Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
namenick wrote:
Yes, I'm very familiar with that argument because variations of it are always used by the US to justify their wars.
No doubt that the US is self-interested as are the EU, China, Georgia and all other players in international politics. What each of them says to the masses is crock and should be discounted on the spot (unless one has patience to read between the lines). Russian propaganda is as devious and dishonest as American propaganda.
Quote:
And of course we're expected to believe that all these efforts are for the long suffering people aren't we.
Not at all. As I mentioned, the EU and US are acting in self-interest, as do China, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and everyone else. It is your fault if you believe anything you are told by the American media, Russian media, Chinese media etc.
Quote:
Funny thing is, according to Chalmers Johnson, which I haven't checked out thoroughly but suspect is dead on, the US has not once succeeded in it's over 30 recent wars to bring democracy to any of the countries invaded. Exactly the opposite is true where the US has succeeded in overthrowing several democracies and replacing them with dictatorships.
Johnson is certainly correct. The US is not concerned with democracy abroad, but with power politics. As are all other states, including Russia.
Quote:
So you see, if the motives were honest which of course they're not then you would have a strong case. Or if the US had succeeded in bettering the lot of the people you would have an even better case. Unfortunately the goal is clear and that is to infringe on certain countries which just happen to surround the Russians and the strageic gains for the US are easy to discern.
The motives of the US are self-interested. But you discount the fact that the Russian near abroad hates Russia for reasons which any cursory investigation of history will make all too clear. States like Georgia do not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence, and they never wanted to. They were forced inside that system by Russia. So they take advantage of the fact that the US and EU have a selfish interest to chip them away (for their own reasons) in order to safeguard their independence from Russia, which has been their tormentor for the past 80 years.
Quote:
Does anyone have to wonder at what the US would do if the Russians went to Puerto Rico with aid for the suffereing poor?
They would react very brutally as they always do.
Quote:
But please don't try to bullshit the rest of the world because we are starting to wise up now.
I am not bullshitting anyone. I view the Bush administration as one the worst in US history, and I view Russia as a deeply corrupt and criminal state (pretty much since the time of Peter "the Great").
I have no sympathy for warmongers of any stripe, Russians included.
Your disgust with neocon policies and propaganda is justified, but it does not justify Russia's attempt to control the destinies of its former dependencies (which is quite similar with the behavior of the US in Latin America).
Russia cannot and will never be the savior of the world from US aggression. Take a look at their sordid history to understand why.
Btu _________________ only the paranoid survive
Last edited by btu2012 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
btu2012 wrote:
Quote:
The motives of the US are self-interested. But you discount the fact that the Russian near abroad hates Russia for reasons which any cursory investigation of history will make all too clear. States like Georgia do not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence, and they never wanted to. They were forced inside that system by Russia. So they take advantage of the fact that the US and EU gave an interest to chip them away (for their own reasons) in order to safeguard their independence from Russia, which has been their tormentor for the past 80 years.
So we agree somewhat, but I still suspect your motives because I believe you are missing the critical points. The people of Georgia may or may not want to come into the Nato sphere of influence but coercion from the US will probably do the job. The orange revolution may or may not have been successful but what's important is that withoug US interference it wouldn't have succeeded in the least. The point for you to consider more carefully is what is going to be the end result of US interference. You appear to understand that too but you seem to want to put it on the backburner as not as important. That's wrong, just as surely as the invasion of Iraq was wrong and if you look at US meddling in that context then you can't help but be convinced. I hope we can agree with that so far.
I just refuse to consider anything other than what's the main issue because I know that to go with your thinking is to put a stamp of approval on the US meddling in other countries for no other interest other than their own. I think the Kosovo war is a good example of that because the real issue is clearer to see there. The ethnic Albanian faction which was and still is interested in a greater Albania was encouraged and aided by the US. In fact if you have made yourself aware of what happened in that war you would know that the hundreds of thousands the Serbs put in mass graves turned out to be something like about 500, of which many were Serbs, Romas, and other ethnicities.
Therefore we need to look at the important issues. The issue is that the US drops thousands of tons of bombs on the people. Nothing can justify that or explain it away in a fashion which attempts to portray it as an issue of the people wanting to escape the Russian sphere of influence. Therefore, with due respect to your suggestions which appear to be concerned with the humanitarian issues, my opinion is that you are being taken in to accepting the US pap.
