PDA

View Full Version : Putin & Stalin


ORAC
24th Nov 2006, 20:10
What's the difference between Putin and Stalin.


Stalin's dead.......

rab-k
24th Nov 2006, 20:45
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/80/200px-Ukraine_Putin.jpg



Hey ORAC - big Comrade may be watching... http://milbut.org/smilies/eye.gif


You'd better Log Out smartish http://milbut.org/smilies/Bolt.gif

PS You ain't seen me, right! http://milbut.org/smilies/anon.gif

click
24th Nov 2006, 21:11
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d23/dragon138/180px-Paper_Stalin.png
Stalin's got a mustache and Putina is clean shaven right?

tony draper
24th Nov 2006, 21:42
Didn't Putin fly fast pointy things in his early career? :cool:

Loki
24th Nov 2006, 21:44
Ummmm,

Putin is Russian

Stalin was Georgian?

Or; Stalin was more popular during his lifetime.

G-CPTN
24th Nov 2006, 21:53
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/russia/story/analysis/putin2/

tony draper
24th Nov 2006, 22:09
Watched a few old Russian codgers on the telly expressing the desire for his return, "we knew were we was with Joe" they said,in Russian of course, "we int got a pot to piss in now" they added.
:rolleyes:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
24th Nov 2006, 22:43
"we knew were we was with Joe"Prison? Labour Camp? The Cemetary?

tony draper
24th Nov 2006, 22:53
Hard to believe but there are indeed those who look back with fondness at that era, just as in Germany there are..... errr berra not go there.
Twenty years from now one can see post here from prooners saying "What we need is another Tony Blair,we knew where we was with Tone"
:E

rab-k
24th Nov 2006, 23:02
Can just hear them...

"Good old Tone: New Labour, Cash for Honours, Iraq and sexed-up WMD, the Kelly affair, the Ecclestone affair, Bush's poodle, yeah, happy days..."

- http://milbut.org/smilies/36_1_18%5B1%5D.gif

tony draper
24th Nov 2006, 23:09
Aye, but we know not what is to follow,therin lies the rub.
:rolleyes:

HowlingWind
24th Nov 2006, 23:18
Aye, but we know not what is to follow,therin lies the rub.Which is why the description of the typical political "leader" anywhere these days seems to be "worse than the last one, better than the next..." :ugh:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
24th Nov 2006, 23:20
Well we already have posts saying "What we need is another Margaret Thatcher,we knew where we was with Maggie"

Mac the Knife
25th Nov 2006, 04:46
"What's the difference between Putin and Stalin."

Obviously none of you have read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" (or Yuli Daniel, or anything much).

Article 58 anyone?

partial list
58-1: "counterrevolutionary" defined
58-1a: traitors to the motherland (including defectors)
58-2: bourgeois nationalists and separatists
58-3: abettors of the enemy
58-4: agents of the international bourgeoisie (eg emigres)
58-5: inciting a foreign state to declare war on USSR
58-6: spies. Includes PSh (Suspicion of Espionage), NSh (Unproven Espionage), SVPSh (Contacts Leading to Suspicion of Espionage)
58-7: subversives
58-8: terrorists (may include TN, "Terrorist Intent," eg speaking rudely to an official)
58-9: saboteurs (wreckers)
58-10: anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda
58-11: hostile group (an aggravating factor)
58-12: non-informers
58-13: service to former (Tsarist) government
58-14: economic sabotage: any failure to perform a task.

Memories are short hey?

ORAC
25th Nov 2006, 06:04
Chechnya, and the bombs set off in Moscow as an excuse for the second invasion.
Ukraine - why not poison foreign politicians you don't like?
Georgia.
The unsubtle expropriation/renationalisation of foreign bought assets.
The closure/nationalisation of the press and TV.
The murder or arrest of anyone who opposes him.

Give him, time, he's only starting out.

I listened to this about Gazprom on the BBC World Service this morning. The most frightening thing is that these are economists, not political opponents. Definitely not a man, and increasingly a country, to do business with. See what you think. World Business Review. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/worldservice/meta/tx/worldbusinessreview?nbram=1&nbwm=1&size=au&lang=en-ws&bgc=003399)

Polikarpov
25th Nov 2006, 07:27
Not the most subtle or easy-to-aquire radioactive substance, was it. Using the sort of thing one can only really get hold of with access to a nuclear lab or state infrastructure sends a clear message contrary to public denials.

