| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
You believe Putin is out for all he can get. I think it quite likely. I don't think you have to worry about Brighton getting an amphibious invasion anytime soon. If the Russian flag is flying over Paris in a few years, I could be wrong. I was just joking about Alaska, until you posted that article. I had heard Russian officials threatening nuclear war, the bit with Russians using the White House program ( which is a joke by itself.... it's supposed to make this regime look hip and responsive, they pretty much ignore it unless it's something they can use to advance their cause ) just shows how utterly incompetent the Obama Regime is. I keep telling you. I can be convinced that the EU is mostly at fault. I am ready to believe Obama is a fool. I can't believe that Putin is completely innocent and has been forced by Obama to defend Russia. Why? Because of the lies and the propaganda... plus a Century of Bad Works. It may not be fair to tar Russia with the brush of the pure evil of the Soviets, just as it's not fair to Blame America for the Obama Regime, but when the Leader is not going to step down from power and he's KGB...... fair is hard. I'd Like Russia to become a great nation, but they have a real problem in that they have never had a tradition of self rule, the few years since the collapse of the Soviet Empire have been filled with turmoil, coups, murder and oppression. But they are certainly better off, and I wish them luck. Now, that Choudhury fellow.... that looks like a complicated thing. Is it ok to go to a foreign land and fight in another's war? Legally, no, apparently. T.E. Lawrence was under orders to do so, he doesn't count. Many Americans joined the RAF while the US was neutral, but that was quietly approved, some went to fight for Germany, and those that went before Dec. 1941 were not, IIRC prosecuted. But a Citizen of the US or England that went and joined the SS in 1942? Hard to imagine a combination of ideology or religion that could justify that while remaining a citizen of a Constitutional state. So a fellow from Portsmouth that joins a group at war with England, even though his immediate purpose was to fight the murderous Alawite Regime, is a problem. Is it ok for a nice Liverpool Boy to Join the SS in 1942 if he wants to fight the Communists? I too, supported taking out the Assad Regime. Back When the protests were being suppressed. I did complain that Obama wasted a chance to support freedom fighters, and am furious that he supported the goons that are now ISIS. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-polit ics/11065494/Vladimir-Putin-has-absorbed-the-Wests -consequences-and-stepped-up-his-aggression.html By ordering a de facto invasion of Ukraine a week before Nato leaders meet for their summit in Wales, Mr Putin was flaunting the fact that he well understood the limits of European and American efforts to dissuade him from action. As any strongman would, when sentenced to recession by Washington and Brussels, Mr Putin has taken the stinging slap without showing a trace of pain (even though his economy is hurting) and then hit back again, daring the West to go further. This was not a gamble on the Russian president's part. As one US official despaired privately: "If Putin is immune to economic pain and we are not willing to use military force, then he's got us in check mate, doesn't he?" Given events in Ukraine, the Baltic leaders could be forgiven for feeling more than a little nervous about the quality of Western assurances these days. Ukraine is not a member of Nato, so we don't - to quote Mr Obama last week - stand "shoulder to shoulder" with them in the same way that we stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia under Article 5 of the Nato treaty. European leaders talk tough - David Cameron threatens "consequences", Angela Merkel demands more sanctions, Francois Hollande says the Russian incursion is "intolerable" - and yet, as with the annexation of Crimea, that is exactly what we are being forced to tolerate. We have clearly - and correctly most people would agree - made the calculation that we are not prepared to go war over Ukraine. Nor (unlike Mr Putin) are we prepared to suffer the recession and energy crisis that would be precipitated by inflicting extreme, crippling sanctions on Russia. That is the cold reality and so far, many will argue, so good. If Mr Putin stops at Ukraine, it would have been reckless to face lay-offs and stock-market slumps in order to stand on a point of principle over a country that many instinctively consider part of the Russian sphere of influence anyway. But what if Mr Putin took further steps in his quest to restore his vision of Russian greatness? Would the electorates of Europe and America take a similarly supine and hard-nosed view about "humanitarian" incursions into say, Moldova or Armenia or Azerbaijan. What then? What indeed. The leaders of the Baltic States have good reason to be wary: their countries were annexed by Stalin in 1940, invaded by Hitler in 1941 and then invaded again by the Red Army at the close of the Second World War, and now have large populations