As to your comment of Georgians not wanting to be in the Russian sphere of influence: More correctly they didn't want to be in the Soviet sphere of influence and that is no longer the issue.
You have the correct understanding of the situation IMO. Now you need to get behind if solidly because that is the only thing which will do any good. The issue is not Russian politics and it's not China's politics which is causing the suffering and harm in our world. It is American empire building.
Which brings it full circle in essence. The US needs to stop rescuing the people in the countries which made up a part of the former Soviet Union and surround Russia now. Both of us understand completely their motives in doing so and the number of people who will die because of their (the US) efforts is never going to be worth it. Iraq should have taught us that lesson.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
I had read somewhere that when Russia first became a democratic nation and had some of its territories split apart from the USSR, America (NATO) financed those countries surrounding it so that they could be financially sustainable. The reason being that they knew that Russia would quickly regain it's strength and didn't want Russia re-absorbing those countries. It wanted Russia kept smaller, and therefor weaker.
Russia has good reason to be pissed at the west. _________________ We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. Your culture will adapt to service ours. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
sciencegirl wrote:
I had read somewhere that when Russia first became a democratic nation and had some of its territories split apart from the USSR, America (NATO) financed those countries surrounding it so that they could be financially sustainable. The reason being that they knew that Russia would quickly regain it's strength and didn't want Russia re-absorbing those countries. It wanted Russia kept smaller, and therefor weaker.
Russia has good reason to be pissed at the west.
That's an interesting way of stating it. To begin with the US has made it amply clear that it has no intention of ever being challenged again by another nation. Or more correctly, the neocon agenda has made it clear and the people have been coerced into accepting that on the premise of fighting them over there, blah, blah.
Does Russia have any intention of reuildiing it's union of Soviet states? Not really because Russia is more interested in democracy I would think. But certainly any states which could add to the wealth and prosperity of Russia would most likely be coerced by Russia's own means into joining with them in economic pacts and cooperation.
So I'll throw this at you and others for your consideration: Will the countries which surround Russia now choose to become a part of the Russian sphere of influence or the US sphere of influence. The futre economic interests of those countries would dictate that wouldn't it. If the US is now a struggling country, a have-not country when it comes to adequate oil, and a country which consumes over 20 million barrels of oil each day, how many countries would choose to align themselves with the future lot of the US? I'm not forming a conclusion yet but I have a hunch.
On the other hand, how many countries would choose to align themselves with a nation which could be easily and quickly destroyed by the US war machine.
If the people of those countries in question are given a choice, we shall see in the near future which choice they make. Considering that both the US and Russia are strong and nuclear armed, my hunch is that it will be done relatively peacefully at least. I doubt that we will see another Kosovo fiasco.
p.s. You bet your sweet ass the Russians are pissed at the US. They know exactly what the US intention is. Is anyone dumb enough to think they don't?
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
namenick wrote:
So we agree somewhat, but I still suspect your motives because I believe you are missing the critical points.
It's always nice to know that someone suspects my motives
Quote:
The people of Georgia may or may not want to come into the Nato sphere of influence but coercion from the US will probably do the job. The orange revolution may or may not have been successful but what's important is that without US interference it wouldn't have succeeded in the least. [...]
The people of Georgia don't care about NATO but about getting rid of Russian influence in their country, which has been disastrous for the past 160 years. I recommend that you read a brief history of the modern Caucasus.
The "velvet revolutions" of Eastern Europe in 1989 would also not have succeeded were it not for the secret arrangements in Reykjavik and the involvement of various secret services. This does not mean that the populations of those countries didn't genuinely wish to be rid of communism and Russian influence.
The US and EU are simply providing the anti-soviet segments of those countries with the means to implement their program, which is essentially one of independence from Russia. This is not because the EU and US care about those countries' population but because they have their own interests. However the population of those countries is more than happy to avail itself of this opportunity to leave the Russian sphere of influence.
The end result of this, if it succeeds, is that the Russian near abroad will be dismantled as a pro-Russian block and the resulting countries will orbit toward different centers of power, more in tune with the wills of their populations. This is what happened in Eastern Europe as well. Russia will be angry about this, but they have no moral basis for their claims to control the destinies of those countries.
I agree with you on the invasion of Iraq, but the "color revolutions" are very different. They do have majority support from the population, and most of the opposition to them comes from Russians living in those former republics and from their (mostly corrupt) local henchmen.
