[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Maggie - the war already is in Russia's back yard. Any escalation would mean WW3. It was Russians who were killed first, nobody can debate that fact away. It's up to the NATO not to let this escalate any further and to be honest: seeing Sakaaschwili on CNN yesterday in front of the Georgian and US flags, framed by high ranking US miltary speaking English and not his own language does not add much to ease any fear in Russia and beyond. After all, the record of the Bush administration is not that of a government that handles a crisis with diplomacy and caution.
I am under no illusion about the disrespect of individual human life in Russia (see Chernobyl, the Kursk) but Putin is not a frantic lunatic. This is not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or another non-nuclear country far away where you can contain the war and your economy makes a huge profit. If this war escalates Russia might end up being a nuclear desert and nobody can be so blind and want that for their own country. Last time they had a war it did not help the economy, did it? Gorbachev pulled the rip cord and withdrew from Afghanistan when people in Russia started to queue for food. It is also not necessary to frighten the own population because the overwhelming majority of Russian people is okay with their leadership.
About the unhappy transition: that is not a reason for war 20 years after the USSR dissolved. Let's not forget that Russia allowed their satellite states to become independent peacefully (Falklands anybody?). They did not argue against former Warsaw Pact states becoming NATO members, they did not object when Germmany re-united (last time they had a non-aggression pact with Germany they lost 10 million people). Russia did a lot for the peaceful transition and Europe ows them some credit. It's time to give them some breathing space - if South Ossetia is the border we should not push Russia across it would be suicidal to push all the same.[/QUOTE]
You bring up some good points, however we are not anywhere near WWIII. The Cold War is likely the closest we will get to that .
I never said Putin was a raving lunatic; you don't have to be. Those people aren't much of a threat anyway because they can't get anyone on their side (see: The President of Iran). But Putin is cunning and manipulative, and he knows what he wants.
You are right when you say that Russia let all of the sattlite states go independently. But not everyone was happy about that, you can't deny it. Popular opinion in Russia at the time was that it was the only option, since they had to survive themselves and the economy was in shambles. They didn't have the money to fight on anymore. But no one forgot the glory of the USSR days before things went downhill (remembering that people generally only remember the good about their countries, not the bad). There are still a lot of Russians who wouldn't mind going back to that now that they are in a position to, damn what NATO or the UN or anyone else says. They know the UN won't send troops; the UN didn't send troops into the US when we did the same thing with Iraq. They know that the US won't send troops because we can't; our military is over-stretched as it is.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Pravda.ru - by Gaither Stewart: http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/106173-0/
The old adage according to which time is the great equalizer holds sway in a special way in contemporary totalitarian America. Unlike the old-horse-beaten-until-it-drops-dead knows it is being beaten, our people are beaten in such a horrendously clinical manner that they do not even realize they are being beaten. Though aware of their mortality, gently beaten human beings however have come to resemble the whipped horse in that they do not seem to realize they are dying from the blows. The problem is there is little or no public opinion. And that collective memory is dead.
A second old horse adage that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink no longer applies to Americans. We drink and drink and drink without even looking up at our tormentors. Without an iota of curiosity even as to who they are and what they are doing to us.
Vladimir Putin must have been astounded at how Georgia and its American puppeteers fell head over heels into the Caucasian trap. Ingenuously, facilely, Saakashvili, America's puppet leader of Georgia, sent his US armed troops into South Ossetia shooting wildly at anything moving and challenging Moscow on its home territory. What could be crazier? On that first day European media showed the Georgian "invasion" of South Ossetia, just as the NEXT day it showed the crushing Russian response that reduced Georgia to the virtual reality of the US proxy state it has become.
For the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia went on the offensive. Its victory accomplished in a few hours rewrote the global balance of power. Yet, the American public knows little or nothing of these earth-shaking events. The NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, speak only of a Russian invasion of Georgia, a country of wine growers and tourism operators. Don't American people even wonder why this sudden outburst of military operations in peaceful Georgia which all of a sudden decided to challenge powerful Russia and invade territories inhabited by Russian citizens? Don't people wonder why and how come Russian tanks are in no hurry to leave "independent" Georgia?
The result of these events is that two decades after the fall of Soviet Russia, the heart of Europe?I refer to Germany, France and Italy?despite their warnings to Moscow to withdraw have never been closer to Russia. If the most pro-American European leader, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, must choose between Bush and Putin, he will unfailingly choose Putin. This European heart is not about to build the anti-Russian alliance Bush and Cheney dreamed of. Washington doesn't grasp the elementary fact that Russia is an integral part of Europe which today is overflowing with Russian tourists, replacing in many places such as Venice the missing Americans. Maybe this unpleasant combination of events is why the NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, didn't tell the people the reality of the two-day military action?the first day, the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia, and the second, the crushing Russian response. That was the war! Instead the US media described in Cold War terms the fiction of an unprovoked Russian imperialist invasion of peaceful Georgia.
Only America, its tiny allies of the Baltic region, Georgia, to a certain extent Ukraine and pliable right-wing Poland, believed Russia would do nothing. Poland and Czech Republic, and most probably the Baltic states too, today still intent on pushing Russian borders back to the gates of Moscow, will soon come to terms with their European history and their rightful place in it. They will soon realize that their future is Europe, not the America that considers them territory for military installations.
The break between the heart of Europe and these temporary American satellites splits NATO, the European Union and the West in general. But it draws the heart of Europe and Russia nearer. The "war" in Georgia makes this tendency explicit. As soon as Moscow's victory was evident, French President Sarkozy, current rotating President also of the Europe Union, flew to Moscow, then to Tbilisi, as Europe's representative. Not a peace mediator, his mission was in effect to ratify the Russian victory, to recognize its sphere of influence in the Caucasian region and to seal America's defeat. Georgia can now forget South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as its ambitions for NATO membership. Who wants America's satellite in NATO anyway?
This real Europe of Germany, France and Italy are not what imperialist neocon America dreamed of. Most certainly New World Order America didn't count on a resurrected Russia capable of the re-conquest of lost territories of the Russian Empire and of a new relationship with Europe. Moreover, not even in its worst nightmare did America dream of exchanging its alliance with real Europe for a string of powerless satellites on the Baltic, or happy-go-lucky romantic Georgians.
Official reactions from Brussels are NATO reactions, that is, US-dominated NATO. And even NATO words are unexpectedly mild?"firmness" and demands for Russians withdrawal. Russia answers facetiously that its peace-keeping mission in Georgia may last a few more days. Meanwhile in Rome, without haste Berlusconi plans a trip to Moscow too, in early September. Georgia is not to interfere with the vacation period.
Saakashvili is known to be more American than Americans, his nation armed and supported by the USA. But armed and supported for what? Only for its oil and gas pipelines, of dubious value and a dubious future? Not at all.
The sad truth for Georgia is that its leader over-estimated American support for his stupid attempt to re-take the disputed territory of South Ossetia peopled by Russian citizens. In a way, this was also a case of the tail wagging the dog, As if the USA, already bogged down by Iraqis and Afghans, would seriously go to war with Russia over Georgia! Something about this reminds me of the American-instigated Hungarian uprising of 1956, crushed then by Soviet tanks.
