or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, NATO, Israel, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, NATO, Israel, etc. - Page 3

post #81 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

It's been interesting watching the left's reaction to Russia's 'war for an oil pipeline'. Very interesting.

However, anyone who thinks the U.S. told Georgia that they would be backed militarily against nuclear-armed Russia is living in a dream world. Even if Cheney had said it, nobody is dumb enough to believe it.

Adda, I'm thoroughly surprised that you would take the insane view that McCain would lead the U.S. into a 'shooting war' with Russia. That's Sammi-Jo territory. McCain can play the hawk because he's not in a position to influence foreign policy.

McCain's idea would not be to start a shooting war, but to possibly regenerate a modern day version of the cold war. The so-called "war on terrorism" is looking increasingly redundant and shabby, especially as people all over are beginning to realize that terrorism, especially here in the US is very rare, and the problem overseas is best dealt with using intelligence and international policing, rather than scorched-earth military might.

McCain's priority (as Obama's) is to service the big business lobby, especially in the oil and "defense" (sic) sectors. Kick starting the cold war is a great way of not only "justifying" more huge corporate welfare programs, but the renewed awareness of the other big bad boogeyman (now that OBL is off the map) .. ie those dreadful Russians.... is a great way of maintaining the fear factor in the minds of the US public. A fearful public is a manageable, malleable public.

Quote:
Neither Obama nor McCain would be reckless enough to take the country to war with a nuclear power lightly. And while the U.S. was clearly trying to establish a base of influence in what Russia considers its backyard, the outbreak of hostilities is not the Americans fault.

The Russians also don't want war with a nuclear power. That's a given.

Quote:
Why the left constantly lets dictators off with a warning continues to escape me. They simply never learn.

Ha! Thats the statement of the year! Its the US right which has the greater track record of coddling dictators. Even when there's a "Democrat" as president, it's the right-leaning agencies and the Pentagon which have a history of instigating support for, and maintenance of, dictators... or overthrowing democratically elected politicians overseas and replacing them with dictators. All the way from Prescott Bush's love affair with Hitler and the Nazis, to the Reagan Admin's support of vicious regimes in S. America .. such as Pinochet in Chile, Galtieri in Argentina, and... Saddam Hussein in Iraq when he was doing his worst atrocities., for a few examples amongst dozens..

Some examples:

Chile: Gen. Augusto Pinochet\t1973-1990\t3000 murdered. 400,000 tortured.
ArgentinatGen. Jorge Rafael Videla\t1976-1981\t30,000 murdered.
IndonesiatSuharto\t1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno, 1975 support of East Timor genocide 500,000 dead after 1965 coup; 100,000-230,000 dead in East Timor
Guatemala: Armas, Fuentes, Montt
Iran: The Shah of Iran (btw, Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris)
Iraq: Saddam Hussein
Nicaragua: Anastasio Somoza & sons\t1937-1979
Paraguay: Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975)\t1954-1989
Bolivia\tCol. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres\t1970-
AngolatJonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions)\t1975-1989\t\t
Panama\tNoriega received US $support\t
Haiti: Papa Doc, Baby Doc\t
Dominican Republic: Trujillo, a military dictator for 32 years with US support for most of that time; Belaguer, Trujillo's protege, installed after US Marines intervened to put down an attempt to restore the democratically elected government of Juan Bosch\t1930-61, 1965-7
El Salvador: 1980s
Brazil: Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support\t1965-67
Uzbekistan: Dictator Islam Karimov received $150M from the Bush administration for an air base....

Which left-wingers in the US agencies and military supported these almost universally right-wing thugs, and other too numerous to mention here?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #82 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's see...McCain said that we should reevaluate our relationship with the Russians. Is that wrong? And what beyond your highly subjective interpretations of his rhetoric makes you think he wants to start WWIII?