Quote:
I just refuse to consider anything other than what's the main issue because I know that to go with your thinking is to put a stamp of approval on the US meddling in other countries for no other interest other than their own. I think the Kosovo war is a good example of that because the real issue is clearer to see there. [...]
The Kosovo war is also very different from the color revolutions. In that case, the US and EU picked a scapegoat (namely Serbia) out of pure expediency. All participants in that conflict (including Slovenia, who essentially started it) were equally guilty.
For your information, I happen to be quite well aware of what happened in that region
Quote:
Therefore we need to look at the important issues. The issue is that the US drops thousands of tons of bombs on the people. Nothing can justify that or explain it away in a fashion which attempts to portray it as an issue of the people wanting to escape the Russian sphere of influence. Therefore, with due respect to your suggestions which appear to be concerned with the humanitarian issues, my opinion is that you are being taken in to accepting the US pap.
I am not aware of the US dropping bombs on Ukraine or Georgia, but I am aware of the Russians doing so. What the US has been doing in Serbia and is currently doing in Iraq and Afghanistan are a different issue.
Russia is in no way better than the US, as evidenced by their history for the past 300 years, not to mention their behavior in the ongoing conflict in Chechnia.
I am not concerned with humanitarian issues, but with geopolitical reality (as opposed to propaganda of all stripes).
Russia is not the good guy. There are no good guys, period.
Quote:
As to your comment of Georgians not wanting to be in the Russian sphere of influence: More correctly they didn't want to be in the Soviet sphere of influence and that is no longer the issue.
It goes back much further than that (to the Russian expansion in the Caucasus, which started in the 18th century) and continues nowadays. The Soviet Union was just a phase in the history of the Russian empire, a multinational empire which still exists nowadays but in a modernized form (the CIS, the "near abroad", the "Russian federation", Northern Manchuria etc). It is very much still the issue if you care to ask the Georgians themselves.
Quote:
You have the correct understanding of the situation IMO. Now you need to get behind if solidly because that is the only thing which will do any good. The issue is not Russian politics and it's not China's politics which is causing the suffering and harm in our world. It is American empire building.
America is just one of the players and it is guilty as hell. Also guilty are Europe (since you mentioned Kosovo, and you could also think about European interference in Africa), Russia, China and many others. People focus on the US because it is the current hegemon, and because the behavior of the Bush administration has been more egregious since it went outside the traditional US doctrine of multilateralism. Do not view the world through ideological blinders.
Quote:
Which brings it full circle in essence. The US needs to stop rescuing the people in the countries which made up a part of the former Soviet Union and surround Russia now. Both of us understand completely their motives in doing so and the number of people who will die because of their (the US) efforts is never going to be worth it. Iraq should have taught us that lesson.
Actually most people who have been and are dying in that region do so because of Russian interference. You correctly argue that, from a moral standpoint, the US and EU should not interfere there. Given this standard, you should also argue, and much more forcefully, that Russia has no right to interfere there whatsoever.
Sadly for your argument, Russia has been interfering there in the most brutal and egregious manner for two centuries, and has an explicit policy of controlling and manipulating its near abroad, which it is implementing through direct military threats against Georgia (an independent state) as we speak.
I find it difficult to blame the Georgians for appealing to American interference in order to balance the direct Russian threats against their sovereignty -- which they are very used to from their historical experience with the Russian Empire.
Btu _________________ only the paranoid survive
Last edited by btu2012 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:23 pm; edited 4 times in total
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
sciencegirl wrote:
I had read somewhere that when Russia first became a democratic nation and had some of its territories split apart from the USSR, America (NATO) financed those countries surrounding it so that they could be financially sustainable. The reason being that they knew that Russia would quickly regain it's strength and didn't want Russia re-absorbing those countries. It wanted Russia kept smaller, and therefor weaker.
Russia has good reason to be pissed at the west.
Russia has no reason to be pissed at anyone except themselves, because the countries whose independence the West has tried and is trying to support were incorporated into the Russian empire (which later became the Soviet union and further expanded) through sheer force. They were also subjected to a policy of ethnic cleansing and denationalization. These are historical facts, available to anyone who is curious about the history of the region.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
namenick wrote:
That's an interesting way of stating it. To begin with the US has made it amply clear that it has no intention of ever being challenged again by another nation.
The neocons have made that hubristic statement, which is ridiculous to anyone with half a brain. Most US professional policymakers (found in the State Department etc) would never subscribe to such claptrap.