Russia today is confident. It is not afraid as it was of the multi-colored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and NATO's advance up to its borders. US humanitarian aid to Georgia or talk of Russia's exclusion from the G8 do not disturb Putin. He now knows he can count on the real Europe. Russia is not about to surrender to American demands and threats. NATO-USA accuses Russia of invading small countries, Russia charges NATO for supporting the criminal regime of Georgia. While NATO and Russia both claim that their relations will never be the same again, Russian tanks roam around the Caucasus region as they please. Europe has received Putin?s message to the world loud and clear. The Russians are truly back.
The question is, has the American public, busily drinking from the fount of NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox News, grasped the trap-like situation their arrogant, unrealistic, self-absorbed, narcissistic leaders have lead them into? For it is clear as day that a huge bill is falling due and the American people will ultimately have to pay it.
The old adage according to which time is the great equalizer holds sway in a special way in contemporary totalitarian America. Unlike the old-horse-beaten-until-it-drops-dead knows it is being beaten, our people are beaten in such a horrendously clinical manner that they do not even realize they are being beaten. Though aware of their mortality, gently beaten human beings however have come to resemble the whipped horse in that they do not seem to realize they are dying from the blows. The problem is there is little or no public opinion. And that collective memory is dead.
A second old horse adage that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink no longer applies to Americans. We drink and drink and drink without even looking up at our tormentors. Without an iota of curiosity even as to who they are and what they are doing to us.
Vladimir Putin must have been astounded at how Georgia and its American puppeteers fell head over heels into the Caucasian trap. Ingenuously, facilely, Saakashvili, America's puppet leader of Georgia, sent his US armed troops into South Ossetia shooting wildly at anything moving and challenging Moscow on its home territory. What could be crazier? On that first day European media showed the Georgian "invasion" of South Ossetia, just as the NEXT day it showed the crushing Russian response that reduced Georgia to the virtual reality of the US proxy state it has become.
For the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia went on the offensive. Its victory accomplished in a few hours rewrote the global balance of power. Yet, the American public knows little or nothing of these earth-shaking events. The NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, speak only of a Russian invasion of Georgia, a country of wine growers and tourism operators. Don't American people even wonder why this sudden outburst of military operations in peaceful Georgia which all of a sudden decided to challenge powerful Russia and invade territories inhabited by Russian citizens? Don't people wonder why and how come Russian tanks are in no hurry to leave "independent" Georgia?
The result of these events is that two decades after the fall of Soviet Russia, the heart of Europe?I refer to Germany, France and Italy?despite their warnings to Moscow to withdraw have never been closer to Russia. If the most pro-American European leader, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, must choose between Bush and Putin, he will unfailingly choose Putin. This European heart is not about to build the anti-Russian alliance Bush and Cheney dreamed of. Washington doesn't grasp the elementary fact that Russia is an integral part of Europe which today is overflowing with Russian tourists, replacing in many places such as Venice the missing Americans. Maybe this unpleasant combination of events is why the NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, didn't tell the people the reality of the two-day military action?the first day, the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia, and the second, the crushing Russian response. That was the war! Instead the US media described in Cold War terms the fiction of an unprovoked Russian imperialist invasion of peaceful Georgia.
Only America, its tiny allies of the Baltic region, Georgia, to a certain extent Ukraine and pliable right-wing Poland, believed Russia would do nothing. Poland and Czech Republic, and most probably the Baltic states too, today still intent on pushing Russian borders back to the gates of Moscow, will soon come to terms with their European history and their rightful place in it. They will soon realize that their future is Europe, not the America that considers them territory for military installations.
The break between the heart of Europe and these temporary American satellites splits NATO, the European Union and the West in general. But it draws the heart of Europe and Russia nearer. The "war" in Georgia makes this tendency explicit. As soon as Moscow's victory was evident, French President Sarkozy, current rotating President also of the Europe Union, flew to Moscow, then to Tbilisi, as Europe's representative. Not a peace mediator, his mission was in effect to ratify the Russian victory, to recognize its sphere of influence in the Caucasian region and to seal America's defeat. Georgia can now forget South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as its ambitions for NATO membership. Who wants America's satellite in NATO anyway?
This real Europe of Germany, France and Italy are not what imperialist neocon America dreamed of. Most certainly New World Order America didn't count on a resurrected Russia capable of the re-conquest of lost territories of the Russian Empire and of a new relationship with Europe. Moreover, not even in its worst nightmare did America dream of exchanging its alliance with real Europe for a string of powerless satellites on the Baltic, or happy-go-lucky romantic Georgians.
Official reactions from Brussels are NATO reactions, that is, US-dominated NATO. And even NATO words are unexpectedly mild?"firmness" and demands for Russians withdrawal. Russia answers facetiously that its peace-keeping mission in Georgia may last a few more days. Meanwhile in Rome, without haste Berlusconi plans a trip to Moscow too, in early September. Georgia is not to interfere with the vacation period.
Saakashvili is known to be more American than Americans, his nation armed and supported by the USA. But armed and supported for what? Only for its oil and gas pipelines, of dubious value and a dubious future? Not at all.
The sad truth for Georgia is that its leader over-estimated American support for his stupid attempt to re-take the disputed territory of South Ossetia peopled by Russian citizens. In a way, this was also a case of the tail wagging the dog, As if the USA, already bogged down by Iraqis and Afghans, would seriously go to war with Russia over Georgia! Something about this reminds me of the American-instigated Hungarian uprising of 1956, crushed then by Soviet tanks.
Russia today is confident. It is not afraid as it was of the multi-colored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and NATO's advance up to its borders. US humanitarian aid to Georgia or talk of Russia's exclusion from the G8 do not disturb Putin. He now knows he can count on the real Europe. Russia is not about to surrender to American demands and threats. NATO-USA accuses Russia of invading small countries, Russia charges NATO for supporting the criminal regime of Georgia. While NATO and Russia both claim that their relations will never be the same again, Russian tanks roam around the Caucasus region as they please. Europe has received Putin?s message to the world loud and clear. The Russians are truly back.
The question is, has the American public, busily drinking from the fount of NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox News, grasped the trap-like situation their arrogant, unrealistic, self-absorbed, narcissistic leaders have lead them into? For it is clear as day that a huge bill is falling due and the American people will ultimately have to pay it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I never said Putin was a raving lunatic; you don't have to be. Those people aren't much of a threat anyway because they can't get anyone on their side (see: The President of Iran). But Putin is cunning and manipulative, and he knows what he wants.
You are right when you say that Russia let all of the sattlite states go independently. But not everyone was happy about that, you can't deny it. Popular opinion in Russia at the time was that it was the only option, since they had to survive themselves and the economy was in shambles. They didn't have the money to fight on anymore. But no one forgot the glory of the USSR days before things went downhill (remembering that people generally only remember the good about their countries, not the bad). There are still a lot of Russians who wouldn't mind going back to that now that they are in a position to, damn what NATO or the UN or anyone else says. They know the UN won't send troops; the UN didn't send troops into the US when we did the same thing with Iraq. They know that the US won't send troops because we can't; our military is over-stretched as it is.