of ethnic Russians descended from Soviet-era migrants. It is a question that, in his more insane moments, a scornful Vladimir Putin, no doubt asks himself: how much blood and treasure are the comfortable citizens of Europe's main powers really prepared to shed over Estonia, or Lithuania, or little Latvia? "A lot" - indeed, "everything"- will come the resounding cry from Nato leaders when they meet in Wales this week, offering by way of further concrete reassurance Mr Obama's warm words and some additional air and naval exercises around Poland and the Baltics. And yet, even as they make their promises, most of Europe's powers will be quibbling over their obligation to spend two per cent of GDP on maintaining defence. Britain, which does spend two per cent, remains without an operational aircraft carrier until 2020, and Germany (which spends just 1.3 per cent of GDP but is planning further cuts) maintains an air force at almost comical levels of disrepair, according to an investigation by Der Spiegel last week. As Mr Putin demonstrates almost daily, now, in his smash-and-grab raids on Ukraine, actions speak louder than words. Now Rocket might view this differently, after all, It's All America's Fault because of our Imperialist ways. But If Germany can't keep airplanes flying, and England doesn't have an aircraft carrier..... It's America's Fault. By propping up the Euro-Social-Democracies the US has major responsibility for Europe being militarily useless and the EU economy going to hell. If the US had not been the shield of Europe against the Soviets, they would never have been able to afford a useful defensive military, AND to pay for their ever expanding Social programs. Most Americans figure they'd all be part of the Soviet Union and been colonized by Russian speaking transplants. ( honestly, if you lived in Vladivostok and had a chance to live in Tuscany? ) Without the threat of Soviet Conquest? Given the history of Europe, they would by now have used those armed forces to conquer one another..... So maybe we should be happy we kept them, mostly, from killing themselves for this long... I mean they keep going to war with each other, but with the wimpy armies they can afford after free day care and Prostitute inspections they haven't been able to replicate WW1 or 2 yet. Unfortunately, because we finally got the Regime that Europe has wanted us to have all along, the party is over. Yep, Finally we got a Euro-Socialist leader. They all thought it was awesome, at last...someone like us! Except he has Daddy issues and is clinically insane, and actually hates Europe.... which is only going to accelerate the process of the next dark age. Sorry. All our fault. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/8_28_2014_1 4_15.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/hamass_acad emic_apologists_.html Rocket's an academic, apparently. ( no insult intended... ) | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Change the record mate. The Telegraph is the voice of the Tory party. It tows the Tory party line. It's owned by wealthy titled Tories. Just like you don't believe anything from an RT News source, the Telegraph is as close to British propaganda as one can get. I wouldn't allow you to wipe your arse with that daily rag. Private Eye refer to it as The Daily Torygraph. Nuff said. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Rocket's an academic, apparently. ( no insult intended... ) And your author of those links is a prominent Jewish activist and supporter of Israel, though she plays the Jewish bit down somewhat. You know, for the 'I'm not biased' sentiment. Perhaps she's a pagan too. Are you two related perchance? Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Let's level the scores a bit too...... http://rt.com/news/183864-ukraine-european-volunte ers-fighting/ Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
Of course, you've already made it clear that you yourself don't believe the crap you post, so no need for the rest to read any of it. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
You know what Sif, you really are a better man than me. Everytime I post something, you always come back with something more credible and decent. You're a champion amongst men. You do right to belittle me. Show me for the pillock, the fool, the idiot I am. I thank you for your superior knowledge. But most of all I thank you for your great understanding and leniency to not just me, but to all mankind. You're a giant amongst men.  Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
