DescentBB

And who gave the U.S. the right to bomb Somalia? This attack is an independent country . If Russian missile strike point home to U.S. officials that provide traffic heroin and cocaine throughout the world with the aid of U.S. military aviation , the Western press immediately raise a howl, that Russia attacked the U.S.. Although in this case Russia will act in accordance with the principles of protection of the rights of American citizens to protect American children from hard drugs. And also including the U.S. military aggression against independent countries. " American democracy " is the most deceitful thing in modern history.

where do you come up with these goofy ideas? Can you provide ANY credible source for the claim that the US is supplying drugs via military aircraft?
Please, don't try and make a moral point when you attempt to justify that point with a blatant lie.

We have the right to bomb any country that harbors the terrorists that have declared war on us.

That is to say…as long as the bombing is limited to the terrorists. (since they don’t actually have a country to bomb)

Based on the logic, no one but the U.S. government can not provide such a huge traffic of heavy drugs to markets in the U.S. and other countries.
I repeat, who gave the U.S. the right, in violation of all international laws to attack other countries? Somalia is the same as an independent state and the USA! International Tribunal at least!

Spidey wrote:We have the right to bomb any country that harbors the terrorists that have declared war on us.

That is to say…as long as the bombing is limited to the terrorists. (since they don’t actually have a country to bomb)

Thus, any country can put the missile strikes on the territory of other countries to protect human rights and to protect their own economic and political interests?

callmeslick wrote:where do you come up with these goofy ideas? Can you provide ANY credible source for the claim that the US is supplying drugs via military aircraft?
Please, don't try and make a moral point when you attempt to justify that point with a blatant lie.

And you can categorically prove this is not happening?

sigma wrote:I repeat, who gave the U.S. the right, in violation of all international laws to attack other countries? Somalia is the same as an independent state and the USA! International Tribunal at least!

I'm sorry Sigma, you are incorrect. The United States is acting in conjunction with the African Union. The ASISOM Mandate exists to stabilize the country. Somalia is part of the AU and those forces have been invited to the country. So the answer to your question "who gave the US the right to bomb Somalia?" is: Somalia, and the rest of Africa.

Case closed.

Listen, the whole world know how the United States legalize their illegal actions. Even if the UN is completely discredited itself under pressure from the United States, what else to say? Only Russia can still maintain the balance of power in the world. Only Russia can still prevent overtly biased opinion voting UN members.

Maybe sigma learned it from Democratic senator Dennis DeConcini...or Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Or Spike Lee as well as a bunch of other loopy Libs

They have been telling that tale for a long time. But since Reagan and Bush were in power then I guess you didn't feel a need to challenge it....

I have no idea what you're talking . I express my opinion .
I only care about what the United States does not want or can not find solutions to global issues without the use of military force. What an example to other countries takes the U.S. ? Iran , India and China? The arms race ? The pursuit of improved living the annihilation of nature? Scientists around the world have long cry of global climate change on the planet. Look at the map of the world . The Amazon jungle is almost destroyed. China and Malaysia in choking smog . It remains only to cut down the forest in Russia , in order to deprive the planet last source of clean air .

sigma wrote:Even if the UN is completely discredited itself under pressure from the United States, what else to say?

Sigma, I am sorry you don't like the United States using military action in Somalia. I don't like it either. However, this has nothing to do with the UN. The problems in Somalia are under the jurisdiction of the African Union. Somalia has invited the AU to help with the conflict. The United States is offering assistance to the AU forces. The decision to bomb Al-Qaeda forces is not solely the United States, but jointly with the AU, which is there at the request of Somalia. There are no grounds for outrage in this matter. We were asked to help with the conflict and we are helping.

Will Robinson wrote:Maybe sigma learned it from Democratic senator Dennis DeConcini...or Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Or Spike Lee as well as a bunch of other loopy Libs

They have been telling that tale for a long time. But since Reagan and Bush were in power then I guess you didn't feel a need to challenge it....

no, I've always held such tales to be goofy, because there never is any substance behind the accusation.

vision wrote:The decision to bomb Al-Qaeda forces is not solely the United States, but jointly with the AU, which is there at the request of Somalia. There are no grounds for outrage in this matter. We were asked to help with the conflict and we are helping.

