Carry on then.

I will, making you look like a rabid moron with absolutely nothing to say is fun.

[Fop 1]

Ay straight to the top of the class - should be one of our best posters in future............

 

Do you agree that selling arms to Mugabe and fuelling Darfur is positive for Africa like our rabid little zealot above?

Edited August 16, 2008 by Fop

[Guest alex]

Ay straight to the top of the class - should be one of our best posters in future............

 

Do you agree that selling arms to Mugabe and fuelling Darfur is positive for Africa like our rabid little zealot above?

I think he was saying the lad had you sussed. I think you realise that though.