Russia

[Frank Merton]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I appreciate your attempt at "discouraging such nonsense" but it is true......I really think its a matter of semantics.

Im not saying that American policy SUDDENLY changed after 9/11, im saying 9/11 was capitalized on to speed up American imperialism. This imperialism is being driven by the military industrial complex which has been working behind the scenes since WW2 , as we were warned about in 1961 by a five star general and outgoing president. In essence our culture has been changed slowly through generations as you mentioned above. 

You sound like an old-fashioned Communist propagandist.  Please don't tell me they are back!

The United States is not imperialist; otherwise it would have long ago have annexed Canada.  The "military industrial complex" is an air-headed notion spread by propagandists.  The US economy has a military component, as do all countries, and it promotes its interests, but so do tobacco companies.  Get real.

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

You sound like an old-fashioned Communist propagandist.  Please don't tell me they are back!

The United States is not imperialist; otherwise it would have long ago have annexed Canada.  The "military industrial complex" is an air-headed notion spread by propagandists.  The US economy has a military component, as do all countries, and it promotes its interests, but so do tobacco companies.  Get real.

 

They tried to annex Canada once, the Canadian response was to march down to the White House and burn it down anf leave.

[Farmer77]

Just now, Frank Merton said:

You sound like an old-fashioned Communist propagandist.  Please don't tell me they are back!

The United States is not imperialist; otherwise it would have long ago have annexed Canada.  The "military industrial complex" is an air-headed notion spread by propagandists.  The US economy has a military component, as do all countries, and it promotes its interests, but so do tobacco companies.  Get real.

 

The American people first heard the term  military industrial complex in 1961 from an outgoing president and 5 star general. Nice try though.  

When you look at the congressional voting records over the last 40 years congress sides with corporations over the will of the people every single time. Thats undeniable, verifiable fact. 

I suggest that you actually know what it is you're talking about before bringing smugness to the conversation.

[Frank Merton]

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

They tried to annex Canada once, the Canadian response was to march down to the White House and burn it down anf leave.

Don't be disingenuous (lie without actually stating falsehoods).  Canada was part of Britain then and it was British soldiers.  I'm not that stupid, but I guess those your propaganda is aimed at may be.

[Frank Merton]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The American people first heard the term  military industrial complex in 1961 from an outgoing president and 5 star general. Nice try though.  

When you look at the congressional voting records over the last 40 years congress sides with corporations over the will of the people every single time. Thats undeniable, verifiable fact. 

I suggest that you actually know what it is you're talking about before bringing smugness to the conversation.

Where the phrase came from is not relevant, and the context Eisenhower used it in was not the same.  This is the sort of disingenuous statement is typical of people like you.  Your statement about Congressional voting is ludicrous.  Members of Congress vote all over the place.  That a majority tends to understand the reality of the American need for armed forces is hardly surprising.

 

[Farmer77]

Just now, Frank Merton said:

Where the phrase came from is not relevant, and the context Eisenhower used it in was not the same.  This is the sort of disingenuous statement is typical of people like you.  Your statement about Congressional voting is ludicrous.  Members of Congress vote all over the place.  That a majority tends to understand the reality of the American need for armed forces is hardly surprising.

 

Heres the quote from Eisenhowers speech  :

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

Not much ambiguity there , and here's the facts regarding congressional voting: 

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens 

If you dont have the time or energy to read the source material which is from Northwestern and Princeton BTW heres an article:

Study the US is an Oligarchy not a Democracy  

If you dont have the energy for that here's a youtube video which concisely summarizes it all:

 

 

[Frank Merton]

Give me strength.  Are you suggesting the States should not have a military-industrial complex?  Your misreading of this is too obvious for words.

It kinda reminds me of the oft-quoted Washington words about avoiding foreign entanglements.  Both statements are true enough but used by demagogues and propagandists out of context.

[Farmer77]

 

5 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

Give me strength.  Are you suggesting the States should not have a military-industrial complex?  Your misreading of this is too obvious for words.

It kinda reminds me of the oft-quoted Washington words about avoiding foreign entanglements.  Both statements are true enough but used by demagogues and propagandists out of context.

Not at all. What im saying is they drive and have driven national policy based on whats best for them not necessarily what's best for America. With that becoming blatantly obvious due to our actions around the globe over the last 20 years or so. 

Im really not sure what it is you're disagreeing with me about Eisenhowers speech. He told us of the creation of the military industrial complex and warned us of the risk of it becoming too powerful. What about that are you saying im misreading? 

