DescentBB

CUDA wrote:YA YA and Russia and the KGB are Lilly white.

The Soviet Union, the KGB, the Cold War ceased to exist 22 years ago. In the United States, in all seriousness now brainwashed Americans that Russia is still pursuing an aggressive policy towards the U.S.? You need to be afraid of your own politicians in this case, much more than the Russian

Anatoliy Golitsyn said that outright aggression would be replaced with subversion. So you and I are saying the same thing. Where the Cold War ended there was a new beginning. I think it's also a point of interest that the American politicians that were actively involved at that time, late 80's and early 90's are all in retirement, yet, a great deal of the Russian ones are still politically active and in office. I got T-shirts 22 years old.

callmeslick, do not be confused by the fact that the chemical attack occurred a day after the arrival of the UN Commission on chemical weapons in Syria? Syria specifically waited for a UN commission to demonstrate the effects of chemical weapons and mountains of corpses of women and children?

In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[13] wherein he warned about a long-term deception strategy of seeming retreat from hard-line Communism designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. Among other things, Golitsyn stated:
"The 'liberalization' [in the Soviet Union] would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed."
"If [liberalization] should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
"The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe."

In 1995 he published a book containing purported memoranda attributed to Golitsyn entitled The Perestroika Deception which claimed:
"The [Soviet] strategists are concealing the secret coordination that exists and will continue between Moscow and the 'nationalist' leaders of [the] 'independent' republics."
"The power of the KGB remains as great as ever... Talk of cosmetic changes in the KGB and its supervision is deliberately publicized to support the myth of 'democratization' of the Soviet political system."
"Scratch these new, instant Soviet 'democrats,' 'anti-Communists,' and 'nationalists' who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents."

Now, let's look at the events that happened since Golitsyn released his book.
The Berlin Wall fell.
The Soviet Union 'collapsed'
The European Union formed
We are almost completely diplomatically isolated and the state of our economy is on the brink of ruin. This is why I think a move against the dollar as the World Reserve Currency will happen soon. It is both our strength in a world economy and our Achille's Heel. It is the perfect point to strike. Then, every single thing that Golitsyn predicted in 1984 will have come to pass.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (Russian: Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин, IPA: [vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪt͡ɕ ˈputʲɪn] ( listen); born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician who has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012. Putin previously served as President from 2000 to 2008, and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000 and again from 2008 to 2012. Putin was also previously the Chairman of the United Russia political party.

For sixteen years Putin was an officer in the KGB, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, before he retired to enter politics in his native Saint Petersburg in 1991. He moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin's administration where he rose quickly, becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999 when Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election and was re-elected in 2004. Because of constitutionally mandated term limits, Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term in 2008. Dmitry Medvedev won the 2008 presidential election and appointed Putin as Prime Minister, beginning a period of so-called "tandemocracy".[1] In September 2011, following a change in the law, Putin announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term as President in the 2012 presidential election, an announcement which led to large-scale protests in many Russian cities. He won the election in March 2012 and is serving an increased, six-year term.[2][3]

flip wrote:Anatoliy Golitsyn said that outright aggression would be replaced with subversion. So you and I are saying the same thing. Where the Cold War ended there was a new beginning. I think it's also a point of interest that the American politicians that were actively involved at that time, late 80's and early 90's are all in retirement, yet, a great deal of the Russian ones are still politically active and in office.

Examples of subversion please give. Postscript. And how do you think that the Russian counter-intelligence agents will not be in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies in such an aggressive policy of the Government of the United States in relation to Russia?

All I can say is that Golitsyn laid out a perfect outline, before any of it happened, and that is exactly how it is now. Now, I also do not dismiss American collusion either. At the very same time, we passed NAFTA, which was basically an agreement to soften the borders north and south, and we closed many military bases here and abroad. Most significantly will be the ones in the South China Sea, Clarks and Subic Bay. That will prove to be problematic in the near future. Add to that fact that all of Europe, Russia and China will soon be connected by a Transcontinental railway going through Turkey, and America will be left in the cold and all alone.

sigma wrote:

CUDA wrote:YA YA and Russia and the KGB are Lilly white.

The Soviet Union, the KGB, the Cold War ceased to exist 22 years ago. In the United States, in all seriousness now brainwashed Americans that Russia is still pursuing an aggressive policy towards the U.S.? You need to be afraid of your own politicians in this case, much more than the Russian

Ignorance is Bliss in Russia.

if you think for one second your EX KGB director isnt doing covert operations around the world I'll ask you who the brainwashed one is.

