I don't get Russia

by joe golfer 36 replies
They shoot down a plane as part of their new demand for respect?

Russia Has Become Dangerous Again - David Frum - The Atlantic

Now, I don't know that much about the country, I admit, so take this with a grain of salt. But what's their deal? Why all the machismo? Because you lost the cold war? Come on. You are thinking like it's 1968. Wake up and smell 2014.

Why not come up with new ideas for your own country, new products, new innovations, new solutions to problems, new ways of doing things, new incentives, new companies, new concepts, new approaches, etc.?

Why waste human lives in some deranged need for respect? I'll respect you if you can use your new found energy wealth to help find solutions to pollution, poverty, nuclear proliferation, and disease, especially in your own country.

You've got the money and the science. Quit starting wars and killing innocent people, and start contributing more to your own people and the world.
#off topic forum
  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
    This is a pretty common reaction.

    First.... it is an opinion piece, not real news.

    And we don't have all the facts to blame a specific person, or faction, or country.

    It was almost certainly a mistake. Our country has shot down passenger jets by mistake. It's a tragedy, but it happens. Is Putin flexing his muscles? Maybe. But, so do we (Meaning the US). So do many heads of countries. It's all posturing for the camera, and deals behind closed doors. There, and here.

    You have come to a conclusion about millions of people, based on very incomplete information. It's the way most of us are.

    It's "Us against Them".......And the "Them" can shift from week to week.


    If the jet hadn't been hit, nobody on TV would be talking about anything except the kids crossing the border.

    And a month from now, we'll be yelling about someone else.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9374930].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by joe golfer View Post

    They shoot down a plane as part of their new demand for respect?
    I don't think so.

    I think pro-Russian separatists probably shot it down, mistakenly believing that it was a Ukrainian military plane, using a weapon originally provided to them by Russia? I don't think anyone's suggesting that Russia actually shot it down, or that anyone shot it down knowing that it was a passenger flight? I don't pretend that that excuses it, in any way - obviously!! - but I don't think "Russia shot down a plane as part of their demand for respect" at all, Joe?! That simpy isn't what happened.

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9374952].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      I don't think so.

      I think pro-Russian separatists probably shot it down, mistakenly believing that it was a Ukrainian military plane, using a weapon originally provided to them by Russia? I don't think anyone's suggesting that Russia actually shot it down, or that anyone shot it down knowing that it was a passenger flight? I don't pretend that that excuses it, in any way - obviously!! - but I don't think "Russia shot down a plane as part of their demand for respect" at all, Joe?! That simpy isn't what happened.

      .
      IMO, supplying a weapon is the same as pulling the trigger. I would be surprised If Putin didn't finance the whole fiasco.

      I'm sure this won't go ever well but IMO the pilot is 50% to blame for flying over a known war zone. It's no different than avoiding bad neighborhoods while driving a car.
      Signature
      Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9374998].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        I would be surprised If Putin didn't finance the whole fiasco.
        I hear ya', but someone being surprised if Putin didn't finance the whole fiasco (which may, of course, be right) is a very long way indeed from "Russia shot down a plane as part of their demand for respect", which is where this thread started. Just saying ...

        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        I'm sure this won't go ever well but IMO the pilot is 50% to blame for flying over a known war zone. It's no different than avoiding bad neighborhoods while driving a car.
        Yes; it does seem remarkable that they chose to overfly a known war-zone.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375030].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        I'm sure this won't go ever well but IMO the pilot is 50% to blame for flying over a known war zone.
        You're right. Not only won't it go over well, it's pretty dumb on top of that.

        Pilots don't choose which routes they travel, they're instructed to do so by air traffic control.

        Now, if you'd said that some of the blame could be attributed to air traffic control, you'd have a case. I've no doubt they will have some serious questions to answer once the investigation goes into full swing.

        To attribute ANY of the blame, especially 50% of it, on the pilot(s) though is, well, just dumb. Very dumb.

        Sorry if that comes across as harsh, but reality sometimes is.
        Signature
        Australia is an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375570].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          You're right. Not only won't it go over well, it's pretty dumb on top of that.

          Pilots don't choose which routes they travel, they're instructed to do so by air traffic control.
          Actually, as I understand it, they are APPROVED by agencies, that might include ATC. But ATC generally covers a specific area. NO place in the US can just decide that you land at a particular airport in europe, let alone EASTERN europe. HECK, even in the US, detroit or chicago can, and DO forbid landing at the places if there is a bomb report, a storm, damage, traffic, etc.... So a pilot in CA may want to fly to detroit, and CA tells them to not take off because ATC in detroit has a "ground stop".

          And flying in some areas in the middle east or places like around UKRAINE is just DUMB! SEVERAL places, including crimea had, as part of the plan of conquest, SEIZING control of AIRPORTS! There are only two reasons to do that. To be able to fly in the country AND control air space.

          To attribute ANY of the blame, especially 50% of it, on the pilot(s) though is, well, just dumb. Very dumb.
          Pilots CAN refuse to fly. One STUPID reason given has been that they thought 30K+ foot altitudes were safe. That is DUMB! There ARE missiles that can go plenty high.

          BTW flights DO change flight plans ON THE WHIM of the PILOT!!!!!! At Reagan national, for quite some time, a crew member could report a person standing up within 30 minutes of reagan, and the pilot was MANDATED, under FEDERAL LAW, to DIVERT! The pilot would them keep a distance from certain airspace, report it, and go to ANOTHER airport. If a pilot determines there is a problem, or a shortage of fuel, or an unsafe condition, etc... they may divert.

          Apparently, they felt reagan was too close to Washington DC for comfort, so it opened late, and had this special rule after 9/11.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375645].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Russia's easy compared to the Middle East.

    I mean seriously.... Are we really dealing with "War Lords" in the 21st Century?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375105].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I DOUBT russia intentionally shot down a commercial airliner. I even doubt they did it AT ALL! AND, if they did it, they wouldn't have bragged about it. Last I heard, a supposedly FACTUAL story said that russian SEPARATISTS(IN UKRAINE) shot it down, THINKING IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE, and laid claim to doing so. They later removed the post when it was clear what actually happened.

    Anyway, the only REAL question then is whether the russian SEPARATISTS were telling the truth. If they were telling the truth about being shut off in their own historic land and all, shooting down a UKRAINE plane flying over the airspace THEY claim is reasonable and even NECESSARY to keep from being wiped out. If they were NOT telling the truth, it is unreasonable no matter what.

    BTW the claims range from them being a russian remnant left there, innocent and persecuted, to russian military pretending to be such to give russia a presence and reason to attack.

    SADLY, unless you live in an integrated area there, for say several YEARS, and speak russian AND ukrainian, you probably have NO HOPE of knowing the TRUTH. There is clear propaganda on BOTH sides.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375122].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JensSteyaert
    Originally Posted by joe golfer View Post

    They shoot down a plane as part of their new demand for respect?

