Waygook.org

International => North America => USA => Topic started by: thunderlips on December 22, 2016, 02:09:11 PM

Title: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on December 22, 2016, 02:09:11 PM
Are we heading to WW III or just a new cold war?

http://europe.newsweek.com/russian-ambassador-andrei-karlov-turkish-media-cia-syria-534801?rm=eu
It does seem plausible that this assassination was part of a larger picture, rather than just a rogue cop. Turkey is also a member of NATO, so any retaliation by Russia would be met with US and EU support of Turkey.


The timing is strange given Obama's recent remarks:
"President Obama promised to retaliate against Russia for its attempts to undermine the U.S. elections process, saying that the United States would take action "at a time and place of our own choosing."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/15/obama-threatens-retaliation-against-russia-election-hacking/95501584/

And there was this death too
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-diplomat-found-dead-moscow-before-ambassador-turkey-assassin-andrei-karlov-a7486546.html

And just to play devil's advocate here is an article which says this may strengthen Turkey-Russia ties, but also points to Western influence.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/why-killing-of-russian-diplomat-is-likely-to-bring-turkey-and-russia-closer
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: SaintsCanada on December 22, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
The reason for the assassination was likely because of recent thaw between Russia and Turkey. Ironically, if there is to be any lasting peace in Syria, they will likely be the 2 most imporant (foreign) players, as the U.S. proxies (Al Qaeda) have been driven out of all of Syria's major cities and are close to total defeat.

If the assassin wasn't acting alone, it could have been many different groups behind it, from the jihadists Syria and Russia are routing in the war, to Western interests. If it was Western, it appears to have backfired as Russia and Turkey are using the "crisitunity" (as Homer Simpson would call it) to strengthen ties.

The Cold War was about ideology. The current rivalry between USA and Russia is old-fashioned imperialism. Both countries are capitalist and conservative with extremely flawed democracies pursuing access to resources and geopolitical control.

Where, exactly, Turkey will fit into all of this in the long-term is hard to tell right now. Their move to the West seems to be dead -- what poor country in their right mind would want to join the EU anymore?! How long they will even belong to NATO is an interesting question -- they share few of the democratic traditions/values of the other members, and I'm not sure how long they will share the other members' geopolitical goals. Turkey, like Syria, wants to prevent the creation of an independent Kurdistan, while the USA is working with the Kurds to fight ISIS (a fight which also puts the Kurds in de facto control of land and cities -- something Turkey hates and fears).

Turkey may decide, like Ukraine did, that closer economic and political ties to Russia are more in their own direct interests than ties with the west. Of course, when Ukraine made that decision, the West helped orchestrate a coup against the elected president and plunged the country into civil war and even resulted in the annexation of the Crimea by Russia.

To say the least, Turkey has some serious thinking to do.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Hau5fly on December 22, 2016, 03:42:29 PM
Didn't Russia just help throne Trump? No WWIII just yet, not between these two anyway.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on December 22, 2016, 03:56:52 PM
Trump's election win will certainly be a factor. But again I don't think it will be a direct war. More of Crimea type situation becoming more popular. Syria, Turkey, Eastern Europe there are plenty of fronts that could embroil us or our allies.

It will be interesting to see what happens during Trump's reign, let's not forget his party is largely anti-Russian and not afraid to send in the troops. He can't be too appeasing to Russia or risk serious obstacles to his presidency.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 22, 2016, 04:13:59 PM
It does seem plausible that this assassination was part of a larger picture, rather than just a rogue cop.

Quite possibly yeah the work of cia-nato agents.

The goal of american leaders and their western lackeys has been to isolate and provoke Russia: prevent it forming alliances, start fires along its borders.

The current administration is intent on making russia an enemy, so they will do anything.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 22, 2016, 04:34:52 PM
I still think Trump is more likely to start a war with China.

What we are seeing with US/Russia right now are just the final moves of the Obama admin - but make no mistake, it is on its way out and we are likely to witness a major change in the US foreign policy.  Like I just said though, it's a change that's more likely to shake things up in Asia rather than Europe.  I despised both US candidates and still do - just because one is more likely to start a war in one region than another does not make either one less of a war monger.  Anyways, we'll see what happens. 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 22, 2016, 04:50:40 PM
I don't think the Trumpsters have realized yet that Russia is quite close to China, Iran, and North Korea.


Anyway Putin only got Trump elected so he can destroy NATO. Say goodbye to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and a few others. All because a few thousand people in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania wanted to feel better about being white.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on December 22, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
I still think Trump is more likely to start a war with China.

What we are seeing with US/Russia right now are just the final moves of the Obama admin - but make no mistake, it is on its way out and we are likely to witness a major change in the US foreign policy.  Like I just said though, it's a change that's more likely to shake things up in Asia rather than Europe.  I despised both US candidates and still do - just because one is more likely to start a war in one region than another does not make either one less of a war monger.  Anyways, we'll see what happens.

Yeah absolutely, I am not looking to carry on the Trump vs Clinton thread. I do think the powers that be are looking for a new front.

I agree we are on a collision course with China and possibly with Russia. Trump's cabinet is looking pretty strong for a confrontation, whether it be economic or military.

Pretty strong argument that the US is quickly losing its status as a superpower on the world stage. And this is due in part to both sides of the political spectrum.  A look at the main parties deciding the fate of Syria and USA is nowhere to be found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/world/middleeast/russia-iran-and-turkey-meet-for-syria-talks-excluding-us.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 22, 2016, 05:13:28 PM
Anyway Putin only got Trump elected so he can destroy NATO.

..hardly a tragedy considering the agressive imperialistic force that Nato has become.

Nato threatens world peace, it needs to be dismantled. It should've been dismantled at the end of the cold war.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 22, 2016, 05:36:37 PM
No, NATO threatens Putin, and it protects millions of people living in free democracies from Putin's brutal authoritarianism.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on December 22, 2016, 05:51:44 PM
Let's get ready to rumble!

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 22, 2016, 05:59:50 PM
No, NATO threatens Putin, and it protects millions of people living in free democracies from Putin's brutal authoritarianism.

Lol you're even more deluded than lifeimprovement.

Who's going to protect them from you?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: George Washington on December 22, 2016, 08:29:55 PM
America's the best country in the world. Mess with us, you're toast.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on December 22, 2016, 09:41:29 PM
Why is it that everyone is talking about how Russia enabled or orchestrated a Trump victory still without concrete evidence?  It's not hard to think of Russian motivations to do so or think them capable and willing to do so, but why should you believe any of this without evidence.  Otherwise, you can just blame way too much on Russia.  So far there have been just reports from anonymous officials from agencies.  Weren't the agencies more or less in agreement on the WMDs in Iraq?  When will they release concrete evidence? 

By the way, for the sake of argument, let's say Russia gave the election to Trump.  Why isn't Obama and others being held partly responsible for this?

Also, given the devastating invasions of Russia in the World Wars and the Cold War, how do you expect Russia to react to expansion of NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?  Regardless of how one feels about Vladimir Putin, one has to understand the positions of other powers. 

Trump is an awful, dangerous, wreckless person without any clearly discernible core political principles.  Is engaging in evidence-proof allegations and Neo-Mccarthyism the right way to fight against him.  Maybe people would care more if they were presented with evidence other than anonymous government officials.  It just seems like the Democrats just do not want to admit the reasons they lost (e.g. running a weak candidate with little ability to inspire anyone).
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 23, 2016, 01:05:09 AM
America's the best country in the world. Mess with us, you're toast.

(http://replygif.net/i/1485.gif)


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 23, 2016, 01:22:53 AM
Why is it that everyone is talking about how Russia enabled or orchestrated a Trump victory still without concrete evidence?

-because they are irrational brainwashed simpletons?


Quote
By the way, for the sake of argument, let's say Russia gave the election to Trump. 

How is that possible?

I still don't even know how this incredible hacking event is supposed to have occurred .. and nobody else (including Obama and the cia) knows either.

looks like a lot of people prefer to believe fairy tales rather than use their brain.

 
 
Quote
how do you expect Russia to react to expansion of NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
 

Russia requested several times to join nato. They were refused.

Putin has stated over and over that he wants to work with America and be an ally. Washington simply slandered and provoked him in response.

Crunch time will come in 2017 when Russia will be forced to react militarily to nato's missile launchers all around their borders. If they ignore it, they will effectively have no national defence.

What most people don't get is that Washington's foreign policy is dictated by the military-industrial complex. And they need to make enemies and invade other countries in order to drum up business.

Americans are hapless dupes in the hands of a few powerful elites.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 23, 2016, 01:34:38 AM


Quote
By the way, for the sake of argument, let's say Russia gave the election to Trump. 

How is that possible?

I still don't even know how this incredible hacking event is supposed to have occurred .. and nobody else (including Obama and the cia) knows either.

looks like a lot of people prefer to believe fairy tales rather than use their brain.


How Podesta's email server was hacked is well documented.  I'd say that his emails were just as damaging as other emails.

I imagine the other servers were hacked in a similar fashion.  Perhaps they replied to the 'the Saudi king died and left you an inheritance' scam emails along with their personal info (which would make sense, given Clinton's connection to the Saudis ;). 

Yep, this is what happens when you have morons running the country. 
I'm thinking Trump's email server can just as easily be 'hacked'.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on December 23, 2016, 02:02:02 AM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-an-evidence-free-cia-finding-alleging-russian-interference-in-the-us-election-was-turned-into-an-indisputable-truth/5563458


https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/12/20/mcgovern-a-disgruntled-bernie-supporter-probably-leaked-dnc-emails/#.WFpHYKCLudY.twitter
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MintIceCream on December 23, 2016, 11:55:56 AM
I don't think the Trumpsters have realized yet that Russia is quite close to China, Iran, and North Korea.


