I’ve been backing off on my defense stocks, what with Obama about to win and all. Time to re-think…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Russia has invaded lots of countries and enslaved millions. They have exterminated tens of millions. Only an anti-liberterian socialist like you could try to blame Russia’s belligerance upon America. [/quote]
I don’t even think socialists would agree with this. If nothing else, socialists are for personal freedom. One thing that Russia does not stand for is any kind of personal freedom.
This worries me. There was a fantastic article in TIME this week by Zbigniew brzezinski about how America, and the rest of the world, need to take a hard line on Russia- not so much militarily, but in the financial sense, because Russia’s new oligarchy is so affected by the world market, in contrast to the Cold War.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This worries me. There was a fantastic article in TIME this week by Zbigniew brzezinski about how America, and the rest of the world, need to take a hard line on Russia- not so much militarily, but in the financial sense, because Russia’s new oligarchy is so affected by the world market, in contrast to the Cold War.[/quote]
Brzezinski’s the son of a bitch that structured and financed the Mujahideens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You have him to thank for the Talibans, Ben Laden and the rest of the crew.
[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
This worries me. There was a fantastic article in TIME this week by Zbigniew brzezinski about how America, and the rest of the world, need to take a hard line on Russia- not so much militarily, but in the financial sense, because Russia’s new oligarchy is so affected by the world market, in contrast to the Cold War.
Brzezinski’s the son of a bitch that structured and financed the Mujahideens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You have him to thank for the Talibans, Ben Laden and the rest of the crew.[/quote]
And we have him to thank for bleeding the Russians dry in the 80s.
It’s not so black and white, Islamocommi. It never is.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
This worries me. There was a fantastic article in TIME this week by Zbigniew brzezinski about how America, and the rest of the world, need to take a hard line on Russia- not so much militarily, but in the financial sense, because Russia’s new oligarchy is so affected by the world market, in contrast to the Cold War.
Brzezinski’s the son of a bitch that structured and financed the Mujahideens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You have him to thank for the Talibans, Ben Laden and the rest of the crew.
And we have him to thank for bleeding the Russians dry in the 80s.
It’s not so black and white, Islamocommi. It never is.[/quote]
Nobody said it was black and white.
But if you want my opinion, the Soviets were done in the 70s already. They were forced into a militarization race that bled them then and there. They simply couldn’t compete with the American machine economically. The Afghan skirmish was peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
But I guess if you have to find a way to justify the cataclysm Brzezinski unleashed on the world, it’s as good a distortion of reality than any other.
Far as the Russians are concerned, you put up a shield, we’ll put the missiles outside the shield.
The US is out to lunch talking about putting up a shield; nothing new there. The true threat comes from individuals who are convinced to die to harm others and not from a national missile program developed by a rough state.
But I think the decision makers know that and feed their sheep whatever information they have to to get their agenda looked after.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nobody said it was black and white.
But if you want my opinion,
[/quote]
Umm… nope. Sure don’t.
You’ve got the same credibility that HH has in my eyes… which is you’re a step away from being completely delusional.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Russia has invaded lots of countries and enslaved millions. They have exterminated tens of millions. Only an anti-liberterian socialist like you could try to blame Russia’s belligerance upon America.
I don’t even think socialists would agree with this. If nothing else, socialists are for personal freedom. One thing that Russia does not stand for is any kind of personal freedom. [/quote]
Are you kidding? You need to spend some time in Europe and see what the socialists have done there. Socialists are opposed to people being able to determine their own financial destiny. If you can’t control your money you don’t have freedom.
[quote]
This worries me. There was a fantastic article in TIME this week by Zbigniew brzezinski about how America, and the rest of the world, need to take a hard line on Russia- not so much militarily, but in the financial sense, because Russia’s new oligarchy is so affected by the world market, in contrast to the Cold War.[/quote]
We need to take a harder financial line with Russia and the Chinese. The Chinese have done a lot to make Russia a problem again.
[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
This worries me. There was a fantastic article in TIME this week by Zbigniew brzezinski about how America, and the rest of the world, need to take a hard line on Russia- not so much militarily, but in the financial sense, because Russia’s new oligarchy is so affected by the world market, in contrast to the Cold War.
Brzezinski’s the son of a bitch that structured and financed the Mujahideens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You have him to thank for the Talibans, Ben Laden and the rest of the crew.[/quote]
I don’t have a high regard for Brzezinski. I was only a teenager and in my early twenties when the Mujahedin was getting financed by the CIA. But even then as I watched the hubris in the government about how we were going to get back at the Russians for Vietnam, I couldn’t help but think it was a bad idea to be encouraging jihadists and religious fanaticism.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
We need to take a harder financial line with Russia and the Chinese. The Chinese have done a lot to make Russia a problem again. [/quote]
The Russian economic might comes from basic commodities. While we (in the US) may not directly buy much of their crude or natural gas, our consumption keeps global prices high.