Quote:
Does Russia have any intention of reuildiing it's union of Soviet states? Not really because Russia is more interested in democracy I would think. But certainly any states which could add to the wealth and prosperity of Russia would most likely be coerced by Russia's own means into joining with them in economic pacts and cooperation.
Russia has every intention to continue to control the CIS states as well as its near abroad. It has made this clear in every manner imaginable, including through incessant bullying (financial, military, hydrocarbon politics etc). What they did to Yuschenko should be sobering.
Russian concern for democracy is virtually non-existent. This is the last thing of which one could accuse the current Russian government.
Quote:
So I'll throw this at you and others for your consideration: Will the countries which surround Russia now choose to become a part of the Russian sphere of influence or the US sphere of influence.
For the most part, these countries were not yet given such a free choice. Most of them are still controlled by Moscow's henchmen, who in large part are non-reformed or barely reformed soviet era politicos. Take a look at Belarus and any of the Stans.
The rest of your analysis is pure fantasy. You do not seem to understand the reality of the region. The freed-out component states of the "near abroad" would likely gravitate towards the EU or China, and some of them towards Iran. The US is not a likely geopolitical attractor for them.
Btu
PS: Of course everyone knows what the intentions of Russia, the US and EU are. Except for people who get their opinions from TV. _________________ only the paranoid survive
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
btu2012 wrote:
Quote:
The rest of your analysis is pure fantasy. You do not seem to understand the reality of the region. The freed-out component states of the "near abroad" would likely gravitate towards the EU or China, and some of them towards Iran. The US is not a likely geopolitical attractor for them.
Oh really, we're talking about those countries being coerced into the Nato fold or remaining loyal to Russia, but more correctly 'not' becoming a part of the Nato fold. I think your U.S. loyalties run a lot deeper than you're letting on as you seem to want to put a U.S. spin on it all. In any case Nato is completely controlled by the US and there are only two sides in the conflict which is coming. Them and us. The US being them, and the rest of the world being us. I'm being optimistic and hoping that Canada will be with us. I went to lengths to explain my position to you but you apparently want to continue to pretend that there is more than one threat to the world today. Your argument has lots of backing and you should do well with it if that's the choice you prefer to make. All the spin that I'm aware of is on your side. Time and more US wars will only prove you wrong, nothing else.
You wrote:
Quote:
PS: Of course everyone knows what the intentions of Russia, the US and EU are. Except for people who get their opinions from TV.
It's you who argues on the side of the spin pal, don't accuse me and others of forming opinions from what we see on t.v. Remember, I'm Canadian and what I see and hear on t.v. is more supportive of your POV than mine by a country mile. Perhaps you think I tune in to Pravda.
But really, you gave it all away when you said:
Quote:
The neocons have made that hubristic statement, which is ridiculous to anyone with half a brain. Most US professional policymakers (found in the State Department etc) would never subscribe to such claptrap.
You're in effect saying that America's leaders don't have half a brain and the people also because they followed the lead. A suitable way of isolating the American people from their government and country's foreign policies but not an effective way of absolving them from the responsibility and guilt. And you yourself if you are an American. You also fail to understand that not a one of America's prospects for president is going to change the situation one iota. Except maybe the sick Ron Paul joke of course. Sorry but the entire world now knows who is responsible so Americans should learn how to wear it and own it. Over a million dead Iraqis will not be brushed off quite so easily. For a better understanding of what it's all about listen to Osama.
But look, I have attempted to illustrate to you that the problem in the Stans and Georgia is being caused by overt and covert US actions in the attempt to alienate those states away from Russia but mostly toward the Nato fold. If you choose to ignore that due to some kind of misplaced loyalty then I have misjudged you and need to take an entirely different approach
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
It's so hard to debate the issues with anyone nowadays because there seems to be a majority of people who don't want to let us know whether or not they are Americans. The fact that the US is so important in the debating of any of the political issues we will talk about on this forum, and the odds are that most are Americans, causes one to have to make assumptions on to who we are talking. How indicative of the fact that Americans are beginning to accept the guilt for their actions and that they are the main reason why the world is falling behind in recognizing the coming of Peak oil and the coming climate change. We can only dream of the time in the future when they will fall into line and shout it from the hilltops.
I'm sure that the declared here on this forum will hope (and pray if they're so inclined) along with me that the others will not remain silently in their closets until it's too late.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1473 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
You're in effect saying that America's leaders don't have half a brain and the people also because they followed the lead.
