Should Russia be allowed to play in this years World Cup Finals ?

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They should be replaced immediately by Scotland.

akabula

yes they should

Russia that is

Why not just give Scotland to Russia?

Russia wouldn't have them, they are too far to the left of Karl Marx.

^^ Play Karl Marx in a holding role in midfield then, letting Fletcher get forward in a three quater press counter-attack formation.

Would you have let Germany play in the 1940 World Cup......NO !

Same for Russia !

dunno, did they qualify? if not, then definitely no.

Should England be allowed to play in the World cup after invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

That's more to the point.

Yes. Did the world a favour.

.................. I am assuming you meant to add as part of the UK

We are not at war with Russia

they occupied Crimea, which was mostly Russians anyway, which we have accepted
They have not as yet gone into of Ukraine, which we agreed with them

so I see no reason why they should not play

Mafia State.....should be banned

Maybe we should also ban the one country that since 1945 has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders?

TipTheOdds. Just what I was thinking! USA is far worse than Russia! Why not ban them?

USA is our mate, Russia could turn Europe into a Kripsy Kreme....USA would not do that....Russia should hand in their nuclear weapons

So thats USA, England, Russia, Spain, Netherlands, Australia( last 3 helped out in Iraq invasion )gone so far. Lol

Saddam Hussein had to be got rid of.....just cause !

Obama needs to be got rid of. He thinks he is not only the winning manager of the winning team, but also the referee and the linesmen.

I am sure the 100,000s dead Iraqis agree with you on that one Leopard NOT

the cause was not just, or else why lie????????????????????????????

Iraqis mainly killed each other....we were peace keepers

SH made us think he had WMDs to scare us....security services all thought so

if you are serious leopard then I´m afraid you´ve revealed yourself as a cretin.

may be youre mate.not mine.
trust the ruskies more myself

So do I Eden

1. I do not believe our security thought there were WMD's(Nuclear being the only credible ones)
or we would not have invaded would we?????

2. The real reason we invaded Iraq has still not been admitted.

I regret sadly, our country, which it had nothing to do with, ever got involved in something so wrong,
I used to think we were the good guys

I have a moral problem with killing large numbers of civilians, or conscripted
young men, bravely defending their country

@Tipthe odds
When it was muted that he had WMD did you think this wrong?

I knew he did not have any at the time, it was just too ridiculous

Our own and American military research had already proved biological weapons are useless in war

We live under the threat of nuclear anihilation from Russia....not USA

Too ridiculous? Please expand Ebul. I took it at face value as I had no evidence to the contrary.

were you not aware the weapons inspectors had found no evidence of wmd ?

simple akabula
we found no evidence whatsoever of any wmd after the invasion
and neither did the weapons inspectors before and after

so I suggest there weren't any,

I am aware people took it at face value at the time
because they did expect our own government to be lying to us did they

The Leopard  • May 27, 2014 11:12 PM BST 
We live under the threat of nuclear annihilation from Russia....not USA

I don't we do any more. We have the NATO alliance, Russia attacks us the USA attacks Russia
these weapons cannot be used at the moment

Why mention afterwards ebul. My question was very specific ie before we invaded.
I also fail to see why the weapons inspectors report should totally convince us as they only failed to find WMDs in the places they looked. We were then told that their was evidence that WMDs did exist. What was there to tell us this was wrong.

ok akabula
but you see on that basis we can claim any country has wmd and attack them, with no proof, we just say
we have not found them yet

I think we need proof before we go to war, which wasn't there, before or after

If we not going to believe weapons inspectors, what on earth is the point of having them??????????????????????

The security services had what looked like firm evidence of WMDs because SH was faking the evidence.

@Ebul
Whats that got to do with what I've said? I'm not condoning the invasion. My point was that as a member of the public I took at face value what I had been told whilst some people seem to claim they knew it to be lies. My question is what made them so sure?

Plus ebul weapons inspectors can only inspect a very minute %age of any country and normally contain their inspections to government installations. If a rogue government wanted to hide evidence it wouldn't be difficult to do so.

1.2 million deaths is a terrible count for simply removing a dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

We were wrong to invade Iraq. It's as simple as that.

It makes what Russia is supposed to have done so far in the Ukraine look completely trivial.