McCain On Reinstituting A Military Draft: ‘I Don’t Disagree'

Quote:
Today at a townhall meeting, an audience member praised Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his vow to “follow bin Laden to the gates of hell.” After a long question about veterans’ care, the questioner said she believed we needed to reinstate the draft, to which McCain seemed to readily agree:

Quote:
QUESTIONER: If we don’t reenact the draft, I don’t think we’ll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

[Appaluse]

Quote:
MCCAIN: Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said.

McCain Agrees: We won't catch Bin laden.
post #83 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

McCain On Reinstituting A Military Draft: ‘I Don’t Disagree'

McCain Agrees: We won't catch Bin laden.

Why would they want to catch bin Laden? That's the last thing the admin. wants. That's probably why he has "given the US military the slip" (with a lot of help) on numerous occasions since the invasion of Afghanistan.

The constant yammering by this admin and the US media of "Osama bin Laden is still at large and we aim to catch him" is BS. If western press people such as John Miller and Peter Arnett can do some casual inquiry in Afghanistan, requesting an interview with Osama bin Laden, and they are taken straight to his home base where they successfully interviewed the man on two separate occasions some time apart from each other, within a few days notice, WTF can't the US military and an international coalition force with access to 10s of $$billions worth of state of the art spy satellites, electronic surveillance and detection equipment find him after 7 years of alleged searching?

The answer, is that more than likely, they know exactly where he is, and he is being kept safe (if he isn't dead already). After all, he is bogeyman #1, and as such, he is a valuable asset in the War of Terrorism.

McCain is full of it. (So's Obama). Weasels, the pair of them.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #84 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Well, it also was convenient that the leader of the Northern Alliance was taken out by a suicide bomber disguised as a cameraman, two days before 9|11.

If the USG was THAT good at staging things we wouldn't be calling them idiots all the time and we'd have won Iraq. The idea that we killed Ahmed Shah Massood is hilarious.

Quote:
...And, we have the Pentagon now wanting 15,000 more troops to go in too.

We have 38,000 troops in Korea. We could certainly use those troops there and we SHOULD have had tens of thousands more to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda before now. But we diverted ourselves into Iraq.

Which part of "we should flatten folks that try to kill us" are we in disagreement over? Is there an argument that Al Qaeda isn't trying to kill Americans and that the Taliban directly supported them?
post #85 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

McCain's idea would not be to start a shooting war, but to possibly regenerate a modern day version of the cold war.

The Russians, oil money or not, aren't really good cold war material. Frankly, they're a regional power and mostly an issue for the Europeans.

Strategically they want to influence/dominate the former Soviet states. The former Warsaw pact nations are lost to them. Germany is one country. Poland is an EU and NATO country. Chech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria are all EU countries.

So likely Georgia and Eukraine will not become NATO nations but the Eurkrainians are not pushovers. If they really want NATO status and push hard for it, it's unlikely the Russians can really stop them. They have the 2nd largest military in Europe.
post #86 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

WTF can't the US military and an international coalition force with access to 10s of $$billions worth of state of the art spy satellites, electronic surveillance and detection equipment find him after 7 years of alleged searching?

Because these assets are geared toward finding large threats and not one guy. The opposition isn't just sitting around with a big ol' bullseye saying "come get me". They have fairly sophisticated methods to avoid electronic detection.

Besides, Bush wants him before his term ends for his "legacy". Do ya really think he gives a shit about how Bin Laden might be useful for the next guy with his job? Especially since it's likely to be a Democratic President anyway?

No. If we knew where he is, he'd be front page news and Bush would be doing DiCaprio impressions.
post #87 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If the USG was THAT good at staging things we wouldn't be calling them idiots all the time and we'd have won Iraq. The idea that we killed Ahmed Shah Massood is hilarious.

I wasn't saying so, but the USG has had it's CIA, NSA and other covert agents in Afghanistan for decades. Even during the Russian invasion. Funny, I remember the week before 9|11 that many odd incidents were going on there. The Taliban exploding the Buddhist statues, the assassination of Massood and then 9|11.