I do not see in the news, making the FSB and GRU. I see the lawlessness of the American policy towards the peoples of the countries that do not show proper loyalty to the United States.

Sigma, your country is just as powerful and ruthless as ours is. That makes it difficult for us to accept your trying to take some kind of moral high ground position.

If you don't believe we are so similar then so be it....I can't compete with the skills and experience of the KGB to manipulate your perception as I believe they must have.

Alternatively, if what I believe to know as true, is in fact, all a lie, then you don't have a chance to persuade me because the CIA must then be the most powerful and devious force in the world. In which case you and your fellow countrymen are doomed as soon as we get rid of Obama and elect a proper 'patriot'.

Smoke 'em while you got 'em, Captain America is coming for you

Will Robinson wrote:Sigma, your country is just as powerful and ruthless as ours is.

I might agree with the ruthless part, but power? Nothing even close. Therein lies the attitude, I suspect, from Sigma. The superpower days of Russia have gone, maybe for good, maybe not. But, the loss of that, in the eyes of many Russians, equates to a need to blame us, or someone.

Smoke 'em while you got 'em Captain America is coming for you

I think I see a plan for the evening.....at least up until Duck Dynasty comes on.

sigma wrote:callmeslick, do not be confused by the fact that the chemical attack occurred a day after the arrival of the UN Commission on chemical weapons in Syria? Syria specifically waited for a UN commission to demonstrate the effects of chemical weapons and mountains of corpses of women and children?

plus:

another vivid proof of who actually organized the war in Syria. On this video so-called "rebels" having blown up the Syrian tank and having shot the Syrian tankmen "damn Russian infidels" shout. While the Russian armies in Syria aren't present.

sigma, actually, by my reading, the 'rebels' are and have been a very diverse group. Largely Sunni(the oppressed class in Syria), but wide ranging from moderate to hard-core Islamist jihadist. Therein lies the issue: the US, nor any outside group, beyond the Arab League, has insufficient knowledge and even less control over what would follow Assad's regime. Even the AL might not be able to control events, a matter of real concern for somewhat tightly controlled 'Kingdoms'.

Only one question. Why in any military conflict, in any country, radical Islamists hate it Russia? Russian multi-religious nation. We live peacefully together representatives of the peoples of almost all the world's religions. Including Muslims. Muslims have no reason to hate Russia. You are not suggestive of who benefits fund Islamic radicalism, to conduct psychological work with uneducated savage Muslim tribes in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, to train them is terrorism against Russia? I think the U.S. has prepared a number of Islamic terrorists hired to fulfill the American money, arranging massacres and acts of terrorism against ordinary citizens in Russia, I would not be surprised when the United States will be a burden to pay for the increasing demands of its Islamic mercenaries, they can begin to terrorize the United States just as well as Russia.

sigma wrote:Only one question. Why in any military conflict, in any country, radical Islamists hate it Russia? Russian multi-religious nation. We live peacefully together representatives of the peoples of almost all the world's religions. Including Muslims. Muslims have no reason to hate Russia. You are not suggestive of who benefits fund Islamic radicalism, to conduct psychological work with uneducated savage Muslim tribes in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, to train them is terrorism against Russia? I think the U.S. has prepared a number of Islamic terrorists hired to fulfill the American money, arranging massacres and acts of terrorism against ordinary citizens in Russia, I would not be surprised when the United States will be a burden to pay for the increasing demands of its Islamic mercenaries, they can begin to terrorize the United States just as well as Russia.

this is, sorry to say Sigma, pure paranoia. Those groups do NOT find Russia to be acceptable to their idea of a nation(Muslim law only), and thus you are targets. No superpower subversive funding, just the same issue a lot of other nations are up against.

you can not have or do not want to understand. Imagine for a moment that the nuclear powers such as Russia , China, Israel , India , North Korea created a military alliance , as an alternative to NATO , and this new unit said the United States is a threat not only to their national security , economic interests, but also around the world as a militant , unguided by international law and the community aggressor terrorizing weak countries . Having ambitions for the military conquest of the world for the sake of survival Americans.Therefore the current political regime in the United States should be overthrown only by bombing key U.S. military facilities . As the diplomatic way to find a compromise is not possible. It's your right? You like it? But we do not. Although the strength to be more than enough . I understand the policy of pre-emptive strikes the U.S., but when viewed from a purely moral point of view, the U.S. now receives more than unworthy in my opinion. And draws in his terrible war policy Great Britain and France, unfortunately. I think that the U.S., as no other country in the world, now it does not provoke other countries in the development and possession of nuclear weapons , pushing the world to the third world nuclear war.
P.S. Of course, I'm not an expert in international relations and do not have enough information to adequately express their opinions. However, the information that seeps into the Internet, in my opinion, is enough to make such conclusions. I really hope that I am wrong in its conclusions.