The vast majority of those Deaths were  Shi-ites killing Sunnis and Sunnis killing Shi-ites and in often in very nasty ways.

aus - banned because of rolf harris trial
argentina - banned still think malvinas belongs to them
usa - banned because of what dr crippen said.
eng. banned cos theyre shyte and have a funny manager
Iran - banned as they have terrorists
spain - bullfighting
italy - fixing of games
germany - too attack minded for world cup
chile - it sounds cold there
uruguay - spitting players
portugal - that silly shirtless pose ronaldo did in euro final
nigeria - email scams
russia - warmongers
ukraine - because russia v them may cause probs
serbia - i dont like them
bosnia cant pronounce the 'herz' bit after their name
france - racists in spite of having black players
brazil - their nuts are far too dry
colombia - drug barons the lot of them and their fans kill players.
mexico - theyd be better off sending their players boxing.
belgium - im running out of ideas but their chocs taste cheap

usa still the only country to use nukes btw leopard, so any 'threats' mentioned pale compared to those vile warmongers

Well said leopard, the US got rid of a brutal dictatotor and
have spent billions of pounds in aid and still they kill each other.
Iraq must take responsibility for the thousands of deaths.

Nukes used in Japan were to end war early which may have saved more lives in the long run.....although I have heard that they may have done it to scare the Russians....which would be totally un-acceptable.

lfc...yes, they should.

You also have to ask how did Japan and Germany react after the devastating defeat
of WW2...they went on to build two of the greatest countries the world has seen. It is
an example of how socities should behave for the future.

Youve totally ignored everything dr crippen has said, or rather, just swept his comments, which happen to be true, under the carpet. the west fkucs countries up, supports the 'side' that benefits their or our, interests, then moves in to clean up, making big dollar in the process. They do it all the time. Civilian deaths mean nothing to the satanic elite who are really in charge of human affairs. They will create a tyrant,support him, then dismiss him, and now, only now, the west is just beginning to feel what the 3rd world has felt like for decades, or rather, the ordinary person is, as countries like India, china, etc. begin to gain economic strength while we flounder. So i'd imagine there will be yet more suffering to come, but don't worry, perhpas the west will blame that nasty mr putin next time.

[i]akabula  • May 28, 2014 1:04 AM BST 
@Ebul

Whats that got to do with what I've said? I'm not condoning the invasion. My point was that as a member of the public I took at face value what I had been told whilst some people seem to claim they knew it to be lies. My question is what made them so sure?

because it was utterly ridiculous to think Iraq could threaten us, they are a third world country, look at the Gulf War

And as for demanding proof they did not have them...which must make it true, since you won't accept what the weapons inspector said

Then surely by the same token, we should have accepted Hitler's word that he only invaded Poland to protect Germans in Danzig
and not declared war on Germany starting WWII...since we had no absolute proof he did not intend that

The onus is on somebody to prove something, not on others to disprove it

Iraq must take responsibility for the thousands of deaths.

Iraq is not responsible, because we removed the one man who could have prevented this
this makes us responsible

After what happened in the 1974 play off between Chile and the USSR I think Russia would due being let off even if they had been up to worse.

As for Iraqis killing each other; who drew up the modern border? Why didn't the Kurds get a country of their own?

The invasion cannot be justifed in any way, neither at the time or since.

There is so much hypocritcal behaviour by ourselves and the US, so much evidence of covert actions and hidden agendas that anybody who believed the claims is an absolute mug. Even the first Gulf War had some very dodgy goings on to make it more justifiable. What the 'evidence' in 2003 was based on is all out there now and it was ridiculous, hyped up, dressed up, presented as fact to suit an agenda. There is no excuse for still believing any of it.

The dumbest thread I've seen for a good while.

I agree John92, I was not happy with the Gulf War
I felt we had could have got Saddam out without war

and when we did go to war, there were totally unnecessary and excessive casualties inflicted
on the Iraqis(these were conscripts fighting for their country...their duty)

Oh FFS some real fuuckin dumbos on this thread.

George Bush (Rumsfeld, Cheney etc) said it was true so it must be. Tony Blair said it was true so it must be. Hans Blick the apolitical head of the Nuclear Weapons Inspectorate said it wasn´t true so he must be wrong. The biggest liar nations on the planet said it was true so you believe them...