I believe sigma's point is that the U.S. should not have agreed to assist with military force. Am I misunderstanding you, sigma?

It sounds more like he is saying we decided to bomb someone so we create the 'legality' with our influence so that we can claim what we did was legal.

Spidey wrote:We have the right to bomb any country that harbors the terrorists that have declared war on us.

That is to say…as long as the bombing is limited to the terrorists. (since they don’t actually have a country to bomb)

Isn't Putin vowing to do that very thing? I don't think the U.S. would blame him if he did what we're doing to stop these bastards.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 5E20131231

Reuters wrote:As prime minister in 1999, he vowed to "wipe them out in the sh*thouse" and in 2010, after female suicide bombers killed 40 people on the Moscow metro, he ordered police to find their masters and "scrape them from the bottom of the sewers".

Speaking of intervention- I wonder what Putin will do when Ukraine falls into civil war.

People are speaking openly of Russian invasion to make sure Ukraine stays 'russian'.

ThunderBunny wrote:Speaking of intervention- I wonder what Putin will do when Ukraine falls into civil war.

People are speaking openly of Russian invasion to make sure Ukraine stays 'russian'.

I personally today's events in Ukraine are very similar to the traditional scenario changes of government weak countries to extract private benefits. A similar situation was in Russia at the beginning of the last century. Now Russia is helping Ukraine not to repeat old mistakes . Ukraine and Russia - is one state actually . Ukrainian and Russian people - are synonymous . If, after the collapse of the Soviet Ukrainian republic gained independence as the other republics of the former USSR , in my opinion , this is a ridiculous time in a large family strife . This is true because we have too much in common . Suffice it to recall that the West is still a person from the former Soviet Union called " Russian " , regardless of the fact that this person may be a Georgian , Ukrainian , Belarusian and Armenian or etc. Now, many people who want and gained full independence from the Russian Federation , came to the conclusion that they are not wanted , except Russia. Ukraine is now sick and our brotherly duty to help her recover .

Foil wrote:

vision wrote:The decision to bomb Al-Qaeda forces is not solely the United States, but jointly with the AU, which is there at the request of Somalia. There are no grounds for outrage in this matter. We were asked to help with the conflict and we are helping.

I believe sigma's point is that the U.S. should not have agreed to assist with military force. Am I misunderstanding you, sigma?

I have another look at it. In my opinion, the U.S. itself created to destabilize the political situation in weak countries using Islamic mercenaries. In order to be able to test their new military technology in other countries. U.S. simply "plays" in the war. Russia did not allow precision tests of American weapons in Syria, the U.S. now found a testing ground for weapons in Somalia. It is monstrous that the U.S. gets up towards the people of other countries. If the U.S. really wanted to help Somalia, there are always many ways to help a peaceful , political means . But the United States continues to pursue their own interests, hiding behind excuses about the alleged "help." Hello from Russia U.S. President, "Nobel Peace Prize winner."!

Ok Sigma has a valid point. As I have said before, at least 3 sitting presidents have warned of a secret government behind the real government. What is gained by being able to operate secretly and why has the supposedly visible government turned a blind eye to it?

EDIT: This is not to mention the obvious underlying motives of Putin and his cronies either

EDIT: I think their all clansmen in one form or the other and I think a secret government can be either good or bad. If it is to prevent monolithic government by spreading it throughout the population IE: Masons. Then good, but if it's a form of jacobinism IE: Illuminati that Washington agreed to the threat and existence of, then it's bad. Well, if it exists, they have to have a name and sit in plain sight.

EDIT:It's a double-minded government.

sigma wrote:

Foil wrote:

vision wrote:The decision to bomb Al-Qaeda forces is not solely the United States, but jointly with the AU, which is there at the request of Somalia. There are no grounds for outrage in this matter. We were asked to help with the conflict and we are helping.

I believe sigma's point is that the U.S. should not have agreed to assist with military force. Am I misunderstanding you, sigma?