[/QUOTE]
It's interesting how different people evaluate the role of recent European history in this discussion. No matter how many people in the USSR felt about it: Gorbachev believed in peace, he reached out to the world, gave up a lot of dominance and power and what did Russia get in return? A gloating superpower USA who acts like they are the world police and decide to invade countries wherever they want. You say the USA won't send any troops because they can't - but in Europe we think the USA needs a UN mandate to send troops anywhere in the world - unless they are attcked, of course. Yes, Russia overreacted in Georgia but the West lost their moral authority to blame Russia for this overreaction killing hundreds of civilians in Iraq each day.
You call Ahmadinejad a lunatic - why is that? Because he wants to enrich Uranium to run Iranian nuclear powerplants? Iran never attacked their neighbours but the USA claims they need a missile shield in the middle of Europe to protect themselves against Iran - how lunatic is that? How many nations have to pay for the paranoia of the USA and how many countries have to live under the threat of a nuclear strike for that? Please look at a map of Iran, their neighbours are: Iraq - under American occupation, Turkey - NATO ally, Afghanistan - under US and NATO occupation, Saudi-Arabia - ally with US troops stationed in the country, Pakistan - ally of the USA, owns nuclear weapons. Please consider for a moment that you would have to live under such a massive threat, how many missile shields would the USA have to set up to meet such a threat and how many pre-emptive strikes would they have to launch to feel safe? The anti-missile installations in Poland and Czech Republic are a provocation for Russia, too.
Please understand that I do not mean this in any way personal, my own government froze in Iranian assets to put pressure on them to stop their nuclear programme and the EU and NATO allies follow the USA much too far in their strive for total world dominance. I know that you are no not happy with the policy of your country, either. It's not easy for you and me to look through all the propaganda we are fed each day.
I never said Putin was a raving lunatic; you don't have to be. Those people aren't much of a threat anyway because they can't get anyone on their side (see: The President of Iran). But Putin is cunning and manipulative, and he knows what he wants.
You are right when you say that Russia let all of the sattlite states go independently. But not everyone was happy about that, you can't deny it. Popular opinion in Russia at the time was that it was the only option, since they had to survive themselves and the economy was in shambles. They didn't have the money to fight on anymore. But no one forgot the glory of the USSR days before things went downhill (remembering that people generally only remember the good about their countries, not the bad). There are still a lot of Russians who wouldn't mind going back to that now that they are in a position to, damn what NATO or the UN or anyone else says. They know the UN won't send troops; the UN didn't send troops into the US when we did the same thing with Iraq. They know that the US won't send troops because we can't; our military is over-stretched as it is.
[/QUOTE]
It's interesting how different people evaluate the role of recent European history in this discussion. No matter how many people in the USSR felt about it: Gorbachev believed in peace, he reached out to the world, gave up a lot of dominance and power and what did Russia get in return? A gloating superpower USA who acts like they are the world police and decide to invade countries wherever they want. You say the USA won't send any troops because they can't - but in Europe we think the USA needs a UN mandate to send troops anywhere in the world - unless they are attcked, of course. Yes, Russia overreacted in Georgia but the West lost their moral authority to blame Russia for this overreaction killing hundreds of civilians in Iraq each day.
You call Ahmadinejad a lunatic - why is that? Because he wants to enrich Uranium to run Iranian nuclear powerplants? Iran never attacked their neighbours but the USA claims they need a missile shield in the middle of Europe to protect themselves against Iran - how lunatic is that? How many nations have to pay for the paranoia of the USA and how many countries have to live under the threat of a nuclear strike for that? Please look at a map of Iran, their neighbours are: Iraq - under American occupation, Turkey - NATO ally, Afghanistan - under US and NATO occupation, Saudi-Arabia - ally with US troops stationed in the country, Pakistan - ally of the USA, owns nuclear weapons. Please consider for a moment that you would have to live under such a massive threat, how many missile shields would the USA have to set up to meet such a threat and how many pre-emptive strikes would they have to launch to feel safe? The anti-missile installations in Poland and Czech Republic are a provocation for Russia, too.
Please understand that I do not mean this in any way personal, my own government froze in Iranian assets to put pressure on them to stop their nuclear programme and the EU and NATO allies follow the USA much too far in their strive for total world dominance. I know that you are no not happy with the policy of your country, either. It's not easy for you and me to look through all the propaganda we are fed each day.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I never said Putin was a raving lunatic; you don't have to be. Those people aren't much of a threat anyway because they can't get anyone on their side (see: The President of Iran). But Putin is cunning and manipulative, and he knows what he wants.
You are right when you say that Russia let all of the sattlite states go independently. But not everyone was happy about that, you can't deny it. Popular opinion in Russia at the time was that it was the only option, since they had to survive themselves and the economy was in shambles. They didn't have the money to fight on anymore. But no one forgot the glory of the USSR days before things went downhill (remembering that people generally only remember the good about their countries, not the bad). There are still a lot of Russians who wouldn't mind going back to that now that they are in a position to, damn what NATO or the UN or anyone else says. They know the UN won't send troops; the UN didn't send troops into the US when we did the same thing with Iraq. They know that the US won't send troops because we can't; our military is over-stretched as it is.
[/QUOTE]
It's interesting how different people evaluate the role of recent European history in this discussion. No matter how many people in the USSR felt about it: Gorbachev believed in peace, he reached out to the world, gave up a lot of dominance and power and what did Russia get in return?[/QUOTE]
He believed in peace, yes. However, it was never planned to give up power, just to allow people more of a say.
[QUOTE]You call Ahmadinejad a lunatic - why is that?[/QUOTE]
Gee, I don't know. Perhaps because he threatens to blow up Israel every other day? Or because he's launching more ICBMs per month than Texas executes people?
[QUOTE]Because he wants to enrich Uranium to run Iranian nuclear powerplants?[/QUOTE]
Possibly. I expected you would believe that he always states his true intentions. The guy is much too intelligent to play with an open hand.
[QUOTE] Iran never attacked their neighbours[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? Not *recently* perhaps, but they have a history of annexation.
[QUOTE] but the USA claims they need a missile shield in the middle of Europe to protect themselves against Iran - how lunatic is that? [/QUOTE]
Extremely, but that doesn't make Ahmadinejad a sane person.
[QUOTE]How many nations have to pay for the paranoia of the USA and how many countries have to live under the threat of a nuclear strike for that? [/QUOTE]
Plenty more.
[QUOTE] Please look at a map of Iran, their neighbours are: Iraq - under American occupation, Turkey - NATO ally, Afghanistan - under US and NATO occupation, Saudi-Arabia - ally with US troops stationed in the country, Pakistan - ally of the USA, owns nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE]
Just take a careful look at what you wrote. Now...Iraq - on its own from 2011 onwards; Turkey, intensely secular state with the army ready to take over the minute that changes; Afghanistan - beyond coalition control, so mostly in the hands of local resistance groups; Saudi-Arabia - the US's most unreliable ally, because they are quite capable of pulling their own weight. Need I remind you that *they* influence US middle eastern policy, not the other way around? Pakistan, one of the most unstable republics in the world with a government under attack from all sides and second only to Iraq and Afghanistan in insurgent-count. Plus, as you said, nukes, which might easily fall into hands even less reliable than the government's.
[QUOTE] Please consider for a moment that you would have to live under such a massive threat, how many missile shields would the USA have to set up to meet such a threat and how many pre-emptive strikes would they have to launch to feel safe? The anti-missile installations in Poland and Czech Republic are a provocation for Russia, too.[/QUOTE]
The US will never feel safe so long as there is a world out there. Sad but true. The missile shield is simply an attempt to press Russia into submission, which Russia won't do.