If Saddam or any other nation really had WMD that could actually threaten the west do you really think we would not know about it? Apart from the acquisition of materials and the technology they would have to test long distance missiles somewhere - do you not think somebody might notice? (especially since there are US satellites directed just about everywhere on the planet)

Saddam was put in place by the CIA. Saddam was armed by the US (including with the poison gas he used against the Kurds). Saddam may have been a brutal dictator but he was no threat to the west and he maintained a secure peace in Iraq. The people who would always suffer the most in a war or by sanctions - or by the lack of a proper thought out plan for peace - were the ordinary people of Iraq. Oh yeah lets blame the Iraqis for most of the deaths...FFS

Saddam had to be ousted as soon as he threatened to sell oil in another currency other than US dollars, the biggest danger to the fragile US economy, and the main reason Gaddafi also had to go. This would also enable the US to put in place another supine puppet government to facilitate the robbing of Iraq´s resources.

@Ebul
It wasn't the threat to us but to peace in that area. You make it up as you go along.

akabula  • May 28, 2014 8:03 PM BST
@Ebul
It wasn't the threat to us but to peace in that area. You make it up as you go along.

That was not how it was presented to us at the time. People thought he threatened us

I would have thought the Gulf War showed he was a threat to no one. He did not have our weapons
and what on earth who he is supposed to threaten or not threaten have to do with us anyway?????

Also he had no WMDs so that was a lie.
Once somebody starts lying to me, I tend not to believe anythingoil k else they say, because how on earth would I
know they were still not lying.????

I know exactly why Iraq was brought down, nobody has yet admitted it, so its still all lies

Of course all this means is that Putin can invade just about anywhere he likes, claiming they have WMDs which threaten Russia
or threaten peace.

Either we all tell the truth or we all lie, that is our choice

Knock the UK. Very fashionable.
At least in this country you can. Try it in the countries you are defending and you would be strung up.
I would try some of you lot as traitors. Why not go and live in some of these places?

You know why Iraq was brought down??????
I think you are delusional. Man in the know

How many of the Russian Squad have been involved in the Ukraine troubles?
Would Putin pull out of the Ukraine if Russia were banned?

Montreal 1976 African boycott due to NZ playing rugby in S.Africa. Outcome no change
Moscow 1980 USA/Germany et al boycott of Russia due to Afghan invasion. Outcome No change
(Thatcher wanted us to boycott as well but at least our Olympic Comittee had the balls to tell her where to go)
LA 1984 Eastern Bloc boycott in tit for tat. No change
Cricket WC 2003. England boycott game against Zimbabwe and miss out on a place in the quarter finals beacause that c**t Tessa Jowell applied political pressure. Outcome 11 years later hes still in power.

Moral: Sport used as a political pawn has no effect whatsoever (Unless you're Danish)

traitor
so much for free speech akabula...I am not knocking the U.K...but when we do wrong, I express my opinion

If I was younger I could well go and live in Russia...as long as I could get a job, and was able to bet on the internet.
I like their values better than ours.

but sadly I am too old, and have ties here

I still would not hate the U.K....I just think we have gone astray a bit...
and I would hope we return to better values one day

still you are also entitled to your opinion akabula, although I see we would argue all day on this

Personally I think it is fairly obvious why Iraq was brought down
I claim no special knowledge on this

May 27, 2014 -- 10:48PM, The Leopard wrote:

Iraqis mainly killed each other....we were peace keepersSH made us think he had WMDs to scare us....security services all thought so

Quiet possibly the most idiotic and uninformed statement i've ever seen on this forum

May 28, 2014 -- 11:30PM, stinnkymonkey wrote:

May 27, 2014 -- 10:48PM, The Leopard wrote:Iraqis mainly killed each other....we were peace keepersSH made us think he had WMDs to scare us....security services all thought soQuiet possibly the most idiotic and uninformed statement i've ever seen on this forum

Quiet possibly the most idiotic and uninformed statement i've ever seen on this forum

All true....mate

There was nothing essentially wrong in the overthrow of Saddam but it was naive in one sense.
It made the assumption that most people are good and rational and when given this great chance
to build a safe and prosperous country would take it. But there are more people who are technically
insane than is supposed, in Britain it could be as high as 78% and Iraq may be higher. This has meant
the frenzied reaction of killing and torture suicide bombings and beheadings was difficult to predict.
Really the US and Britain were naive in not realising the irrational nature of very many people.

I think they eat too many dates....some toxin in them

in fact there were plenty of warnings pre war that invading iraq would be the equivalent of jabbing a stick in a hornets nest which could unleash any number of terrorist groups including al queeda previously ruthlessly supressed by saddam hussein

the problem was that bush/blair did not give a toss about the possible outcome.they were determined to invade anyway and fek the consequences for the country and the world

same was true in libya with the same disasterous results

support for the rebels in syria means the west is effectively supporting the worst kind of jihadist groups

again they do not seem to care about the consequencews for syria or the world

by the way the answer to the OP is a definite yeas as russia in opposing all the aboove mentioned engagements are proven to have a far more ethical foreign policy than the US or EU/Nato

This is why when you win a war you must impose your valueson the future shape of that
country. This is what America and Russia did after WW2 in Germany, and America did in Japan

The US needs to become again like ancient Rome and bring Pax American to a new Iraq. It would
benefit both the US and the ordinary Iraq citizen.

