|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 15:10:36 GMT
Putins restraint are you having a laugh, they are the ones escalating it. Sky news today...
Seriously? This is your trusted source of news? It explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 15:24:58 GMT
Putins restraint are you having a laugh, they are the ones escalating it. Sky news today...
Seriously? This is your trusted source of news? It explains a lot. Why is that a less trusted source then a website link to a blog where guy has just posted an opinion on something?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 15:33:14 GMT
Seriously? This is your trusted source of news? It explains a lot. Why is that a less trusted source then a website link to a blog where guy has just posted an opinion on something? No reason - but then Sodium Haze is a blog, a place for opinions - not a news portal offered as de facto evidence of Putin's aggression. Putin is a thug and a dictator - but NATO is far bigger threat to global stability. I would trust Sky News with celebrity gossip, the football results, maybe the weather - nothing else and certainly not the news. The corporate news factory is propaganda - no serious enquiry can start there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 16:02:02 GMT
Why is that a less trusted source then a website link to a blog where guy has just posted an opinion on something? No reason - but then Sodium Haze is a blog, a place for opinions - not a news portal offered as de facto evidence of Putin's aggression. Putin is a thug and a dictator - but NATO is far bigger threat to global stability. I would trust Sky News with celebrity gossip, the football results, maybe the weather - nothing else and certainly not the news. The corporate news factory is propaganda - no serious enquiry can start there. The news job should only be to report facts not offer opinion. Sky news does a very good job of that. A lot of the stuff you have posted on here is just people's opinions and your opinion. They could not report that on the news as you have no facts.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jun 10, 2015 16:48:09 GMT
You talk of the provocative meddling of NATO in Ukraine undermining Putin. That was an EU deal, not NATO, that got cancelled by Russia's puppet. Never mind the poisoning of the leader of the Orange revolution, Russia's annexing the Crimea, Russian troops/weapons involved with the so called rebels and the holding of Ukraine to hostage over gas suggests the provocation/invasion is by Russia on another sovereign country. Whereas, Russian forces have kidnapped a Estonian(iirc or another Baltic state, all NATO) Border Official from the sovereign land of that country and still hold him captive/or have murdered him. Russia have significantly increased military spending and military exercises. Furthermore, Russia have significantly increased provocative/hostile Bomber simulations in European airspace including entering some of those countries airspace. As for China, they are increasing their military hardware including the projection of naval power. Against International law, they are building new islands (such as Spratleys) in the South China Sea to place military positions on against significantly weaker countries such as Thailand/Vietnam. Also, China is building tensions by increasing use of naval assets around disputed Islands with Japan. The point is all the major powers are at it, so to just have a go at America for it and to blame them is very one-eyed, especially where Ukraine is concerned. There was an old Amiga game called Balance of Power which introduced me to the concept of spheres of influence - Ukraine is obviously deep within Russia's legitimate sphere of influence, so much so in fact that we rely on Putin's repeated restraint to avoid a renewed and very dangerous escalation. I repeat the question you carefully avoided answering - what would happen if Russia and her allies were involved in Cuba as the U.S. is involved in the Ukraine? The EU is full of NATO members and walks and talks the NATO line so that distinction is effectively meaningless. One thing is certain, wherever NATO goes, war soon follows - they are the most dangerous and war mongering military alliance on the planet by far. The U.S. is the most dangerous nation on earth, a view that recent studies reveal as prevalent the world over. You complain about Sky news as a source of information then quote an old Amiga game as evidence! You talk about sphere of influence and talk about restraint on Putin's part but ignore that Russia has annexed another country's land, and invaded another part of it, or as a sovereign country is Ukraine not allowed to govern itself in your viewpoint? I would suggest the EU or the US not arming the Ukrainian Army as restraint and not escalating the situation, not Russia carving up Ukraine. Also, how is Putin showing restraint or not escalating by massively increasing simulated bombing attacks in European airspace with the long range bomber 'Bear', or kidnapping a Border Official from Estonia before the Ukraine situation? As for the EU walks and talks the NATO line, why is European military for virtually all nations spending going below the 2% of GDP required under the treaty? Certainly isn't following the party line! Also, you might think where NATO goes war follows, but real evidence? Doesn't seem to be any war in the likes of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Italy or Iceland in quite a while. So evidence of NATO going to war? Georgia, certainly, but they made a democratic decision to join, which then led to the precursor of Ukraine, with Russia carving off bits for itself through a proxy so called civil war. Please enlighten us as to these studies (and by who) that state the US being the most dangerous nation on the planet? I don't think Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, Moldova or the Baltic states would agree. It all depends on what is happening in Cuba/Mexico. Considering plenty of countries in the Americas have signed trading deals with China and Russia then not a lot. That is what Ukraine were/are signing with the EU. Now can you answer my questions? The difference is I can see they are all at it, Russia, China and US. Whereas you have blinkers on and it is only the evil US whilst ignoring Russia's actions and China's as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:01:19 GMT
No reason - but then Sodium Haze is a blog, a place for opinions - not a news portal offered as de facto evidence of Putin's aggression. Putin is a thug and a dictator - but NATO is far bigger threat to global stability. I would trust Sky News with celebrity gossip, the football results, maybe the weather - nothing else and certainly not the news. The corporate news factory is propaganda - no serious enquiry can start there. The news job should only be to report facts not offer opinion. Sky news does a very good job of that.