[QUOTE]Please understand that I do not mean this in any way personal, my own government froze in Iranian assets to put pressure on them to stop their nuclear programme and the EU and NATO allies follow the USA much too far in their strive for total world dominance. I know that you are no not happy with the policy of your country, either. It's not easy for you and me to look through all the propaganda we are fed each day. [/QUOTE]
True, and don't take this personally either, but you are acting as naive towards Iran as the Americans are ferocious towards them.
I never said Putin was a raving lunatic; you don't have to be. Those people aren't much of a threat anyway because they can't get anyone on their side (see: The President of Iran). But Putin is cunning and manipulative, and he knows what he wants.
You are right when you say that Russia let all of the sattlite states go independently. But not everyone was happy about that, you can't deny it. Popular opinion in Russia at the time was that it was the only option, since they had to survive themselves and the economy was in shambles. They didn't have the money to fight on anymore. But no one forgot the glory of the USSR days before things went downhill (remembering that people generally only remember the good about their countries, not the bad). There are still a lot of Russians who wouldn't mind going back to that now that they are in a position to, damn what NATO or the UN or anyone else says. They know the UN won't send troops; the UN didn't send troops into the US when we did the same thing with Iraq. They know that the US won't send troops because we can't; our military is over-stretched as it is.
[/QUOTE]
It's interesting how different people evaluate the role of recent European history in this discussion. No matter how many people in the USSR felt about it: Gorbachev believed in peace, he reached out to the world, gave up a lot of dominance and power and what did Russia get in return?[/QUOTE]
He believed in peace, yes. However, it was never planned to give up power, just to allow people more of a say.
[QUOTE]You call Ahmadinejad a lunatic - why is that?[/QUOTE]
Gee, I don't know. Perhaps because he threatens to blow up Israel every other day? Or because he's launching more ICBMs per month than Texas executes people?
[QUOTE]Because he wants to enrich Uranium to run Iranian nuclear powerplants?[/QUOTE]
Possibly. I expected you would believe that he always states his true intentions. The guy is much too intelligent to play with an open hand.
[QUOTE] Iran never attacked their neighbours[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? Not *recently* perhaps, but they have a history of annexation.
[QUOTE] but the USA claims they need a missile shield in the middle of Europe to protect themselves against Iran - how lunatic is that? [/QUOTE]
Extremely, but that doesn't make Ahmadinejad a sane person.
[QUOTE]How many nations have to pay for the paranoia of the USA and how many countries have to live under the threat of a nuclear strike for that? [/QUOTE]
Plenty more.
[QUOTE] Please look at a map of Iran, their neighbours are: Iraq - under American occupation, Turkey - NATO ally, Afghanistan - under US and NATO occupation, Saudi-Arabia - ally with US troops stationed in the country, Pakistan - ally of the USA, owns nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE]
Just take a careful look at what you wrote. Now...Iraq - on its own from 2011 onwards; Turkey, intensely secular state with the army ready to take over the minute that changes; Afghanistan - beyond coalition control, so mostly in the hands of local resistance groups; Saudi-Arabia - the US's most unreliable ally, because they are quite capable of pulling their own weight. Need I remind you that *they* influence US middle eastern policy, not the other way around? Pakistan, one of the most unstable republics in the world with a government under attack from all sides and second only to Iraq and Afghanistan in insurgent-count. Plus, as you said, nukes, which might easily fall into hands even less reliable than the government's.
[QUOTE] Please consider for a moment that you would have to live under such a massive threat, how many missile shields would the USA have to set up to meet such a threat and how many pre-emptive strikes would they have to launch to feel safe? The anti-missile installations in Poland and Czech Republic are a provocation for Russia, too.[/QUOTE]
The US will never feel safe so long as there is a world out there. Sad but true. The missile shield is simply an attempt to press Russia into submission, which Russia won't do.
[QUOTE]Please understand that I do not mean this in any way personal, my own government froze in Iranian assets to put pressure on them to stop their nuclear programme and the EU and NATO allies follow the USA much too far in their strive for total world dominance. I know that you are no not happy with the policy of your country, either. It's not easy for you and me to look through all the propaganda we are fed each day. [/QUOTE]
True, and don't take this personally either, but you are acting as naive towards Iran as the Americans are ferocious towards them.
I am not naive at all. Iran has the worst record in violating human rights. I have zero sympathy for that regime but that was not the issue. The issue is the crisis in Georgia and it's obvious that Iran is only a cheap excuse for the USA to implement the new anti-missile installations in the heart of Europe. Of course, Russia feels provoked and that added to the harsh reaction in Georgia.
In fact, Iran has never attacked their neighbours in recent history and all I said about their neighbours is true. Iran is in fact surrounded by US allies and troops and they should feel threatened - not the other way round. You must be able to put yourself into the shoes of other nations even if Iran looks like a stone age country to us. When Bush calls a country a "rogue country" it has every reason to feel threatened as we have seen in the past. The anti-Israel rhetoric is propaganda, they never attacked Israel while Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon all actually did attack Israel.
The fuzz about the enrichment of Uranium in Iran reminds me a lot of the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that gave the lame excuse to invade the country. They do have the right to build nuclear power plants and there would not be a discussion if they bought the enriched Uranium on the world market (for dicated prices, of course). The Western powers do not want to allow them to have the technology and I think that is totally out of line. You cannot forbid a country to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes and at the same time support a country like Pakistan that has nuclear bombs. There must be some sense of balance and fairness.
In fact, Iran has never attacked their neighbours in recent history and all I said about their neighbours is true. Iran is in fact surrounded by US allies and troops and they should feel threatened - not the other way round. You must be able to put yourself into the shoes of other nations even if Iran looks like a stone age country to us. When Bush calls a country a "rogue country" it has every reason to feel threatened as we have seen in the past. The anti-Israel rhetoric is propaganda, they never attacked Israel while Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon all actually did attack Israel.
The fuzz about the enrichment of Uranium in Iran reminds me a lot of the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that gave the lame excuse to invade the country. They do have the right to build nuclear power plants and there would not be a discussion if they bought the enriched Uranium on the world market (for dicated prices, of course). The Western powers do not want to allow them to have the technology and I think that is totally out of line. You cannot forbid a country to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes and at the same time support a country like Pakistan that has nuclear bombs. There must be some sense of balance and fairness.
@ Barb, I know it's nothing personal. :-)
Believe me, I know that we lost our moral authority to be able to say anything about the invasion of other countries LONG ago...which assumes we ever had the authority in the first place. I personally LOVE watching Condi Rice and the US ambassador to the UN doing the verbal dance of trying to express disgust with Russia in ways that they won't think will directly lead back to our unjustified invasion of Iraq. It's funny to watch the US ambassador to the UN squirm under the pressure, because he's smart enough to know that it's crap. Condi Rice, on the other hand, disturbs me because she isn't squirming when she says it. That's either a sign that she's a tremendous actress or that she has no moral qualms about it because she sees Iraq as a seperate thing. If that's the case...DANGER! And you are right about most Americans. It is true that 3/4 of us dislike Bush policy, but 3/4 of Americans also still believe that "We saved Europe's ass in World War II. If it wasn't for us the French would be speaking German! Since we had to come in and clean up your mess for you over there, that means WE are the authority and you should respect us as such." This goes from politicians to the average man on the street; several members of my family think like this. It disturbs me that they think this way (it comes mostly from the way WWII is taught in schools here in America) but if the majority feel this way, it shapes our foreign policy. You and I both know it's total crap. But you can't change the opinion of all of society overnight.