    Russia Has Become Dangerous Again - David Frum - The Atlantic

    Now, I don't know that much about the country, I admit, so take this with a grain of salt. But what's their deal? Why all the machismo? Because you lost the cold war? Come on. You are thinking like it's 1968. Wake up and smell 2014.

    Why not come up with new ideas for your own country, new products, new innovations, new solutions to problems, new ways of doing things, new incentives, new companies, new concepts, new approaches, etc.?

    Why waste human lives in some deranged need for respect? I'll respect you if you can use your new found energy wealth to help find solutions to pollution, poverty, nuclear proliferation, and disease, especially in your own country.

    You've got the money and the science. Quit starting wars and killing innocent people, and start contributing more to your own people and the world.
    You are assuming that Russia shot down the plane diliberately, and this hasn't been proven yet. Everything you hear now is based on assumptions, people pointing a finger without any real proof of what happened. I do'nt think this is normal behaviour and doesn't happen outside of politics....

    That being said, the counter assumptions made by the Russian government sound just as plausible as Russia's involvement. Here's an excerpt of Paul Craig Robert's blog:

    "The Russian government continues to release facts, including satellite photos showing the presence of Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft missiles in locations from which the airliner could have been brought down by the missile system and documentation that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet rapidly approached the Malaysian airliner prior to its downing. The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area. The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite."

    I like to hear from all sides before even having an opinion, but it seems to me that all claims made by the Russian government can easily be refuted if the US makes the images from their satellite available...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375185].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    Originally Posted by joe golfer View Post

    You are thinking like it's 1968. Wake up and smell 2014.
    The world as you know it has changed since 1968, so the same must be true for the people of Russia, right?

    NATO made it public they want the Ukraine as part of a missile defense strategy years ago...

    Russia upset at U.S.-Ukraine missile defense talks | Reuters

    Just because you don't understand the strategic situation that Russia faces, doesn't mean they can't comprehend it.

    Now let's stop talking about Russia for a moment, and listen to some great music that Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan would approve of...

    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375765].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      The world as you know it has changed since 1968, so the same must be true for the people of Russia, right?

      NATO made it public they want the Ukraine as part of a missile defense strategy years ago...

      Russia upset at U.S.-Ukraine missile defense talks | Reuters

      Just because you don't understand the strategic situation that Russia faces, doesn't mean they can't comprehend it.

      Now let's stop talking about Russia for a moment, and listen to some great music that Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan would approve of...

      John Lennon Imagine - YouTube
      I LOVED that song until I thought about what is being said. John lennons ideas in this song are being done EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!! Not only the US and canada, but nazi germany did it, north korea does, etc... THINK ABOUT IT!

      NO HEAVEN?
      NO HELL?
      NO POSSESSIONS?
      NO COUNTRY?
      NO RELIGION?
      LIVING FOR TODAY?
      LIVING FOR THE WORLD?

      EVEN "Living life in PEEEEEACE!" is an EVIL statement! MANY words are being REDEFINED! One is PEACE!

      Look at the "PEACE TALKS" in israel! So far at least TWO US presidents have gotten the "NOBEL PEACE PRIZE" for "facilitating peace talks there", and it looks like a third one wants that ALSO. How IDIOTIC! Anyone with more than a couple neurons KNOWS how to solve the problem. The reason why nobody has done it is because it is mutually exclusive, and could lead to a world war.

      Basically, it breaks down as a religious war. On the one side are the Moslems. On the other side is most of the rest of the world. If the Jews were gone, many wouldn't like it, and the moslems would desecrate things and others would rebel. But the palestinians and other moslems would be fine. If the palestinians were gone, the moslems wouldn't like it, and would move in anyway. In the Bible, when it speaks of the third temple being built, it says that one wall will be left off from it because it would be given to the gentiles. By gentiles, here, it means arabs, and that wall is the one that is part of the 2nd most religious site in all of islam.

      You read something into "imagine", and believe it says what it doesn't actually say.

      I almost wish actions were something that could be provably predicted and that history were perfectly recorded. So many feel that if the world were this way or that that we would be different in some way and then I think BUT........ That is WRONG, and HERE is why!

      Anyway, I have had ENOUGH with people feeling there are no countries, and no possessions. One person recently publicly, on youtube and several sites, asked Mark Zuckerberg for his address! WHY? So that Mark can PERSONALLY do and be PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY his suggestions for the US. I mean WHY NOT? He wants me, and you, and everyone else to do it. Yet HE has what HE wants, and pays to protect it.

      He would go crazy in SECONDS! His property would be OBLITERATED! He would have NOTHING to eat. He would come down with diseases like Ebola and TB. It would be FUNNY! But he would be the LAST to want that for HIMSELF! They have busses here moving illegal aliens to different states in the US. IMAGINE if one stopped in front of his estate and, via law and at gunpoint, forced him to let them live there like they owned the place. HOW do you think he would react? How would YOU react?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375843].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lcombs
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        I LOVED that song until I thought about what is being said. John lennons ideas in this song are being done EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!! Not only the US and canada, but nazi germany did it, north korea does, etc... THINK ABOUT IT!

        NO HEAVEN?
        NO HELL?
        NO POSSESSIONS?
        NO COUNTRY?
        NO RELIGION?
        LIVING FOR TODAY?
        LIVING FOR THE WORLD?

        You read something into it, and believes it says what it doesn't actually say.

        I almost wish actions were something that could be provably predicted and that history were perfectly recorded. So many feel that if the world were this way or that that we would be different in some way and then I think BUT........ That is WRONG, and HERE is why!

        Anyway, I have had ENOUGH with people feeling there are no countries, and no possessions. One person recently publicly, on youtube and several sites, asked Mark Zuckerberg for his address! WHY? So that Mark can PERSONALLY do and be PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY his suggestions for the US. I mean WHY NOT? He wants me, and you, and everyone else to do it. Yet HE has what HE wants, and pays to protect it.

        He would go crazy in SECONDS! His property would be OBLITERATED! He would have NOTHING to eat. He would come down with diseases like Ebola and TB. It would be FUNNY!

        Steve
        You miss the point.
        He is pointing out all the reasons for war.

        "Imagine all the people
        Living life in peace."

        "Imagine all the people
        Sharing all the world..."

        Certainly John appreciated all he had but, only because it gave him
        the ability to share his philosophy.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9375873].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          I've no idea if this can be verified and I did see it on Facebook so that potentially makes it null and void but it makes for somewhat interesting reading.

          Russia Conspiracy Theories Trap Putin Malaysia Airlines MH17 | New Republic

          I think the entire thing is deeply worrying and very bizarre.
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9376674].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

          You miss the point.
          He is pointing out all the reasons for war.

          "Imagine all the people
          Living life in peace."