A lot of the stuff you have posted on here is just people's opinions and your opinion. They could not report that on the news as you have no facts. and you really believe that? A corporate news portal - a notorious extension of the machinations of arch oligarch Rupert Murdoch? No rational framework can be constructed when the starting point is so absurd.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jun 10, 2015 18:14:17 GMT
Murph don't talk about politics you know! Yet a new banner thread, and a Fifa thread have been turned into a I'm in my soap box threads so your all wrong and will listen to what I have to say. Ps I go on and on like a Duracell battery talking of politic, u defo didn't know as much as u had us believe on that one. How was the move, weather nice in Ireland ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:33:41 GMT
There was an old Amiga game called Balance of Power which introduced me to the concept of spheres of influence - Ukraine is obviously deep within Russia's legitimate sphere of influence, so much so in fact that we rely on Putin's repeated restraint to avoid a renewed and very dangerous escalation. I repeat the question you carefully avoided answering - what would happen if Russia and her allies were involved in Cuba as the U.S. is involved in the Ukraine? The EU is full of NATO members and walks and talks the NATO line so that distinction is effectively meaningless. One thing is certain, wherever NATO goes, war soon follows - they are the most dangerous and war mongering military alliance on the planet by far. The U.S. is the most dangerous nation on earth, a view that recent studies reveal as prevalent the world over. Also, you might think where NATO goes war follows, but real evidence?
hmmm...
wow - seriously - wow.
NATO and its members and war - lets see...
lets take just the last 15 years...
Gulf War 1990 - (20-40,000 civilian deaths) Somalian Civil War 1992 - (1,000+ civilian deaths) Bosnian War 1995 Kosovo War 1998 - (18,000 dead) Afghanistan / Sudan cruise missile attacks 1998 Iraq airstrikes 1998 Afghanistan War - 2001 - 2013 Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia drone strikes 2002 - present Illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - 2003 - present (up to 500,000 civilian deaths) Libya 2011 (leaving a shattered state in almost total anarchy)
and since you love the U.S. so much shall we throw in Guantanamo, black bases for torture, extraordinary rendition flights, the NSA and a record of covert regime change spattered in blood, torture and human rights abuses that goes back to the 1950's.
I mean how much blood does it take for you to notice it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:35:00 GMT
anyway... back to religion.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jun 10, 2015 18:42:09 GMT
anyway... back to religion. Now there's a major conspiracy
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:44:42 GMT
The news job should only be to report facts not offer opinion. Sky news does a very good job of that.
A lot of the stuff you have posted on here is just people's opinions and your opinion. They could not report that on the news as you have no facts. and you really believe that? A corporate news portal - a notorious extension of the machinations of arch oligarch Rupert Murdoch? No rational framework can be constructed when the starting point is so absurd. I don't really care if it's owned my Rupert Murdoch. I watch sky news. It just reports news. A newspaper? Sure the way it's written is the writers opinion and can influence. To be fair I'm guessing you have never watched sky news as you would be anti Murdoch. I'll retire from this conversation now though. It's tiring reading this thread. See you again soon on another thread
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jun 10, 2015 22:16:23 GMT
Also, you might think where NATO goes war follows, but real evidence?
hmmm...
wow - seriously - wow.
NATO and its members and war - lets see...
lets take just the last 15 years...
