Ban on airtravel

[Fergie 307]

Putin didn't 'invade Ukraine without rhyme or reason'. He did it because he thought Ukraine would surrender and he could move in without a shot, take over the Donbas region and install a puppet regime. Furthermore, he perceived NATO as weak and dysfunctional (as it was) so would stand by and allow it to happen, just as they did when Russia made a land-grab for Crimea in 2014, The West carried on with Russia business as usual - buying its coal, gas, timber etc.. Just as the West stood back from Syria, where Obama sad 'if they used Chemical weapons it was a red line and if they crossed it, America would act. They did use chemical weapons and America didn't act.

If Ukraine had surrendered, it's debatable whether or not NATO or the West would have done much about it. Like any tyrant, Putin was probably misinformed by those who advise him, because they'll only tell him what he wants to hear, just as was the case with Hitler, Saddam, Gadhafi, whoever.

Putin miscalculated and started something he doesn't know how to finish, but the reaction of Ukraine, Nato and the West will most likely cause him to think twice about trying it on elsewhere. Having failed to take over Ukraine, his aim is clearly, to destroy the infrastructure, damage the economy and target civilians - one war crime after another. After all, if he can't succeed in a land grab, it matters not that he destroys the infrastructure.

His failed adventure is of no benefit to Russian people, to it's standing in the world, and is damaging to it's economy and ours, with no end in sight. What this has demonstrated one more is that appeasement ('peace in our time') doesn't work - only deterrence. If a lamb lies down with a lion, the lamb won't get much sleep.

It will take a generation before this is resolved.

As to 'nukes' the reason the Russians didn't press the nuke button in the Bay of Pigs is that they knew they would be toast. Same goes for Putin and his ilk. (Mutually Assured Destruction').

Have to agree with you. Putin presumably concluded that invading Ukraine would result in a similar reaction to his previous adventures, lots of hand wringing but little action. Sad to say that if he had overrun the country in a few days, as it appears he expected to, then his assessment may well have proved correct. As to Syria it is interesting that Trump did act in similar circumstances, with extensive strikes against the Syrian sir force, and not a peep out of the Russians really regarding this attack on their ally I would love to know what conversations went on behind the scenes. Presumably along the lines that we are going to do this whether you like it or not, best you keep your people out of the way. I am no fan of Trump, but there is little point in threatening dire consequences if you are not in fact prepared to carry them out, which is sadly what Obama did.

 

[AlanY]

stop reading the daily mail

I don't read the Daily Mail. I haven't read any newspaper or watched any so-called 'mainstream' TV news or political programme since 2016 when the bias from all of them became intolerable. But I have lived through many Parliamentary terms and have witnessed the performance and outcome of these past governments. Perhaps you should stop reading the Daily Mirror? Maybe remove your leftie blinkers for a little while?

 

[Fergie 307]

Always reminds me of Margot's horrified reaction when Tom Good handed her a home made party hat, folded from either the mail or the mirror, cant remember now. With a hat made out of the torygraph firmly on her head all was well. Very funny.

 

[Jonm]

2014 Russia invaded Crimea and supported a separatist movement in the Donbas in clear breach of internationally agreed borders. The West and UN did close to nothing

The correct signals were not sent to Russia to convey that they had overstepped the mark. Action like suspending/stopping Nord stream 2, cutting down on purchase of Russian raw materials, not attending 2018 FIFA World Cup, not attending 2014 winter Olympics.

The west did not see it for what it was. Winston Churchill would have seen the wood for the trees.

 

[thetyreman]

Always reminds me of Margot's horrified reaction when Tom Good handed her a home made party hat, folded from either the mail or the mirror, cant remember now. With a hat made out of the torygraph firmly on her head all was well. Very funny.

reminds me a bit of this guy

 

[morqthana]

Air travel does not need to be banned to be net zero. In 30 years time it may be fuelled by more efficient batteries, hydrogen or plant based crops (ethanol etc).

All the major crop sources of biodiesel have a higher climate impact than the fossil fuels they replace. Rapeseed oil causes 1.2 times as much global heating, soy oil twice as much, palm oil three times. The same goes for ethanol made from wheat.

 

[morqthana]

once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power,

What shall we lift first?

The ban on child prostitution?
The ban on beating people up because you don't like the colour of their skin?
Ditto their sexual orientation?
The ban on men beating their wives?
The ban on bear-baiting?
The ban on dog or **** fighting?
The ban on lead in petrol?


Please tell us which things "we" allowed "them" to ban which we shouldn't have done because of the abuses of power they led to.

 

[morqthana]

But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine

Ah, the old "a quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing” idea.

Do you have any evidence showing how that sort of laissez-faire has worked well in the past?

And let's say we sit back and let Russia subsume Ukraine. Of the following, which would be the one where you would at last say we need to stand up to them?

Moldova?
Georgia?
Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Estonia?
Latvia?
Lithuania?
Montenegro?
Poland?
Finland?

 

[morqthana]

If Johnson told me it was raining I would look out the window to check.

I wouldn't waste my time doing that - I'd get the mower out, or pack a picnic.

 

[morqthana]

It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people.

Which we don't have.

I know that when the Tories are in we have growth,

You have actually checked the real economic statistics regarding that, have you?

Do you have an explanation for the poor performance of this country compared to others in the G#?

excepting the war years and pandemics, my shares grow faster. When my shares grow, it indicates to me that the economy is doing alright.