I call the President of Iran a raving lunatic because I feel that he is one. It goes far beyond his statements of "There are no gays in Iran, we do not have this in our country" at the University of Columbia last year and then he couldn't understand why we were laughing at him. That is just being sadly naive. I call him a lunatic because most of his own country thinks he is. It's common knowledge that the Shahs run Iran, and that the President is just a figure head puppet for them. But it's gotten to the point where he's been so outspoken about the West in general (and the US in particular) that the Shahs have clamped down on him, telling him he can't say certain things and what not. If it's gotten to the point where the people pulling the strings are clamping down on what their puppet says, there is a problem. The policy of the Shah's towards the West has always been extremely hostile. But if they are pulling back on his rhetoric because they are scared of what he will bring on the country...that means he's in it deeper than they are. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or enriching uranium.
Believe me, I know that we lost our moral authority to be able to say anything about the invasion of other countries LONG ago...which assumes we ever had the authority in the first place. I personally LOVE watching Condi Rice and the US ambassador to the UN doing the verbal dance of trying to express disgust with Russia in ways that they won't think will directly lead back to our unjustified invasion of Iraq. It's funny to watch the US ambassador to the UN squirm under the pressure, because he's smart enough to know that it's crap. Condi Rice, on the other hand, disturbs me because she isn't squirming when she says it. That's either a sign that she's a tremendous actress or that she has no moral qualms about it because she sees Iraq as a seperate thing. If that's the case...DANGER! And you are right about most Americans. It is true that 3/4 of us dislike Bush policy, but 3/4 of Americans also still believe that "We saved Europe's ass in World War II. If it wasn't for us the French would be speaking German! Since we had to come in and clean up your mess for you over there, that means WE are the authority and you should respect us as such." This goes from politicians to the average man on the street; several members of my family think like this. It disturbs me that they think this way (it comes mostly from the way WWII is taught in schools here in America) but if the majority feel this way, it shapes our foreign policy. You and I both know it's total crap. But you can't change the opinion of all of society overnight.
I call the President of Iran a raving lunatic because I feel that he is one. It goes far beyond his statements of "There are no gays in Iran, we do not have this in our country" at the University of Columbia last year and then he couldn't understand why we were laughing at him. That is just being sadly naive. I call him a lunatic because most of his own country thinks he is. It's common knowledge that the Shahs run Iran, and that the President is just a figure head puppet for them. But it's gotten to the point where he's been so outspoken about the West in general (and the US in particular) that the Shahs have clamped down on him, telling him he can't say certain things and what not. If it's gotten to the point where the people pulling the strings are clamping down on what their puppet says, there is a problem. The policy of the Shah's towards the West has always been extremely hostile. But if they are pulling back on his rhetoric because they are scared of what he will bring on the country...that means he's in it deeper than they are. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or enriching uranium.
Okay, I really do not know anything about the relationship between the mullahs and Ahmadinejad. I don't give much for the opinion of the Islamic leadership of Iran, though. Ayatollah Khamenei would certainly agree that there are no gays in Iran :)
Ahmadinejad's claim that there are no gays in Iran is stupid and dangerous for Iranian gays who have to live in total hiding, but it's not any threat for the international community. People laughed about it - the same way they laugh about Bush when he claims there is no evolution. It only shows how stupid and narrow minded leaders in this world are which is sad for all of us.
As to what your family says about rescuing Europe from the Nazis: there is a lot of truth in it. I grew up in the awareness that my family lived because of the American army. In school we learned about the CARE packages and the Berlin air lift. We learned about the Nuremberg trials where the top Nazis were put on an international trial: those who had no mercy for others were given a fair trial, they had lawyers, the trial was public and fair, the verdicts were different according to the individual guilt. Everything that was good seemed to come from America: democracy, equal chances, the freedom of speech. Maybe that view was too rosy in the first place but things have changed a lot since 1945. There could not be a bigger gap between Nuremberg and Guantanamo. If the USA had not beeen perceived as the paradise of freedom and democracy, maybe the disillusion would not be so big. Respect cannot be inherited, it must be won over again.
Ahmadinejad's claim that there are no gays in Iran is stupid and dangerous for Iranian gays who have to live in total hiding, but it's not any threat for the international community. People laughed about it - the same way they laugh about Bush when he claims there is no evolution. It only shows how stupid and narrow minded leaders in this world are which is sad for all of us.
As to what your family says about rescuing Europe from the Nazis: there is a lot of truth in it. I grew up in the awareness that my family lived because of the American army. In school we learned about the CARE packages and the Berlin air lift. We learned about the Nuremberg trials where the top Nazis were put on an international trial: those who had no mercy for others were given a fair trial, they had lawyers, the trial was public and fair, the verdicts were different according to the individual guilt. Everything that was good seemed to come from America: democracy, equal chances, the freedom of speech. Maybe that view was too rosy in the first place but things have changed a lot since 1945. There could not be a bigger gap between Nuremberg and Guantanamo. If the USA had not beeen perceived as the paradise of freedom and democracy, maybe the disillusion would not be so big. Respect cannot be inherited, it must be won over again.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]@ Barb, I know it's nothing personal. :-)
Believe me, I know that we lost our moral authority to be able to say anything about the invasion of other countries LONG ago...which assumes we ever had the authority in the first place. I personally LOVE watching Condi Rice and the US ambassador to the UN doing the verbal dance of trying to express disgust with Russia in ways that they won't think will directly lead back to our unjustified invasion of Iraq. It's funny to watch the US ambassador to the UN squirm under the pressure, because he's smart enough to know that it's crap.[/QUOTE]
Europeans tend to take it as a sign of "American arrogance", for which I can't blame them.
[QUOTE]Condi Rice, on the other hand, disturbs me because she isn't squirming when she says it. That's either a sign that she's a tremendous actress or that she has no moral qualms about it because she sees Iraq as a seperate thing. If that's the case...DANGER!"[/QUOTE]
I'm really quite sure that she has no integrity, morality or basic human decency. From what I've seen of her in her new function with Bush, and from what I've read about previous employment, she has no human traits whatsoever except for ambition.
[QUOTE] And you are right about most Americans. It is true that 3/4 of us dislike Bush policy, but 3/4 of Americans also still believe that "We saved Europe's ass in World War II. If it wasn't for us the French would be speaking German! Since we had to come in and clean up your mess for you over there, that means WE are the authority and you should respect us as such." This goes from politicians to the average man on the street; several members of my family think like this. It disturbs me that they think this way (it comes mostly from the way WWII is taught in schools here in America)[/QUOTE]
Sadly, that's also how old Europeans think (who completely forget the part played by Canadians, Russians, Polish, Australians, Moroccans, etc. in the liberation of Europe in the '44-'45 campaigns); but the younger ones have been sick of that for a generation or more, so it's starting to become a serious threat to European-American relations on a personal level.
