DescentBB

That's fair, I like the American design houses, cars, music... I like the emancipation and independence of the American people, but gosh, all these words and actions of the American elite converted to ★■◆● all my good relations with the United States. I do not understand why they do it. They know exactly what they can not conquer Russia to gain access to its natural richness. But they do their best not to cooperate and conflict with Russia. Although it would be much more benefit from cooperation. I just can not understand it.

They know exactly what they can not conquer Russia to gain access to its natural richness

what makes you think this??

I think you would find your perspective is considered incorrect in many ways by most of the people in the world who live outside of Russia, or Russian government influence.
You may, at first try to categorize all those people as wrong in that assessment of your perspective, but I would hope at some point you get the opportunity and will to question your own perspective.
You have said many things that most people understand is the product of a media that is designed to protect Russian nationalism at the expense of the truth.

No, I don't think other sources are pure, however, I think by comparison to Russian sources they are far closer to honest.

How do you tell a blind man what the color red looks like? That is the same kind of exasperation I feel when trying to tell you these things. It can be done but it would require a great deal of discussion. It would be far more effective if you came here and exposed yourself to what you think you know us to be. Finding out you are wrong would feel much more rewarding that way.

CUDA wrote:

They know exactly what they can not conquer Russia to gain access to its natural richness

what makes you think this??

Ukrainian conflict clearly showed this. Of course, it's not you'll be sent to die in the war in the event of mobilization. Sent to war young guys, not you.

sigma wrote:

CUDA wrote:

They know exactly what they can not conquer Russia to gain access to its natural richness

what makes you think this??

Ukrainian conflict clearly showed this. Of course,

Proof, and something besides your Government run media as a source

Will Robinson wrote:I think you would find your perspective is considered incorrect in many ways by most of the people in the world who live outside of Russia, or Russian government influence.
You may, at first try to categorize all those people as wrong in that assessment of your perspective, but I would hope at some point you get the opportunity and will to question your own perspective.
You have said many things that most people understand is the product of a media that is designed to protect Russian nationalism at the expense of the truth.

No, I don't think other sources are pure, however, I think by comparison to Russian sources they are far closer to honest.

How do you tell a blind man what the color red looks like? That is the same kind of exasperation I feel when trying to tell you these things. It can be done but it would require a great deal of discussion. It would be far more effective if you came here and exposed yourself to what you think you know us to be. Finding out you are wrong would feel much more rewarding that way.

If you have previously noticed, you can get simple answers to your questions, as the look on the other side. But the problem is that you do not want to hear the point of view that is different from the point of view of the Western media. But I agree with you that an elementary misunderstanding of each other is a terrible thing that can lead to serious conflict. And when the cause of misunderstanding finally found out, we feel just stupid teenagers ...

I think that Ukraine needs to work out their own problems by themselves. Russia and the U.S. need to stop fighting proxy wars and feeding the military industrial complexes of both countries. If part of Ukraine wants to join Russia, let them. If the other part wants to join the West, let them. Create 2 separate countries and stop this senseless killing. Even Putin is seeing that the rebels have become a big liability for him and that Russia is really NOT under a western siege.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-putin-just-br ... 45709.html

You can see my thoughts, TC

CUDA wrote:

sigma wrote:

CUDA wrote:

They know exactly what they can not conquer Russia to gain access to its natural richness

what makes you think this??

Ukrainian conflict clearly showed this. Of course,

Proof, and something besides your Government run media as a source

Of course, I will not waste my precious time to gather evidence for you. Because I know in advance for your response. This is a waste of time.

sigma wrote:

CUDA wrote:

sigma wrote:

CUDA wrote:

They know exactly what they can not conquer Russia to gain access to its natural richness

what makes you think this??

Ukrainian conflict clearly showed this. Of course,

Proof, and something besides your Government run media as a source

Of course, I will not waste my precious time to gather evidence for you. Because I know in advance for your response. This is a waste of time.

then why did you accuse us of something if you aren't willing to back up that accusation

Sigma why do you think that the military forces in Ukraine that oppose Russia are representative of the ability and limits of Americas military force if they were to truly be focused against Russia?

The source of that perception you have of us is the first one you should question. Seriously question who has anything to gain by making you and enough of your fellow citizens believe that is the truth of the situation...
Seriously question who has the most to lose if you and your fellow citizens don't believe that is the truth...

We have done almost nothing to enable Ukraine to fight as we would if we chose to.
We have failed to live up to the words on the treaty we signed with Ukraine swearing we would protect them. It is the ability that we have, that we have NOT used to live up to that promise that both embarrasses us and convinces me you have no idea of what kind of force we are if we decided to bring it to bear on an enemy. Both on a battlefield and in the way of the kind of subterfuge you think we are already engaged in.