I have another look at it. In my opinion, the U.S. itself created to destabilize the political situation in weak countries using Islamic mercenaries. In order to be able to test their new military technology in other countries. U.S. simply "plays" in the war. Russia did not allow precision tests of American weapons in Syria, the U.S. now found a testing ground for weapons in Somalia. It is monstrous that the U.S. gets up towards the people of other countries. If the U.S. really wanted to help Somalia, there are always many ways to help a peaceful , political means . But the United States continues to pursue their own interests, hiding behind excuses about the alleged "help." Hello from Russia U.S. President, "Nobel Peace Prize winner."!

If you think, in the case of Somalia, that the US is 'testing' weapons systems, you are deluded. I have every confidence that there are weapons systems in our arsenal that have never seen public display......no 'testing' of that sort will be forthcoming, I suspect.

Yeah, I doubt that. I could hardly resist myself

EDIT:Where's Ferno!

sigma wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Speaking of intervention- I wonder what Putin will do when Ukraine falls into civil war.

People are speaking openly of Russian invasion to make sure Ukraine stays 'russian'.

I personally today's events in Ukraine are very similar to the traditional scenario changes of government weak countries to extract private benefits. A similar situation was in Russia at the beginning of the last century. Now Russia is helping Ukraine not to repeat old mistakes . Ukraine and Russia - is one state actually . Ukrainian and Russian people - are synonymous . If, after the collapse of the Soviet Ukrainian republic gained independence as the other republics of the former USSR , in my opinion , this is a ridiculous time in a large family strife . This is true because we have too much in common . Suffice it to recall that the West is still a person from the former Soviet Union called " Russian " , regardless of the fact that this person may be a Georgian , Ukrainian , Belarusian and Armenian or etc. Now, many people who want and gained full independence from the Russian Federation , came to the conclusion that they are not wanted , except Russia. Ukraine is now sick and our brotherly duty to help her recover .

Sigma, I try not to disregard your views outright, and I think you have something when you speak of the facade that is U.S. democracy/freedom, particularly where it concerns our questionable actions abroad. In this case, though, I think what you're expressing smacks of propaganda and giving your country a romanticized excuse for any dealings involving Ukraine. I don't believe that the government of any country on the face of this earth can collectively be driven by something as personal as "brotherly duty". I think a great many countries hide the true intent of their actions behind such things so that the average person can relate to it and be in support of it. I don't have anything against Russia, but we'll be shoveling all day top get this bull**** under control... To me it sounds just like someone from my own country talking about fighting against another country in order to spread freedom to their people. It just doesn't add up.

I do not need to come to the U.S. to know that America is a great business center. The Americans have no friends , in fact . Americans have only partners . This also applies to personal relationships , and foreign style in the international arena . You may not realize what real friendship. This is not surprising, given the history of the U.S. as a state. I am ready to forgive you , as a child who does not understand what he was doing stupid things. Oh, and by the way, Russia has not only a system of precision destruction of the enemy " Liana" , which everyone knows , but other systems and destroy the enemy , which is not to say aloud. U.S. intelligence knew about it , so fear U.S. attack Russia .
What you call " henchmen " of Putin? Venezuela ? Cuba ? China ? Other countries? Putin has absolutely nothing . This is a common foreign policy of Russia , regardless of who is the leader of the country here . Russia is helping countries who do not want the American "democracy." It is their right . But the U.S. does not like it so much that they created and even sponsoring terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda , then to pretend that protect against terrorists to other countries. These are the methods of small racketeers . It's all sewn with white thread so it is not necessary to be a politician , not to see this .

Sigma, you say America has no friends, only partners. Which countries do you think are Russia's friends? And how are those relationships different than Americas relationships with our "partners".

Will Robinson wrote:Sigma, you say America has no friends, only partners. Which countries do you think are Russia's friends? And how are those relationships different than Americas relationships with our "partners".