sigma wrote:you can not have or do not want to understand. Imagine for a moment that the nuclear powers such as Russia , China, Israel , India , North Korea created a military alliance , as an alternative to NATO , and this new unit said the United States is a threat not only to their national security , economic interests, but also around the world as a militant , unguided by international law and the community aggressor terrorizing weak countries . Having ambitions for the military conquest of the world for the sake of survival Americans.Therefore the current political regime in the United States should be overthrown only by bombing key U.S. military facilities . As the diplomatic way to find a compromise is not possible. It's your right? You like it? But we do not. Although the strength to be more than enough . I understand the policy of pre-emptive strikes the U.S., but when viewed from a purely moral point of view, the U.S. now receives more than unworthy in my opinion. And draws in his terrible war policy Great Britain and France, unfortunately. I think that the U.S., as no other country in the world, now it does not provoke other countries in the development and possession of nuclear weapons , pushing the world to the third world nuclear war.
P.S. Of course, I'm not an expert in international relations and do not have enough information to adequately express their opinions. However, the information that seeps into the Internet, in my opinion, is enough to make such conclusions. I really hope that I am wrong in its conclusions.

I think such an alliance could form, and could reach such a conclusion, and take such an action. It is possible. But it is unlikely. The main reason I think so is because there is no collection of those other powers that have reached the conclusion you have. Yes, the US does do some things that sometimes anger any or all of the other powers but obviously they don't all agree that the US poses the kind of threat you describe. In fact some of those powers you mention have joined us in carrying out some of those offenses.

So, yes, it could happen if we go too far down a path that our fellow nations forbid us to follow. That is always the case and probably a good thing no matter which nations view you hold.

I'm not sure what the Germans stupid Americans. I mean, when Germany decided to subjugate Russia and seize its territory. I am confident that the Germans had a great and well-researched plan. But people can not create enough perfect plan in such a global scale. I think all of us should think first about the possible consequences of nuclear war, super-empires before making a decision. Nature, as well as human health, very hardy. However, to a certain extent. When catastrophe strikes, the efforts of all countries will not give us back the old planet.

the Germans were too arrogant to take winter weather into account, and didn't think the US would assist the Russians. End of story.

ahahahhaaaa =) LMAO Nothing changes in world history. If to you, as well as me, long ago to ★■◆● on own life, it doesn't mean that our outlook will be estimated by future generations of people. If they survive probably, you are incapable to imagine the tragedy of Chernobyl and Fukushima in scales of all planet.

something didn't get translated right, there, Sigma. Try again?

Don't underestimate the voracity of the Russians who fought the Germans Slick. They fought pretty damn hard to keep the Germans a bay. The weather just helped them out by being on their side.

tunnelcat wrote:Don't underestimate the voracity of the Russians who fought the Germans Slick. They fought pretty damn hard to keep the Germans a bay. The weather just helped them out by being on their side.

oh, I was being a bit glib. The Russians fought as valiantly and with a common purpose as has likely never been seen before or since. The Germans weren't used to that fact, and that is when the weather came into play.

callmeslick wrote:something didn't get translated right, there, Sigma. Try again?

OK. Probably, besides you badly imagine capacity and consequences of explosions even 1% of thermonuclear warheads, from all nuclear potential only Russia which, упаси My God, can fall to the territory of the USA. I any more don't tell a camp about the nuclear potential of others. I will tell you that when the Soviet Union tested only one thermonuclear warhead of the increased power on the range Novaya Zemlya in the Arctic, the surface of a half of the island turned into ideal glass from the melted sand.

WWII fought today using today's weapons of mass destruction and the same intentions would result in world apocalypse and the end of humanity. Too bad we had to be the first, and only, nation on earth, to use nuclear weapons against an aggressor to set the stage for this insanity.

tunnelcat wrote:Don't underestimate the voracity of the Russians who fought the Germans Slick. They fought pretty damn hard to keep the Germans a bay. The weather just helped them out by being on their side.