I also remember a live press conference scheduled on 9|11 with the Taliban regarding the assassination that was held anyway. As the WTC towers burned on one side of the screen, the other showed the high ranking Taliban leaders (and likely some al qaeda operatives in attendance) denying any involvement with the assassination or attacks.

I've tried to find that interview, I've tried and have never found anything regarding it.

Quote:
We have 38,000 troops in Korea. We could certainly use those troops there and we SHOULD have had tens of thousands more to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda before now. But we diverted ourselves into Iraq.

Which part of "we should flatten folks that try to kill us" are we in disagreement over? Is there an argument that Al Qaeda isn't trying to kill Americans and that the Taliban directly supported them?

But the dangers go far beyong Afghanistan, the area in the eastern part along the border with Pakistan is the breeding ground for the next, lethal and probably nuclear terrorist threat on the free world. Now that Musharraf is on the outs, things will get even more dicey in this region.

The Taliban, evil as they are, only harbored al qaeda. They had no prior knowledge of the 9|11 attacks. But their complicity is evident being what they are. I had no qualms of us going in and eradicating them and routing the extremists. Except the Bush administration dropped the ball and basically went ahead with their true, original plan...Iraq.

Want to see something odd yet interesting?

Joan Jett was on a U.S.O. Tour in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Oman in early 2002, she asked about all the huge amounts of military equipment she saw being moved and was told it was going to Iraq...a year before the war started and before the administration even made any public assumptions of doing so.

I know, odd and obscure but listen to what she said and saw.

Things like these are planned way in advance. It's only when the time is right when the public realizes or is caught up into them that they are subject to the consequences. This is a big, global chess game. We are the pawns.

Actually the Bush administration is the reason why there is a new arms race. They sharply increased military spending, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening Iran, building missile systems in Eastern Europe, expanding NATO up to Russian borders.

Now Russia is moving their chess pieces around
.
post #88 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Because these assets are geared toward finding large threats and not one guy. The opposition isn't just sitting around with a big ol' bullseye saying "come get me". They have fairly sophisticated methods to avoid electronic detection.

Not buying it. Bin Laden has a support system with lots of people; it takes just one person to make an error and fatally compromise his security, and it's all over. Furthermore, there's been a $25,000,000 reward on his head, dead or alive, ongoing for 7 years. Nobody's going to convince me that all his people, or the possibly thousands of local folk who know something, are so committed to the bin Laden cause that they would turn their noses up at the chance of a new life and riches beyond their wildest imaginings. The most likely answer is that he is dead, and has been for a fair while; the "bin Laden" videos released at opportune moments within the last few years have been provably faked. Or, he is being sequestered somewhere. I can accept he might have been on the loose for perhaps a couple of months post 9/11....but still, 7 years later? Forget it.. that is really pushing the bounds of credibility.

Quote:
No. If we knew where he is, he'd be front page news and Bush would be doing DiCaprio impressions.

If his location was known, he will be presented to the US public (either dead or in shackles) at a moment in time (perhaps just before the presidential 'election'), to benefit one of the candidates. The capture or presentation of bin Laden, dead or alive, remains an ace card, a certain election winner.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #89 of 93
What's even more hilarious are the ones we keep "eliminating"....

They seem to be the same ones, over and over and over again...twice...

\
post #90 of 93
Eric Rudolph hid in applachia for 5 years, alledgedly with supporters helping him while having a $1,000,000 reward for his arrest. Not everyone is motivated by money.

Also, it is arguable that Bin Laden's support system is well compartmentalized.
post #91 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Not everyone is motivated by money.

Heresy! Heresy! BURN HIM(?)!!!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #92 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

What's even more hilarious are the ones we keep "eliminating"....

They seem to be the same ones, over and over and over again...twice...

\

Trying to recall here... but was it Chemical Ali who has been killed three times so far?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #93 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Trying to recall here... but was it Chemical Ali who has been killed three times so far?



It's them chemicals...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, NATO, Israel, etc.