Anyway Putin only got Trump elected so he can destroy NATO. Say goodbye to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and a few others. All because a few thousand people in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania wanted to feel better about being white.

Please don't tell me you're one of those people that think Donald Trump won "cuz white supremacy"? Reading too much Buzzfeed isn't good for anyone.

I would also like to see how Russia orchestrated Trump's win.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Epistemology on December 23, 2016, 02:04:14 PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-an-evidence-free-cia-finding-alleging-russian-interference-in-the-us-election-was-turned-into-an-indisputable-truth/5563458


https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/12/20/mcgovern-a-disgruntled-bernie-supporter-probably-leaked-dnc-emails/#.WFpHYKCLudY.twitter

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
Not a source you want to link to.
Quote
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Global Research mostly consists of polemicists. The prevalent strand is that a New World Order is being implemented by global elites (primarily governments and corporations).[16][17] Many of the articles accept conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and propaganda in order to further this narrative.
Specific conspiracy theories include:
Big Pharma:
Big Pharma forced Australia to silence pro-homeopathy and anti-vaccination proponents;[18]
Big Pharma forced the FDA to destroy homeopathy;[15]
Big Pharma is covering up the "horrors" of "Western Medicine".[19]
Anti-vaccination movement:
Vaccines in general are a depopulation tactic.[20]
Vaccines cause autism.[21][22]
Vaccines in Kenya have been laced with sterility compounds by the WHO and UNICEF.[23][24][25] Bullshit, by the way.[26]
Vaccines are toxic.[27]
Vaccines don't work.[28][29]
Vaccines are highly profitable.[29]
All of the above is being covered up by Monsanto and "the West".[18][30]
9/11 conspiracy theories:
The US did 9/11 to start a war.[15][14]
Most Americans do know the US did it, but are unwilling to push for change.[31]
Most Americans don't know the US did it, because their government hides the truth.[32]
The media is suppressing the TRUTH.[33]
The Middle East:
The USA used nukes in both Iraq and Afghanistan.[34]
The USA and the CIA created ISIS[35][36] and are using it as a "psyop" theater.[37]
David Kelly was murdered to shush him.[38]
GMFs:
GMFs are poison.[39][40][41]
GMFs are part of a depopulation conspiracy theory through sterilization of humankind[42]
Monsanto:
Monsanto is literally the most evil corporation.[43][44]
Even if GMFs were fine, then Monsanto's existence would make them bad.[45]
Zionism and the International Jewish Conspiracy:
Zionists are plotting to rule everything from Cairo to Baghdad[46]
Zionists have infiltrated and now control America.[47]
The Holocaust is a profitable industry, which Zionists collaborated in causing, and shich that Zionists use to push for Palestinian ethnic cleansing.[48]
Zionists use American Jews to push their agenda[49]
Chemtrails:
Chemtrails are toxic.[50]
Chemtrails are used for nefarious geo-engineering.[51]
The USA:
The US Congress is entirely corporation-controlled and pro-war: "Members of Congress are puppets. Their vote is controlled by Washington's lobby groups. For the defence contractors, Wall Street and the Texas oil giants, 'war is good for business'."[52]
The Federal Reserve is absolutely corporation-controlled[53]
Genocide denialism:
Bosnian genocide denialism: a hoax.[54]
Rwandan genocide denialism: "questioning" views are totally true and are being suppressed.[55]
HAARP is a climate-controlling weapon[56][57]
Global warming is a conspiracy theory[58][59] (though some of their articles argue for the existence of global warming[60])
Fluoridation is poison.[61][62][63]
Nuke fearmongering: Fukushima is killing everything![64]
The Bilderberg Group runs the world.[65]
Charlie Hebdo was a false flag.[66]

Truly remarkable viewpoints

North Korea, a Land of Human Achievement, Love and Joy: North Korea Celebrates 60th Anniversary of Victory[1](saved archive)
US Training Nazis, Western Media Providing Cover[67]
The Complete History of Monsanto, "The World’s Most Evil Corporation"[43]
Capitalism and "The Universal Religion"[68]
"US Struggles to Keep Asia in Dark Age. US-Funded 'Newspapers' and 'Activists'".[69]
"Weaponizing the Term 'Conspiracy Theory': Disinformation Agents and the CIA": The CIA tells lies, mainstream media is disinformation, and Andrew Wakefield's research is both valid and replicated. Right.[70]
Fidel Castro Ruz. His Legacy Will Live Forever[71]

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MoneyMike on December 23, 2016, 03:01:57 PM
No, NATO threatens Putin, and it protects millions of people living in free democracies from Putin's brutal authoritarianism.

If NATO hadn't continually expanded eastward after the fall of the Soviet Union, (something Russia had been assured it would not) then you would be right.

As it is you have NATO considering letting Ukraine in. Expecting Russia to do nothing about that is like expecting America to do nothing when China sets up military bases in Mexico.

America and NATO have been goading and antagonizing Russia for years. Hopefully Trump backs off this ridiculous course. Also, hopefully he doesn't accidentally nuke Canada.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: KimDuHan on December 23, 2016, 03:11:55 PM
America's the best country in the world. Mess with us, you're toast.

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/73/73c6957372babd3d5b01dd7be34a6366d451c759a935fae311190fb3c90ed9bc.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 23, 2016, 03:14:08 PM
I would also like to see how Russia orchestrated Trump's win.

Ok. Here's a guy with one of the highest IQs ever recorded:

http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2016/12/more_worries_from_the_trump_putin_alliance.html

He's much smarter than Trump (the guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth), and much smarter than you or anyone else posting in this thread.

Quote
This Russian man is considered to be the greatest chess player of all times. He was ranked world no. 1 for 225 times. This genius man in 2003 played against a chess computer that could calculate 3 million moves per second. The match was draw and Kasparov obliged his fans with his unmatched brilliance. Kasparov was the youngest undisputed World Chess Champion just at the age of 22. He has a world record for most number of consecutive victories and most number of Chess Oscars. Apart from being a chess player, he is also a writer and political activist.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 23, 2016, 04:02:38 PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-an-evidence-free-cia-finding-alleging-russian-interference-in-the-us-election-was-turned-into-an-indisputable-truth/5563458


https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/12/20/mcgovern-a-disgruntled-bernie-supporter-probably-leaked-dnc-emails/#.WFpHYKCLudY.twitter

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
Not a source you want to link to.
Quote

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.


Your source "rationalwiki" is known to have a strong leftist bias.

We live in a media matrix where powerful forces are competing to propagandize the world.

The best we can say is that some articles in rationalwiki are correct, some are'nt. Some stuff in globalresearch is correct, some isn't. Ultimately you have to judge an argument on its merits, not on which website it appears.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 23, 2016, 04:32:08 PM
Ok. Here's a guy with one of the highest IQs ever recorded:

http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2016/12/more_worries_from_the_trump_putin_alliance.html


Speaking of Kasparov -
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garrykaspa471951.html

                  At the end of the day, it's all about money.

                                                                      Garry Kasparov

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 23, 2016, 05:33:15 PM
He's a human rights activist because he wants money? (?_?)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Epistemology on December 23, 2016, 05:47:55 PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-an-evidence-free-cia-finding-alleging-russian-interference-in-the-us-election-was-turned-into-an-indisputable-truth/5563458


https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/12/20/mcgovern-a-disgruntled-bernie-supporter-probably-leaked-dnc-emails/#.WFpHYKCLudY.twitter

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
Not a source you want to link to.
Quote

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.


Your source "rationalwiki" is known to have a strong leftist bias.

We live in a media matrix where powerful forces are competing to propagandize the world.

The best we can say is that some articles in rationalwiki are correct, some are'nt. Some stuff in globalresearch is correct, some isn't. Ultimately you have to judge an argument on its merits, not on which website it appears.

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg)

The only people who find rationalwiki to have a strong leftwing bias are far right wingnuts. Coincidentally, Far left moonbats also find rationalwiki to have a strong rightwing bias. Funny that.

Post-truthers like yourself can howl at the moon all you like, but your sources are madcap conspiracy theorists.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 23, 2016, 07:17:02 PM
He's a human rights activist because he wants money? (?_?)

Most people and geopolitical events revolve around power and money.
Kasparov, despite being a chess champion, has a very narrow view, one which does not take into account the big picture.  Chomsky would kill him in that department anytime of the day.  By the way, Kasparov is not not a human rights activist - he is a political activist.


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 23, 2016, 08:26:26 PM
He's chairman of the Human Rights Foundation.

https://hrf.org
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 23, 2016, 08:45:28 PM
He's chairman of the Human Rights Foundation.

https://hrf.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Foundation#HRF_advocacy_campaigns_by_country

Take a look at this foundation's country campaign list - USA isn't there.  Any human rights organization that is not being critical of the USA, is not worth discussing. 

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/united-states
Here is what Human rights watch has to say about USA in comparison.

Here is a lively discussion about the human rights foundation - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x13498
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 23, 2016, 09:51:45 PM
Are you kidding me?

Human rights organizations focus on ending the most egregious human rights violations around the world- as they should.

In terms of human rights, the U.S. is well above Russia. Sure, there are some problems- every country has problems. But for the overwhelming majority of good people living in America, they are not abused by the American government. In other bad countries though, those who criticize the president / government policies could wind up in jail.

Simply for being an opposing voice.

On the other hand, those in jail in America (the overwhelming majority at least) are there because they are a threat to others in society. Yes, I don't like drug laws; however, in the U.S. they are more lax than other countries and are becoming more lenient. Most people locked up in the U.S. (look at all incarceration overall) are there because they are violent and dangerous to others. Drug offenders (whose only crime was drug selling with no other violent crimes mixed in) are a small minority. Not too many prisoners in federal prison compared to other lock up places is something to note when searching stats.  
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 23, 2016, 10:00:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwQAyskqG0g
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MWeb37 on December 23, 2016, 10:48:45 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/oos7Jew.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on December 23, 2016, 11:35:27 PM
Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.