It is not only the harsh Russian climate. Neither one the ideal plan is not immune to mistakes. The consequences of the slightest error imagine. In a nuclear war. You will not be afraid if the U.S. can not win? While I think that the survivors will be able to restore its economy in gas masks and with radiation sickness.
Excuse, but you really don't represent, what infernal weapon nuclear powers actually possess.

Good on the Brits...

They said NO to Obama's catastrophe.

sadly, TB, the White House seems undeterred, and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why. For the record(as I know you all think I am on board with anything they do), an excerpt from a note I shot them this AM:

can anyone tell me why the White House is going forward with action against Syria, despite lack of international support(part of the reason I supported Obama was insistence on this), lack of domestic support(see earlier aside), a ton of domestic issues, and the cost involved? I am appalled. This is not the leadership I voted and worked for. Very, very disappointing.

he might as well flip a coin and go with that. there is no good move here. If he was James T Kirk this is where he would hack the program....

Yeah... I think most everyone except the white house agrees that the bad move (as opposed to the worse) is to stay out from a military standpoint.

I think it's time for the US to stop trying to be the world's police. It's funny, I draw a clear distinction between what done to us and what other do to each other, carrying much greater weight that the weight/extremism of the grievance. It seems like Obama sees it that other way (considering this plus Benghazi) - he seems to want to react/prepare in accordance with the extremism of the action, regardless of to whom it was done. Maybe it's an interesting view into his psyche?

[EDIT] Maybe it provides vision into a key pivotal point between liberal and conservative trains of thought (and their inconsistencies)? My political views generally start by wanting to go about my business and let others do the same, and stay out of others business if possible. Obama seems to want to start by assuming that everyone in the world should have an equal state, and wants to use political power to level the plane.

Sad that Obama has to follow Bush's lead. We are not the world's police and we can't afford it anyway. Almost makes one wonder if the military is really running our country now. Obama really changed once he got in office. He can't be so deluded as to follow the idiotic mistakes of a former president. Maybe Eisenhower was right, that the military industrial complex has finally taken over and Obama is being controlled like a puppet. We're screwed.

sigma wrote:It is not only the harsh Russian climate. Neither one the ideal plan is not immune to mistakes. The consequences of the slightest error imagine. In a nuclear war. You will not be afraid if the U.S. can not win? While I think that the survivors will be able to restore its economy in gas masks and with radiation sickness.
Excuse, but you really don't represent, what infernal weapon nuclear powers actually possess.

Oh, I have a pretty good idea about the nastiness of nuclear weapons. I watched the National Geographic TV special on the bombing of Hiroshima. I also lived during the Cold War, when we did "duck and cover" exercises at grade school to prepare for a nuclear strike from the Soviet Union. Not that ducking and covering would have saved ourselves from oblivion anyway. Nuclear weapons are definitely NOT something that should EVER be used against another nation for ANY reason. The same could be said for chemical weapons. They are indiscriminate and cause mass suffering. If some moron leader wants to go to war, he needs to get down and dirty and do it with his own hands. Otherwise, there can be no lessons learned.



Speaking of weapons of mass destruction, if the world despises the use of chemical weapons, they need to get together as a unified force to stop the use of these weapons, not leave it to the U.S. to be the bad guy cops. If Russia is really Syria's ally, shame on Putin for supporting Assad if it's found he actually used these weapons on his own people. Russia's leaders need to do their own "soul searching".

tunnelcat wrote:Sad that Obama has to follow Bush's lead. We are not the world's police and we can't afford it anyway. Almost makes one wonder if the military is really running our country now. Obama really changed once he got in office. He can't be so deluded as to follow the idiotic mistakes of a former president. Maybe Eisenhower was right, that the military industrial complex has finally taken over and Obama is being controlled like a puppet. We're screwed. ..

I'm amazed at the way your mind 'works'. "The military industrial complex" is really in control but when Bush did it he was being an idiot but when it is Obama he is being controlled....

looks like Obama got the message, both from the allies and his base. The only bombardment today seems to have been aimed at the White House in-box, and I just saw him backing WAY away from unilateral military stupidity. Kudos!

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Sad that Obama has to follow Bush's lead. We are not the world's police and we can't afford it anyway. Almost makes one wonder if the military is really running our country now. Obama really changed once he got in office. He can't be so deluded as to follow the idiotic mistakes of a former president. Maybe Eisenhower was right, that the military industrial complex has finally taken over and Obama is being controlled like a puppet. We're screwed. ..