No, it indicates that the profits which companies are making because they are not paying taxes and are not paying their workers properly and are not investing in business, technology and people and which are left over after they've paid their executives even more obscene amounts are being returned to shareholders as dividends.

This isn't about loving or hating a party, it's knowing when you're better off.

You mean it's about being selfish.

 

[morqthana]

What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so you are saying this is an acceptable gamble!

Your gamble is that if we show Putin that we are too weak or scared to stop him taking Ukraine he will go back to Moscow, settle down, and behave, once he's succeeded there.

I like the photo of yourself which you posted on Facebook, BTW.

 

[morqthana]

..an Act that her husband introduced and which is the bane of our society now

So do you not think that people should have human rights?

Are you opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Could you look through this list of rights and tell us which ones you object to, and why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Convention_articles
Are you aware that the chairman of the committee which oversaw the drafting of the EHCR was a Conservative politician?

Are you aware that all that the HRA did was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the ECHR which we had been a signatory to for the previous 47 years?

Are you aware that it was a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party in the 1997 General Election? Do you have a problem with democratic mandates?

 

[thetyreman]

What shall we lift first?

The ban on child prostitution?
The ban on beating people up because you don't like the colour of their skin?
Ditto their sexual orientation?
The ban on men beating their wives?
The ban on bear-baiting?
The ban on dog or **** fighting?
The ban on lead in petrol?


Please tell us which things "we" allowed "them" to ban which we shouldn't have done because of the abuses of power they led to.

now you're completely mispresenting what I originally said, it's completely out of context and you're bringing in about 10 subjects, I'm actually against banning air travel thanks.

 

[thetyreman]

here's the thing with climate change, we need solutions that don't involve removal of basic rights, why not punish the plane manufacturers instead?

 

[Fergie 307]

I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. If you don't honour your responsibilities, by committing a serious crime for example, then you should not enjoy the same rights as others. So for example your rapist, murderer, drug dealer or whatever who has come here from overseas should not be able to avoid deportation at the end of their sentence on the basis of their right to family life and so forth. We have enough home grown toe rags without taking on other countries. Many of these people I would suggest have hardly been productive members of society, rather parasites, who see our legal system as a soft touch. I recall that reports around the truly shameful Rwanda policy indicated that there were several thousand criminals in our prisons from Nigeria alone. All will no doubt be championed by some Cherie Blair type fighting tooth and mail for their right to remain here, despite having abused that privilege. This gives those who oppose immigration ammunition and undermines the vast majority of immigrants who make a very positive contribution to our country, in the NHS for example. So I don't see anything wrong with the legislation itself, we have just allowed its interpretation to become skewed too much in favour of the individual, with little regard to the rights of the general population to live their lives unmolested by these people, whether they be home grown or from elsewhere.

 

[Fergie 307]

here's the thing with climate change, we need solutions that don't involve removal of basic rights, why not punish the plane manufacturers instead?

Please tell me this is a joke. How is it the aircraft manufacturers fault. Yes they should be encouraged to make aircraft more economical, and strive to find cleaner fuels, which they are doing. But the bottom line is that if we all didn't want to fly so much then they wouldn't build so many planes. Likewise we are obsessed with our own convenience. I canter any reason why for example you shouldn't replace multiple flights from say Luton to Palma each day with less flights but using bigger aircraft, one big one using less fuel and other resources than two smaller ones. Same for cars, produced in ludicrous numbers mainly to cater for the vanity of those wanting a new one every couple of years.

 

[Jacob]

I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. .....

That's a very old cliche which gets trotted out across the political spectrum.
It's close to the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. For a right winger "the deserving" is very tiny category. A good lefty would include everybody. The centrists e.g. "caring conservatives" are in between.
Just a thought - but if you found yourself in a lifeboat and arguing about who was entitled to be saved, you might find yourself the first one to be thrown overboard!

 

[Keith Cocker]

That is the BBC all over with many subjects and biased reporting but it is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident. Try watching the news on freesat 216 & 217 and some of the presenters just tell the news as it is without bias and using straight talking language

That is the BBC all over with many subjects and biased reporting but it is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident. Try watching the news on freesat 216 & 217 and some of the presenters just tell the news as it is without bias and using straight talking language.

BBC biased? Hilarious. The BBC is one of the most respected news sources in the world.

 

[Daniel2]

BBC biased? Hilarious. The BBC was one of the most respected news sources in the world.

FTFY.

 

[Fergie 307]

That's a very old cliche which gets trotted out across the political spectrum.
It's close to the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. For a right winger "the deserving" is very tiny category. A good lefty would include everybody. The centrists e.g. "caring conservatives" are in between.
Just a thought - but if you found yourself in a lifeboat and arguing about who was entitled to be saved, you might find yourself the first one to be thrown overboard!

So you think people who come here then **** or swindle or rob should be allowed to remain, why? We have enough of our own criminals to contend with, without providing homes for other peoples. We cant deport our own so have to put up with them, shouldnt be the case for those from overseas. I am all for immigration, anyone who wants to come here and be a productive member of society is most welcome as far as I am concerned. Those who abuse the privilige should be sent back to wherever they came from. And yes I agree its hardly an original argument, that doesnt mean its not valid. I have little doubt if you invited the public to say whether a given thief, swindler, robber or worse should remain or be deported they would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.