What claim did I make?

So you're saying CNN, NBC and the Washington Post are completely honest?

Well, if they actually did their jobs the way they are supposed to, sites like those I've
posted wouldn't exist and you know that's true.


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/corporate-media-lies-death-suffering/

http://www.naturalnews.com/048714_mainstream_media_propaganda_lies.html

https://www.mintpressnews.com/fake-aleppo-genocide-pics-spread-amid-new-calls-for-war-on-syria/223306/

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on December 23, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
Russia wants a Syria under Assad. So does Iran. Trump supports Russian support of Assad. Trump supports Israel. Israel does not want a united Syria and Iran.

Can't wait to see how Trump untangles this.

Huge diverse nations like the USA, Russia, and China need a powerful external threat to maintain control. It allows the Imperial Presidency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency) to exist in the USA, for example. Think of South Korea. Without Japan and the USA to blame all of its woes on, who would be blamed? The last thing a nation really wants to do is try to maintain central power via an internal threat. The very goal is to unite people behind a strong central government, with power concentrated in the hands of the few or one. Internal threats can lead to civil wars, strife, Balkanization.

With the end of the Cold War, the external threats have been just silly (like Iraq) or, like the war on Islam, actually requires you to fight. You don't actually want to fight the war you want everyone to prepare for.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 24, 2016, 01:31:53 AM
The only people who find rationalwiki to have a strong leftwing bias are far right wingnuts. Coincidentally, Far left moonbats also find rationalwiki to have a strong rightwing bias. Funny that.

Post-truthers like yourself can howl at the moon all you like, but your sources are madcap conspiracy theorists.

Stop frothing, you loon. You'll give yourself a nosebleed.

Any argument should be judged on its merits, not on which website it appears. Is that really too logical for you?

Quote from: TorontoToronto
With the end of the Cold War, the external threats have been just silly (like Iraq)

The neo-cons revived the cold war as soon as Reagan was out the door.

The globalist plan has always been to wear down any country that wants to remain independent. It defines any nation with its own foreign policy as an enemy.

The globalist game is to manipulate, bully, subvert or dominate other nations. To bring them into the fold whereby they become vassals of Washington.

But their agenda gets put on hold everytime the masses elect a leader who actually wants to work with other nations on equal terms (like Reagan or Trump).
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on December 24, 2016, 03:36:37 AM
I should say, this desire to have an external threat is as much bottom up as top down. It's not a cabal going "we need that ol' cold war back". People just move in old patterns and old ways. They nudge. And nudge. There's no one with their hand firmly on the ship of state's rudder. The rudder's direction is ad hoc and mostly a bottom up.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 24, 2016, 04:11:23 AM
It's not a cabal going "we need that ol' cold war back". People just move in old patterns and old ways.

What an innocent view you have of the world.

Evidence proves clearly there is a neo-con cabal (they talk about it themselves) and the unrelenting anti-Russia crusade by Washington is no accident.
Nothing in foreign policy is accidental.

Do you think Washingtons unilateral withdrawal from anti-proliferation treaties it had with Russia was accidental?

How about its changing of its nuclear philosophy from one of self defence to "first strike"?

Or its decision to build missile launchers in numerous countries bordering Russia. is that all just accidentally "moving in old ways"?

How about the mainstream medias blanket demonization of Russia and its leader, while ignoring terrible things in other countries?

Pushing Nato forces right up to Russias borders, starting training exercises and building up troop numbers in areas they never existed before. Is it "unintentional"?


Some suggested reading for you:

Quote
Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War
Stephen F Cohen

In this wide-ranging and acclaimed book, Stephen F. Cohen challenges conventional wisdom about the course of Soviet and post-Soviet history. Reexamining leaders from Nikolai Bukharin, Stalin's preeminent opponent, and Nikita Khrushchev to Mikhail Gorbachev and his rival Yegor Ligachev, Cohen shows that their defeated policies were viable alternatives and that their tragic personal fates shaped the Soviet Union and Russia today. Cohen's ramifying arguments include that Stalinism was not the predetermined outcome of the Communist Revolution; that the Soviet Union was reformable and its breakup avoidable; and that the opportunity for a real post-Cold War relationship with Russia was squandered in Washington, not in Moscow. This is revisionist history at its best, compelling readers to rethink fateful events of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries and the possibilities ahead.

In his new epilogue, Cohen expands his analysis of U.S. policy toward post-Soviet Russia, tracing its development in the Clinton and Obama administrations and pointing to its initiation of a "new Cold War" that, he implies, has led to a fateful confrontation over Ukraine.

https://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Fates-Lost-Alternatives-Stalinism/dp/0231148976/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482516371&sr=1-1&keywords=soviet+fates+and+lost+alternatives (https://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Fates-Lost-Alternatives-Stalinism/dp/0231148976/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482516371&sr=1-1&keywords=soviet+fates+and+lost+alternatives)

Quote
The War Against Putin: What the Government-Media Complex Isn't Telling You About Russia
M.S. King

In the West, politicians and journalists of all stripes have referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "thug", a "tyrant", a "murderer", a "Communist", a "Nazi", the next "Hitler" and more. But amongst the Russian people, his popularity rating has reached levels as high as 85%. There is even a very popular hit 'disco' song about him - 'A Man Like Putin'. So, who's right? Why such hatred for Vladimir Putin? Is it justified? Or has Putin been targeted merely for standing up the US-EU Axis of Internationalism? In clear, simple, powerful and concise language - supported by more than 100 illustrations - 'The War Against Putin' takes readers on an exciting 'crash course' journey from Russia's Medieval founding, through the days of the Czars, through the Communist Revolution and bloody Civil War, through Stalin & World War II, through the Cold War, through the Soviet collapse, through the Yeltsin disaster, and finally the Putin-led rebirth of the Russian nation. It is one of the "greatest stories never told", and will shed badly needed light on the new Russia, its dynamic leader, the dark forces aiming to bring about its demise, and maybe even World War III. Says Dr. William Carlucci: "I was glued to the edge of my seat with jaw wide open as I read this gem of a book from start to finish, in a single sitting. The clarity and simplicity with which King's masterpiece demystifies current events represents a rare ability to speak to the reader with entertaining and understandable prose. This piece really needs to go viral, and fast. 5 Huge Stars!"
https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Putin-Government-Media-Complex/dp/1500316261 (https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Putin-Government-Media-Complex/dp/1500316261)


Quote from: LifeImprovement
Are you kidding me?

Human rights organizations focus on ending the most egregious human rights violations around the world- as they should.

"Human rights" organizations are in many cases a front for the globalist agenda. They lie through their teeth. They do not help the victims on the ground, it is simply another UN cash cow and they portray a false picture of what is really happening.

Quote
In terms of human rights, the U.S. is well above Russia

Why does Washington sponsor terrorists in Syria on a massive scale?

Why does their mainstream media tell non-stop lies about the reality of the situation in Syria? They literally publish fake pictures, fake interviews and fake sources nonstop.

The reality is that Most Syrians support their Assad government and that "moderate rebels" are in reality Isis-affiliated terrorists that butcher the local people.

The only pro-human rights activity happening on the ground is thanks to the Russian army that is busy liberating the country from foreign invading terrorists, providing humanitarian aid, de-mining and generally trying to restore the country to peace and order.

Here is a first-hand account, an authentic source from an independent journalist who spends time in Syria documenting the lies of the mainstream media.

If you want to know what is really happening in Syria, watch this:

Quote
Eva Bartlett destroys mainstream media lies. What's really going on in Syria.

Full Press Conference at the United Nations. Against propaganda and regime change, for peace and national sovereignty. 9 December 2016, the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations. Speakers: Dr. Bahman Azad, Member of the Coordinating Committee for the Hands Off Syria and Organization Secretary of US Peace Council, and Eva Bartlett, Independent Canadian Journalist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uap0GwBYdBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uap0GwBYdBA)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 25, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
Ah yes, the Canadian who works for RT.  :rolleyes:

http://www.snopes.com/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children

http://www.maryscullyreports.com/eva-bartlett-propagandist-for-assad-dictatorship/
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 25, 2016, 11:10:44 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ar80sFzViw
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 25, 2016, 03:52:38 PM
http://www.snopes.com/

Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 

Quote
https://www.channel4.com/

another left wing disinformation source.

Quote
http://www.maryscullyreports.com/

Lol. mary scully is a well-known anti-Semitic communist.



Quote
the Canadian who works for RT.

No.., she is independent. The fact that a journalist may sometimes contribute to a particular news outlet does not mean they are employed by them.

Did you even watch the video? Ms Bartlett backs up all her points with verifiable points  about how the mainstream media is lying about Syria.

ie She cites mainstream using a photo or interviewee for one story, then re-cycling it for an unrelated story months later. These are all checkable facts.


Why is the mainstream media lying about Syria? because they are pushing the globalist agenda of regime change. They want Syria to become another vassal state of Washington.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: 67uicv29 on December 25, 2016, 07:03:35 PM
Aurata's claims are the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. So desperate for attention, SAD!
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 25, 2016, 09:28:03 PM
http://www.snopes.com/

Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE&app=desktop
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on December 27, 2016, 11:44:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i4tuuy1jsw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvya5s-8_vg


This man speaks the truth.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 28, 2016, 12:11:22 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-condemns-barack-obama-lifting-military-aid-restrictions-syria-hostile-act-a7497076.html

Obama is making his final power play moves before the US regime change. 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on December 28, 2016, 03:55:33 AM
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/20/as-the-coup-against-trump-fails-the-threat-against-his-life-rises-paul-craig-roberts/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQfjStEkONI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPDgUMOXDPk

Americans should be thanking their lucky stars that she did not get to be president.