[QUOTE] but if the majority feel this way, it shapes our foreign policy. You and I both know it's total crap. But you can't change the opinion of all of society overnight. [/QUOTE]
True as that is, it is never an excuse.
[QUOTE]I call the President of Iran a raving lunatic because I feel that he is one. It goes far beyond his statements of "There are no gays in Iran, we do not have this in our country" at the University of Columbia last year and then he couldn't understand why we were laughing at him. That is just being sadly naive.[/QUOTE]
I wish I could agree with that last sentence. He is an intelligent, well-educated man, who is the tool of a council of religious lunatics that stands in the shadows, guiding his hand. He is executing a policy, when he makes claims like that as well as with anything else he does.
[QUOTE] I call him a lunatic because most of his own country thinks he is. It's common knowledge that the Shahs run Iran, and that the President is just a figure head puppet for them.[/QUOTE]
The shahs were the very thing they threw out in the '79 coup, love. Ayatollahs is what you mean, methinks.
[QUOTE] But it's gotten to the point where he's been so outspoken about the West in general (and the US in particular) that the Shahs have clamped down on him, telling him he can't say certain things and what not.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not so sure. There seems to be a deliberate policy to unite the enemies of the US with Iran.
[QUOTE] If it's gotten to the point where the people pulling the strings are clamping down on what their puppet says, there is a problem.[/QUOTE]
There was a problem to start with, I'm afraid.
[QUOTE] The policy of the Shah's towards the West has always been extremely hostile. But if they are pulling back on his rhetoric because they are scared of what he will bring on the country...that means he's in it deeper than they are. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or enriching uranium. [/QUOTE]
I take it you mean Ayatollahs again, because the Shah was as pro-US as they came. Anyways, they're not pulling back, they're testing ICBMs.
Believe me, I know that we lost our moral authority to be able to say anything about the invasion of other countries LONG ago...which assumes we ever had the authority in the first place. I personally LOVE watching Condi Rice and the US ambassador to the UN doing the verbal dance of trying to express disgust with Russia in ways that they won't think will directly lead back to our unjustified invasion of Iraq. It's funny to watch the US ambassador to the UN squirm under the pressure, because he's smart enough to know that it's crap.[/QUOTE]
Europeans tend to take it as a sign of "American arrogance", for which I can't blame them.
[QUOTE]Condi Rice, on the other hand, disturbs me because she isn't squirming when she says it. That's either a sign that she's a tremendous actress or that she has no moral qualms about it because she sees Iraq as a seperate thing. If that's the case...DANGER!"[/QUOTE]
I'm really quite sure that she has no integrity, morality or basic human decency. From what I've seen of her in her new function with Bush, and from what I've read about previous employment, she has no human traits whatsoever except for ambition.
[QUOTE] And you are right about most Americans. It is true that 3/4 of us dislike Bush policy, but 3/4 of Americans also still believe that "We saved Europe's ass in World War II. If it wasn't for us the French would be speaking German! Since we had to come in and clean up your mess for you over there, that means WE are the authority and you should respect us as such." This goes from politicians to the average man on the street; several members of my family think like this. It disturbs me that they think this way (it comes mostly from the way WWII is taught in schools here in America)[/QUOTE]
Sadly, that's also how old Europeans think (who completely forget the part played by Canadians, Russians, Polish, Australians, Moroccans, etc. in the liberation of Europe in the '44-'45 campaigns); but the younger ones have been sick of that for a generation or more, so it's starting to become a serious threat to European-American relations on a personal level.
[QUOTE] but if the majority feel this way, it shapes our foreign policy. You and I both know it's total crap. But you can't change the opinion of all of society overnight. [/QUOTE]
True as that is, it is never an excuse.
[QUOTE]I call the President of Iran a raving lunatic because I feel that he is one. It goes far beyond his statements of "There are no gays in Iran, we do not have this in our country" at the University of Columbia last year and then he couldn't understand why we were laughing at him. That is just being sadly naive.[/QUOTE]
I wish I could agree with that last sentence. He is an intelligent, well-educated man, who is the tool of a council of religious lunatics that stands in the shadows, guiding his hand. He is executing a policy, when he makes claims like that as well as with anything else he does.
[QUOTE] I call him a lunatic because most of his own country thinks he is. It's common knowledge that the Shahs run Iran, and that the President is just a figure head puppet for them.[/QUOTE]
The shahs were the very thing they threw out in the '79 coup, love. Ayatollahs is what you mean, methinks.
[QUOTE] But it's gotten to the point where he's been so outspoken about the West in general (and the US in particular) that the Shahs have clamped down on him, telling him he can't say certain things and what not.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not so sure. There seems to be a deliberate policy to unite the enemies of the US with Iran.
[QUOTE] If it's gotten to the point where the people pulling the strings are clamping down on what their puppet says, there is a problem.[/QUOTE]
There was a problem to start with, I'm afraid.
[QUOTE] The policy of the Shah's towards the West has always been extremely hostile. But if they are pulling back on his rhetoric because they are scared of what he will bring on the country...that means he's in it deeper than they are. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or enriching uranium. [/QUOTE]
I take it you mean Ayatollahs again, because the Shah was as pro-US as they came. Anyways, they're not pulling back, they're testing ICBMs.
@ Caspar,
first off, man I wish I knew how to do the "little boxes of quotes" copy thing you did here...I have yet to figure that out. *grr!*
Anyway: 1) The response of the Bush administration to this is arrogance, I don't deny that. It's the arrogance of the previous generations for the most part...the same people who have the view I mention about Europe in WWII. I, for one, laugh only to keep from going completely nuts at the fact that people believe that.
2) I never said that point of view was an excuse. I merely point out that you cannot change the perception within a majority of society within one generation, maybe not even two, unless it's a watershed MAJOR moment. I'd like to think that we are well on the way to changing that, but then again I also taught students who were going to be History Teachers in the K-12 systems and they held this point of view as well, no matter how many times I tried to point out the contrary evidence.
3) Take all the places I said, "Shah" and replace it with the "Ayatollahs"...you are right. I knew what I was saying, but it was WAY early in the morning, pre-caffeine. My brain was not quite functioning yet. I'm well aware of the difference between Shahs and Ayatollas.
4) I admit the puppet thing is a problem no matter how you slice it. But think about it for a second. Generally, if you want to have a puppet that you can control, you pick someone who is weak and easily manipulated. If that person starts to get so out of control that you have to clamp down on them, then you have a MAJOR issue. It's true the whole system is bad, but from the inside view of the system you don't have a problem until your puppet becomes incontrollable.
5) The Ayatollah's wanted a rubber stamp man in the office of the Presidency. But there is an undeniable growing rift because they Ayatollah is having to force him to do what they want him to do, and doing it publicly. Here is a collection of information on the rift:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-21-iran_N.htm
These two talk more about the fact that the Ayatollah's message of hate to the West (which I don't deny they have) is getting carried too far by the President.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1294916.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1540544/Ayatollah%27s-snub-pressures-Iran-president.html
I mean, think about it. The Ayatollah is anti-West, there is no denying that. And he's unreasonable enough about it as it is. But if even HE is forced to reign in the puppet he is supposed to control, how far out there does that put the President???
first off, man I wish I knew how to do the "little boxes of quotes" copy thing you did here...I have yet to figure that out. *grr!*
Anyway: 1) The response of the Bush administration to this is arrogance, I don't deny that. It's the arrogance of the previous generations for the most part...the same people who have the view I mention about Europe in WWII. I, for one, laugh only to keep from going completely nuts at the fact that people believe that.