Very simple. Money is not important . Russia makes money only to those countries with which it has friendly relations. U.S. buys the loyalty of other countries or intimidates other countries threatening economic sanctions and military force. Russian money helps those countries that became a friend to Russia whether Russia will give them money or not. See the difference?
Ukraine is a separate case. Modern technologies allow to buy political voices . Therefore, we see the events that are happening now in Ukraine. But the Russian people is inseparable from the Ukrainian people. Despite all the current differences . I repeat , Russia - it's like an older brother native of Ukraine , which should be intelligent , above all differences. Americans can not understand that friendship is more valuable than money. I am confident that the American press submit financial assistance to Ukraine from Russia as an attempt to buy Ukraine. To make it clear to the average American brain that Russia gave Ukraine as much money as she wanted. The European Union and the International Monetary Fund was denied financial assistance to Ukraine. In my opinion, this fact clearly demonstrates that Ukraine does not need anyone in the world except the Russian brother.

vision wrote:

sigma wrote:Even if the UN is completely discredited itself under pressure from the United States, what else to say?

Sigma, I am sorry you don't like the United States using military action in Somalia. I don't like it either. However, this has nothing to do with the UN. The problems in Somalia are under the jurisdiction of the African Union. Somalia has invited the AU to help with the conflict. The United States is offering assistance to the AU forces. The decision to bomb Al-Qaeda forces is not solely the United States, but jointly with the AU, which is there at the request of Somalia. There are no grounds for outrage in this matter. We were asked to help with the conflict and we are helping.

Thanks for tracking this down Vision.

sigma wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Sigma, you say America has no friends, only partners. Which countries do you think are Russia's friends? And how are those relationships different than Americas relationships with our "partners".

Very simple. Money is not important . Russia makes money only to those countries with which it has friendly relations. U.S. buys the loyalty of other countries or intimidates other countries threatening economic sanctions and military force. Russian money helps those countries that became a friend to Russia whether Russia will give them money or not. See the difference?
Ukraine is a separate case. Modern technologies allow to buy political voices . Therefore, we see the events that are happening now in Ukraine. But the Russian people is inseparable from the Ukrainian people. Despite all the current differences . I repeat , Russia - it's like an older brother native of Ukraine , which should be intelligent , above all differences. Americans can not understand that friendship is more valuable than money. I am confident that the American press submit financial assistance to Ukraine from Russia as an attempt to buy Ukraine. To make it clear to the average American brain that Russia gave Ukraine as much money as she wanted. The European Union and the International Monetary Fund was denied financial assistance to Ukraine. In my opinion, this fact clearly demonstrates that Ukraine does not need anyone in the world except the Russian brother.

You didnt answer the question.
You talked about an exception (Ukraine) to your claim... but you didn't tell us which countries are Russia's friends and how that relationship is different from the relationship America has with those counties you say are only "partners" with America.

Because you asked a rhetorical question. You know perfectly well what countries are friends of Russia. On deeper relations with other countries you do not need to know. I do not work in counterintelligence, but I suspect that the disclosure would cause a lot of additional questions on your part. I'm not going to confirm the accuracy of such information to you. Sorry.

sigma wrote:Because you asked a rhetorical question.

No. I know what my intention was when I asked and I'm certain I truly want you to tell me the answer.

Take Australia for example. I would count her as a friend of America according to my definition of a friend. Not just some country that is 'only a partner because we give them money' as you have claimed.

Tell me the name of a particular country that is a friend of Russia according to your definition and then tell me how America's relationship with Australia is less genuine than Russia's friendship with whatever country you name....

I admit that I can not answer your question maximized. Russia does not like to advertise serious verbal agreements with other countries. Even if I had a competent information on this subject, I could not tell you about it, as I have said before.
For its part, you also prefer not to answer the questions posed to me even order express their views. You expected a different reaction from me?

Lots of secret treaties, a friendship does not make.

sigma wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Sigma, you say America has no friends, only partners. Which countries do you think are Russia's friends? And how are those relationships different than Americas relationships with our "partners".

