Why did Cameron meet up with Putin

[Deleted User] · 17/08/12 - 13:06

During the olympics, the man is as bad as a 3rd world dictator, and I'd like to think he wouldn't meet up with any of them

cheesy_pasty · 17/08/12 - 13:13

If he's as bad as you say; then wouldn't you want him onside?

Sniffle774 · 17/08/12 - 13:17

No doubt there is still money to be made so Putin needs sucking up to.

flagpole · 17/08/12 - 13:19

ellenpagerocks wrote: »

During the olympics, the man is as bad as a 3rd world dictator, and I'd like to think he wouldn't meet up with any of them

because he is the leader of a country with a large economy, a member of the G8, a permanent member of the UN security council with whom we have diplomatic relations?

if cameron wasn't talking to putin he would not be doing his job. in particular we need to talk to him about syria.

[Deleted User] · 17/08/12 - 13:22

So Cameron should tell Putin to release Pussy Riot then, putting them in jail for 3 years for a protest is the act of a 3rd world dicatator and needs to be condemned

flagpole · 17/08/12 - 13:26

ellenpagerocks wrote: »

So Cameron should tell Putin to release Pussy Riot then, putting them in jail for 3 years for a protest is the act of a 3rd world dicatator and needs to be condemned

yes because cameron can tell putin what to do. he only has to give the word and pussy riot would be out. i guess he must want pussy riot to stay in prison then. the fascist.

Aneechik · 17/08/12 - 13:49

To be fair, we have similar penalties for identical crimes on the statute books, so we're not really in any position to judge.

jmclaugh · 17/08/12 - 13:51

A stupid question, meanwhile next time he meets Putin perhaps he'll have a word with him about this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19297373

[Deleted User] · 18/08/12 - 00:20

jmclaugh wrote: »

A stupid question, meanwhile next time he meets Putin perhaps he'll have a word with him about this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19297373

Perhaps Putin will respond with a word about this: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/08/10/115-UK-man-arrested-for-not-smiling-during-Olympics.html

Relugus · 18/08/12 - 00:29

Cameron, and Putin are to form a new band, "Cock Riot".

Charles II · 18/08/12 - 00:38

...Yeah I don't know if you know this but Russia seems to have some things that are some of its top exports you might have heard of them, they are called called OIL & GAS!!

Charles II · 18/08/12 - 00:39

flagpole wrote: »

because he is the leader of a country with a large economy, a member of the G8, a permanent member of the UN security council with whom we have diplomatic relations?

if cameron wasn't talking to putin he would not be doing his job. in particular we need to talk to him about syria.

No we don't we have done enough talking, time to let another European nation take the lead in the quest to conquer the middle east.

duckymallard · 18/08/12 - 00:45

Correct me if I am wrong. This is not some brand spanking new law that this "beat combo" have been convicted under.

They're not children. Therefore they must have known that singing anti-Putin songs was going to be as popular as a fart in a diving bell.

If someone deliberately put their hand in a fire and then expected sympathy when they were burnt, they'd be very much disappointed.

No difference here.

[Deleted User] · 18/08/12 - 00:54

duckymallard wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong. This is not some brand spanking new law that this "beat combo" have been convicted under.

They're not children. Therefore they must have known that singing anti-Putin songs was going to be as popular as a fart in a diving bell.

If someone deliberately put their hand in a fire and then expected sympathy when they were burnt, they'd be very much disappointed.

No difference here.

There's quite a big difference. One is a fact of biology and physics, the other is a manmade rule that can be arbitrarily changed at will.

Of course they knew it was illegal and they were liable to suffer for it. That's very probably the reason they did it in the first place. There are people who are not fatalists like you; they take issue when there is an unjust law, so they break it to highlight the fact it needs to be changed.

duckymallard · 18/08/12 - 01:19

jy1541 wrote: »

There's quite a big difference. One is a fact of biology and physics, the other is a manmade rule that can be arbitrarily changed at will.

Of course they knew it was illegal and they were liable to suffer for it. That's very probably the reason they did it in the first place. There are people who are not fatalists like you; they take issue when there is an unjust law, so they break it to highlight the fact it needs to be changed.

So we here in the UK are supposed to wring our hands, scream bloody murder and cut off diplomatic relations, just because a bunch of fools got themselves jailed on purpose.

Think I'll reserve my sympathy for more deserving cases, f*ck knows there's loads more deserving than this lot.

[Deleted User] · 18/08/12 - 01:37

duckymallard wrote: »

So we here in the UK are supposed to wring our hands, scream bloody murder and cut off diplomatic relations, just because a bunch of fools got themselves jailed on purpose.

Think I'll reserve my sympathy for more deserving cases, f*ck knows there's loads more deserving than this lot.

Of course not. I think cutting off diplomatic relations should be reserved for the very worst cases, i.e. outright evils such as ethnic cleansing rather than jailing protestors. I also think this thread is ridiculous; "Why isn't our PM ignoring a country that has the power to single-handedly wipe out the human race?"

But that doesn't mean we can't sympathise with the protestors. What would your reaction be if a group of people were arrested for protesting against Blair/Brown or Cameron, depending on your political affiliation? (Hopefully you'd be disgusted at either scenario, but you never know on DS - Politics...)

duckymallard · 18/08/12 - 02:43

There's not much point in starting a "what ifs" merry-go-round, life is far too short.

Suffice to say, that this country has it's laws and Russia has it's own.

Break the law, do the time. Want to change the law, stand for election - that's how it works.

[Deleted User] · 18/08/12 - 03:07

duckymallard wrote: »

There's not much point in starting a "what ifs" merry-go-round, life is far too short.

Suffice to say, that this country has it's laws and Russia has it's own.

Break the law, do the time. Want to change the law, stand for election - that's how it works.

It's really not how it works. There are many examples throughout history where breaking and ignoring the law has lead to the changes the law-breakers wish to see. Almost definitely more examples than standing for election.

flagpole · 18/08/12 - 09:23

Charles II wrote: »

No we don't we have done enough talking, time to let another European nation take the lead in the quest to conquer the middle east.

we don't need to talk to russia about syria? we don't need to try to dissuade russia from supplying helicopter gunships to the syrian army that they are using to shoot up civilians?

we should leave that to someone else? seriously? are you so left wing, so paranoid of imperialism, that you see that as an attempt to conquer the middle east?

nomad2king · 18/08/12 - 10:03

Aneechik wrote: »

To be fair, we have similar penalties for identical crimes on the statute books, so we're not really in any position to judge.

Other countries do as well. Although of course, it has to be a non-Christian religion, especially Islam, that you have to offend for it to count. In this country you can be sent to jail for dropping bacon or sausages outside somebody's house.

Then we should also look at the sort of people Tony Blair and Jack Straw hung around with.

[Deleted User] · 18/08/12 - 23:41

Maybe Cameron decided to meet with Putin so that he could give him a wigging over the Russians' support of Assad :eek:

Nessun Dorma · 19/08/12 - 11:37

ellenpagerocks wrote: »

During the olympics, the man is as bad as a 3rd world dictator, and I'd like to think he wouldn't meet up with any of them

I wouldn't necessarily call Cameron a Third World Dictator, but he is not far from it.

roger_50 · 19/08/12 - 12:04

Both countries have a long diplomatic future together, resulting in benefits for both.

Both countries have done very questionable things in recent history. (Russia are no worse than us)

I WANT to see Cameron and Putin chatting freely to eachother. It's in our long-term interests to have a positive relationship.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Why did Cameron meet up with Putin

Comments