2) I never said that point of view was an excuse. I merely point out that you cannot change the perception within a majority of society within one generation, maybe not even two, unless it's a watershed MAJOR moment. I'd like to think that we are well on the way to changing that, but then again I also taught students who were going to be History Teachers in the K-12 systems and they held this point of view as well, no matter how many times I tried to point out the contrary evidence.
3) Take all the places I said, "Shah" and replace it with the "Ayatollahs"...you are right. I knew what I was saying, but it was WAY early in the morning, pre-caffeine. My brain was not quite functioning yet. I'm well aware of the difference between Shahs and Ayatollas.
4) I admit the puppet thing is a problem no matter how you slice it. But think about it for a second. Generally, if you want to have a puppet that you can control, you pick someone who is weak and easily manipulated. If that person starts to get so out of control that you have to clamp down on them, then you have a MAJOR issue. It's true the whole system is bad, but from the inside view of the system you don't have a problem until your puppet becomes incontrollable.
5) The Ayatollah's wanted a rubber stamp man in the office of the Presidency. But there is an undeniable growing rift because they Ayatollah is having to force him to do what they want him to do, and doing it publicly. Here is a collection of information on the rift:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-21-iran_N.htm
These two talk more about the fact that the Ayatollah's message of hate to the West (which I don't deny they have) is getting carried too far by the President.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1294916.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1540544/Ayatollah%27s-snub-pressures-Iran-president.html
I mean, think about it. The Ayatollah is anti-West, there is no denying that. And he's unreasonable enough about it as it is. But if even HE is forced to reign in the puppet he is supposed to control, how far out there does that put the President???
Your points are all valid and true; I was merely pointing to unavoidable snags that trouble them. There are a number of currents flowing at the same time, as there always are. When, to the eyes of the world, one war is unfolding, it may actually be dozens of little war disguised as one.
As for the quotes:
1) click the quotes icon on the post you wish to reply to
2) You will find the terms "[", "QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "/QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "QUOTE" "]" | "[", "/QUOTE", "]" (all written together, but if I typed that here, it'd show up as a quotes dialogue box, not as text) in the text.
3) These are make-up tags. QUOTENAME marks the start of the posters name, and will show up as a box saying "[name of original poster] wrote:", where the name of the poster is written between "QUOTENAME" and "/QUOTENAME", the latter of which marks the end of the tag.
4) QUOTE and /QUOTE mark the beginning and end of the text that is to be quoted.
5) So, in short, by inserting the tags QUOTE and /QUOTE into the text, you create quote boxes. Just don't forget that there is already a QUOTE at the beginning and a /QUOTE at the end of the text.
As for the quotes:
1) click the quotes icon on the post you wish to reply to
2) You will find the terms "[", "QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "/QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "QUOTE" "]" | "[", "/QUOTE", "]" (all written together, but if I typed that here, it'd show up as a quotes dialogue box, not as text) in the text.
3) These are make-up tags. QUOTENAME marks the start of the posters name, and will show up as a box saying "[name of original poster] wrote:", where the name of the poster is written between "QUOTENAME" and "/QUOTENAME", the latter of which marks the end of the tag.
4) QUOTE and /QUOTE mark the beginning and end of the text that is to be quoted.
5) So, in short, by inserting the tags QUOTE and /QUOTE into the text, you create quote boxes. Just don't forget that there is already a QUOTE at the beginning and a /QUOTE at the end of the text.
UH-OH. There is a US destroyer heading for Georgia, so it looks like it is Nukey-Time.
Everyone better bend over and kiss their ass goodbye before it is too late.
Everyone better bend over and kiss their ass goodbye before it is too late.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Your points are all valid and true; I was merely pointing to unavoidable snags that trouble them. There are a number of currents flowing at the same time, as there always are. When, to the eyes of the world, one war is unfolding, it may actually be dozens of little war disguised as one.
As for the quotes:
1) click the quotes icon on the post you wish to reply to
2) You will find the terms "[", "QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "/QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "QUOTE" "]" | "[", "/QUOTE", "]" (all written together, but if I typed that here, it'd show up as a quotes dialogue box, not as text) in the text.
3) These are make-up tags. QUOTENAME marks the start of the posters name, and will show up as a box saying "[name of original poster] wrote:", where the name of the poster is written between "QUOTENAME" and "/QUOTENAME", the latter of which marks the end of the tag.
4) QUOTE and /QUOTE mark the beginning and end of the text that is to be quoted.
5) So, in short, by inserting the tags QUOTE and /QUOTE into the text, you create quote boxes. Just don't forget that there is already a QUOTE at the beginning and a /QUOTE at the end of the text.[/QUOTE]
:op
That was sweet and cute. :op
As for the quotes:
1) click the quotes icon on the post you wish to reply to
2) You will find the terms "[", "QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "/QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "QUOTE" "]" | "[", "/QUOTE", "]" (all written together, but if I typed that here, it'd show up as a quotes dialogue box, not as text) in the text.
3) These are make-up tags. QUOTENAME marks the start of the posters name, and will show up as a box saying "[name of original poster] wrote:", where the name of the poster is written between "QUOTENAME" and "/QUOTENAME", the latter of which marks the end of the tag.
4) QUOTE and /QUOTE mark the beginning and end of the text that is to be quoted.
5) So, in short, by inserting the tags QUOTE and /QUOTE into the text, you create quote boxes. Just don't forget that there is already a QUOTE at the beginning and a /QUOTE at the end of the text.[/QUOTE]
:op
That was sweet and cute. :op
Here is an interesting article by Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of treasury under Ronald Reagan, it's all over the internet
Paul Craig Roberts : Yes, without America there would be no war in Ossetia and no war between Russia and its former constituent part. US ruling Elite went From Stupid to Moronic to Evil
By Paul Craig Roberts
?Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.? John Stuart Mill
Many years ago, during the 1970s if memory serves, neoconservative Irving Kristol, echoing John Stuart Mill, called his conservative party, the Republican Party, ?the stupid party.?
Kristol was referring to the Republican?s inability to compete on the policy front. Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan led the Republicans out of the wilderness, but now Republicans have reverted to the stupid party, or more precisely the moronic party.
Today, August 9, 2008, as I write, it is the ?liberal? Washington Post that has written an editorial urging the US to go to war with Russia.
With its editorial, ?Stopping Russia: the US and its allies must unite against Moscow?s war on Georgia,? the Washington Post has established a world record for the maximum number of lies in the minimum number of words.
Except for the Washington Post, the entire world knows that Georgia (the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, not Georgia USA) initiated the aggression that killed Russian peacekeepers and hundreds of civilians in South Ossetia, peacekeepers who were there with the blessing of Georgia and international agreements.
The true facts are available all over the world press. But the ?liberal? Washington Post serves up the lie that Russia has attacked Georgia and conceivably plans to conquer all of Georgia. ?This is a grave challenge to the United States and Europe,? thunders the Bush Regime?s mouthpiece, aka, ?the liberal media.?