As far as China goes, a very large (though declining due to their domestic growth) portion of what they’re consuming in energy, metals, etc, is going straight to your local walmart.
So if you really want to stick it to the Russians, Saudis, etc… No, that would never happen.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Nobody said it was black and white.
But if you want my opinion,
Umm… nope. Sure don’t.
You’ve got the same credibility that HH has in my eyes… which is you’re a step away from being completely delusional.[/quote]
You DO know that the American/British elite set up the Soviet Union back in the 20’s, right? The best way to bleed societies is with war or the threat of war.
So, create the Soviets, have them be a phony threat. Keep the peons (like you) busy while you wear their leash.
Russia attacked Georgia because the conflict with Muslims is running out of gas. It was never very popular to begin with, so somebody got buried alive for scuttling the Soviet Plan. They tried to actually fire up a new Crusades! Morons.
So they brought back Russia as the enemy. The price of oil got jacked up to give 'em the money to do that. Idiots like you wouldn’t know the obvious if it pissed in your beer while you watched. Chug-a-lug there, Irish…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
This worries me. There was a fantastic article in TIME this week by Zbigniew brzezinski about how America, and the rest of the world, need to take a hard line on Russia- not so much militarily, but in the financial sense, because Russia’s new oligarchy is so affected by the world market, in contrast to the Cold War.
Brzezinski’s the son of a bitch that structured and financed the Mujahideens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You have him to thank for the Talibans, Ben Laden and the rest of the crew.
I don’t have a high regard for Brzezinski. I was only a teenager and in my early twenties when the Mujahedin was getting financed by the CIA.
But even then as I watched the hubris in the government about how we were going to get back at the Russians for Vietnam, I couldn’t help but think it was a bad idea to be encouraging jihadists and religious fanaticism.
[/quote]
We’ve met the enemy, and it is us.
Has anyone else noticed the liberal arguing tactic of stuffing as many ridiculous, unsupportable claims as they can in any paragraph … and then while you’re trying to deal intelligently with the most egregious or irritating one … their response is to repeat the first one and add 5 more?
It’s Stupidity Overload. I’ve got a buddy who’s a trial lawyer and a liberal of course and he uses this tactic all the time and I’m sure it’s great for confusing a jury.
I’ve decided the only way to deal with it effectively is to do it myself … but I always forget and end up instead writing 3 paragraphs about how the US DOESN’T go around threatening to bomb countries all over the globe … a Lixy comment from earlier in this thread …
[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
I’ve decided the only way to deal with it effectively is to do it myself … but I always forget and end up instead writing 3 paragraphs about how the US DOESN’T go around threatening to bomb countries all over the globe … a Lixy comment from earlier in this thread …[/quote]
The US has more military bases overseas than all other countries combined. It has repeatedly bombed the four continents. It is threatening military action on a country (on the other side of the planet!) in a most hypocritical manner. The American intelligence services and/or military have been involved a number of coups all over the globe.
Some Americans sing praises of their country.
Russia invaded a country on its immediate border, and is making geopolitical posturing noise about the US’ unilateral withdrawal from the ICBM and plans to place missiles in Moscow’s backyard.
The same Americans throw their hands in the air, talk about Hitler and refer to Russia as evil incarnated.
The double standards are obvious here.
I wonder how the U.S. would react to Russia putting defensive missle silos in Canada and/or Mexico?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I wonder how the U.S. would react to Russia putting defensive missle silos in Canada and/or Mexico?[/quote]
what would their reasoning be. Are there any threats to russia or it’s allies in that area? no, scraitch that CONTINENT?
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
I wonder how the U.S. would react to Russia putting defensive missle silos in Canada and/or Mexico?
what would their reasoning be. Are there any threats to russia or it’s allies in that area? no, scraitch that CONTINENT?[/quote]
Ah…the ever elusive elephant in the room.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
I wonder how the U.S. would react to Russia putting defensive missle silos in Canada and/or Mexico?
what would their reasoning be. Are there any threats to russia or it’s allies in that area? no, scraitch that CONTINENT?[/quote]
Who is threatening the U.S. or it’s allies that they need to be building missle silos in Georgia?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
I wonder how the U.S. would react to Russia putting defensive missle silos in Canada and/or Mexico?
what would their reasoning be. Are there any threats to russia or it’s allies in that area? no, scraitch that CONTINENT?
Who is threatening the U.S. or it’s allies that they need to be building missle silos in Georgia?[/quote]
And now poland.