Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Daily Mail World" channel.

  1.  @foxbat7288  It didn't have any nukes to give up. They were Soviet (ie Russian ) nukes. The fire codes were all in Moscow.
    1
  2.  @joeordinary209  Ukraine only became independent in 1991. Before that is was a semi-autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Note the term "semi-autonomous". It was ultimately controlled by Moscow. And Crimea, as I say, was only added on 1954. It was Russian before that and is Russian now.
    1
  3.  @foxbat7288  They weren't Ukrainian nukes, strictly speaking. They were Soviet nukes and the launch key codes were kept in Moscow. They were stationed there to protect the entire Soviet Union, not just Ukraine.
    1
  4.  @joeordinary209  I think there is probably a statute of limitations on imperial influence! If Mongolians ran Russia's factories and mines and had invested billions of their money in them, then they might well object to them being taken over by America.
    1
  5.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  I don't think its quite a simple as that! In any case that's hardly the point. The nukes stationed in Ukraine were there not for Ukraine's exclusive benefit, but for the SU as a whole. They were not, therefore, the property of Ukraine.
    1
  6.  @joeordinary209  And America has taken full advantage by persisting to imagine that Russia wants them back and so extending NATO - to its considerable political and financial gain. Trying to establish NATO in Ukraine, however, is a step too far for the Russians, who believe the two countries have a far closer relationship than it has with other countries.
    1
  7.  @joeordinary209  I agree with you that this war is primarily about mineral rights, rather than the question of Ukraine joining NATO. That possibility is deeply offensive and troubling to Russia, but it is not sufficient to start a war. What is sufficient cause is the fact that after 2014, under cover of the Minsk Treaties, America and its NATO stooges spent billions on creating a new Ukrainian army which by 2020 was preparing to retake the Donbass republics and Crimea. This was unacceptable to Russia. After the disaster of the Budapest Accords Russia managed to keep some sort of hold on the mining and steelmaking industries it has created in these areas. This compromise was severely threatened by the coup of 2014 and Putin took the decision to retake Crimea and provide support for the Donbass separatists. It is clear that he has throughout hoped to maintain a peaceful solution. It could well be that pragmatists in Kiev would accept Crimea becoming officially part of Russia and for Donbass to become an independent republic, with relations with both Ukraine and Russia. The West, however, with its eyes set on grabbing the estimated $14trillion of gas, oil. coal and rare earth minerals under the soil of the disputed territories, had other ideas and Zelensky was persuaded to go to war. It is a war which Ukraine is likely to lose. At the end of the day Putin will end up with more than he asked for and over half a million people will have died to no purpose.
    1
  8. C'mon Nigel! Join the lactose intolerant! Overcome your middle-class fears and realise that by listening to and understanding Tommy Robinson, Carl Benjamin and Gerard Batten you could lead this country out of its current pit of despair!
    1
  9.  @Normskiblue  Well America does.
    1
  10. We don't protest. We just don't do it.
    1
  11. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a much misunderstood concept cited by stupid people to describe other people whom the wrongly believe to be more stupid than they are.
    1
  12. Such an obvious stitch-up! How can anyone fall for this nonsense when Biden has salted away millions from a lifetime of bribery and corruption?
    1
  13. First Tommy, then Carl..Nigel comes third in the milkshake Derby! If only - IF ONLY -- this result were to reflected in Thursday's results then this benighted country might be on its way to recovering its strength and dignity!
    1
  14.  @sphericalexcess9728  But these 'partisans ' are unashamed Nazis.
    1
  15.  @bilboriches7216  No. It's Russia, temporarily occupied between 1991 and 2014. The population is 70% ethnic Russian and there are more Tatars and Greeks than Ukrainians.
    1
  16.  @dmitry_dev  As I say, made part of Ukraine only in 1954 for purely administrative reasons. Like the rest of Ukraine it was still controlled by Moscow. Like Donbass and other areas east of the Dnieper this was steppe, inhabited largely by tribes of wandering Tatars. Since then the Turks and the Greeks have claimed it and the Russians took it back at the end of the 18th century. The population is largely ethnic Russian, descendants of many imported there by the Soviet Union to replace the Tatars who were considered unsuitable as workers. It was developed by Russia, with Russian blood, Russian sweat and Russian roubles - as indeed is so much of Ukraine. (No agreements last forever. They must be abandoned when circumstances change, as they have now.)