          "Imagine all the people
          Sharing all the world..."

          Certainly John appreciated all he had but, only because it gave him
          the ability to share his philosophy.
          NOPE! ****YOU**** miss the point! The words mean SO little today that it could be ADVOCATING war as much as being against it. And they are NOT all the reasons against war. There is also power, hoarding, and just plain NUTS! STILL, you know why people fight for country and property? Because it has a PURPOSE! SUPPOSE, you are eating a sandwich. With NO property rights, any person may decide to take it from you and gobble it up. So YEAH, I know one apparent and great meaning of the song. Knowing how many today think, I can also see the EVIL meaning that may be hidden by trying to understand this as what once might have been the only way to.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9376714].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Especially when folks mess around with countries right on their doorstep who were part of the old Soviet empire.

    - In the early 1960s, when the Russians tried to arm Cuba with nukes, we were prepared to go to war to stop them from becoming operational.

    Fortunately they backed down.

    - In the 1980s when the Russians were trying to mess around in Nicaragua we stopped at nothing until that government changed their tune.

    - After we helped the Afghans expel them from their country in the 1980s, embarrassed them in the first gulf war by beating up on their ally in the early 1990s, and then we completely removed their ally from power in the 2nd gulf war, helped get rid of their friend Gaddafi, then recently we forced another one of their allies - Syria, to give up their chemical weapons and we are now in the process of forcing another to give up their nuclear ambitions...

    ... what would you expect now if we helped a former Soviet republic change governments to one much, much friendlier towards the west?

    Their response?

    They practically seized the Cremia so they could make sure they still have access to ports on the Black Sea and now since they lost the battle to remove the new gov in Ukraine they've decided to back separatists trying to tear off a piece of eastern Ukraine.

    I'm sure Putin did not want an airliner shot down and I'm not surprised at their other actions one bit.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9377091].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Especially when folks mess around with countries right on their doorstep who were part of the old Soviet empire.

      - In the early 1960s, when the Russians tried to arm Cuba with nukes, we were prepared to go to war to stop them from becoming operational.

      Fortunately they backed down.

      - In the 1980s when the Russians were trying to mess around in Nicaragua we stopped at nothing until that government changed their tune.

      - After we helped the Afghans expel them from their country in the 1980s, embarrassed them in the first gulf war by beating up on their ally in the early 1990s, and then we completely removed their ally from power in the 2nd gulf war, helped get rid of their friend Gaddafi, then recently we forced another one of their allies - Syria, to give up their chemical weapons and we are now in the process of forcing another to give up their nuclear ambitions...

      ... what would you expect now if we helped a former Soviet republic change governments to one much, much friendlier towards the west?

      Their response?

      They practically seized the Cremia so they could make sure they still have access to ports on the Black Sea and now since they lost the battle to remove the new gov in Ukraine they've decided to back separatists trying to tear off a piece of eastern Ukraine.

      I'm sure Putin did not want an airliner shot down and I'm not surprised at their other actions one bit.
      None of what I bolded is true.
      In Afghanistan we financed and trained Bin Laden and Al Queda, helping them expel Russia from the country.
      Iraq and Hussian were OUR allies, not Russias. We financed and supported them in the Iraq/Iran war (that was the war where WE shot down an Iranian commercial aircraft over Iranian airspace).
      After the Lockerbi incident, Gaddafi started working with our CIA giving them information on terrorist activities in the Middle East. It was Putin who convinced Syria to give up it's chemical weapons, not us. We're not forcing anyone at the moment to give up there nuclear ambitions. We're talking to Iran about their nuclear power project, but we're not forcing them to do anything.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9377270].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        In Afghanistan we financed and trained Bin Laden and Al Queda, helping them expel Russia from the country.
        Well, we financed the Afghan mujahideen. The foreign mujahideen ( Bin Laden and others ), had their own financing and were actually a very small part of the war with no more than 2000 fighters in Afghanistan at any one time. The Afghan mujahideen fighters numbered 250,000 or more. Plus, Al Qaeda was established just months prior to the USSR and Bin Laden leaving Afghanistan.

        "The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him." ~ Peter Bergen

        "It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan." ~ Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987.

        "Contemporaneous accounts of the war do not even mention [the Afghan Arabs]. Many were not serious about the war. ... Very few were involved in actual fighting. For most of the war, they were scattered among the Afghan groups associated with the four Afghan fundamentalist parties.

        No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders." ~ Marc Sageman, Foreign Service Officer who was based in Islamabad from 1987-1989.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9377859].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Well, we financed the Afghan mujahideen. The foreign mujahideen ( Bin Laden and others ), had their own financing and were actually a very small part of the war with no more than 2000 fighters in Afghanistan at any one time. The Afghan mujahideen fighters numbered 250,000 or more. Plus, Al Qaeda was established just months prior to the USSR and Bin Laden leaving Afghanistan.

          "The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him." ~ Peter Bergen

          "It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan." ~ Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987.

          "Contemporaneous accounts of the war do not even mention [the Afghan Arabs]. Many were not serious about the war. ... Very few were involved in actual fighting. For most of the war, they were scattered among the Afghan groups associated with the four Afghan fundamentalist parties.

          No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders." ~ Marc Sageman, Foreign Service Officer who was based in Islamabad from 1987-1989.
          Sounds like the governments version all right.
          Congressman Charlie Wilson had gone into the country, it's all been documented. He was responsible for funding the CIA program that armed the "rebels".
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9377911].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
            Banned
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Congressman Charlie Wilson had gone into the country, it's all been documented. .
            Supposedly Charlie was primarily working with the local mujahideen through Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as well as with Jalaluddin Haqqani. We do know Wilson was a guest of Jalaluddin Haqqani on the ground in Eastern Afghanistan in 1987.

            For those unfamiliar with Charlie Wilson and Operation Cyclone...

            The program relied heavily on the Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had a close relationship with Wilson. His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups. Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.
            Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of...Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of...
            http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlie_wilsons_war/

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar

            Charlie was a bit worried about the the way things went down in the end, but let us not forget that many people believe that accounts told in the book were not completely accurate, and the movie even less accurate.

            Even though George Crile’s book documents that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani were the main recipients of U.S. military aid secured by Wilson and his counterparts in the CIA – including Robert Gates – neither is mentioned in the film version.
            Wilson was a guest of Jalaluddin Haqqani in eastern Afghanistan in 1987 and referred to his host as “goodness personified.”
            In the 1980s, the CIA funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and ammunition to help them battle the Soviet Army….Hekmatyar, then widely considered by Washington to be a reliable anti-Soviet rebel, was even flown to the United States by the CIA in 1985.