If you really wanted to defeat Trump, you should have stuck with Sanders, because he

would have won.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 29, 2016, 02:41:54 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-condemns-barack-obama-lifting-military-aid-restrictions-syria-hostile-act-a7497076.html

Obama is making his final power play moves before the US regime change.

Apparently it gets worse..

Quote
With the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, President Obama has effectively put all media under federal control

http://truthfeed.com/video-power-grab-obama-signs-bill-effectively-federalizing-all-media/43671/ (http://truthfeed.com/video-power-grab-obama-signs-bill-effectively-federalizing-all-media/43671/)

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on December 29, 2016, 08:39:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyBJeNBIIA
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 29, 2016, 12:01:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyBJeNBIIA

I'm afraid Sam Harris has been exposed as being a tool a while back (yep - much like Kasparov).
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/09/siding_with_christian_fanatics_like_ben_carson_over_noam_chomsky_sam_harris_exposes_inherent_conservatism_of_new_atheism/

Moving on.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on December 30, 2016, 06:21:06 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-29/russia-responds-obama-sanctions

So, Obama made yet another move.

I can't help but agree with this analysis - it's a pretty brilliant move, I must admit.  Either Trump carries on with the current cold war, or he'll be declared a Russian implant.  He's been labeled as being such on many occasions already, but if he now does anything to undermine the current cold war trajectory, he'll have the whole establishment going after him, including all of the intelligence agencies. 


Quote
'The true target of these sanctions is Donald Trump.

By imposing sanctions on Russia, Obama is lending the authority of the Presidency to the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking, daring Trump to deny their truth.

If Trump as President allows the sanctions to continue, he will be deemed to have accepted the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking as true.  If Trump cancels the sanctions when he becomes President, he will be accused of being Russia’s stooge.

It is a well known lawyer’s trick, and Obama the former lawyer doubtless calculates that either way Trump’s legitimacy and authority as President will be damaged, with the insinuation that he owes his Presidency to the Russians now given extra force.'

 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on December 31, 2016, 12:00:14 AM
Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 

Interesting assertion. Based on what evidence?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 31, 2016, 01:14:58 AM
Ah .. snopes..a totally unreliable sycophantic propaganda website for the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton. 

Interesting assertion. Based on what evidence?


Quote
Rumor-disproving website Snopes has proven itself especially unreliable on all matters political, and it did so again this week when it tried to “bust” the myth that President Obama had paid Iran $400 million in exchange for American citizens being held in Iranian jails.

As you may recall, back in January, the Obama administration managed to win the release of the men. Within days, nearly half a billion dollars was transferred to Iran.

Both Snopes and the Obama administration insist that...
http://conservativetribune.com/snopes-busted-obamas-lies/ (http://conservativetribune.com/snopes-busted-obamas-lies/)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on December 31, 2016, 02:38:50 AM
I'm not really sure the inaccuracy or why Snopes is required to report the opinion of one Iranian rando. Iran has been hungry for the return of its own assets frozen for decades after the American hostage incident.

I don't see anything in the linked CT article that has anything other than the word of one Iranian rando to dispute the what motivated the turn of Iran's assets.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on December 31, 2016, 02:48:49 AM
Do a google search "snopes bias"

You'll find plenty to read.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on December 31, 2016, 02:56:27 AM
Obama has completely lost it.

Quote
The United States has expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian compounds in a response that Barack Obama says was "necessary and appropriate" against "efforts to harm US interests".

Our correspondent said: "The White House is calling this a national emergency. This is one of the strongest responses we've ever seen from the US against what it says was a state-sponsored cyberattack."

Obama said that all Americans should be alarmed by Russia's actions, adding that data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government.

Al Jazeera's Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said that the US administration had not provided any proof of Russia's involvement other than the flat accusations that 17 US intelligence agencies say so.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/expels-35-russian-diplomats-cyber-attacks-161229192854580.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/expels-35-russian-diplomats-cyber-attacks-161229192854580.html)

As usual, it is left to the Russians to keep a clear head:

Quote
Vladimir Putin has rejected plans to expel US diplomats in a tit-for-tat retaliation against Washington - and instead invited their children to visit the Kremlin.
http://news.sky.com/story/putin-no-expulsions-in-response-to-us-sanctions-10711864 (http://news.sky.com/story/putin-no-expulsions-in-response-to-us-sanctions-10711864)

Quote
Giuliani: There's no question that the intelligence that Obama has been getting has either been incompetent or politicized.

I would urge President trump..have his own people do their own independent intelligence report, so that we get beyond what has been very flawed intelligence reports.

You know all those reports we were getting last year, that president Obama was getting the reports he wanted to hear: that we were winning the war on isis, etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYSwf6a2IN0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYSwf6a2IN0)

There is not a jot of evidence for Russian "hacking": this simply follows a pattern of demonization and provocation of Russia that has been the deliberate policy of the globalist neo-con administrations of Obama, bush and Clinton.

For the billionth time, can someone please answer the question: What has Russia ever done to the US?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on December 31, 2016, 03:41:10 AM
Do a google search "snopes bias"

You'll find plenty to read.

You can say that about anything. Most of it is not worth reading. I am, however, interested when people make assertions what they base those assertions upon.

Props to Aurata for actually linking to something. I've seen the bias accusation and when I ask what they feel is biased I get little more than hand waving. That said, I don't find Aurata's assertion well backed because a biased right wing web page found some random Iranian who has a different opinion about the nature of the $400 million transfer and Snopes didn't cite him.

If the President of Iran or someone clearly in the chain made it clear, however, this was a ransom payment and Snopes failed to cite him, then an accusation of bias might have some teeth, especially if there was a pattern of Snopes failing to "give both sides" when appropriate from a journalism POV.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on December 31, 2016, 04:07:39 AM
OK if you don't like reading there's plenty of criticism of snopes on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CUMIvrp3wc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGf5_N6zwaE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5FrenVxOZc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzwfeIR8gsY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LimZhkArmXU

But you'll probably say they aren't worth watching so, I guess I give up.


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on December 31, 2016, 05:26:50 AM
I like reading. I do find youtube videos a waste of time unless the person linking the video can briefly summarize what they find compelling in the video. You'd agree it would be a waste of time commenting on what you think is compelling only to discover the person linking the video finds those merely peripheral points and you should have been paying attention to a whole other part of the video.

Regarding your link, I'm not sure how that is evidence of the assertion of journalistic bias. The founders are like a lot of married people: they're not happily married and the husband was stepping out on his wife. Well, so did Einstein. That makes what point? Embezzle is a pretty strong word, although that's just an allegation by the ex-wife. Not sure if you've been in a divorce or even a bad break up but exs accuse each other of horrible things. Fox News is or isn't biased. That the CEO was allegedly sexually harassing female employees is not very strong evidence of bias. And even if the husband is thrown into jail for stealing corporate funds, how is that evidence of journalistic bias?

Maybe we're not using the term bias in the same way. Surely you don't mean "I don't like the conclusions therefore there must be bias." By bias I mean a pattern of articles where the author start with the conclusion, cherry picks, quote mining, and demonstrates a pattern of ignoring facts and relevant testimony that argue against the author's per-determined conclusion.  Like if you were doing a paper in a university-level media criticism class, and you suggested infidelity and using corporate funds to bang prostitutes were evidence for bias in a particular direction, you should not be surprised if you got a big red F.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on December 31, 2016, 06:03:49 AM
Well draw your own conclusions.

Perhaps this is more your speed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#52814d1a1e02


Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it's secret.”

It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond.

When I presented a set of subsequent clarifying questions to David, he provided responses to some and not to others. Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It's pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”

That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality. Think about it this way – what if there was a fact checking organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars? Most liberals would likely dismiss such an organization as partisan and biased. Similarly, an organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from Occupy Democrats and Huffington Post might be dismissed by conservatives as partisan and biased. In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers.

In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

Since you say you like reading here's more for you:

http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/

It's long and quite tedious at times, but if you wish here is the conclusion of the article:

(see below)

The verdict: Snopes lied. It deliberately presented a Day 2 photo as being taken on Day 1, because it was desperate to disprove the claims by “right wing sites” that the Democrats were minimizing the presence of the American flag.

That’s the end for Snopes. Even one example of bias-fed misrepresentation ends any justifiable trust readers can have that the site is fair, objective and trustworthy. Snopes has proven that it has a political and partisan agenda, and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers to advance it.

Can it recover? Maybe, but not without…

…Getting out of the political fact-checking business.

…Firing Dan Evon, who used the misleading flag photos, as well as Kim LaCapria.

…Confessing its betrayal of trust and capitulation to partisan bias, apologizing, and taking remedial measures.

With all the misinformation on the web, a trustworthy web site like Snopes used to be is essential. Unfortunately, a site that is the purveyor of falsity cannot also be the antidote for it.

I’ll miss Snopes, but until it acknowledges its ethics breach and convinces me that the site’s days of spinning and lying were a short-lived aberration, I won’t be using it again.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 04, 2017, 12:07:34 AM
Again, I'm not sure about how a guy not wanting to comment on his private life and a messy divorce implies a whole site is biased.

Regarding the flag photo. Snopes made an error running a day 2 photo not a day 1 photo? Snopes isn't 100% perfect and makes errors? Oh. No. Snopes points out it is not perfect. It actually has a few fake debunkings (e.g., KFC changed its name because Kentucky was going to demand a royalty (http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.asp)) to caution people that they need to double check Snopes articles. It doesn't pretend to be an unimpeachable source or the arbiter of truth. That's called a straw man in my business.

Also, it's an entirely bizarre claim that the DNC would not have any American flags. This would be first in history. Do you honestly doubt the DNC banned US flags?

Anyway, one would have to be more than drunk to claim Snopes is 100% accurate. To claim otherwise is a straw man, as evidence by Snopes' own cautions about its accuracy.