From the Speech: 

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Farmer77

[skyeagle409]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Is it though? I mean I think the question is which history. Pre 9/11 America was a very very different beast in terms of its global actions. I would say the pre 9/11 NATO patterns indicate that a buildup is simply saber rattling . Post 9/11 history I think leads to a different conclusion. 

 

 

2

 

We can take a look at Russian adventurism regarding Georgia, Crimea, Syria, and Ukraine, In addition, the Russians are making the Baltic states very nervous and the sloppiness of its presentation to explain away the shootdown of MH-17 was simply astounding, to say the least. And, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the Russians were lying when it claimed that an SU-25 shot down MH-17. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Russians were lying because the SU-25 was incapable of intercepting MH-17 due to its vastly inferior performance in relation to MH-17 and I might add that the SU-25 is a ground attack aircraft, not an interceptor. and unable to reach to the altitude of MH-17.  To highlight the sloppiness of the Russians, they depicted the wrong aircraft during their MH-17 presentation. Simply amazing!!

To sum it up, the old Russian 'Cold War' mentality is still alive today and I don't trust Putin any more than my ability to throw an 18-wheeled truck across the Mississippi river.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by skyeagle409

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

 

We can take a look at Russian adventurism regarding Georgia, Crimea, Syria, and Ukraine, In addition, the Russians are making the Baltic states very nervous and the sloppiness of its presentation to explain away the shootdown of MH-17 was simply astounding, to say the least. And, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the Russians were lying when it claimed that an SU-25 shot down MH-17. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Russians were lying because the SU-25 was incapable of intercepting MH-17 due to its vastly inferior performance in relation to MH-17, and the Russians even depicted the wrong aircraft during its MH-17 presentation. Simply amazing!!

To sum it up, the old Russan 'Cold War' mentality is still alive today and I don't trust Putin any more than my ability to throw an 18-wheeled truck across the Mississippi river.

 

 

 Im not up to speed on the presentation or details but what do you mean about the SU 25's performance vs the 777? The Su has a higher top speed, is it altitude which poses the problem or the angle of attack? 

I dont trust Putin either but at this point I trust him no less than I do the people arming Al quaeda and calling them moderates. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Frank Merton said:

Give me strength.  Are you suggesting the States should not have a military-industrial complex? .

No, it shouldn't. It should have a military corps, which serves a variety of purposes in both peace- and war-time, the making of money CARTEGORICALLY not being one of those purposes.

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Russia won't attack a Baltic country without provocation. Russia won't invade a Baltic country without provocation.

Ostensibly, no. It would start with an indigenous separatist  movement publicly supported by the Russian government and covertly supported by the insertion of Spetsnaz, AKA "little green men"  masquerading as insurgents. Only if we sit on our hands and do nothing, however. Continuing to sanction and ostracize Russia could bring them to the point where they feel they've nothing to lose. If Russian tanks rolled into Tallinn tomorrow, would the West be willing to risk nuclear Armageddon over it, or would the response be, merely, sound and fury, signifying nothing? Hence, the importance of our token deterrent force.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[skyeagle409]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 Im not up to speed on the presentation or details but what do you mean about the SU 25's performance vs the 777? The Su has a higher top speed, is it altitude which poses the problem or the angle of attack? 

I dont trust Putin either but at this point I trust him no less than I do the people arming Al quaeda and calling them moderates. 

 

 

 

 

The Su-25 is slower than MH-17, which was a B-777.  In fact, a single-engine Cessna T206H Stationair can fly 4000 feet higher than the Su-25. I also examined shrapnel damage from photos and noticed the damage was inflicted by a ground-to-air missile, not by an air-to-air missile. In other words, the Russians got caught red-handed lying about a Su-25 shooting down MH-17.  

In regard the arming of al-Qaeda, the US was not involved because the CIA provided support to the Afghan Mujahideen, not to the Afghan Arabs, a group of foreigners that included Osama bin Laden. Even bin Laden admitted that his group did not receive aid from the US, which was hostile toward the United States anyway.

Edited January 9, 2017 by skyeagle409

[Farmer77]

Just now, skyeagle409 said:

The Su-25 is slower than MH-17, which was a B-777.  In fact, a single-engine Cessna T206H Stationair can fly 4000 feet higher than the Su-25. I also examined shrapnel damage from photos and noticed the damage was inflicted by a ground-to-air missile, not by an air-to-air missile. In other words, the Russians got caught red-handed lying about a Su-25 shooting down MH-17.  