Gulf War 1990 - (20-40,000 civilian deaths) Somalian Civil War 1992 - (1,000+ civilian deaths) Bosnian War 1995 Kosovo War 1998 - (18,000 dead) Afghanistan / Sudan cruise missile attacks 1998 Iraq airstrikes 1998 Afghanistan War - 2001 - 2013 Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia drone strikes 2002 - present Illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - 2003 - present (up to 500,000 civilian deaths) Libya 2011 (leaving a shattered state in almost total anarchy)
and since you love the U.S. so much shall we throw in Guantanamo, black bases for torture, extraordinary rendition flights, the NSA and a record of covert regime change spattered in blood, torture and human rights abuses that goes back to the 1950's.
I mean how much blood does it take for you to notice it?
Where did I say I love the US? Read my posts again and specifically the comments that they are all at it. Something you fundamentally and blatantly ignore such as China increasing military tension in the South China Sea or Russia invading sovereign countries such as Ukraine/Georgia and annexing territory. If you want to go down the Guantanamo route then Russia/China, camps for political prisoners, assassinating opponents at home and overseas or unfriendly political opponents to their chosen ruler in another country. Russia supporting Assad's regime that is into torturing/murdering on religious lines prior to ISIL. The Soviet Union/Russia have forced regime change in many countries to dating back to 1940s. China invaded and have occupied that scary warmongering neighbour Tibet. JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN, THEY ARE ALL AT IT, THE US INCLUDED WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA. SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GRASP. Also, you really need to sort out what organisations you are talking about just like the EU isn't NATO, neither is the UN. Your list of wars are fantastical in relation to your claims about NATO, let's look at some of them: 1990 Gulf War: Iraq invaded Kuwait. The UN, not NATO, raised a coalition in support of Kuwait, which pushed the Iraqi forces out of another sovereign state back into Iraq. You have seriously rewritten history in your head with that one. Bosnian War: A UN peacekeeping mission, again not NATO. This was a nasty sectarian civil war after the break up of Yugoslavia and you blame the UN peacekeeping troops. JUST WOW. Somalian Civil War - A UN Humanitarian Aid mission including such nations as Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey as well as the US. The UN Mission was there to ensure millions of Somalis got basic humanitarian aid to prevent mass starvation. Something, that hadn't happened before due to the Warlords/Clans stealing 80% of the earlier food aid given. The Mogadishu Warlord got territorial and started anti UN radio broadcasts which ultimately led to that Clan attacking a Pakistani UN troop convoy. Unsurprisingly, the UN responded which ultimately led to the Battle of Mogadishu. Do you think the UN were wrong to try to feed millions of starving people? Kosovo War - Again, a Civil War between two ethnic groups. The UN sent in a peacekeeping force. Again, the Serbs/Kosovan Albanians killed each other, not the UN forces. I use to know a few Kosovans and have heard the stories, so blaming the UN (or as you call everybody it seems NATO) is utterly ridiculous. Afghan/Sudan cruise missile strikes weren't NATO. It is, of course, reasonable for terrorists to bomb US embassies in your world. Still not a NATO operation. Iraq Airstrikes weren't NATO either. Afghan war was a direct result of the 9/11 attack on the US (or have you also deliberately ignored that as well?). Also, it was a UN coalition that went into Afghan and remained so until the end. Again, not NATO. Drone strikes - Again, not NATO. America is going after organisations that have or are actively looking to attack them. Iraq - Again, not NATO. A unilateral action taken by the US/UK. Also, any UK/US forces are there now as part of a coalition to push back ISIL (or do you think nothing should be done to stop their ethnic/religious cleansing either like Bosnia/Kosovo?). Also, whilst the US/UK shouldn't have gone in, Saddam I suspect would be getting pretty close to the number of civilians killed you state from the estimated numbers before the invasion. Libya - Again not NATO. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So you would have let a massacre in Benghazi happen, would you? Because that is what would have happened, the only question would have been how many thousands died. Which may have led to a Civil War anyway and the position that exists now. So when quoting about Wars and NATO, please get the right organisation at least! Oh, and try not to pick wars which are civil wars where the organisation you're accusing has gone in, after it has started, as a UN peacekeeping force! Furthermore, where are these reports (and by whom) that America is the most dangerous country in the world? How much blood does it take for YOU to realise that other states such as Russia/China are as bad as the US?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 23:49:38 GMT
hmmm...
wow - seriously - wow.
NATO and its members and war - lets see...
lets take just the last 15 years...