Sorry, I still don't see a pattern of left leaning bias. A couple errors doesn't establish that. You would still be laughed out of a university level media criticism class if that was the evidence for you claim. A pattern of errors that are favor of leftist groups and topics and/or a pattern of errors that cast rightist groups and topics in an ill light would be better evidence for bias.

I don't expect anyone to actually do that. People are happy to make claims and then push away from the table and not do the hard work.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on January 04, 2017, 04:31:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhfHqWU8q-E




Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 04, 2017, 05:00:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhfHqWU8q-E

What are the claims you find compelling in that video?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on January 04, 2017, 05:13:22 AM
watch it and see.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 04, 2017, 06:57:43 AM
watch it and see.

Sorry, as I noted, I don't watch youtube videos given as evidence unless the person linking the video can state, briefly, which points he/she finds compelling.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on January 04, 2017, 07:23:44 AM
Suit yourself.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 04, 2017, 11:47:07 PM
Indeed. Experience has shown me youtube videos are a complete waste. Better things to do with my time. I'm sure you do as well. You'll notice, however, I was happy to read the article links you provided.

I did my thesis on Urban Legends, this was years before there was a commercial Internet and a site called Snopes. My approach to claims about Urban Legends and the institutions that investigates them is academic. Give me data, not a collection of cherry picked anecdotes. And, please, spare me Youtube videos, unless you can briefly summarize the key points you find compelling. If you can't do that, it leads me to think you've not actually watched it yourself or you have and you actually can't articulate anything compelling. There's a way to prove me wrong, of course...

Anyway, the notion the DNC banned the display of the American flag, as the urban legend suggests, on Day 1 is, on the face of it, pretty ludicrous. You don't have to be a recycle-bin toting Portland Fareless Square Liberal to step back and go "ummm, really? In this election cycle the DNC is going to do that?" They didn't even do that during the anti-Vietnam hippy era. Challenging that notion, and even making an error, does not indicate bias. It's like when John McCain challenged a woman's suggestion that Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist. McCain noted Obama was a good man that simply had a different political opinion. Is McCain showing his liberal bias? Or is he simply, you know, rational and believes challenging lies of any kind is apolitical?

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 05, 2017, 12:37:56 AM
I did my thesis on Urban Legends, this was years before there was a commercial Internet and a site called Snopes. My approach to claims about Urban Legends and the institutions that investigates them is academic.

To be fair Toronto.. you ignored the facts in my post. This is what you said:

Quote from: TorontoTornoto
I don't see anything in the linked CT article that has anything other than the word of one Iranian rando to dispute the what motivated the turn of Iran's assets.

The article did not hang on the word of some "Iranian rando", it is based on what the Iranian Government said.

 Yep, senior Iranian defense officials described the money as a ransom payment.

This was repeated by Irans Fars News Agency. Quoting a Brigaddier general.

Fyi a Brigaddier General is not some random person. It is close to the highest military rank possible.

So snopes deliberately left out some significant sources.


But believe whatever you want, you will anyway.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 05, 2017, 01:35:45 AM

Fyi a Brigaddier General is not some random person. It is close to the highest military rank possible.

So snopes deliberately left out some significant sources.


Sorry, I simply don't agree a single low level general (Brigadier General = 1 star General) is a significant source or represents the official position of the Iranian government as regards the deal.

My comment stands: not reporting the pure opinion of every Iranian rando does not indicate systematic bias.

Also, what facts did I ignore? I'd be happy to reconsider them.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 05, 2017, 02:57:06 AM

Fyi a Brigaddier General is not some random person. It is close to the highest military rank possible.

So snopes deliberately left out some significant sources.


Sorry, I simply don't agree a single low level general (Brigadier General = 1 star General) is a significant source or represents the official position of the Iranian government as regards the deal.

My comment stands: not reporting the pure opinion of every Iranian rando does not indicate systematic bias.

Also, what facts did I ignore? I'd be happy to reconsider them.


Quote
State Dept. confirms $400 million Iran payment conditioned on prisoner release
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/iran-payment-hostage-release-227170 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/iran-payment-hostage-release-227170)

How is that different to a ransom payment?


Quote
A letter from the Iranian government that says, in effect, “you have something of ours and we have something of yours,” isn’t exactly the same as a traditional ransom note, but it’s close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades and government work.

The fact that the United States sort of owes Iran money gives Washington a face-saving way to half-plausibly say it did not pay a ransom demand, but let’s keep in mind why American policy forbids paying ransom demands in the first place. If kidnapping American citizens is profitable, more American citizens will be kidnapped. If kidnapping American citizens is a waste of effort, money, and time—if, instead, it is punished—far fewer American citizens will be kidnapped.

Paying a ransom that isn’t technically a ransom encourages hostage-taking almost as much as paying a regular ransom. Which is why we shouldn’t do it.

“The trouble is,” says NPR reporter Michele Keleman, “since then, Iranian authorities have arrested more Westerners. They're now holding three Iranian-Americans as well as dual nationals from the U.K. and Canada.”

Why shouldn’t the Iranian regime continue taking American hostages? It pays.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/iran-payment-wasn%E2%80%99t-ransom-it-was-ransom (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/iran-payment-wasn%E2%80%99t-ransom-it-was-ransom)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Chester Jim on January 05, 2017, 06:55:52 PM
This is a very serious topic by Thunderlips.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 06, 2017, 02:14:50 AM
Aurata, both nations agreed before hand to return Iran its assets. The USA would have done this regardless if Iran had 4 US prisoners. The USA got 4 prisoners released by offering to speed up the return of assets. Feel free to call this a ransom if you wish. But it's a little more complicated and nuanced than that, as the Snopes article tries to show.

Reality is nuanced. Showing the nuance isn't bias in my book.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 06, 2017, 11:21:37 AM
This is a very serious topic by Thunderlips.

There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed in the USA with the election of Trump. If there is viable proof of Russian interference or even assistance that should be a huge red flag to the world.

Not to mention the current headlines of wanting to expand the nuclear arsenal and the expulsion of the diplomats from the USA.


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 06, 2017, 05:05:20 PM
This is a very serious topic by Thunderlips.

There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed in the USA with the election of Trump. If there is viable proof of Russian interference or even assistance that should be a huge red flag to the world.


Not necessarily.  Russia could have hacked the emails.  If Assange were to reveal his source, and it was proven to be Russian (he's careful in saying that it's not a state party - but that's all he says), then there is no red flag to be had. 

What's interesting about this whole thing is that it really doesn't matter who hacked whom.  The information gathered is by far more important.  I for one wish that every politician was hacked - then we'd know the real extent of corruption around the world. 

We are all being led by corrupt morons - that's the reality of things.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 06, 2017, 05:15:29 PM
This is a very serious topic by Thunderlips.

There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed in the USA with the election of Trump. If there is viable proof of Russian interference or even assistance that should be a huge red flag to the world.


Not necessarily.  Russia could have hacked the emails.  If Assange were to reveal his source, and it was proven to be Russian (he's careful in saying that it's not a state party - but that's all he says), then there is no red flag to be had. 

What's interesting about this whole thing is that it really doesn't matter who hacked whom.  The information gathered is by far more important.  I for one wish that every politician was hacked - then we'd know the real extent of corruption around the world. 

We are all being led by corrupt morons - that's the reality of things.

Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump. Just for profits? Probably the half of it.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 06, 2017, 05:21:08 PM
Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump. Just for profits? Probably the half of it.

I highly doubt that Russia is 'excited' to install Trump, but they did see him as being less likely to start a war with Russia, as opposed to Clinton.  I think most leaders around the globe would have been more excited if neither Trump nor Clinton were on the ballot. 

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 06, 2017, 05:26:18 PM
Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump. Just for profits? Probably the half of it.

I highly doubt that Russia is 'excited' to install Trump, but they did see him as being less likely to start a war with Russia, as opposed to Clinton.  I think most leaders around the globe would have been more excited if neither Trump nor Clinton were on the ballot.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-hacking-investigation-details-2017-1

http://time.com/4599771/russia-donald-trump-secretary-of-state/

I guess we will see.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 06, 2017, 07:43:09 PM
Have you noticed that there is still a lot of discussion relating to the election regarding the alleged Russian hacking? The New York Times, etc. writes stories about it, but probably less concrete evidence has been given about it than the non-existent WMD in Iraq. 

Although this could partly (even largely) be related to domestic politics (delegitimizing Trump), aggressive actions against Russia seem unwarranted without concrete proof.  These sorts of election rigging claims will only bring about international tensions and possibly threats of wars, whether proxy wars or even a major war.  So if there is no concrete proof of Russian hacking (which mysteriously surfaced after Hilary lost), the Democrats and others making these claims should STFU.  I am not going believe anonymous officials or officials making vague claims no matter how many agencies can be cited.

If the Democrats continue along this path, the best hope of a Democratic victory in future elections seems to be the Republicans screwing things up/making people unhappy. 

Are the Russians capable and even willing to try to influence the election?  Hell yes, and vice versa.  But unless there is concrete proof, would it not be better for the Democrats and others opposed to Trump to use a different strategy?  Why did Trump pick up white working class voters that Obama won?  I would be willing to place a large wager that it was not because people were thinking about Russia or Vladimir Putin on their way to work or when they were searching for jobs.  And I guarantee you that a different female candidate could have beaten Trump.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 06, 2017, 10:18:40 PM
Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump.

Its not surprising you are wondering.. because it appears you have only ever looked at mainstream media.

Russia is happy to see Trump enter the White house because they have had nothing but antagonism and provocation from neo-con administrations ever since Bush senior and bill Clinton.

Quote from: hippo
Have you noticed that there is still a lot of discussion relating to the election regarding the alleged Russian hacking?

mainstream media is still controlled by the globalists, and they are committed to either destroying trump or bringing him into their power.