    1
  17.  @ekope6396  What independence? Ukraine's oligarchs were being bribed by the Americans to sell off its mineral wealth. Since this mineral wealth has largely been developed and invested in by Russia and Russians Putin's desire to prevent this is entirely understandable. And Crimea was merely lent to Ukraine as recently as 1954 as a matter of administrative convenience.
    1
  18.  @dmitry_dev  Any country can.
    1
  19.  @dmitry_dev  This is often a matter of dispute and such disputes can lead to war, as in this instance. I am British. We are quite expert in the mechanisms of decaying empires.
    1
  20.  @dmitry_dev  It isn't a question of being fair or unfair, it's a question of likelihood. None of these scenarios is possible, but it is entirely possible that Russia will retake those parts of Ukraine to which it feels entitled.
    1
  21.  @bilboriches7216  History is history. And history makes Crimea Russian.
    1
  22.  @dmitry_dev  International agreements and recognised borders have brief shelf lives. If they didn't there would be no wars and the Sioux and the Apache would still rule America. In this instance over 200 years of history and the investment of billions of roubles far outweigh a piece of paper signed by a drunkard in the aftermath of the collapse of an empire.
    1
  23. .. and the money starts rolling in! What would the arms industry do without Big Bad Russia on its sales leaflets?
    1
  24.  @BoostyGeoff  It's all in the Pandora Papers.
    1
  25.  @gristlybillow7050  Pandora Papers. It's all there.
    1
  26. Doncha just wish?Doncha?
    1
  27. I'm currently working to develop a game called "Fantasy Insurrection". Does anyone know how I can find out how many lamp-posts their are on Pall Mall without actually going there?
    1
  28. Who gives a duck! What is this, professional jealousy?
    1
  29.  @analisamelojete1966  Major news outlets covered it in full. It's a long listen, but YouTuber IEarlGrey provides a transcript and a useful summary.
    1
  30.  @g.m.2427  Wrong. No court cases were lost because none were heard - nor did Trump's lawyers want them to be. No point, given the timescale. Instead they presented the evidence to several state senate hearings. The existence of these hearings has largely been concealed from the public. Instead the mainstream media sell you this myth about "lost" court cases.
    1
  31.  @Dekedence  But cheating went industrial this time around. Nearly 40% of the American people believe this - and with considerable justification. Biden's administration is a house built on sand.
    1
  32.  @martinhawes5647  Exactly! You can make a perfectly decent Iphone out of a tin can, a pile of sticks and an elastic band.
    1
  33.  Alan Mckay  Nonononono! They just want everything to be utterly, utterly LOVELY!!
    1
  34.  Alan Mckay  No that won't do. One simply must have servants. But they can come to dinner sometimes.
    1
  35. Eat the babies!
    1
  36. Poisoned my arse. It was probably just an allergic reaction.
    1
  37. Especially the Americans.
    1
  38.  @cIoudbank  The Russians are almost certainly going to outpace Ukraine now. As with a great many wars the loser will be the one which runs out of supplies first - and at the moment that looks like Ukraine.
    1
  39.  @JP-sm4cs  Except we don't. Artic sea ice lessens and increases according to established cycles. "Records" which climate change freaks cite mean records they have cherry-picked and even altered. They were no proper records kept in the 1920's but there were widespread reports of rapidly diminishing sea ice then.
    1
  40.  @JP-sm4cs  Of course sea ice comes in several forms. No-one is denying that. We are not losing glacial ice, which isn't sea ice anyway but impacted snow that has travelled along glaciers until it reaches the sea. The front sections then "calve" into the ocean due to the pressure of the impacted ice behind them. This ice is constantly replenished by winter snowfalls which remain more of less totally constant throughout time, depositing many miliions of tons each year. Sea ice is subject to variations created by wind and ocean currents, some of which circle the pole at incredibly slow rates. The one which affects sea ice coverage most takes 99 years to complete the circuit. I am not a fossil industry shill by the way. I am a highly developed Russian bot on permanent loan to the Koch Brothers. What did you say your degree was in again?