Thirsting for blood, the ?liberal media? declares: ?The United States and its NATO allies must together impose a price on Russia.?
Here we see the combination of idiocy and delusion in one sentence. The United States has proved that it is incapable of occupying Iraq, much less Afghanistan. Russia has a large trade surplus. America?s NATO allies are dependent on Russian natural gas. Yet the ?liberal? Washington Post wants a bankrupt US and ?its NATO allies? who are dependent on Russian energy ?to impose a price on Russia? for defending its peacekeepers!
Seldom has the world seen such total insanity as the neoconservative Washington Post, a propaganda sheet as far from ?liberal media? is it is possible to be.
Georgia was part of Old Russia and the Soviet Union for two centuries. After Soviet communism collapsed, the US taxpayer funded neoconservative National Endowment for Democracy broke every agreement that President Reagan had made with Gorbachev and began using US taxpayers? money to rig and purchase elections in former constituent parts of the Russian/Soviet empire.
The Endowment for Democracy purchased Georgia as a US colony. The affront to Russia was extreme, but at the time Russia was weak. Oligarchs with outside money had grabbed control over Russian resources, and Russia was in dire straits and could not resist American imperialism.
Putin corrected the situation for Russia.
Now, using American weapons, Georgia for reasons yet to be revealed has violated its own agreement with Russia and attacked South Ossetia, killing in the process Russian peacekeepers. Vladimir Vasilyev, chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee for Security told the press: ?The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq ? we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America.?
Yes, without America there would be no war in Ossetia and no war between Russia and its former constituent part.
Without America there would be no war in Afghanistan. No war in Iraq.
Without America there would not be 1.2 million dead Iraqis and 4 million displaced Iraqis. We have no idea of the toll on Afghan civilians, although women and children appear to be the prime targets of the US/NATO forces that are ?bringing peace and freedom to Afghanistan.?
Recently, US Secretary of State Condi Rice said that the US government could not prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel is an independent country, said the American Secretary of State. What an extraordinary lie.
Israel cannot exist without American weapons and money. Israel cannot attack Iran without overflying Iraq, which the US air force can easily prevent. It is clear as day that the Bush Regime has given the green light to Israel to attack Iran so that the Bush Regime can rush to ?Israel?s defense.?
Meanwhile the ?liberal? media is urging the US to get involved in a war between Russia and Georgia. The insanity will lead to the unloosening of nuclear weapons.
Paul Craig Roberts email him was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/paul-craig-roberts-yes-without-america-there-would-be-no-war-in-ossetia-and-no-war-between-russia-and-its-former-constituent-part-us-ruling-elite-went-from-stupid-to-moronic-to-evil/
Paul Craig Roberts : Yes, without America there would be no war in Ossetia and no war between Russia and its former constituent part. US ruling Elite went From Stupid to Moronic to Evil
By Paul Craig Roberts
?Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.? John Stuart Mill
Many years ago, during the 1970s if memory serves, neoconservative Irving Kristol, echoing John Stuart Mill, called his conservative party, the Republican Party, ?the stupid party.?
Kristol was referring to the Republican?s inability to compete on the policy front. Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan led the Republicans out of the wilderness, but now Republicans have reverted to the stupid party, or more precisely the moronic party.
Today, August 9, 2008, as I write, it is the ?liberal? Washington Post that has written an editorial urging the US to go to war with Russia.
With its editorial, ?Stopping Russia: the US and its allies must unite against Moscow?s war on Georgia,? the Washington Post has established a world record for the maximum number of lies in the minimum number of words.
Except for the Washington Post, the entire world knows that Georgia (the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, not Georgia USA) initiated the aggression that killed Russian peacekeepers and hundreds of civilians in South Ossetia, peacekeepers who were there with the blessing of Georgia and international agreements.
The true facts are available all over the world press. But the ?liberal? Washington Post serves up the lie that Russia has attacked Georgia and conceivably plans to conquer all of Georgia. ?This is a grave challenge to the United States and Europe,? thunders the Bush Regime?s mouthpiece, aka, ?the liberal media.?
Thirsting for blood, the ?liberal media? declares: ?The United States and its NATO allies must together impose a price on Russia.?
Here we see the combination of idiocy and delusion in one sentence. The United States has proved that it is incapable of occupying Iraq, much less Afghanistan. Russia has a large trade surplus. America?s NATO allies are dependent on Russian natural gas. Yet the ?liberal? Washington Post wants a bankrupt US and ?its NATO allies? who are dependent on Russian energy ?to impose a price on Russia? for defending its peacekeepers!
Seldom has the world seen such total insanity as the neoconservative Washington Post, a propaganda sheet as far from ?liberal media? is it is possible to be.
Georgia was part of Old Russia and the Soviet Union for two centuries. After Soviet communism collapsed, the US taxpayer funded neoconservative National Endowment for Democracy broke every agreement that President Reagan had made with Gorbachev and began using US taxpayers? money to rig and purchase elections in former constituent parts of the Russian/Soviet empire.
The Endowment for Democracy purchased Georgia as a US colony. The affront to Russia was extreme, but at the time Russia was weak. Oligarchs with outside money had grabbed control over Russian resources, and Russia was in dire straits and could not resist American imperialism.
Putin corrected the situation for Russia.
Now, using American weapons, Georgia for reasons yet to be revealed has violated its own agreement with Russia and attacked South Ossetia, killing in the process Russian peacekeepers. Vladimir Vasilyev, chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee for Security told the press: ?The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq ? we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America.?
Yes, without America there would be no war in Ossetia and no war between Russia and its former constituent part.
Without America there would be no war in Afghanistan. No war in Iraq.
Without America there would not be 1.2 million dead Iraqis and 4 million displaced Iraqis. We have no idea of the toll on Afghan civilians, although women and children appear to be the prime targets of the US/NATO forces that are ?bringing peace and freedom to Afghanistan.?
Recently, US Secretary of State Condi Rice said that the US government could not prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel is an independent country, said the American Secretary of State. What an extraordinary lie.
Israel cannot exist without American weapons and money. Israel cannot attack Iran without overflying Iraq, which the US air force can easily prevent. It is clear as day that the Bush Regime has given the green light to Israel to attack Iran so that the Bush Regime can rush to ?Israel?s defense.?
Meanwhile the ?liberal? media is urging the US to get involved in a war between Russia and Georgia. The insanity will lead to the unloosening of nuclear weapons.
Paul Craig Roberts email him was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/paul-craig-roberts-yes-without-america-there-would-be-no-war-in-ossetia-and-no-war-between-russia-and-its-former-constituent-part-us-ruling-elite-went-from-stupid-to-moronic-to-evil/
Of course Paul Craig Roberts is a Democrat and the timing of saying these things is perfect. Still he's right with a lot of things.
Of course the Bush administration stinks, and of course... we're all longing for the USA to show a different face to the world.
But that doesn't make Russia a saint, does it?
Of course the Bush administration stinks, and of course... we're all longing for the USA to show a different face to the world.
But that doesn't make Russia a saint, does it?
Is Craig a democrat, could you please place a link that shows this? All I found was that he was employed by President Reagan who was a Republican.
Here is some info about his publictaions and university work but no info about him being a Democrat.
Here is some info about his publictaions and university work but no info about him being a Democrat.