            “‘He was the most radical of the radicals,” recalls former Rep. Charlie Wilson…”

            “U.S. officials had an even higher opinion of Haqqani, who was considered the most effective rebel warlord. ‘I adored Haqqani. When I was in Afghanistan, Haqqani was the guy who made sure I would get out,’ says Wilson. ‘He was a marvelous leader and very beloved in his territory".
            Wilson’s other partner, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, “was…a renowned opium smuggler and warlord, and was alleged to have sprayed acid in the faces of women who did not wear the veil. One of [Hekmatyar's] colleagues referred to him as ‘a true monster,’ though he allegedly impressed the CIA (revealing something of its character) by wanting to take the war against the Soviets to Central Asia and roll back communism in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.

            “One CIA officer said, ‘We wanted to kill as many Russians as we could, and Hikmatyar seemed like the guy to do it.’”
            Supposedly Nixon was doing some covert stuff in Afgnaistan as early as 1973 --> but it was the US main man Jimmy Carter that made it official in 1979. Brzezinsk said at the time that Carter's action would lead to drawing the Soviets in...

            William Blum’s translation of a 1999 Le Nouvel Observateur interview with the original architect of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, former Carter administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, confirms Fitzgerald’s and Gould’s contentions.
            “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
            Fact: Covert funding for the mujahideen began long before the Soviet invasion, not after.

            Fact: This covert aid was intended to lure the Soviets into the Afghan trap and hold them there, not drive them out, as claimed by Wilson.

            “It is well documented that Wilson’s war prolonged Afghanistan’s agony for another six years, provided a secure multibillion-dollar technological training base for Islamic terrorism, and set the stage for a privatized heroin industry of historic proportions.
            http://www.globalresearch.ca/afghani...year-war/17653

            Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story:...Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story:...

            Cheers

            -don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9377939].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Sounds like the governments version all right.
            Congressman Charlie Wilson had gone into the country, it's all been documented. He was responsible for funding the CIA program that armed the "rebels".
            Yes, Afghan rebels, not foreign rebels which is what Bin Laden was. There's no evidence that the CIA ever funded or trained Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Peter Bergen is a journalist who is well known for producing the first interview with Bin Laden. He's written 4 books on Al Qaeda/Bin Laden and doesn't work for the government.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378319].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        None of what I bolded is true.




        In Afghanistan we financed and trained Bin Laden and Al Queda, helping them expel Russia from the country.

        Iraq and Hussian were OUR allies, not Russias. We financed and supported them in the Iraq/Iran war (that was the war where WE shot down an Iranian commercial aircraft over Iranian airspace).


        After the Lockerbi incident, Gaddafi started working with our CIA giving them information on terrorist activities in the Middle East.

        It was Putin who convinced Syria to give up it's chemical weapons, not us.

        We're not forcing anyone at the moment to give up there nuclear ambitions.

        We're talking to Iran about their nuclear power project, but we're not forcing them to do anything.

        #1: The Afghans were fighting the Russians and then other muslims like Bin Laden jumped in and we also jumped in with big aid - especially the Tow Missiles - to help expel the Russians.

        I don't see how we disagree on this one.

        We helped the Afghans get rid of the invading Russians.


        #2: Wars with the Iraqis...

        My memory failed me on the Iraqi situations, so you got me there.


        #3: Great, Gaddafi was supposedly supplying the CIA with info on terrorist activities.

        He was seen worldwide as a good friend of the Russians and the Russians considered him their top ally in the Arab world along with Syria.

        The Russians were not very happy with our activities in Libya's civil war - such as the no fly zone that eventually helped oust Gaddafi from power.


        #4: Syria:

        Let's pretend you were a small country that had a cache of chem weapons and were told not to use them.

        They were used and a big country comes along and says...

        ...You violated international norms of behavior so now I'm going to bomb you.

        Another big country comes along who also happened to be a great friend of yours - supplying most of your armaments and supposedly helps you understand that in order to avoid the bombing that is surely to come and one that will probably tip the balance of power in your civil war against you -...

        ... it would be better if you offer to give up the chem weapons altogether because maybe that will stop the bombing.

        Without the threat of the bombing you would have kept your chem weapons.

        You can give the credit to Putin who IMHO, was nothing more than a go-between at best ...

        ...(as if Syria couldn't come to that decision by themselves)...

        ...if you like, but I say without the threat of force, Syria would still have their chem weapons.

        It seems to me that they were forced to give up their chem weapons or else and they didn't need Putin to convince them of their choices.

        How hard could that decision be?


        #5: As far as Iran is concerned, either they are to give up their (supposed?) nuclear ambitions or face the unrelenting and crippling economic pressure from the west - lead by the U.S.

        It looks like they decided to give up their nuclear ambitions which they would not have done without the pressure exerted on them by the west - lead by the U.S.

        Folks can play games with the semantics but to me it looks like they were forced to give up their nuclear ambitions.

        I believe they decided they didn't want a society like North Korea in which they have nukes but the society is poor as hell.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9377952].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          #5: As far as Iran is concerned, either they are to give up their (supposed?) nuclear ambitions or face the unrelenting and crippling economic pressure from the west - lead by the U.S.

          It looks like they decided to give up their nuclear ambitions which they would not have done without the pressure exerted on them by the west - lead by the U.S.

          Folks can play games with the semantics but to me it looks like they were forced to give up their nuclear ambitions.

          I believe they decided they didn't want a society like North Korea in which they have nukes but the society is poor as hell.
          That's your opinion...but at least negotiations are occurring with Hassan Rouhani's folks. It's too bad Iran failed to meet the self-imposed July 20 deadline for a comprehensive accord. The fact is Iran wants to keep it's 19,000 centrifuges and that is more than plenty to do some serious enrichment. The reality is nobody actually knows what Iran wants to do (or does) out of the watchful eye of the US and other responsible members of the international community.

          In the opinion of some of the "experts" Iran could have a nuclear bomb in 3 months or less and John Kerry says the technical breakout time is just 2 months.

          Albright's Institute for Science and International Security in June said Iran could amass material for a nuclear bomb in three months or less, rejecting a finding by Iranian experts that cited a time frame six times longer.
          BREAKOUT "MYTH"

          Iran would also need to manufacture the actual weapon and then mount it on a ballistic missile for it to be an immediate risk. But acquiring bomb-grade uranium is seen as the most difficult and time-consuming challenge for any aspiring nuclear weapon state.

          Some experts said the hypothetical breakout timeline for Iran - which dismisses as a "myth" such talk - is not likely to change much as a result of new action to limit its nuclear program that it agreed in Vienna to undertake in the next few months.

          Under the terms of the extension of the negotiations, U.S. officials said Iran by late November would turn more of its most sensitive stockpile - uranium enriched to a fissile purity of 20 percent - from oxide into fuel for a research reactor in Tehran.

          "It makes it much more difficult ... to use it to further enrich the highly enriched uranium that could be used for a nuclear weapon," one senior administration official said.

          Iran will also dilute three tonnes of uranium refined to two percent - far below the 90 percent level required for bombs.