Gulf War 1990 - (20-40,000 civilian deaths) Somalian Civil War 1992 - (1,000+ civilian deaths) Bosnian War 1995 Kosovo War 1998 - (18,000 dead) Afghanistan / Sudan cruise missile attacks 1998 Iraq airstrikes 1998 Afghanistan War - 2001 - 2013 Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia drone strikes 2002 - present Illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - 2003 - present (up to 500,000 civilian deaths) Libya 2011 (leaving a shattered state in almost total anarchy)
and since you love the U.S. so much shall we throw in Guantanamo, black bases for torture, extraordinary rendition flights, the NSA and a record of covert regime change spattered in blood, torture and human rights abuses that goes back to the 1950's.
I mean how much blood does it take for you to notice it?
Where did I say I love the US? JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN, THEY ARE ALL AT IT, THE US INCLUDED WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA. SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GRASP. The U.S. is the primary and only truly relevant member of NATO - everyone else is irrelevant in terms of military power. Because the U.S. acts without NATO or U.N. approval doesn't mean that its record is cleansed - they are 100% complicit, refusing to censure or attempt to limit American actions in any way, lending military bases, ports, airspace and diplomatic support for their endless outings as the world's policemen and with members of NATO (like the UK) merrily joining operations which are immoral and illegal. If the Soviet Union had invaded France would we have absolved the complicity and support of the Warsaw Pact? Of course not. After the illegal invasion of Iraq - an aggressive and imperialist grab for oil - what did NATO do about the U.S. and the U.K? Nothing of course. I haven't got time to unpick all the fig leaves, cover stories and half truths that are used to disguise naked U.S. expansionism - but one thing is 100% crystal clear, nobody has even come close to the sheer scale of aggressive military ventures of the U.S. over the last 60 years. The U.S. now exists in a state of perpetual war and the provocations of NATO and the EU in Ukraine are disastrous and risk restarting a nuclear arms race with Russia. NATO bereft of an enemy no longer has a reason to exist - but still manages to threaten stability on a global scale. What is NATO for? Bombing Libya? Invading Afghanistan? They are a menace. The corporate media pumps out the propaganda that NATO exists to promote peace and stability - the reverse is true.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 23:58:49 GMT
and you really believe that? A corporate news portal - a notorious extension of the machinations of arch oligarch Rupert Murdoch? No rational framework can be constructed when the starting point is so absurd. I don't really care if it's owned my Rupert Murdoch. I watch sky news. It just reports news.
A newspaper? Sure the way it's written is the writers opinion and can influence. To be fair I'm guessing you have never watched sky news as you would be anti Murdoch. I'll retire from this conversation now though. It's tiring reading this thread. See you again soon on another thread You don't care that a billionaire oligarch with a well known neoliberal agenda uses his media empire intervene again and again in elections, policy and lobbying all over the world and has monopoly control over a major news portals like Sky News? Ok. Kool Aid > Drink. Sky News is a corporate media portal - it produces corporate friendly factory news. This heavily censored and limited mush has about as much relevance to the reality of world events as a pair of women's knickers and the Large Hadron Collider. But as you say - back to our summer signings! :-)
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jun 11, 2015 5:47:00 GMT
Your getting really boring now murph.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jun 11, 2015 8:48:03 GMT
Where did I say I love the US? JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN, THEY ARE ALL AT IT, THE US INCLUDED WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA. SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GRASP. The U.S. is the primary and only truly relevant member of NATO - everyone else is irrelevant in terms of military power. Because the U.S. acts without NATO or U.N. approval doesn't mean that its record is cleansed - they are 100% complicit, refusing to censure or attempt to limit American actions in any way, lending military bases, ports, airspace and diplomatic support for their endless outings as the world's policemen and with members of NATO (like the UK) merrily joining operations which are immoral and illegal. If the Soviet Union had invaded France would we have absolved the complicity and support of the Warsaw Pact? Of course not. After the illegal invasion of Iraq - an aggressive and imperialist grab for oil - what did NATO do about the U.S. and the U.K? Nothing of course. I haven't got time to unpick all the fig leaves, cover stories and half truths that are used to disguise naked U.S. expansionism - but one thing is 100% crystal clear, nobody has even come close to the sheer scale of aggressive military ventures of the U.S. over the last 60 years. The U.S. now exists in a state of perpetual war and the provocations of NATO and the EU in Ukraine are disastrous and risk restarting a nuclear arms race with Russia. NATO bereft of an enemy no longer