If Trump wants to survive he needs to carry out media reforms, because the popular media has become a propaganda ministry for the 1%.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 09, 2017, 02:05:41 PM
Me personally, I can't help but wonder why Russia is so excited to install Trump.

Its not surprising you are wondering.. because it appears you have only ever looked at mainstream media.

Russia is happy to see Trump enter the White house because they have had nothing but antagonism and provocation from neo-con administrations ever since Bush senior and bill Clinton.

Quote from: hippo
Have you noticed that there is still a lot of discussion relating to the election regarding the alleged Russian hacking?

mainstream media is still controlled by the globalists, and they are committed to either destroying trump or bringing him into their power.

If Trump wants to survive he needs to carry out media reforms, because the popular media has become a propaganda ministry for the 1%.



Point one I get my news from a variety of sources, sorry infowars isn't one of them.

Point two Trump manipulated the media to get unprecedented free coverage from his antics as a candidate, in return the media got ratings.

"The Atlantic’s daily media tracker, which tallies television mentions of the candidates, shows Trump dominating. As of March, journalism’s obsession with Trump had totaled the equivalent of about $2 billion in free media, according to an analysis by mediaQuant, a company that uses advertising rates to assign a dollar amount to the amount of media coverage a candidate gets. Hillary Clinton had garnered about $746 million in free media at the time, The New York Times reported, while Bernie Sanders free media totaled about $321 million. (“Free media” doesn’t necessarily help a candidate, though. Though Trump seems to embrace the “no publicity is bad publicity” mantra, his favorability ratings among voters are miserable.)"  http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/trumps-media-saturation-quantified/498389/


But all of this is not the point. The point being at what point is it unacceptable for foreign governments to help ANY candidate??

Have you noticed that there is still a lot of discussion relating to the election regarding the alleged Russian hacking? The New York Times, etc. writes stories about it, but probably less concrete evidence has been given about it than the non-existent WMD in Iraq. 

Although this could partly (even largely) be related to domestic politics (delegitimizing Trump), aggressive actions against Russia seem unwarranted without concrete proof.  These sorts of election rigging claims will only bring about international tensions and possibly threats of wars, whether proxy wars or even a major war.  So if there is no concrete proof of Russian hacking (which mysteriously surfaced after Hilary lost), the Democrats and others making these claims should STFU.  I am not going believe anonymous officials or officials making vague claims no matter how many agencies can be cited.

If the Democrats continue along this path, the best hope of a Democratic victory in future elections seems to be the Republicans screwing things up/making people unhappy. 

Are the Russians capable and even willing to try to influence the election?  Hell yes, and vice versa.  But unless there is concrete proof, would it not be better for the Democrats and others opposed to Trump to use a different strategy?  Why did Trump pick up white working class voters that Obama won?  I would be willing to place a large wager that it was not because people were thinking about Russia or Vladimir Putin on their way to work or when they were searching for jobs.  And I guarantee you that a different female candidate could have beaten Trump.

You say this is because the Dems lost, do you remember the birther movement? Let's get off this oh its just the Hillary/globalists plotting to unseat Trump. There are GOPers who agree with many of the findings regarding the Russian threat.

Let's flip this around, can you imagine the outcry if Obama was quoted flattering Putin and Putin flattering Obama. There would be Tea party-ers in the streets flaunting their open carry rights. But because Trump is a Republican he gets a pass.  Let's not forget the cold war started with Reagan.

If the Dems wanted an excuse for all out war they would have capitalized off the events in Crimea or Syria.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 09, 2017, 04:25:34 PM
Even Trump is now admitting Russia hacked the election.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 09, 2017, 08:37:59 PM
Thunderlips, I am not Aurata.  I do not believe in some "globalist" movement because I do not know what people mean when they talk about "globalism."  It could mean very different things depending on who you are talking to.  Also, I think *any* other Democratic candidate or even Republican candidate would have been preferable to Trump--even Ben Carson.  I still don't know what Trump stands for other than promotion of Donald Trump.

Ironically, in some of the WikiLeaks leaks the Democrats wanted Trump (or a candidate such as Ben Carson) to win the Republican nomination because they thought he would be easy to beat.  The Democrats were effectively in favor of Trump as nominee.

Yes, I remember the birther movement and moreover see the continual winks and nods to white supremacist groups, etc.  But Democrats did not foresee a Trump victory.  Even the Trump campaign probably thought they were going to lose at the very end.  The Democrats are trying to delegitimize his election by linking it to a foreign power now that the Democrats lost. US citizens have been taught to hate and fear Russia for a *long* time.  I remember getting under school desks to somehow avoid atomic blasts when I was a kid.

Granted, many people voted for Trump because of racist reasons.  However, many people voted for him because of economic anxieties created by shifts in the economy toward automation, job displacement, migration of factory work to other countries.  This seems highly irrational but so it goes.  Rather than address these realities, Democrats want to turn to resort to Red-Baiting several decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Reagan did not start the Cold War.  US soldiers fought in Russia to stop the Bolsheviks under the Woodrow Wilson administration.  The US cut off relations with Russia until the FDR administration and essentially only became friends because of the threat of Germany.  The atomic Cold War started in the 1940s under Democratic administrations and the Russia-US rivalry has roots that predate the very existence of the Soviet Union.  Harry Truman replaced Henry Wallace, who was a proponent of a much friendlier/less hostile approach to the Soviets, as Roosevelt's VP during his last term.  I always think of the Cold War as starting with the atomic bombings of Japan, as the US had broken Japan's code (indicating they were close to surrender) and to prevent Russia from gaining a foothold in Asia, as Russia invaded essentially Japan essentially at the same time as the bombings in accordance with wartime treaties that had been worked out.  It is possible that the bombs would have dropped without US-Soviet antagonisms (buried in popular media during the Second World War), but it is inconceivable that the Truman administration did not think of the bombs as a diplomatic weapon/bargaining chip.  In any case, if you still think Reagan started the Cold War, explain how Germany got divided into two countries.

Leaders of both US political parties praise leaders just as bad as Putin all the time.  It's considered okay when they are our allies.

Again, it's seems extremely possible that Russia interfered in the election.  However, why should we believe any of this without evidence?  Either concrete evidence should be given or it should not be raised as an issue at all.  It's possible that the government cannot reveal concrete evidence without giving away other surveillance programs.  That's a pity because there is nevertheless no reason anyone should believe intelligence agencies after COINTELPRO, the Vietnam War, the "slam dunk" case for WMDs in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.  These are agencies which spread disinformation all the time. It's better to be skeptical of these organizations and risk a "boy who cried wolf" situation than believe them.   Look at the mess in Iraq, the fallout in neighboring countries from Iraq, the starvation in Yemen.  This is the fruit of US intelligence.  Why should you believe these intelligence agencies secret reports?

In regard to Crimea, Syria, all out war, etc., I *seriously* doubt anybody wants an all out war, but there is the possibility that things could get out of control.  Even if the chance of all-out war was low, it would not want to be a chance worth taking. 




Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 09, 2017, 10:06:48 PM
Even Trump is now admitting Russia hacked the election.


If so he has allowed himself to be bullied into a corner (undoubtedly lied to) by the CIA. They're sucking him in pretty easily. pretty soon he'll just be another frontman for the globalists like Obama became. A puppet.

He's alone and surrounded by the oligarchy. That is his problem.


What he needs to do is order an independent, impartial investigation and surround himself with advisors who are not paid by the CIA.


If Trump fails to fulfil his promises then the people will start to realize that the "democratic process" is a sham manipulated by the oligarchy and they cannot bring about change through the ballot box.

I get my news from a variety of sources, sorry infowars isn't one of them.

Why not? Try taking in a variety of sources. Are you afraid of your own mind?

But fyi, I have never even looked at "infowars", I only know such a website exists because people like you mention it on these threads.

There are hundreds if not thousands of independent news websites trying to fill the gap left by the hoelessly biased propaganda machine that the mainstream media has become, its not all about "infowars".

Quote
at what point is it unacceptable for foreign governments to help ANY candidate?

The crime is not that hackers unveieled Hilary's dark secrets, its that Hilary was shown to a be a lying and corrupt politician.

If exposing the truth amounts to a crime, then I can only hope they commit many more.

Quote
There are GOPers who agree with many of the findings regarding the Russian threat.

A lot of americans have been brainwashed into a certain mindset about Russia. A lot of these old warhawks date from the 1940's and 50's. They're living in the past. It would take a nuclear blast to make them see sense.

Quote
But because Trump is a Republican he gets a pass.


how has he had a free pass? the mainstream media has been attacking him 24/7.

Quote
If the Dems wanted an excuse for all out war they would have capitalized off the events in Crimea or Syria.

They did capitalize off those events.

Thanks to their twisted propaganda machine most americans think Russia invaded Crimea and that their main aim in Syria is to kill babies.


A % of the crazy neocons wouldn't mind WW3, they remember Hiroshima and think nukes aren't that bad, a nuclear war is winnable. The rest just want to keep isolating, demonizing and harassing Russia in the hope she gives in and accepts to become another vassal state of Washington. That's what the globalist game is all about.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 10, 2017, 11:39:35 AM
Even Trump is now admitting Russia hacked the election.


If so he has allowed himself to be bullied into a corner (undoubtedly lied to) by the CIA. They're sucking him in pretty easily. pretty soon he'll just be another frontman for the globalists like Obama became. A puppet.

He's alone and surrounded by the oligarchy. That is his problem.


What he needs to do is order an independent, impartial investigation and surround himself with advisors who are not paid by the CIA.


If Trump fails to fulfil his promises then the people will start to realize that the "democratic process" is a sham manipulated by the oligarchy and they cannot bring about change through the ballot box.

I get my news from a variety of sources, sorry infowars isn't one of them.

Why not? Try taking in a variety of sources. Are you afraid of your own mind?