While we're at it ....lets sort out Iran aswell !

There is limitless potential wealth in Iraq. The oil fields should be brought
under direct US ownership...don't worry the money will be used both to finance
American rule but also will benefit all paarts of society in particular the poor and
middle classes...hopefully to get a large middle class, essential for democracy.

May 29, 2014 -- 11:45AM, EastofEden wrote:

by the way the answer to the OP is a definite yeas as russia in opposing all the aboove mentioned engagements are proven to have a far more ethical foreign policy than the US or EU/Nato

Poisoning Litvinenko it a London restaurant with Radioactive Polonium....ethical ?

I said more ethical

there are plenty of covert activities carried out against foreign citizens which can certainly not be condoned

kidnapping foreign citizens and rendering them to places like egypt and libya for torturing for instance

The Last Leopard

There is no point trying to reason with the facist leftties. They are totally
indoctrinated against America and the west. Many years of propaganda in
school and the media has made them incapable of independent or rational thought.

why do morons like lfc 1971 assume that anyone who opposes the wests current foreign policy is a 'fascist leftie' ?

As it happpens I am  a life long conservative btw

While we're at it ....lets sort out Iran aswell !

And why not Moscow and Bejing too

Anti-Americanism in Britain started with the conservative middle classes.It stemmed from envy a
US taking over and loss of empire. Since then it has spread to every part of British society as they have
followed like sheep

This is why when you win a war you must impose your values on the future shape of that

that is what we must stop doing

leave countries be, as long as they do not threaten us, which Iraq did not

we should try to get on, without invading each other

how do we know our values are right????????

some are, some are certainly not in my opinion

I prefer Russian values at the moment myself

Ok ebul, I will make it simple for you. When you sentence a young woman to death because
she becomes a christian we say no, those are not the correct values. When a young girl is shot
because she goes to school we say those are not the correct values.

Of course there will be some grey areas but we will  start with the basics and work up to the nicieties.

should we invade and impose our values on any country that does not share so called western values iyo ?

lfc1971     28 May 14 12:28 
You also have to ask how did Japan and Germany react after the devastating defeat
of WW2...they went on to build two of the greatest countries the world has seen. It is
an example of how socities should behave for the future.

Japan and West Germany completely rebuilt their infrastructure after the war and invested in developing technologically and in manufacturing.

The UK created the welfare state.

Germany have benefited in recent years from the euro while Japan has been a basket case for the last twenty years.

Japan had a "Job for Life " culture and couldn't get rid of dead wood....made their businesses very uncompetitive

Also....they did not allow many immigrants so workforce cannot support elderly.

May 29, 2014 -- 1:58PM, Sparrow Hawk wrote:

While we're at it ....lets sort out Iran aswell ! And why not Moscow and Bejing too

I was joshing SpH

Yes. Did the world a favour

think the ruskies are doing us a big favour tbh
ukraine is the hub for drug trafficking from south america....corrupt official letting it go on.
russia, by not letting them join the eu, basically stop them from escalating their cartels with free movement across the eu.

im 100% fully behind russia on this.

EastofEden  • May 29, 2014 4:04 PM BST
should we invade and impose our values on any country that does not share so called western values iyo ?

The world is not a perfect place lfc1971
the incidents you posted are not nice..
bar war is not the solution.. we end up with vastly more people dead
and an even more extreme and intolerant situation than we started with

and perhaps more significantly these were not the reasons we went to war anyway
those reasons were purely selfish

so no eastofEden

the west does not go to war to defend its so called values anyway so thats irrelevant

if we did I imagine saudi arabia would be one of the first in the firing line

instead they are best mates and massive supporters of obama cameron and hague in the various middle east adventures

such is the hypocrisy and double standard of western foreign policy

I think it would be better all round if the US could accept not every country wants it's values
it can have them itself...but can they stop trying to inflict them on everyone else!

The Muslims, amazing as it may seem to us, want to be Muslims, and that does include their women,
they are not prisoners.

Although there are dissenters in all societies, but let us just go what the majority want,
that is what democracy is all about