          These measures are in addition to steps Iran already has implemented under an interim, six-month agreement reached in Geneva in November, especially the suspension of its most controversial enrichment, to a fissile purity of 20 percent.

          That deal resulted in a "modest but worthwhile" lengthening of the time needed for any bomb bid, Einhorn said.

          But Olli Heinonen, a former chief U.N. inspector, said Iran by the end of the new four-month period would still have some 7.5 tonnes of uranium refined to about 3.5 percent, the level used to fuel nuclear power plants. If enriched to weapons-grade, experts say, that stash could yield about five or six bombs.

          With Iran's uranium stocks and number of centrifuges, "the technical breakout time - two months as Secretary Kerry has said earlier - does not change", Heinonen said in an email.
          West still struggles to cut feared bomb risk in Iran nuclear talks | Reuters

          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378133].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            That's your opinion...but at least negotiations are occurring with Hassan Rouhani's folks. It's too bad Iran failed to meet the self-imposed July 20 deadline for a comprehensive accord. The fact is Iran wants to keep it's 19,000 centrifuges and that is more than plenty to do some serious enrichment. The reality is nobody actually knows what Iran wants to do (or does) out of the watchful eye of the US and other responsible members of the international community.

            In the opinion of some of the "experts" Iran could have a nuclear bomb in 3 months or less and John Kerry says the technical breakout time is just 2 months.





            West still struggles to cut feared bomb risk in Iran nuclear talks | Reuters

            Cheers

            -don
            Yeah, last I heard, IRAN was ADAMANT about having nukes! They do NOT care about the west. Let's not forget the events of the late 70s. I may have only been a kid at the time but I remember that on the news like it was YESTERDAY! I remember the HOSTAGES!I remember when they went from an ALLY to a vicious ENEMY, that caused the US to leave SO quickly that we left some of the latest fighter jets there! I went to a US school with LOTS of iranians, and even had an iranian roommate. I have spoken with them about it. ALL they care about in the west is Jihad, making money, and supposedly spreading ISLAM. Of course, I can't speak for the people. Most that are HERE seem fine, but MANY that are here came here because they were KICKED OUT! Those in IRAN are likely generally either ambivalent or very PRO IRAN government.

            And nobody knows how close Iran is. They only know that Iran could be at a point where, if anyone were to make them angry, they could either send a lot of dirty bombs(NEARLY a GIVEN!!!!!!), or they could send several nuclear bombs! Much of the work has already been done. They could probably make a decent guess of potential, already have missiles, explosives, and all the electronics DONE! They could have done that over a DECADE ago! That leaves only the MATERIAL! Luckily, it is relatively rare, and hard to refine. Having nuclear reactors, the rare part is taken care of. And THAT is why so many talk of the centrifuges to REFINE it. HECK, there IS a weapon nicknamed a doomsday weapon, because it is kind of a neutron bomb in REVERSE! NOBODY would think that the iranians would hesitate to build it. The raw material is probably not hard to get as irradiation pits, to sterilize food, etc..., usually use it.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378576].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            That's your opinion...but at least negotiations are occurring with Hassan Rouhani's folks. It's too bad Iran failed to meet the self-imposed July 20 deadline for a comprehensive accord. The fact is Iran wants to keep it's 19,000 centrifuges and that is more than plenty to do some serious enrichment. The reality is nobody actually knows what Iran wants to do (or does) out of the watchful eye of the US and other responsible members of the international community.

            In the opinion of some of the "experts" Iran could have a nuclear bomb in 3 months or less and John Kerry says the technical breakout time is just 2 months.





            West still struggles to cut feared bomb risk in Iran nuclear talks | Reuters

            Cheers

            -don
            Time will tell if these negotiations will bare fruit but it looks more promising than it has been in a long time.

            The economic sanctions are killing them and they have looked at all the pluses and minuses and concluded that maybe they don't really have to have a nuclear bomb in order to guarantee their sovereignty - from outside forces.

            Even though it may be more trouble and cost to the west than it's worth to actually go to war to prevent them from getting a bomb...

            - We're not going to drop any type of nuclear bomb on them because they are too close to other countries like Russia and I'm sure Russia has informed us that if we do, it will be just like an act of war on them.

            - They have spent the money to deploy well hidden high quality missiles that can hit downtown Tel Aviv and most of the capitals in western Europe with accuracy and have made it clear that if attacked, buttons will be pushed and they won't be the only people who suffer.

            - If war happens the price of oil will skyrocket and not many people want that to happen.

            - They're not going to lay down like the Iraqis. To occupy that country we're probably going to have to kill at least a million of them.

            - They probably have lots of tricks to bottle up the Straights Of Hormuz of which I heard 1/5 of the world's oil flows through. If the oil not flowing through there as normal, prices will skyrocket.

            - Their agents especially in Europe and America will go postal.

            So IMHO, the Iranians probably have concluded that they don't absolutely have to have a deliverable bomb to guarantee their sovereignty but they also don't want a piece of crap economy from here on out since that is more of a danger to the rule of the mullahs than a takeover from outside forces.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9379991].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Even though it may be more trouble and cost to the west than it's worth to actually go to war to prevent them from getting a bomb...
              Actually, almost NOTHING is too expensive to keep them from getting the bomb. If the US, in NORMAL times, had to risk lives and money, and coulddo so without overly endangering allies from outside threats, to guarantee that IRAN would not have the bomb, it WOULD!

              - We're not going to drop any type of nuclear bomb on them because they are too close to other countries like Russia and I'm sure Russia has informed us that if we do, it will be just like an act of war on them.
              There is more than THAT! The bomb is, for us, the last thing we would do. We EVEN considered destroying a US possession instead of blowing up ONE japanese town. The way I hear it, the plan was to destroy ONE japanese town! The weather was bad, so an ALTERNATE was chosen. Japan wavered, and we THEN hit the planned city.

              - They have spent the money to deploy well hidden high quality missiles that can hit downtown Tel Aviv and most of the capitals in western Europe with accuracy and have made it clear that if attacked, buttons will be pushed and they won't be the only people who suffer.
              YEAH, and ISRAEL spent the money to build a decoy system, and RADAR! So WHAT is the DECOY system? Glad you asked! One country, I forget if it was IRAQ or IRAN, was building a special RADAR system that israel didn't want them to have. It was HIDDEN! Israel sent in the decoys, that sent the coordinates of the radar when it locked onto them to detect them, etc... Israel knocked out the WELL HIDDEN RADAR! That happened over a decade ago.

              - If war happens the price of oil will skyrocket and not many people want that to happen.
              Some would LOVE it!

              - They're not going to lay down like the Iraqis. To occupy that country we're probably going to have to kill at least a million of them.
              Occupying the country wouldn't do anything. If we were as desperate as YOU make it seem, we could bomb them with CONVENTIONAL weapons. IRAQ only THINKS it had a real war. The infrastructure was STILL THERE, and RUNNING! Why didn't the US take it out?