Thank you for that post @ 1:38 “United Continent.” Very interesting. Bonus points for historical references... besides Normandie-Niemen. I love the line After the UN Security Council on Thursday blocked Russia’s statement calling for a ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine under a completely frivolous pretext, Lovely. No explanation for the rationalization of the "block". Total dismissal of any opposing view... Not complaining, admiring. Russian propaganda is that "the common man" supports the Revolution in Ukraine, and that capitalist mercenaries are in play, Which I remind you has been the Russian line since the beginning, when they accused "Blackwater" mercs of being the people sniping at the crowds protesting the pro-Russian govt. in Kiev at the beginning of all this. I do appreciate when the talking points are consistent. Also that "pro-Kiev" forces are equipped with the latest US military gear. Which is probably true, since the M-16 has been the second most popular military give away for the last 40 odd years. ( surpassed by the Ubiquitous AK-47 ) Unless you're a gun geek, I really doubt if you can tell the difference between a 40 year old M-16a1 and a new M-4, and I have never seen any sign of weapon literacy among the news people of the US. But... it's entirely likely that a few truck loads of M-16's have found their way into Ukraine, especially since Obama's pattern of international aid ( and domestic revolution ) includes gun running to the wrong side in any conflict. Really that's the best "proof" yet that's it's all Obama's fault. Arrogance and incompetence.. almost a trademark. The EU propaganda is that Russia has sent troops into Ukraine, twice ( once confirmed by Vladimir in public ) unmarked, in violation of international law, and that Russia is an aggressor in all this. How European of them. I await the next wave of US sanctions with queasy bitterness at the incompetence of our Glorious Leader. | ||
| Aesquire |
And your author of those links is a prominent Jewish activist and supporter of Israel, though she plays the Jewish bit down somewhat. You know, for the 'I'm not biased' sentiment. Perhaps she's a pagan too. Are you two related perchance? Let's see.. "Micheal Curtis" http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/michae l_curtis_appointed_to_legion_of_honor_by_the_presi dent_of_france.html All of us at American Thinker heartily congratulate our colleague Michael Curtis on his appointment by the President of France to the Legion of Honor (Légion d’honneur), the highest decoration in France, as Chevalier (knight). In addition to being the author of almost daily contributions to our site, Michael is one of the world’s preeminent historians of political thought in France since the 19th century. While the Legion of Honor is supposed to be limited to French citizenry, non-French figures that have made significant contributions to French culture are also considered. Hmm, I didn't think you had gender issues, so must be the wrong author. ( unlike FF who had some real problems with the whole gender thing ) http://www.meforum.org/staff/Cinnamon+Stillwell Well, I have no idea about her Religion, but she certainly has a history of work complaining about the Useful Idiots that support Hamas. I suppose being against genocidal users of children as human shields and mass murderers of political opponents could be viewed as Pro-Israel. ( actually, sarcasm aside, she does appear to be prejudiced for the only nation in the region that treats women as equals.... ) I really doubt she's a relative, but I don't know her maiden name, ( if she's married ) her blog does not say. Looks like a smart lady. Love to chat with her over dinner. http://cinnamonstillwell.blogspot.com/ Thank you for prompting me to check my sources. Look like good ones. | ||
| Aesquire |
BTW Rocket, IF you told me you were Roman Catholic, ( or a Scientologist, it's just an example.... I am NOT accusing you of anything ) why should I not believe you? Is there a reason you would lie about your faith? Is there a reason I should? I can understand Barack Hussein Obama lying about his, ( although I do believe him about his conversion to the Church of Liberation Theology, and have seen no reason to doubt him ) since he is legally apostate. ( By Sharia Law ) Since I do not obey or respect Sharia, I don't care that he is apostate, or lying. ( which is permitted by the Prophet ) (Message edited by aesquire on August 31, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, I will wager I respect you even more than Rocket does.  Don't get a swelled head about it, I won't heap such well deserved praise upon you. | ||
| Sifo |
No much swells anymore except for my knees.  I just wonder what Rocket expects us to think about what he posts when he so often points out that he doesn't believe it anyway. What's the point? | ||
| Aesquire |
I did start this thread seeking information about what appeared to be a conflict between the West and the new Russia. After the Curtain & Wall fell Russia has been through hell dealing with organized crime and a failed economy.....a fail guarantee economic system really. I wish them luck and know several Russian expats that are nervous about our path. Putin is a bit of a mystery to me. He seems like he is a ruthless dictator pretending to defend the new Republic...... but he might look the same from a distance if he really is a good guy trying to save his land from the other ruthless ex-KGB and mobsters. It's a little like Obama could be.....a tool of rich evil.....an idealist....or a cynical fraud using the idealism of others to rip us off. How can you tell? In Obama's case I very much dislike his idealist vision....because I observe it as a lie and fraud... and I'm not alone. I will point out that a president could have ideals far closer to my own......but could also be a cynical fraud......idealist......or tool. So I go by results. | ||