In regard the arming of al-Qaeda, the US was not involved because the CIA provided support to the Afgan Mujahideen, not to the Afghan Arabs, a group of foreigners that included Osama bin Laden. Even bin Laden admitted that his group did not receive aid from the US, which was hostile toward the United States anyway.

Thanks for the info. 

As for arming Alquaeda I was referring to the "rebranded" alqaeda in Syria; Al Nusra 

[bmk1245]

23 hours ago, bee said:

.

I'm attempting to translate what you're trying to communicate - 

do you mean you think 'Russian speaking folk' are kind of being used as human shields there...?

that Russia won't want to harm them - even if the US etc uses Lithuania military positions to attack Moscow / Russia..

.  

Nope, I'm just stating fact: if Russians would decide to nuke Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, "problems" of Russian speakers in Baltic states would be "solved" effectively, because these cities have largest Russian communities.

And yeah, Putin wouldn't care if he would have to kill few hundred thousand Russians, I'm aware of that.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Don't be disingenuous (lie without actually stating falsehoods).  Canada was part of Britain then and it was British soldiers.  I'm not that stupid, but I guess those your propaganda is aimed at may be.

That was called "a joke" Frank, as in "something said in order to engender humour".  If all Yu see is propaganda, that speaks more about you than it does me.

[Astra.]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

And yeah, Putin wouldn't care if he would have to kill few hundred thousand Russians, I'm aware of that.

That's strange...from what I've gathered.. Putin gets rather 'ticked off' if any of his people succumb to violence or death...and he will take the necessary action to deal with them.

In fact...he actually reminds me of a big red rooster that protects his hen..pen.. and eggs.

Don't ever underestimate this quiet, very intelligent (no frills and bling man) as he knows the ropes of politics very well. 

That is what I like and admire about the man.

[Astra.]

On 07/01/2017 at 5:37 PM, Habitat said:

Too old, so is Trump or Hillary, for that matter. You can't tell me a person over 70 is at the peak of their mental powers. Plenty of older people are still sharp, but they are not what they were.

That is one thing that Hillary and Trump have in common....(both oldies)...but still extremely ego-flourished in their older age.

(grandiose young.....grandiose old)....and yet they still poop like everybody else does. 

[Paranormal Panther]

21 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

but what does Russia view as provocation? If I were them I would view NATO's buildup on my borders as provocation. 

I'm talking about real acts of war. Such acts would be blatant. Think of a crazy scenario in which a Baltic country attacks or invades Russia. I'm referring to unmistakable acts of aggression.

[Paranormal Panther]

17 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Ostensibly, no. It would start with an indigenous separatist  movement publicly supported by the Russian government and covertly supported by the insertion of Spetsnaz, AKA "little green men"  masquerading as insurgents. Only if we sit on our hands and do nothing, however. Continuing to sanction and ostracize Russia could bring them to the point where they feel they've nothing to lose. If Russian tanks rolled into Tallinn tomorrow, would the West be willing to risk nuclear Armageddon over it, or would the response be, merely, sound and fury, signifying nothing? Hence, the importance of our token deterrent force.

I don't see that kind of separatist movement or region in any of the Baltic countries. These countries are third rails, and they aren't like Ukraine, which is a very special case. Putin is wise enough to realize this. Still, the Baltic countries are right to act as though he isn't.

[Paranormal Panther]

19 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

They tried to annex Canada once, the Canadian response was to march down to the White House and burn it down anf leave.

That's true, but the Canadian troops wisely didn't march to New Orleans. They would have been target practice for Andrew Jackson's troops.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I don't see that kind of separatist movement or region in any of the Baltic countries. These countries are third rails, and they aren't like Ukraine, which is a very special case. Putin is wise enough to realize this. Still, the Baltic countries are right to act as though he isn't.

You do realize the population of Tallinn, the capitol of Estonia, is over half Russian, right?

[Frank Merton]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You do realize the population of Tallinn, the capitol of Estonia, is over half Russian, right?

Not the rest of the country, though.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Frank Merton said:

Not the rest of the country, though.

Yes, but they don't a whole country to establish one of their frozen conflicts, just an indigenous Russian population to
"protect".

[Frank Merton]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Yes, but they don't a whole country to establish one of their frozen conflicts, just an indigenous Russian population to
"protect".

Kinda reminds me of Hitler protecting the German population in Czechoslovakia.