              - They probably have lots of tricks to bottle up the Straights Of Hormuz of which I heard 1/5 of the world's oil flows through. If the oil not flowing through there as normal, prices will skyrocket.
              There ARE ways the US could replace that oil. Ironic, if you think about it.

              - Their agents especially in Europe and America will go postal.
              Yeah, if they ALL did, they would be in trouble. HEY, I have a video that explains it a bit. First consider all those in the US, UK, and germany, for starters, that want SHARIA law!


              It wasn't bashing the woman, it was just well placed anger against the attempt to shift the agenda. And she didn't bash muslims, germans, russians, or chinese, she just said the truth. But the idea is that for every hundred in YOUR town, 25 or more are likely extremists and many MUST lay low, because they want to hit later. Still, you better be watching because the time may be NOW! They plan to hit sooner or later. That was ALWAYS the plan. It is a TENET!

              So IMHO, the Iranians probably have concluded that they don't absolutely have to have a deliverable bomb to guarantee their sovereignty but they also don't want a piece of crap economy from here on out since that is more of a danger to the rule of the mullahs than a takeover from outside forces.
              They ALWAYS knew they didn't!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9380492].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                Actually, almost NOTHING is too expensive to keep them from getting the bomb. If the US, in NORMAL times, had to risk lives and money, and coulddo so without overly endangering allies from outside threats, to guarantee that IRAN would not have the bomb, it WOULD!



                There is more than THAT! The bomb is, for us, the last thing we would do. We EVEN considered destroying a US possession instead of blowing up ONE japanese town. The way I hear it, the plan was to destroy ONE japanese town! The weather was bad, so an ALTERNATE was chosen. Japan wavered, and we THEN hit the planned city.



                YEAH, and ISRAEL spent the money to build a decoy system, and RADAR! So WHAT is the DECOY system? Glad you asked! One country, I forget if it was IRAQ or IRAN, was building a special RADAR system that israel didn't want them to have. It was HIDDEN! Israel sent in the decoys, that sent the coordinates of the radar when it locked onto them to detect them, etc... Israel knocked out the WELL HIDDEN RADAR! That happened over a decade ago.



                Some would LOVE it!



                Occupying the country wouldn't do anything. If we were as desperate as YOU make it seem, we could bomb them with CONVENTIONAL weapons. IRAQ only THINKS it had a real war. The infrastructure was STILL THERE, and RUNNING! Why didn't the US take it out?



                There ARE ways the US could replace that oil. Ironic, if you think about it.



                Yeah, if they ALL did, they would be in trouble. HEY, I have a video that explains it a bit. First consider all those in the US, UK, and germany, for starters, that want SHARIA law!

                Brigitte Gabriel gives FANTASTIC answer to Muslim woman claiming all Muslims are portrayed badly ยป T - YouTube

                It wasn't bashing the woman, it was just well placed anger against the attempt to shift the agenda. And she didn't bash muslims, germans, russians, or chinese, she just said the truth. But the idea is that for every hundred in YOUR town, 25 or more are likely extremists and many MUST lay low, because they want to hit later. Still, you better be watching because the time may be NOW! They plan to hit sooner or later. That was ALWAYS the plan. It is a TENET!



                They ALWAYS knew they didn't!

                Steve


                It would be a big mistake to get Iran and Iraq mixed up as far as resources and competence is concerned.

                For example Iraq built it's nuclear reactor above ground and it was an very easy target.

                Anyone wanting sharia law in any western country would be like someone wanting "Scientology law".

                It ain't gana get close to happening.

                We are all entitled.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9380832].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  It would be a big mistake to get Iran and Iraq mixed up as far as resources and competence is concerned.

                  For example Iraq built it's nuclear reactor above ground and it was an very easy target.

                  Anyone wanting sharia law in any western country would be like someone wanting "Scientology law".

                  It ain't gana get close to happening.

                  We are all entitled.

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  It would be a big mistake to get Iran and Iraq mixed up as far as resources and competence is concerned.

                  For example Iraq built it's nuclear reactor above ground and it was an very easy target.

                  Anyone wanting sharia law in any western country would be like someone wanting "Scientology law".

                  It ain't gana get close to happening.

                  We are all entitled.
                  "scientology law" has happened in MANY MANY MANY MANY places! I actually MET with a scientology "ethics officer"! I READ their BOOK on "ethics". MANY words in scientology have different meanings. To HAT, for example, means to TEACH! Well, ETHICS basically means LAW! BASICALLY, THEIR law is that you are to conform to, or try to conform to, their way 100%! They have ways of validating this, and providing some enforcement.

                  And if you don't toe the line on their belief? WELL.... Let's just say it is good they don't take it as far as COUNTRIES do. The scientologists will shun you, and basically you lose any position you have. But they even do lie detector sessions with their Emeter. AGAIN, the EMETER is basically a galvanic skin response device, a simple lie detector. MOST use it to get "clear" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_(Scientology) . The ethics officer uses it differently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_(Scientology)

                  I almost wish I bought that "ethics" book, but it was HUGE! The IRS probably has nothing on them in strategies. I forget how I got messed up with the ethics officer. I was probably too outspoken. They have some properties, like "the manor hotel" The Manor Hotel - A Religious Retreat of the Church of Scientology which is pretty much 100% scientologist. It is like their mecca, They have a restaurant, a spa of sorts, a hotel, etc... And THAT is where I saw their ethics officer. Their "ethics book" at least WAS for sale in their shop.

                  As for SHARIA law? Some areas basically have it to a fair degree, and the courts can only go so far to stop it. So don't bet on it being stopped! Anyone remember salman rushdie? YEAH, still alive, but how has he been treated? How about Kurt Vestergaard? The WORLD was in an uproar. South park apparently won't TOUCH islam, though they just yesterday broadcast their ridicule of mormonism again. I think they have ridiculed about 6 religions, including any things worshiped. But I haven't seen them ridicule islam.

                  People HAVE died and had their lives destroyed because they violated sharia law. LUCKILY, for the moment, it is only a problem if you are in certain countries, or associate too closely with certain areas and/or cultures.

                  OH, but NEVER ridicule ANYTHING ISLAM! If you do, and the wrong people hear about it, ALL BETS ARE OFF!

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9381458].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          #1: The Afghans were fighting the Russians and then other muslims like Bin Laden jumped in and we also jumped in with big aid - especially the Tow Missiles - to help expel the Russians.

          I don't see how we disagree on this one.

          We helped the Afghans get rid of the invading Russians.


          #2: Wars with the Iraqis...

          My memory failed me on the Iraqi situations, so you got me there.


          #3: Great, Gaddafi was supposedly supplying the CIA with info on terrorist activities.