| Aesquire |
Rocket thanks for the word on the Telegraph. I want to know the bias in the news it helps make sense of it. This is going to sound utterly ignorant.....but I have to ask. What IS a Tory? Americans. ..or at least me..... have no idea what that means. Left libertarian? Monarchist conservatives? What does it mean and why should I not like them? Edit.... the funnier and more profane the analysis of British political parties the better. I sure don't respect ours. (Message edited by aesquire on August 31, 2014) | ||
| Kenm123t |
AES we used to shoot them lol Now they are Rockets problem! | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Russian propaganda is that "the common man" supports the Revolution in Ukraine, You have it arse about face. Again you say it in a way which suits your belief but not the actual facts. By large majority Russian people inhabit (or did until they got bombed to shit recently) east Ukraine. These Russian born or Russian descendancy people for the majority were not in favour of Ukraine aligning itself with Euro policy, the EMF, the open door to NATO, and what is now a U.S. backed and supported government. They see themselves as more Russian if they cannot be Ukrainians. It's not difficult to understand. Where is the propaganda from Russia when it is showing remarkable restraint with their long time adversary moving in next door? Perhaps you should ask yourself what it is you think would be better for these now disposed Russian Ukrainians, and what you imagine they would have wanted from a Westernised society under the wing of the U.S. and EU? More so when clearly they wanted sweet F.A and prepared to lay their life down for exactly that. No interference from the West. and that capitalist mercenaries are in play, Which I remind you has been the Russian line since the beginning, when they accused "Blackwater" mercs of being the people sniping at the crowds protesting the pro-Russian govt. in Kiev at the beginning of all this. 'Accused' would be the opinion of a biased and intentionally blinkered person. Given Blackwater or their supreme chief in command is never going to admit Blackwaters presence and doings, it's a nice way to say "Russia accused". The facts however were not coming from Russia. They were coming from people there. Russia might choose to believe Blackwater were present, and I'm sure they'd be better placed to know than you. You on the other hand can believe what you like, but you can't sell your version here or anywhere else as you have no idea whether Blackwater were there or not. The pattern does suit your usual rantings. Your consistency a total waste of time. Also that "pro-Kiev" forces are equipped with the latest US military gear. Which is probably true, since the M-16 has been the second most popular military give away for the last 40 odd years. ( surpassed by the Ubiquitous AK-47 ) But of course, you could not know if it's anything more than a guessable M-16. My guess would be it's a hell of a lot more. I mean, if Kiev backed forces are engaged in attacking anyone for this length of time, I'd imagine their stocks would be low of Russian equipment, so who is replenishing their bombs and bullets? Certainly not Russia eh..... Just a little levity  Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
Ukraine certainly has enough 7.62 x 39 ammo to take France so any US weapons are surely a symbolic bribe. "Accuse" is accurate. Neither of us know if it's true. "Frivolous" may be too. Neither...... Tory? | ||
| Britchri10 |
Tory: conservative. Right leaning politically. (Can be moderate to extreme.).Usually pro-business, pro-life, pro-monarchy.Anti union. Free market/ trickle down economic model of government. Pro-low taxation. Similar to the US Republican Party.(though they are not Republican in the British sense) Chris C | ||
| Aesquire |
I state that the accusations of mercenaries is consistent. That is correct, is it not? That would tend to support Russia's allegations. The Kiev rulers, installed in a weird coup, have been consistent that Russian arms are being run across the border. Not a lot in the way of verifiable evidence, though. Given Blackwater or their supreme chief in command is never going to admit Blackwaters presence and doings, it's a nice way to say "Russia accused". Substitute Putin for Blackwater and the above statement is still true. OF COURSE mercs are not going to "admit" to illegal murders to start a coup. OF COURSE Vladimir isn't going to admit to illegal actions to conquer Ukraine.... except the parts he has admitted, about sending unmarked troops. Russia accuses....... Kiev accuses.....Merkel accuses.... all fair statement in the absence of objective proof. The facts however were not coming from Russia. They were coming from people there. Reported by? Russia might choose to believe Blackwater were present, and I'm sure they'd be better placed to know than you certainly. If Russia was responsible for the snipers in Kiev then they would know for sure it was not Blackwater. I DO NOT accuse Russia