Yeppers, that is exactly correct. The American working class has not been taught how to think. Logic and epistomology is not taught prior to college and most post-secondary schools attended by the masses are 'technical' schools, no education outside their employment training. Public schooling focuses on 'fitting in', obedience to authority, acceptance of 'expert opinion', ... kind of sounds like National Socialism, doesn't it. I am an American from the 'enlightened' generation, when you could still get an education, and universities required general distribution credits that covered liberal arts such as Philosophy, otherwise known as 'how to think'.
America is now the closest thing to Nazi Germany since the real thing. Actually they have benefited from lessons learned and technological advances. It's kind of like just before the anschluss of Austria.
If the rest of the world has not caught on yet, you are just like Prime Minister Chamberlain in 1938. With lessons learned from Hitler, the rest of the world doesn't stand a chance against these guys.
It's almost time for me to stop posting on blogs if I don't want to end up in a Haliburton Concentration Camp. I'm sure I am already on their list. The only reason I take the chance is I am old and have had a good life, and like Niemoeller said, "if we had just spoke up then" millions might have been saved.
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
Cid_Yama
Incredible honesty from an American! But I am a Canadian and I share your guilt. First for my country being a part of the coalition of the duped and blackmailed with the first war against Iraq and secondly for our participation in Afghanistan, the phoney war where we are saving the people supposedly. I worry too that my house may be taken out at any time. (snicker)
In a previous thread with a different writer (I can't remember who cause they're all the same) I was about to protest his idea of all countries sharing the guilt because they all had similar track records. (paraphrased) I was going to ask him if the US or Britain needed to share the guilt for WW2. The reason I would like to know is because he didn't seem t be accepting my idea of the US being the aggressor nation alone. I thought maybe that he would tell me that Nazi Germany (including the axis countries of course) was only partly to blame. Maybe he would tell me that we should have not condemned Nazi Germany for it's aggression leading up to WW2 and during that war because all nations are responsible and all act the same and all need to shoulder the blame, at least in his opinion.
Just rambling on a little because you sound like the kind of person who will understand.
BTW, have you read Chalmers Johnson's 'Nemesis' yet? If you haven't then I think you would like Chalmers Johnson. I don't know if you would like his book because the truths contained in it may cause you to get so angry that you can't finish reading it. Not because you would disagree with anything he says but because he's got it all nailed perfectly IMO. Caused me to spit a few times I got so angry.
Pleasure talking to you sir/ma'm. Actually I'm in my 60's so I guess I'm sort of beyond the point of caring a whole lot what others think of my ideas. I'm feeling pretty good with myself and that's what's most important to me.
And just thought I'd add to be a little on the light side with your comments. I also grew up learning to do more than just one thing. I'm amazed at the young people nowadays who are so limited in what they are capable of doing or learning. Sort of like the kid who works in McDonald's slinging hamburgers who needs to talk to the big boss if you ask the kid to leave off the pickle. Impossible and it can't be the right thing to do. Would president Bush leave off the pickle? What kind of a pinko commie would ask to leave off the pickle?
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1473 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
I am sorry. The Anschluss of Canada is next. Please remember there are Americans who ascribe to the libertarian ideals of the founding fathers, though they have been trampled upon since before I was born.(See the movie "Mr Smith goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart) All of us are not Nazis.(or Neocons whatever term you prefer) But we are powerless to stop what is about to occur.
The Nazis were not eradicated. They mearly moved operations to the United States after the war. Actually, the true seat of power for the Nazis WAS the Corporate and Banking interests in the United States.(Which explains their undying hatred for FDR.)
They even plotted to overthrow the US Government at the time and install a fascist one that supported Nazi Germany.
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
Wow, I thought they just made nuclear bombs to look at! You mean its a mexican standoff, as long as no one draws it looks o.k.
The war is coming, the karma is long overdue. The demoniac mentality that has raped mother Earth will so go up in a puff of dust. The people that are left over will have another chance to do things right.
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: Re: Russia Issues Nuclear Attack Threat
manu- I was sort of hoping for a revolution in the US but I guess that's just wishful thinking. Considering that the people don't even have an antiwar candidate to vote for except Ron Paul, and he doesn't stand a chance, I would think that there must be at least enough of them pissed off enough by now.
Canada's a little slower and it's just starting to get real ugly now with our US sympathizing conservative government. Why just in the last few days the gov had to pull back some information which escaped which said that the US and Israel torture people. How's that for sucking up to the US?
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