          He was seen worldwide as a good friend of the Russians and the Russians considered him their top ally in the Arab world along with Syria.

          The Russians were not very happy with our activities in Libya's civil war - such as the no fly zone that eventually helped oust Gaddafi from power.


          #4: Syria:

          Let's pretend you were a small country that had a cache of chem weapons and were told not to use them.

          They were used and a big country comes along and says...

          ...You violated international norms of behavior so now I'm going to bomb you.

          Another big country comes along who also happened to be a great friend of yours - supplying most of your armaments and supposedly helps you understand that in order to avoid the bombing that is surely to come and one that will probably tip the balance of power in your civil war against you -...

          ... it would be better if you offer to give up the chem weapons altogether because maybe that will stop the bombing.

          Without the threat of the bombing you would have kept your chem weapons.

          You can give the credit to Putin who IMHO, was nothing more than a go-between at best ...

          ...(as if Syria couldn't come to that decision by themselves)...

          ...if you like, but I say without the threat of force, Syria would still have their chem weapons.

          It seems to me that they were forced to give up their chem weapons or else and they didn't need Putin to convince them of their choices.

          How hard could that decision be?


          #5: As far as Iran is concerned, either they are to give up their (supposed?) nuclear ambitions or face the unrelenting and crippling economic pressure from the west - lead by the U.S.

          It looks like they decided to give up their nuclear ambitions which they would not have done without the pressure exerted on them by the west - lead by the U.S.

          Folks can play games with the semantics but to me it looks like they were forced to give up their nuclear ambitions.

          I believe they decided they didn't want a society like North Korea in which they have nukes but the society is poor as hell.
          In reality TL, things just aren't as they seem in the Middle East. The deeper you dig into ours and other European countries involvements there the more confusing it gets.
          Just looking at the history of Iran you can see how us and England tried to manipulate them and how they tried to do the same to England and us. For example England and what is now BP went into Iran right after WWII and built their oil industry, then Iran kicked them out (keeping the industry). Then we (through the newly formed CIA, formerly the OSS, under Eisenhower) put the Shah in power.

          History in the Middle East changes according to who is telling the story and what they want you to hear.

          As far as Syria and their chemical weapons, I think we're probably both right on that one. They wouldn't of gotten rid of them if Russia didn't tell them to, but I don't Russia would of told them to if the US wasn't pushing the issue.
          But also keep in mind we have used chemical weapons recently in the Middle East also. BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq

          After we bombed one of Qaddafi's palaces he started working with us to save his ass, but that's not saying he wasn't also buddies with the Russians.

          So like I said the Middle East is rather confusing and pretty complicated, too.
          The possibility of us both being right to some degree is entirely possible.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378232].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            In reality TL, things just aren't as they seem in the Middle East. The deeper you dig into ours and other European countries involvements there the more confusing it gets.
            Just looking at the history of Iran you can see how us and England tried to manipulate them and how they tried to do the same to England and us. For example England and what is now BP went into Iran right after WWII and built their oil industry, then Iran kicked them out (keeping the industry). Then we (through the newly formed CIA, formerly the OSS, under Eisenhower) put the Shah in power.

            History in the Middle East changes according to who is telling the story and what they want you to hear.

            As far as Syria and their chemical weapons, I think we're probably both right on that one. They wouldn't of gotten rid of them if Russia didn't tell them to, but I don't Russia would of told them to if the US wasn't pushing the issue.

            But also keep in mind we have used chemical weapons recently in the Middle East also. BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq

            After we bombed one of Qaddafi's palaces he started working with us to save his ass, but that's not saying he wasn't also buddies with the Russians.

            So like I said the Middle East is rather confusing and pretty complicated, too.
            The possibility of us both being right to some degree is entirely possible.
            Sure Thom the middle east is a tangled web of complications etc. But...

            We're going to have to agree to disagree on the Syrian situation.


            You said...


            As far as Syria and their chemical weapons, I think we're probably both right on that one.

            They wouldn't of gotten rid of them if Russia didn't tell them to, but I don't Russia would of told them to if the US wasn't pushing the issue.

            I say...

            We can't be both right since we hold opposing views.


            You're claiming above that Syria would not have gotten rid of their chems if Russia didn't tell them to.


            Nothing personal but...

            I claim that your claim doesn't make a lot of sense.

            Perhaps it's because you believe Assad wasn't smart enough to know exactly what he was getting into - if he didn't offer up his chem weapons to stave off a U.S. bombing.

            Assad would have been a exceptionally stupid and super delusional madman (especially after knowing what happened to Qaddafi) to risk dealing with a bombing campaign by the U.S. that in all probability would have altered the balance of power in his country - and much to his detriment.

            I'm not sure why you believe Russia had to tell them anything unless you like many others simply don't want to give any credit to the admin for forcing the issue in the first place when it's obvious the threat of force is what forced the Syrians to give up their chems.

            So...

            We're going to have to agree to disagree on the Syrian issue.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378656].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              We're going to have to agree to disagree on the Syrian situation.


              You said...


              As far as Syria and their chemical weapons, I think we're probably both right on that one.

              They wouldn't of gotten rid of them if Russia didn't tell them to, but I don't Russia would of told them to if the US wasn't pushing the issue.

              I say...

              We can't be both right since we hold opposing views.


              You're claiming above that Syria would not have gotten rid of their chems if Russia didn't tell them to.

              I claim that your claim doesn't make a lot of sense.

              Perhaps it's because you believe Assad wasn't smart enough to know exactly what he was getting into - if he didn't offer up his chem weapons to stave off a U.S. bombing.

              Assad would have been a super delusional madman (especially after knowing what happened to Qaddafi) to risk dealing with a bombing campaign by the U.S. that in all probability would have altered the balance of power in his country - and much to his detriment.

              I'm not sure why you believe Russia had to tell them anything unless you like many others simply don't want to give any credit to the admin for forcing the issue in the first place when it's obvious the threat of force is what forced the Syrians to give up their chems.

              We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
              There are too many ways to defeat a foe that wants to take a resource from you. They are ALWAYS on the loosing end, since they RARELY know WHERE, or how much. And EVERY nation has used that to their advantage. The US, perhaps every place in europe, africa, and asia, likely canada, etc...

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378757].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Especially when folks mess around with countries right on their doorstep who were part of the old Soviet empire.

      - In the early 1960s, when the Russians tried to arm Cuba with nukes, we were prepared to go to war to stop them from becoming operational.

      Fortunately they backed down.

      - In the 1980s when the Russians were trying to mess around in Nicaragua we stopped at nothing until that government changed their tune.

      - After we helped the Afghans expel them from their country in the 1980s, embarrassed them in the first gulf war by beating up on their ally in the early 1990s, and then we completely removed their ally from power in the 2nd gulf war, helped get rid of their friend Gaddafi, then recently we forced another one of their allies - Syria, to give up their chemical weapons and we are now in the process of forcing another to give up their nuclear ambitions...