of sending those snipers to Kiev, AFAIK the snipers were alleged to have been Ukraine forces run by the former leaders. Russia would know if that is true too. Russia would also know more if it WAS Blackwater, and may have chosen to use the old name of the company for innocent P.R. reasons, since no one can be expected to know the new name, but "Blackwater" has had lot's of press. Or they just made it up. Can't tell, may never know. Again you say it in a way which suits your belief but not the actual facts. No, I have stated my beliefs clearly. I'm skeptical. I have zero reason to believe the Kiev guys, or the Moscow guys. I have negative reason to believe the D.C. guys. I will point out when traditional propaganda forms are used. While I generally mock the "social sciences" as being very unscientific, there are some decent rule of thumb theories used with success in advertising. If you want to get the Russians on your side, as Vladimir certainly does, ( why wouldn't he? ) you would use the button pushing words like Nazi, Oligarch, Fascist, and others, because these are words with meaning and history there. Not the right words to use to influence Americans, and probably not as effective on Brits, but perfect for Russians. It becomes obvious propaganda if you know to look for the words with the high emotional loading index, ( or whatever the TLA the propaganda scholars use ) and I bet you can point out the "magic words" in that "Telegraph" article. It is after all a Brit rag and would use Brit buzz words. Also it's important to know that all propaganda is not a lie. Millions of dollars are spent to tell people that Coca Cola is great stuff... with adorable polar bears, and catchy jingles. It is great stuff, they don't lie. Millions are spent tell you that Budweiser is great stuff with adorable dogs and horses and catchy jingles....... 'nuff said? | ||
| Aesquire |
Britchri10, thanks... There has to be a humor guide to Brit politics, but I haven't looked. "right leaning" can mean very different things depending on country. "left leaning" generally seems to be pro-socialist to varying degrees, from Social Democrats to Communist Gaia... Either "direction" depending on country could be at the fringes radical nutjob...say, believing in forced vegetarianism. | ||
| Britchri10 |
The Conservative Party is currently in power within an alliance with the Liberal Democrats in the UK. Like most political parties it has several factions. I stated that the party is right leaning because of the different POVs of the factions.For example: some are pro-NHS, some are less pro & some would like to see it abolished. Basically, Tory is synonymous with Conservative in UK politics. Chris C | ||
| Aesquire |
Thanks. that makes the "Telegraph" and my desired reaction to it's reporting understandable. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/08/31/my-isis- strategy/?singlepage=true And a bit more local to some.... http://www.steynonline.com/6543/the-reformation-of -manners In an ill advised choice of words, the Prime Minister David Cameron said, "We need to tackle the ideology of Islamist extremism head on" - because trying to do it with your head off doesn't seem to be working out for those poor fellows in Mosul. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.steynonline.com/6532/american-decapitat ed-by-englishman | ||
| Britchri10 |
If you read the Telegraph (Torygraph) also read the Guardian (Opposite political perspective to the Telegraph). The National newspapers in the UK are extreme in the political bias of their reporting. If you live there long enough the bias becomes apparent. If you simply look to them for unbiased reporting you will be SOL. Just don't read the Sun, Mirror or any other tabloid. They are the sum of the lowest common denominator that best expresses their political bias. Chris C | ||
| Elsinore74 |
I could never manage to get past page three of the tabloids.  | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I'm having difficulty getting past 71 pages. There's only so much anyone could take of Paddy's boring and nauseating rhetoric. Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
They have more than 3 pages? Speaking of tabloids, this is from AP so...... be cynical. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/families-russian-tr oops-ukraine-want-answers%20/ http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/putin_goes_ postal.html Indeed, in a recent interview (Russian-language link) Vladmir Lukin, a foreign policy pundit close to Putin, stated: "Putin should not pay too much attention to Obama. He can't attack him too much, lest the Republicans win the next election. He needs Hillary in the Oval Office.” | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I believe this was inevitable. Something I gave mention to from the start. http://rt.com/news/184376-russia-military-doctrine -nato/ Who could blame Putin or Russia for wanting to protect its borders. It's not much different to the Bay of Pigs. Speaking of which, I see Castro has condemned. amongst other criticisms, the U.S. for creating ISIS. http://rt.com/news/184340-castro-compares-nato-naz i/ Rocket in England |