And to think back in 2000 I was musing on how quiet world affairs were likely to be in this decade compared to those that had gone before. Hasn't turned out that way, of course.

tony draper
25th Nov 2006, 08:30
Hmmm,intersting that Polonium was used at one time as a neutron source in earlynuclear weapons.
:uhoh:

tony draper
25th Nov 2006, 10:07
Anyway if one remembers one's Tom Clancy plots correctly exotic rare elements produced in a reactor such as polonium and its isotopes all have a unique signature of the reactor in which they were produced,so they should know from whence it came.
"Inspector,arrest everyone at Sellafield"
:rolleyes:

rab-k
25th Nov 2006, 11:27
"Inspector,arrest everyone at Sellafield"


Try Dounreay, they're a good deal less careful in that establishment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6151006.stm

G-CPTN
25th Nov 2006, 14:24
IIRC, Dounreay filled a 'hole' in a cliff with 'low-level' waste, but the hole leaked the contents onto the beach.


First find your radioactive particle . . .



The Dounreay Waste Shaft is 65 meters deep and 4.6 meters in diameter and is about 15 meters from the cliffs and shore. It was dug in 1956 during the construction of the nuclear plant to provide access to the liquid effluent pipeline which releases radioactive waste into the Pentland Firth. The Shaft was then sealed off from the tunnel and an extraordinary cocktail of low and intermediate level radioactive waste was tipped into it -although the report states there are "no detailed records" and "considerable uncertainties regarding the quantity distribution and form of the wastes in the shaft."
The wastes include plutonium, uranium, strontium, cobalt, niobium and cesium. The estimated quantity of uranium in the Shaft is the same as will be disposed in total in Dounreay's low-level waste pits - while the strontium-90 levels are estimated to be 60 times greater, cesium 35 times greater and plutonium up to 25 times greater.
Dumping wastes into the Shaft, which is continually flooded, was authorized by the Scottish Development Department on condition that the Shaft was constantly pumped out and the contaminated water goes into the effluent system and eventually into the sea via the discharge pipeline. Dounreay operators, AEA Technology, wants an alternative to pumping - about 12,000 cubic meters of contaminated water are discharged annually from the Shaft.
An explosion in 1977 destroyed the reinforced concrete cover over the Shaft. It was caused by waste contaminated by sodium-potassium (NaK) reacting with water. "NaK contaminated waste was also disposed of in the shaft, the waste being cleaned prior to disposal. The cleaning may not, however, always have been entirely effective and it is therefore not known whether any NaK remains in unreacted form."
* There were no proper records kept of the waste which includes plutonium, uranium and strontium contaminated equipment and tools, fuel element debris, drums containing strontium titanate, radioactive sources, ash and sludge and organic material.
* Apart from the drums there is no information on how much waste was packaged or in what form - although some was in fiber or cardboard drums which "offer little containment".
* The possible outward flow of contaminated water from the Shaft into groundwater and onto the foreshore at low tides and leaks of radioactivity which will only get worse as steel drums corrode and release more radioactive waste.
* Strontium-90 contamination on the foreshore and cliffs adjacent to the Shaft.
* The possibility of hydrogen explosions when sodium-potassium waste reacts with water or from gasses produced by organic matter or corrosion of metals.
* No solution which stops increased contamination over thousands of years of groundwater, foreshore, seabed and the Pentland Firth.
* Neither of the two options preferred by the consultants - 'plugging' the top of the Shaft or surrounding it with a special grout - can prevent contamination and the "long-term effects may cause large increases in risk".
* Removal of the waste from the Shaft would involve operations that are "without precedent, costly and potentially hazardous". This option was not examined in detail by the consultants who suggested further study to assess engineering feasibility, cost and safety.

ORAC
26th Nov 2006, 07:20
It says a lot that this the Leader not from the Sunday Times or the Telegraph - but the Oserver: The grim truth of Putin's Russia (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1957392,00.html)