      ... what would you expect now if we helped a former Soviet republic change governments to one much, much friendlier towards the west?

      Their response?

      They practically seized the Cremia so they could make sure they still have access to ports on the Black Sea and now since they lost the battle to remove the new gov in Ukraine they've decided to back separatists trying to tear off a piece of eastern Ukraine.

      I'm sure Putin did not want an airliner shot down and I'm not surprised at their other actions one bit.
      I STILL think putin is a bit better than the older rulers, but..... I found a poice from the past. 31 years ago, and it might as well be NOW! IF ONLY!


      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
    Originally Posted by joe golfer View Post

    They shoot down a plane as part of their new demand for respect?

    Russia Has Become Dangerous Again - David Frum - The Atlantic

    You've got the money and the science. Quit starting wars and killing innocent people, and start contributing more to your own people and the world.
    could you clarify exactly which country you are referring to
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9378170].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
    Joe

    you really should spend more time figuring out America than worrying about russia

    if you got your head out of your ars you will see the U.S. is just as guilty in starting wars and killing innocent people around the world all in the name of democacy and for truth justice and the american way.. lol

    stop watching TV and do your diligence.. please mate.

    the "T" word is all about what they do to us BUT not what we do to them








    Originally Posted by joe golfer View Post

    They shoot down a plane as part of their new demand for respect?

    Russia Has Become Dangerous Again - David Frum - The Atlantic

    Now, I don't know that much about the country, I admit, so take this with a grain of salt. But what's their deal? Why all the machismo? Because you lost the cold war? Come on. You are thinking like it's 1968. Wake up and smell 2014.

    Why not come up with new ideas for your own country, new products, new innovations, new solutions to problems, new ways of doing things, new incentives, new companies, new concepts, new approaches, etc.?

    Why waste human lives in some deranged need for respect? I'll respect you if you can use your new found energy wealth to help find solutions to pollution, poverty, nuclear proliferation, and disease, especially in your own country.

    You've got the money and the science. Quit starting wars and killing innocent people, and start contributing more to your own people and the world.
    Signature

    Skunkworks: noun. informal.

    A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
    https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9380856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Pura Vida
    Here we go again with the propaganda...

    The US and EU overthrew the LEGITIMATE Ukrainian government...

    US and EU Are Paying Ukrainian Rioters and Protesters -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

    http://www.storyleak.com/ukraine-dec...detat-exposes/

    Over 95% of the citizens of Crimea voted to REjoin Russia...

    95.7% of Crimeans in referendum voted to join Russia - preliminary results ? RT News

    Putin accepted. Obviously he would as there was no way he would let the US run Kiev government evict Russia from their only warm water military base, Sevastopol. Russia has a long term lease there regardless.

    So, please tell me what Russia has done that is so horrible?...I'm all ears.

    What would the US do if Russia supported a coup to overthrow the Mexican government and installed a pro-Russian government. You think the US would go for that? You think the American government would accept having ICBM's sitting on their border? Like NATO would like to do in Ukraine?

    I'm just surprised Russia has been so reserved to this point and is trying to resolve with diplomacy...while the US has no intention to do so. The US has taken propaganda to insane levels. This thing could go hot at any time and the entire world could end up having nuclear missiles raining down.

    As far as Russia shooting down a plane...

    US Intelligence: No Evidence Russia Did It -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

    (For those who don't know...Paul Craig Roberts is the former US Deputy Treasury Secretary).

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...a-incite-other

    http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/8...rds-war-russia


    For all of you who think that the US's foreign policy has anything to do with 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', or 'terrorists', or 'democracy'....you aren't even close to being in the game. In fact, you haven't even arrived at the ballpark yet.

    It all comes down to the US frantically trying to protect a dying PETRODOLLAR system.

    http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/the...he-petrodollar

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...r-busting-deal

    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...ag/petrodollar










    Originally Posted by joe golfer View Post

    They shoot down a plane as part of their new demand for respect?

    Russia Has Become Dangerous Again - David Frum - The Atlantic

    Now, I don't know that much about the country, I admit, so take this with a grain of salt. But what's their deal? Why all the machismo? Because you lost the cold war? Come on. You are thinking like it's 1968. Wake up and smell 2014.

    Why not come up with new ideas for your own country, new products, new innovations, new solutions to problems, new ways of doing things, new incentives, new companies, new concepts, new approaches, etc.?

    Why waste human lives in some deranged need for respect? I'll respect you if you can use your new found energy wealth to help find solutions to pollution, poverty, nuclear proliferation, and disease, especially in your own country.

    You've got the money and the science. Quit starting wars and killing innocent people, and start contributing more to your own people and the world.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9411925].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      @ Pure Vida

      Conspiracy theory much?

      Paul Craig Roberts has reduced himself to 911 Truther that has ruined all the credibility that he had earned in his first fifty years over the past ten years. This guy loves to hate on America and I think many of the peeps that take this guy seriously at this point may have a screw loose.

      I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and "conspiracy theories" have filled the void.
      And this little gem from Paul Craig Roberts:

      Washington imperialists and their media and think tank whores expressed gleeful sighs of relief as did the brainwashed US population.

      <snip>

      Washington is not America. Washington is Satan’s home town.

      Chavez was a friend of truth and justice, and this made him unpopular throughout the Western World where every political leader regards truth and justice as dire threats.

      Chavez was a world leader. Unlike US politicians, Chavez was respected throughout the non-western world. He was awarded honorary doctorates from China, Russia, Brazil, and other countries, but not from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, and Oxford.

      Chavez was a miracle....

      Hugo Chavez -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

      The US State Department released satellite image evidence of Russian artillery fire from Russia into Ukraine. Below is the 4 page document that contains four different image compilations showing ground scarring, Russian self propelled artillery units, crater impacts, blasts marks from MRL fire etc. etc. The images were captured by the highly reputable satellite image company, Digital Globe.

      http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2014/...to-Ukraine.pdf

      Below is one of the images...



      ...make sure you click on the PDF to check the out the rest of the photos. One more thing, lets not forget that Crimea is not the whole of Ukraine and those satellite images are nowhere near the Crimean region.

      By the way, you can't believe everything you read on RT!

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9411946].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Enfusia
        Let's take a step back and look at this from a much bigger view.

        The world power balances are shifting.

        B.R.I.C. (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are forming their own version of the world bank so they can bypass dollars. They have signed nearly 60 trade agreements amongst themselves in the last 3 years whilst only signing 5 total with the United States.

        Russia is simply positioning itself to accept its new role.

        As for who shot down what? We'll likely never know, we can speculate, but it's not much more than that.

        Patrick
        Signature
        Free eBook =>
        The Secret To Success In Any Business
        Yes, Any Business!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9411976].message }}

Trending Topics