has a reason to exist - but still manages to threaten stability on a global scale. What is NATO for? Bombing Libya? Invading Afghanistan? They are a menace. The corporate media pumps out the propaganda that NATO exists to promote peace and stability - the reverse is true. WOW. You are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. You ignore real evidence, twist actual events to something they are not, and make up stuff to try to make your argument plausible. Put simply your argument isn't plausible, it's actually garbage. Its got the odd little grain of truth mixed with a silo full of BS. Here is a simple place to begin, the EU, UN and NATO are not the same organisation with the same members. For example, the permanent UN Security Council includes China and Russia as well as the US. One further question, did the US moon landings actually happen in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jun 11, 2015 9:01:00 GMT
Of course the moon landings didn't happen, the American were to busy planning blowing up the twin towers and planting evidence on Aq
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 11, 2015 12:54:44 GMT
Of course, then there is 9/11. It's a US internal conspiracy to start a war to get oil on the cheap! Or a complicit strategy to generate real estate revenues in NYC, because of the way the buildings fell. As for the opposition leader dying in Russia, it was a US conspiracy to start a war with Russia, so that they can annexe the natural gas reserves in Siberia.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 13, 2015 10:24:11 GMT
What TV programme was this? Sounds interesting. The Box on BBC1 or 2. The Box is on BBC2 right now with James Martin and the veteran harridan Mary Berry. Ladyship is p*ssed off because he's not doing Saturday Morning Kitchen because some jingoistic trash is on. Presumably this means he's usually on both sides simultaneously, what a virtuoso!
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Jun 13, 2015 11:11:44 GMT
The Box is on BBC2 right now with James Martin and the veteran harridan Mary Berry. Ladyship is p*ssed off because he's not doing Saturday Morning Kitchen because some jingoistic trash is on. Presumably this means he's usually on both sides simultaneously, what a virtuoso! Damn, missed it, as only just seen this post, and weirdly enough was watching Saturday Kitchen Live (which I recorded as it was on at 9 o'clock this morning). I was once in what an English gentleman refers to as a compromising situation, with the bedroom TV on in the background, when a programme featuring Mary Berry came on. I'm still traumatised to this day by the tricks my mind played on me having to maintain my "performance" while looking at Mary Berry's wrinkly features!!!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 13, 2015 19:24:14 GMT
A true swordsman; although we've never met my mind's eye sees you as Terence Stamp beguiling Bathsheba in 'Far from the madding crowd'.
I'm not sure I'm entirely at one with the world here, but the sight of Mary Berry is second only to that of Michael Gove in it's ability to make it go cold (I'm speaking of on the TV, surely not one of god's creatures would want to f*ck Sarah Vain; except Gove whose experience I opine was limited to the lower church class of choirboy prior to their seminal coming-together).
Anyway, enough of that. I've climbed outside a truly spectacular green thai curry prepared from scratch by Lady Cannell (without assistance from Matthew Jay or especially Marthapchambermaid, who still flutters scarletly at the mere sight of your posts) and am ensconced in the arbour smoking a Hoyo and listening to Vivaldi's 'concerti del' addio' in it's brilliant recording by Fabio Biondi and Europa Gallante (who I imagine is big lass).
This is definitely the best post ever on this forum or any other. Like it!
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Jun 14, 2015 13:00:07 GMT
A true swordsman; although we've never met my mind's eye sees you as Terence Stamp beguiling Bathsheba in 'Far from the madding crowd'. I'm not sure I'm entirely at one with the world here, but the sight of Mary Berry is second only to that of Michael Gove in it's ability to make it go cold (I'm speaking of on the TV, surely not one of god's creatures would want to f*ck Sarah Vain; except Gove whose experience I opine was limited to the lower church class of choirboy prior to their seminal coming-together). Anyway, enough of that. I've climbed outside a truly spectacular green thai curry prepared from scratch by Lady Cannell (without assistance from Matthew Jay or especially Marthapchambermaid, who still flutters scarletly at the mere sight of your posts) and am ensconced in the arbour smoking a Hoyo and listening to Vivaldi's 'concerti del' addio' in it's brilliant recording by Fabio Biondi and Europa Gallante (who I imagine is big lass). This is definitely the best post ever on this forum or any other. Like it! More a hybrid of a young Alan Wicker merged into Leslie Phillips with Rudolph Valentino tendencies, I would say. There's the suaveness of Wicker, the slightly naughty twinkle in the eye of Phillips, and the love God tendencies of Valentino. Although the Mary Berry incident truly tested my resolve, it could have been worse............Two Fat Ladies was next on the TV schedule! I felt compelled to switch the hotel TV off and put some Teddy Pendergrast lurve music on the sound system to restore the seductive mood. I've never eaten Bakewell Tart to this day though!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jun 15, 2015 12:23:29 GMT