I'm amazed at the way your mind 'works'. "The military industrial complex" is really in control but when Bush did it he was being an idiot but when it is Obama he is being controlled....

The difference is that Bush/Cheney embraced it as a means to an end, a tool to use to get what they wanted, like close lovers embracing. I think that Obama is more fearful or maybe hesitant, of allowing the military full reign. But I don't think he has much of a choice when the generals tell him what they want him to do and what they think is needed in today's world of terrorism and unrest. He may be compelled to follow what his military adviser's want because they tell him it must be so and necessary. Eisenhower was a Republican president and a military man. He warned of what power the military was gaining in industry and government. I'm beginning to think he was right.

Well, if he backs off now the same people that say not to attack will say he's weak and all that. If I was Obama I'd get up on that podium and say "Some dead Syrians? Yeah I won't lose much sleep over it. Have a nice day!"

We have to quit doing things just because people expect us to do something. Considering they won't be doing anything that would remove Assad's regime, it seems that any action whatsoever is completely unnecessary. People are mad that the govt used chemical weapons? Well the rebels should have thought about that before they started fighting back.

Looks like Obama may have a back door out of this-

http://freebeacon.com/pentagon-cant-aff ... nal-funds/

We "can't afford" military action, so Congress can just say they're not authorizing additional funds and Obama can just throw up his hands and say 'I tried!'

Weaselly way to do it, but it would avoid death and destruction and save Obama's 'face.'

Jesus TB, what the hell should he do then in your opinion?

CobGobbler wrote:We have to quit doing things just because people expect us to do something.

You shouldn't super-impose everyday down-home reasoning on the actions or plans of a hierarchical system of power. First of all because that's what they have the news for, so you're wasting energy ( ), and secondly it makes you very easy to take advantage of. You had better believe there are ★■◆●ing plans within plans, compounded by a high degree of compartmentalization down the authority chain. You could have the devil at the helm and mother Teressa doing the community organizing and no one will ever see anything out of place as they spend all of their time working 2-3 jobs on 6 hours of sleep, sustained only by the very newest and most concentrated system-wasting energy drink, in order to buy all of the latest and smallest imported electronics and cars, and hopefully send their brainwashed progeny to college so that they can someday make enough money to pay off their student loans and retire soulless with their 3rd spouse in a lakeside cottage being sucked dry for mediocre healthcare only to DIE and spend the next 30 years of their tortured afterlife as a vote for the Democratic party!!!!!1!!!11!! [/rant]

Today I learned Republicans don't do any of the following....

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...they spend all of their time working 2-3 jobs on 6 hours of sleep, sustained only by the very newest and most concentrated system-wasting energy drink, in order to buy all of the latest and smallest imported electronics and cars, and hopefully send their brainwashed progeny to college so that they can someday make enough money to pay off their student loans and retire soulless with their 3rd spouse in a lakeside cottage being sucked dry for mediocre healthcare only to DIE...

tunnelcat wrote:...
The difference is that Bush/Cheney embraced it as a means to an end, a tool to use to get what they wanted, like close lovers embracing. I think that Obama is more fearful or maybe hesitant, of allowing the military full reign. But I don't think he has much of a choice when the generals tell him what they want him to do and what they think is needed in today's world of terrorism and unrest. He may be compelled to follow what his military adviser's want because they tell him it must be so and necessary.

How many Meclizine tabs did you take before you typed that....or have you mastered the effects so you can walk a straight line without them? 'cause for me, I'm dizzy just reading it!

it seems that on Obama the public opinion of ordinary citizens of the USA helps. As far as I know, they came for demonstrations against murder of Syrians. It means that simple American citizens can affect decisions of the American President. I understand, it is how difficult to resist to the President Barack Obama to pressure of military and political elite of the USA. Kennedy could. For it him killed. The only U.S. President who causes in me respect. By the way Putin made for democracy in Russia, on mine much. For this reason the public opinion of Russians now too starts mattering in our country and actively develops. But I am not sure that ordinary Russians now can affect Putin's decision to press the nuclear button. We have still a police state. While our decisions are made by elite, is frequent despite of public opinion. On the other hand, I know our people, and we can affect any decision of the Russian politicians, despite of opinion of political elite if very much it we want.

Add: actually, U.S. of today reminds me of the movie "The Crooked E".