But fyi, I have never even looked at "infowars", I only know such a website exists because people like you mention it on these threads.

There are hundreds if not thousands of independent news websites trying to fill the gap left by the hoelessly biased propaganda machine that the mainstream media has become, its not all about "infowars".

Quote
at what point is it unacceptable for foreign governments to help ANY candidate?

The crime is not that hackers unveieled Hilary's dark secrets, its that Hilary was shown to a be a lying and corrupt politician.

If exposing the truth amounts to a crime, then I can only hope they commit many more.

Quote
There are GOPers who agree with many of the findings regarding the Russian threat.

A lot of americans have been brainwashed into a certain mindset about Russia. A lot of these old warhawks date from the 1940's and 50's. They're living in the past. It would take a nuclear blast to make them see sense.

Quote
But because Trump is a Republican he gets a pass.


how has he had a free pass? the mainstream media has been attacking him 24/7.

Quote
If the Dems wanted an excuse for all out war they would have capitalized off the events in Crimea or Syria.

They did capitalize off those events.

Thanks to their twisted propaganda machine most americans think Russia invaded Crimea and that their main aim in Syria is to kill babies.


A % of the crazy neocons wouldn't mind WW3, they remember Hiroshima and think nukes aren't that bad, a nuclear war is winnable. The rest just want to keep isolating, demonizing and harassing Russia in the hope she gives in and accepts to become another vassal state of Washington. That's what the globalist game is all about.

Yes... Yes I am. 

But seriously, I am glad the DNC was outed even if the result was Trump being elected.

That still doesn't answer the question of foreign influence/investment in American politics. From the Russian hack to secretly funded super-pacs, we have a serious issue with the way we elect politicians.

We have already beat the Electoral College horse to death.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 10, 2017, 05:40:45 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/10/russian-diplomat-found-dead-inside-greece-apartment-no-foul-play-suspected.html

These guys are dropping like flies.

Just a coincidence?

"In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that is airing Friday on Morning Edition, Obama said, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 11, 2017, 01:39:05 AM
These guys are dropping like flies.

Just a coincidence?

not to mention those people who were investigating election fraud etc

It seems like trump may actually be bending to the demands of the establishment..who want to continue antagonizing Russia.

Awful lot of money to be made in making enemies.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 11, 2017, 11:38:05 AM
Again an undisclosed source, but certainly seems plausible.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russians-say-they-have-compromising-information-on-trump-2017-1

"The operative claimed that Russian intelligence sources said they had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him" with evidence of his conduct, which included "perverted sexual acts arranged and monitored" by the Russian federal security service (FSB)."
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MWeb37 on January 11, 2017, 12:03:19 PM
Again an undisclosed source...

Again, no definitive evidence.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 11, 2017, 04:47:36 PM
Again, no definitive evidence.

So? That never stopped the US when it has come to foreign policy.

American actions have been based on lies for quite some time now.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: weigookin74 on January 11, 2017, 07:14:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUdgPMtxig

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 11, 2017, 09:11:02 PM
Again an undisclosed source, but certainly seems plausible.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russians-say-they-have-compromising-information-on-trump-2017-1

"The operative claimed that Russian intelligence sources said they had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him" with evidence of his conduct, which included "perverted sexual acts arranged and monitored" by the Russian federal security service (FSB)."

Sanders was also not on the same page with Clinton in regards to war with Russia.

I wonder if he too would have been ousted as a Russian agent, if he had won.

The anti-Trump rhetoric is now very similar to the rhetoric in SK regarding Park Geun Hye and her infamous 7 hours when she was having an orgy while getting a plastic surgery and sacrificing children to the dead.

Trump - a Russian agent, had devious sexual acts in Moscow, was blackmailed by the Russians, and ordered the Russian government to hack Clinton.

If Trump doesn't go with the war-party line (not likely - he's already starting to shift his views), expect huge protests, even bigger than the ones in SK. 

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 11, 2017, 11:27:10 PM
I agree that this sort of behavior seems plausible and in character for Donald Trump.  Also, intelligence agencies in the United States and other countries would strive to blackmail Trump if the costs outweigh the benefits.  However, there should be documented evidence.  The things that made the Chelsea Manning, Wikileaks, Snowden, etc. leaks so compelling was that they were verifiable  through written documents, etc.  (That is why there has been a war against whistleblowers.

However, do you really need to speculate all that much about Donald Trump?  Isn't there enough evidence that he is unqualified, monomaniacal, unprincipled person?

I won't name names because I don't want or mean to suggest Trump is like certain past world leaders, but even in the case of the worst world leaders false information is used to discredit them.  Instead of simply saying "x world leader" systematically killed many million peoples for no logical reason, they feel the need to make up false rumors about unproven genital deformities, etc.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 12, 2017, 01:11:43 AM

I won't name names because I don't want or mean to suggest Trump is like certain past world leaders, but even in the case of the worst world leaders false information is used to discredit them.  Instead of simply saying "x world leader" systematically killed many million peoples for no logical reason, they feel the need to make up false rumors about unproven genital deformities, etc.

I suspect that they are simply trying to kill 2 birds with one stone.
If they can further demonize Russia and oust Trump at the same time, why not? 

Either way, it seems like the cold war with Russia, which may at some stage easily turn into WW3 is still in the cards for the foreseeable future. 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 12, 2017, 03:15:29 PM
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

Some good reading for desk warming.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MWeb37 on January 12, 2017, 03:33:59 PM
Some even better reading:

Quote


DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC  20511

January 11, 2017

DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump

This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.

We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.

President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.   

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1469-dni-clapper-statement-on-conversation-with-president-elect-trump

http://i.imgur.com/GJ1kUmZ.jpg is seeming more plausible the longer this goes on.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: thunderlips on January 12, 2017, 03:46:14 PM
Some even better reading:

Quote


DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC  20511

January 11, 2017

DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump

This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.

We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.

President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.   

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1469-dni-clapper-statement-on-conversation-with-president-elect-trump

http://i.imgur.com/GJ1kUmZ.jpg is seeming more plausible the longer this goes on.

Soooo basically don't read the document because we say you shouldn't. I doubt half of it is true, doesn't mean that those in a position to investigate shouldn't.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MWeb37 on January 12, 2017, 03:53:06 PM
Soooo basically don't read the document because we say you shouldn't. I doubt half of it is true, doesn't mean that those in a position to investigate shouldn't.

More like "We haven't decided if it's true or not, we still won't mention anything about veracity, but we leaked it 'cause we're intelligence (?)"

Also: "(it was) widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it."

How could something like this circle media, members of congress, and congressional staff for months before the IC even hears about it?

This is going to blow up in the faces of a lot of people/organizations, and they don't include Trump.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Dave Stepz on January 12, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
This is going to blow up in the faces of a lot of people/organizations, and they don't include Trump.

No, he doesn't need anyone to help him with that.  You just have to put a microphone in front of the dumb **** and ask any question and he'll blow himself up.  Stupid ****.  America is in for a long fun year this year.  My bets are still on him not even making it the inauguration. 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MWeb37 on January 12, 2017, 04:59:38 PM
This is going to blow up in the faces of a lot of people/organizations, and they don't include Trump.

No, he doesn't need anyone to help him with that.  You just have to put a microphone in front of the dumb **** and ask any question and he'll blow himself up.  Stupid ****.  America is in for a long fun year this year.  My bets are still on him not even making it the inauguration.

WEW! November 8th must be full of fond memories for you.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 12, 2017, 05:27:18 PM
Again, no definitive evidence.

So? That never stopped the US when it has come to foreign policy.

American actions have been based on lies for quite some time now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8CxyQx4zE
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: lazerbullet on January 12, 2017, 05:33:37 PM
Lol you guys actually elected an instable serial liar who likes piss play  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: psml  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 12, 2017, 08:18:32 PM
No verifiable proof for the "golden showers" piss allegations.  I have heard this type of unverifiable claim against leaders in the same fashion in the past.   Attack Trump for the easily verifiable things he did do.

Many times countries such as Germany talk big against U.S. policy, but do not take meaningful  action against U.S. policy, even just to reduce its impact..

I have a feeling that Britain would be a lot worse if they were the world's last remaining global empire.  We will see how other countries react once Trump takes office.  Since WW2 destroyed Britain's Empire, they have been all-too-ready to cozy up to U.S. policies--in addition to taking more aggressive actions against press freedoms than the U.S.

Canada gets credit for helping people trying to escape the Vietnam War, but they were involved in the sale of weaponry. 

It's easy to mock the U.S. for its government, but we will see how other Western and allied countries react when the next administration starts.

If you want to read the b.s., read the trash tabloids.  If you want to read  or see things about how awful Donald Trump is, there is plenty of compelling material available. 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 12, 2017, 11:40:37 PM
However, do you really need to speculate all that much about Donald Trump?  Isn't there enough evidence that he is unqualified, monomaniacal, unprincipled person?

And Hilary isn't?

He's human, so have all the other presidents been.


Look..the point is.. Obama is trying to box in trump and prevent him from restoring relations with Russia.

The security-industrial complex needs an enemy. The dinosaurs that have been hogging power for decades decided years ago that Russia fits the bill. There are billions to be made in security contracts.

The globalists want to torture Russia into submission until it accepts American hegemony. To become a vassal state like all the rest.

The white house wants to remove any obstacle to their power plays, and Russia is the only power that has consistently been curbing American excesses on the world stage. they want Russia out the way so that they can do whatever they want with the world.


So they put the CIA to work fabricating information to make excuses to continue antagonizing Russia. Maybe they are preparing the American people for some kind of incident or attack on Russia before Trump takes office.

Quote
I have heard this type of unverifiable claim against leaders in the same fashion in the past. 

Science has proved that repeating a lie often enough results in the people accepting it as true.

Science also shows that people will accept almost any lie if it is thought to come from a responsible actor (such as the US govt).