If there is any conspiracy then it's sepp himself. Wouldn't put it past him to step down to avoided a lot of the flack flying his way, only to do a complete about face the week before elections take place to say he feels he has turned Fifa around, sorted the corruption and feels it best he stays on full term Sepp Blatter could remain as FIFA president if a "convincing candidate" to replace him does not emerge, one of his closest advisors has told Sky News. Klaus Stöhlker, who acted as Mr Blatter's official adviser during the recent election campaign, said he is actively considering reversing his promise to stand down. His comments come two weeks after Mr Blatter dramatically announced he would resign. Speaking four days after he won a fifth term as FIFA president, Mr Blatter acknowledged he did not have the full support of the football world and would therefore step aside. Mr Stöhlker, a public relations adviser based in Zurich who stressed he is not an official spokesman, said Mr Blatter has received messages of support from Asia and Africa, and is currently deciding whether to remain in post. He said: "At the moment there is not a convincing candidate to replace Mr Blatter with the same level of qualifications, of languages, of contacts, and knowledge of football. "As long as there is not such a candidate it remains open for Sepp Blatter to run again. "There are some people that are asking him not to stand for the next election, there are some people that are asking him not to resign. "There is a huge game going on for control of FIFA and the president is in a situation where he is making his opinion about what to do." With the FBI and the Swiss authorities conducting criminal investigations into FIFA, any U-turn from Mr Blatter would be hugely controversial, but Mr Stöhlker suggested he will only make good on his promise to resign if a suitable successor emerges. "He is the man who made FIFA with 40 years of hard work," he said. "He can tell if there is a really high-grade challenger who has got the qualities, who can balance between the demands of the Confederations, then I think he won't have a problem to resign. "But at the moment there is not a candidate." UEFA president Michel Platini and beaten challenger Prince Ali of Jordan are potential candidates in the election scheduled between December and March 2016, but both face a challenge uniting FIFA's factions. Asia and Africa have been consistently supportive of Mr Blatter, and the next World Cup hosts Russia would also support continuity in Zurich. Mr Stöhlker's comments come after a Swiss newspaper reported on Sunday that Mr Blatter was considering staying on. FIFA officials responded by referring journalists to Mr Blatter's resignation statement on 2 June, in which he said he would not be a candidate in the next election. Domenico Scala, the chairman of FIFA's audit and compliance committee and the man responsible for running that process and drafting a series of reforms Mr Blatter wants to complete, responded by saying it was crucial the president stick to his word. "For me, the reforms are the central topic," he said. "That is why I think it is clearly indispensable to follow through with the initiated process of the president's change as has been announced."
|
|
|
Post by foley on Jun 15, 2015 12:38:26 GMT
This is a kind of joke that Blatter is playing right?
A fantastic game run by a total joker and backed by Countries who don't want previous dodgy dealings exposed.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 15, 2015 12:39:41 GMT
Blatter is the ultimate politico, and his work on Africa and Asia's financial situations makes it vaguely possible that he'll stay on. The cost to the wider game could be immense. Suddenly that 1.5 billion in reserve could come into use.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 14:09:31 GMT
well this will be interesting Maybe Sepp is about to call the U.S. bluff? He must have imagined that agents with writs were about to descend on him and his resignation appeared panicky... ...but something about the pictures he tweeted of himself working on reforms at FIFA (the very next day) tells me he had this move planned early doors. There is something of the L. Ron Hubbard about Sepp, he imagines himself godlike and invulnerable to U.S. meddling. But is he? I was interested in an unrelated piece in The Guardian which teased apart the difference a crisis and a scandal.
I doubted from the very start that FIFA was in crisis - perhaps growled at but nothing serious. If Sepp survives again the credibility of the anti-corruption blather will wilt - leaving us with what?
A conspiracy theory probably.
Nothing conclusive has emerged yet except the allegations about the World Cup bids - oddly enough...
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 15, 2015 21:04:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 11:58:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 26, 2015 12:34:49 GMT
It's all just one big game to him. I suspect he's been firming up his support in Africa and Asia so that he can carry on with his "reforms" and just ignore the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Jun 26, 2015 15:08:07 GMT
You have got to give it to Mr Blatter. What a very funny joke saying that he was resigning when in reality he wasn't really!!
Great to see the fun back at FIFA..
|
|