    1
  41.  @tomasbarrett7517  So it is alleged. What is actually happening is that glaciers calve at different rates, Whenever a particularly large chunk breaks off this is heralded as evidence of loss of mass. Which it is. However this loss of mass is replenished over time as snow falls inland, the weight of which eventually pushes the leading edge of the glacier to its original position. Snowfall in both the Arctic and the Antarctic remains fairly constant year by year, as far as I am aware, and indeed has increased in recent years. None of this is of any consequence anyway. No matter how much climate warming fanatics cherry pick data these are very minor alterations to the picture. Land ice on both continents is miles thick in places and has been there for millions of years.
    1
  42.  @tiramisumochi4787  Well all data has to be selective when there is so much of it. It's preferable to stick to the known facts wherever possible though. In this instance temperature records which do not fit in with the climate change narrative are dismissed as being mistaken. Such as the highest temperature ever recorded in Alaska, namely 100f in Yukon in February 1900 as I recall. What cannot be denied is that land ice in Greenland and Antarctica is miles thick in places and that for it to reduce in volume in any substantial way it would have to be subject to a constant huge rise in temperature for several centuries. As for glaciers, they of course consist of impacted frozen snow and ad long as snow keeps falling they will keep growing and only reduce very slightly and temporarily in size when icebergs calve from their ends.
    1
  43.  @tomasbarrett7517  There is no doubt that an impressive volume of material is produced on these topics every year, but the fact that there is a lot of it doesn't make it any more true. The data is selected to support a narrative, not encountered in the real world and objective conclusions drawn from it. Articles such as these have been published for decades with no actual consequence in the real world ever becoming visible.
    1
  44.  @tomasbarrett7517  You really have to be joking! A glacier moves along a fissure in the ice sheet which mirrors a fissure in the land mass below it. The glacier is frozen. It exists in temperatures many degrees below freezing. It cannot melt. The only loss of volume it can experience is when its downstream extremity meets the open sea and is pushed into it by the bulk of frozen snow behind it. As for the ice sheet that of course also exists in temperatures many degrees below freezing. For it to melt worldwide temperatures would have to increase to such an extent that we would all be fried to a frazzle before the ice sheet even lost millimetre in thickness.
    1
  45.  @tomasbarrett7517  I'm not even going to bother to look. I have seen this kind of thing many times before. Do you know at which seasons of the year these photographs were taken? What proportion of the glaciers in these continents do the examples represent? Do you consider these examples present evidence of global warming, or could they be localised events?
    1
  46.  @tomasbarrett7517  So the air and sea temperatures in the arctic and Antarctic are above freezing now are they? When did this happen? And the inland glaciers exist in some corner of the world where glaciers melt? We are talking about Pakistan I suppose, where some glaciers do reduce in size in the summer. But there is no summer worth the name in Antarctica or central Greenland..
    1
  47.  @tomasbarrett7517  Can it?
    1
  48.  @tomasbarrett7517  You do realise don't you that glaciers have been melting and reforming forever, and have been recorded as doing so ever since the1850's? There was a particularly warm spell in the 1920's when the situation in the Arctic was very similar to that of today. I don't dispute climate change. It is, however, usually localised and the result of warm or cold water being carried from place to place due to ocean currents. And yes of course temperatures in both polar areas do rise briefly in the summer - although not enough or long enough to make any impact on the ice mass. The information you have, even if accurate, can in no way be extrapolated to indicate a long term trend, however. We have only observed the world in any detail for a couple of hundred years which is as nothing in terms of climate history. Proxy data is unreliable and can be interpreted to indicate almost anything you like. This is my quarrel with climate alarmism. It is essentially myopic. It's face is pressed close to the canvas and it sees only dots and squiggles of paint. We need to stand back to see the whole picture. I'm afraid too that there is just far too much money and effort invested in the AGW industry for anything resembling scientific objectivity to be achieved any longer
    1
  49. Wise after the event. Does this guy even know what a logarithm is?
    1
  50. Nigel should feel privileged that he has been subjected to the same treatment as Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin. All three are in their way warriors against the fascist left. If only they could join forces against this deluded scum!
    1