Very simple. Money is not important . Russia makes money only to those countries with which it has friendly relations. U.S. buys the loyalty of other countries or intimidates other countries threatening economic sanctions and military force. Russian money helps those countries that became a friend to Russia whether Russia will give them money or not. See the difference?
Ukraine is a separate case. Modern technologies allow to buy political voices . Therefore, we see the events that are happening now in Ukraine. But the Russian people is inseparable from the Ukrainian people. Despite all the current differences . I repeat , Russia - it's like an older brother native of Ukraine , which should be intelligent , above all differences. Americans can not understand that friendship is more valuable than money. I am confident that the American press submit financial assistance to Ukraine from Russia as an attempt to buy Ukraine. To make it clear to the average American brain that Russia gave Ukraine as much money as she wanted. The European Union and the International Monetary Fund was denied financial assistance to Ukraine. In my opinion, this fact clearly demonstrates that Ukraine does not need anyone in the world except the Russian brother.

Money not important to Russians? If that's the case, why is there rampant corruption and monetary kickbacks surrounding everything to do with the Sochi Games. I see the Russians like their graft as much any other country. Human behavior is the same all over the world.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/ ... e-22161544

sigma wrote:I admit that I can not answer your question maximized. Russia does not like to advertise serious verbal agreements with other countries. Even if I had a competent information on this subject, I could not tell you about it, as I have said before.
For its part, you also prefer not to answer the questions posed to me even order express their views. You expected a different reaction from me?

I expected you to be able to support the assertion you made. It seemed to be a core point. You said:

Americans have only partners . This also applies to personal relationships , and foreign style in the international arena . You may not realize what real friendship. This is not surprising, given the history of the U.S. as a state. I am ready to forgive you , as a child who does not understand what he was doing stupid things.

Your arrogance is at maximum. Bluster like old Brezhnev even. But apparently, like him, you are lacking substance to your words.
Or, as we say out west, all hat, no cattle.

We assume that you have successfully changed the subject to the criticism of Russia. As always

sigma wrote:We assume that you have successfully changed the subject to the criticism of Russia. As always

Well, you started out criticizing the U.S., while supporting without question what your own government is doing in the world AND inside it's own borders. What did you expect? Agreement? Hardly. You live in a country with a restricted press. You cannot possibly know all the nastiness YOUR president is up to because no one in your country dares report it. Our press constantly harangues and investigates our leaders without much impediment, usually. However, your press fears retribution from YOUR leaders always. My link I posted about the Sochi Game corruption scandal clearly illustrates that. I'll bet you haven't heard one thing about it in Russia.

sigma wrote:We assume that you have successfully changed the subject to the criticism of Russia. As always

Not at all. I said nothing critical of Russia. I don't blame your country for your unfounded assertions.

Although perhaps the perception you have of America is shaped by the propaganda machine that has been churning there for a century or more....

tunnelcat wrote:

sigma wrote:We assume that you have successfully changed the subject to the criticism of Russia. As always

Well, you started out criticizing the U.S., while supporting without question what your own government is doing in the world AND inside it's own borders. What did you expect? Agreement? Hardly. You live in a country with a restricted press. You cannot possibly know all the nastiness YOUR president is up to because no one in your country dares report it. Our press constantly harangues and investigates our leaders without much impediment, usually. However, your press fears retribution from YOUR leaders always. My link I posted about the Sochi Game corruption scandal clearly illustrates that. I'll bet you haven't heard one thing about it in Russia.

Correctly. Your media only tells you about corruption, but they do not tell you how many officials jailed for corruption. What else you want to hear the truth? Fucкing Russian political elite rather invest money in creating a new generation of weapons of mass destruction, than to build new kindergarten. Because fucкing U.S. continues to bomb the territory of the countries that can not give them in the face in response.

So it's also our fault that your leaders suck? Man we must have the Dr. Evil routine down to a science.

Top Gun wrote:So it's also our fault that your leaders suck? Man we must have the Dr. Evil routine down to a science.

It is a pleasure to see your weakness, when you go to the insults. This means that you have nothing more to say

sigma wrote:

Top Gun wrote:So it's also our fault that your leaders suck? Man we must have the Dr. Evil routine down to a science.

It is a pleasure to see your weakness, when you go to the insults. This means that you have nothing more to say

It seems you still had plenty to say after you went to the insults. So perhaps we Americans can aspire to the ability of the Russian in that way.