We have a saying here. "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
It isn't likely you will with Obama in charge either and I think Putin knows that. That is why he can tell the world to go piss off right now. In fact I think he will take many more steps to change things to his advantage while his opponents are weakened at the command level as we are.

may we, as a nation remain 'weakened' as Will describes it. It is long past time we stopped meddling on the world stage. Ukraine has little or no strategic significance for us, and frankly even places like the Middle East, which has a bit more, should be areas we are EXTREMELY reluctant to meddle in. For nearly 50 years, the US has shown itself to be both clueless and counterproductive in terms of imposing force on situations.

My bull****-o-meter just went off. I think someone just called Obama a non-interventionist...

He meant in the affairs of people in other countries, not the affairs of people in this country.

What about Egypt, Libya and Syria? Was that just pizza delivery gone bad?

Will Robinson wrote:What about Egypt, Libya and Syria? Was that just pizza delivery gone bad?

Eqypt--essentially allowed the process to go forward. No military intervention, in fact, less joint exercises with Egypt's miltary since uprising.
Libya--likely regretted intervention at all, but few boots on ground, and what we DID do there was under extreme GOP duress.
Syria--once again, held firm against going in.

Will, do you really see Obama as anything other than less interventionist abroad compared to any administration since, well, Hoover?

Syria he drew a red line then when it was crossed he said " heh just kidding" if you want to be a leader of ANY kind you have to be a man of your word. All he did aas show the world that America could not be trusted. Then he went and reinforced that belief by violating the security agreement with Ukraine when Russia invaded.

The United States and Britain “reaffirmed” their commitment to protect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for the nation giving up its nuclear weapons in a little-known agreement known as the “Budapest Memorandum signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1994

callmeslick wrote:

Will, do you really see Obama as anything other than less interventionist abroad compared to any administration since, well, Hoover?

Less interventionist or isolationist? I suggest you look back to the thirty's and see what isolationism gets ya.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:What about Egypt, Libya and Syria? Was that just pizza delivery gone bad?

Eqypt--essentially allowed the process to go forward. No military intervention, in fact, less joint exercises with Egypt's miltary since uprising.
Libya--likely regretted intervention at all, but few boots on ground, and what we DID do there was under extreme GOP duress.
Syria--once again, held firm against going in.

Will, do you really see Obama as anything other than less interventionist abroad compared to any administration since, well, Hoover?

I see him as a weaker, less effective, interventionist than any before him. He intervenes quite a lot so I don't think you can put him in a non or seldom interventionist category.
your description of Syria is hardly accurate. We took an attack in Bengahzi precisely because our State Department was gathering surface to air weapons that belonged to the Gaddafi regime that he intervened enough to help topple...and shipped them to rebels, including al Queda groups, in Syria, who were trying over throw Assad!
That kind of thing is a serious intervention in both countries and you want to make it sound like he just pulled air force one over for refueling and took right off again...

typical slick spin.... 'didn't really happen...dog ate his homework...all the other kids were doing it...he pulled out before he could have got her pregnant...'

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will, do you really see Obama as anything other than less interventionist abroad compared to any administration since, well, Hoover?

Less interventionist or isolationist? I suggest you look back to the thirty's and see what isolationism gets ya.

there is a range, Woody. No, I don't support isolationism, but the go-it-alone heavyhanded blundering we've done since the early Cold War has been near-disasterous. Sure, it pushed Russia into bankruptcy, but essentially made us a ton of enemies worldwide for no good reason. You could never call Obama an isolationist, but he sure isn't a neo-con lackey like Bush or a neo-con appeaser like Clinton.

Will Robinson, how old are you? In my opinion, you are old enough to understand that one of the reasons is the most terrible tragedies reassessment of your ability. If the Third World War Russia wins, in this case the U.S. will become the new Crimea. If the U.S. wins, then it will still be a Pyrrhic victory, since you get a Russia such price that it is better not to think about before going to sleep. In my opinion we should not even try to start it. Getting started is easy, difficult to stop.

Sigma I have no illusions of America beating Russia easily or even that we are guaranteed to win.
My point was simply to tell you we are much more capable than you had implied.
If we were truly invested with all our might and desire to keep Russia out of Ukraine then Russia would be in the biggest most costly war since WWII.

It would end badly for both nations. I don't want to see it and I seriously doubt it will happen because, fortunately, we are far more alike than we are different. We both have far too much to lose to risk so much.

That is why a stronger presence and more aggressive actions to create deterrence are needed if we are to hold back Russia, or anyone capable, from taking over anyplace we wan't to keep protected.
The way it happens now is Putin sees Obama as not willing to maintain protection we agreed to in the treaty. If allowed to continue who would ever trust us to be there for them? Ukraine might have been better off not disarming since Putin would have faced a more serious threat than a disarmed Ukraine and a US President too occupied with domestic schemes.

If a different President had been in charge and moved right away Putins thugs probably wouldn't have shot down that airliner for fear of the hammer being brought down on them.

No one would win in a major war between Russia and the U.S., because we both know that our countries would resort to using nuclear weapons in the effort to win at all costs. It would be the stupidest war to end all wars, ever.