Quote
Many times countries such as Germany talk big against U.S. policy, but do not take meaningful  action against U.S. policy

That's because these countries are all at least partially controlled, directly or indirectly, by Washington.

The EU is a CIA project. The globalists count half the worlds media and politicians among their members or in the control thereof. on their payroll. In their secret societies.



Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 13, 2017, 03:28:38 AM
How is the EU a CIA project? To which extent? My reading of history is the EU grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community. At which point did the CIA become involved? What historical document support that claim?

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on January 13, 2017, 05:05:27 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/9/1618243/-Cartoon-Farewell-address
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 13, 2017, 10:11:32 AM
How is the EU a CIA project? To which extent? My reading of history is the EU grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community. At which point did the CIA become involved? What historical document support that claim?

Quote
The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover
Telegraph 27 April

It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.

While irritated at times, the US has relied on the EU ever since as the anchor to American regional interests alongside NATO....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 14, 2017, 12:04:10 AM
So, in post war Europe, where US interests were for Europe to set aside political and economic differences and ally against the USSR so the US doesn't have to return to Europe in 10 years and fight another war, it used whatever tools it could, including the CIA, to tweek European cohesion and support Europeans who shared that vision?

To cut to the chase, you're committing the genetic fallacy:

"a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context"

For example, the EU, as I noted, grew out of a coal union. It would be silly to most, maybe not to you, to suggest the EU is a project of Big Coal. It was, sure, 60 years ago. It is something very different today. That the CIA funded and encouraged those with a pan European view THEN does not imply they do so TODAY.

So an EU WAS a project of the CIA. Yes. Agreed. The EU is still a project? Claim. Evidence?




Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 14, 2017, 02:21:12 AM
So, in post war Europe, where US interests were for Europe to set aside political and economic differences and ally against the USSR so the US doesn't have to return to Europe in 10 years and fight another war, it used whatever tools it could, including the CIA, to tweek European cohesion and support Europeans who shared that vision?

To cut to the chase, you're committing the genetic fallacy:

"a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context"

For example, the EU, as I noted, grew out of a coal union. It would be silly to most, maybe not to you, to suggest the EU is a project of Big Coal. It was, sure, 60 years ago. It is something very different today. That the CIA funded and encouraged those with a pan European view THEN does not imply they do so TODAY.

So an EU WAS a project of the CIA. Yes. Agreed. The EU is still a project? Claim. Evidence?

You got completely destroyed there Toronto-boy  :laugh:

Its all about coal?? Lol. You're almost as naïve as life improvement.

But to respond to your illogical assertion...

Why would the US, having committed so much to making a federal Europe under their guiding hand,  suddenly abandon its project?

If, as you now suddenly claim, that having committed so much to their goal, the US just suddenly walked away one day.. why then did Obama fly into London in a frenzy and order England to stay in the EU?
Why is it that whenever the process of "ever closer union" hit an obstacle, a US president- no matter the post-holders name or party affiliation- would intervene and in no uncertain terms tell the Europeans to hurry up and speed up the process of unification into one state?

Don't you see the trend here? Increasing concentration of power into the hands of ever fewer people and the gradual removal of the democratic underpinning of the west. The EU is run by five unelected "presidents". It is a rubber-stamping sham, there is nothing democratic about it.

The result of EU tyanny is already clear. You have only to look at the  massive asset and property bubbles that have hit the EU in the past decade. The banking crises and large-scale unemployment (e.g. over 50% youth unemployment in Greece, spain and Portugal), as well as a lack of border contriols resulting in Europe being swamped by massive numbers of economic migrants and refugees from a hostile culture.

something for you to read:

Quote
Richard J. Aldrich (1997), OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60, Diplomacy & Statecraft,8(1), pp. 184-227

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/oss_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf (https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/oss_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf)

excerpts:

Quote
“The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood. … the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and 1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers. This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movement’s budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of the British Labour government to federalist ideas…. It is also particularly striking that the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the Western [note: this means US] intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe [ACUE]. Finally, at a time when some British antifederalists saw a continued ‘special relationship’ with the United States as an alternative to (perhaps even a refuge from) European federalism, it is ironic that some European federalist initiatives should have been sustained with American support.”

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: TorontoToronto on January 14, 2017, 03:21:31 AM
Hand waving questions on your part are not evidence of a claim or an illogical assertion (like your obvious genetic fallacy). Where did I claim the USA just walked away or has no on going interest in a united Europe? The USA has an interest in a united Canada. A united India.  Even a united China. Having to staff 1 embassy vs 10 embassies. Having 1 nation to negotiate trade deals and defense agreements with versus 10 countries. The free trade friendly governments of the USA over the last decades actually take the view that single, large prosperous nations help the USA, not hinder it.

I'm questioning your vague claims about the extent of the CIA's current role in assuring the EU does not dissolve further. You can keep throwing links for something we both agree with, the USA had an interest post war in fostering a united Europe. It used a variety of means, including funds from the CIA, to back groups that advocated for such.

But, again, I'll ask. Specially what evidence is there the CIA is involved in maintaining the union? To what extent?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 14, 2017, 09:02:38 PM
not evidence of a claim or an illogical assertion

You tried to make out that American meddling in Europe's politics was a thing of the past. Your non-logic was in assuming that after having committed vast resources to creating the EU (an organization spawned by, and under their own control) ..that they would suddenly decide to be honest fellows, hold their hands up and walk away, sometime in the recent past when -conveniently- we cannot access classified documents.

Quote
The USA has an interest in a united Canada. A united India.  Even a united China. Having to staff 1 embassy vs 10 embassies. Having 1 nation to negotiate trade deals and defense agreements with versus 10 countries.

Lol you think the overriding factor is to save on embassy building costs?

Quote
The free trade friendly governments of the USA over the last decades actually take the view that single, large prosperous nations help the USA, not hinder it.

Pretty far behind in this debate aren't we? You are as naïve as a baby spring lamb.

its not about generously encouraging unity in foreign nations. Its about control.


Washington has been, and is, on a mission to assert American hegemony over the globe. They aren't about making friends with prosperous independent nations, they seek to bring them under their control.

For this reason Washington and the CIA created any number of international umbrella organs- from the EU to NATO- to serve as tools of American dominance. To serve American interests. To allow Washington to project its aggression around the world. To form "coallitions" that justify its wars of aggression. To become vassal states that dare not step out of line with US foreign policy. You see America does not respect other independent nations. Either they agree to do whatever the US wants, or they are enemies. it really is that simple. That is the policy Washington has followed, formally laid down in the Wolfowitz doctrine. This maniacal drive to world domination aka globalism got a boost with the dissolution of the USSR in 91. From then on, Washington saw no obstacle standing in its way. It could make wars on a whim, it could operate without interference from any other superpower, it could mould the world in its own image.

By creating the EU, they have robbed the varied nations of Europe of sovereignty and democracy and subordinated them to Washington. When was the last time you saw the EU differ from Washington in terms of foreign policy? It is too late for those EU member states, now, to act in their own interest or have their own fp. They have lost sovereignty, they are slave states to the central banks. To be looted by them. Greece has been asset-stripped. So was Ireland. No country that gives up its own currency, laws and state bank can be said to be sovereign. They are at the mercy of the elites.They are dictated to by Brussels, a rubber-stamping operation without any democratic function whatsoever.

The fact that the EU is dictated to by Washington is evident in the synchronization of EU foreign policy with Washington. For example after Russian actions in Georgia, all EU member states suddenly followed Washington in imposing sanctions. They did the same over Crimea. And in any number of other decisions, the EI has acted against its own interest but in the interests of Washington.

How is it in the interests of Europe to provoke a war with Russia? Russia could take over western Europe in their lunch break, using conventional weapons alone. Yet Europe has  been consistently forced to toe the line and follow the crazy agressions of Washington, wether it be in the middle east or anywhere else. To its own detriment. The situation has gotten so ludicrous that even EU leaders are unsettled.

Quote
Juncker: We can’t let EU relations with Russia be dictated by US

Europe must improve its relationship with Russia, and should not let this be something decided by Washington, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Thursday (8 October).

The European Union joined the United States in imposing sanctions on Russia last year...

EU sanctions are up for renewal at the end of this year, and so far the bloc has taken a united line on maintaining them, even though some member states are being hit hard, including by Russian counter-sanctions on Western food imports
https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/juncker-we-can-t-let-eu-relations-with-russia-be-dictated-by-us/ (https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/juncker-we-can-t-let-eu-relations-with-russia-be-dictated-by-us/)







Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MWeb37 on January 15, 2017, 03:12:03 PM
"REALITY CHECK: CNN and Buzzfeed DID Push FAKE NEWS of Donald Trump Russian Blackmail"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ9eNAEbkU4
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 15, 2017, 07:06:56 PM
Aurata,

I do not think any government entity has ever been organized enough to pull off the sort of grand plans you talk about.  The talk of "secret" "globalist" plans bring up mental imagery of world leaders or financiers, etc. sitting in a room plotting stuff out.

In reality, isn't more likely that all large political entities have always sought to increase their influence to yes, "control," other nations and prevent alternative examples for other peoples to follow (the Domino theory).  But it just usually seems like people follow whatever they nation states, etc. their interests to be.

Before the United States, Britain was the dominant global empire.  They tried to gain as much power over the globe as possible.  The Global Wars of the 20th century made the United States the most powerful empire in the history of the world, controlling over half of the world's wealth at the end of WW2. But this was not planned out so much as a combination of planning and reacting to world events.   Of course, the U.S. has acted to suppress democracy (e.g. Chile)--and support it (e.g. West Germany) depending on what they perceive to be in their interest). These things never have a moral component except as window dressing for justification.  Do political states ever act in accordance with moral principals?  For states, morality is just justification, window dressing for actions.

While you are right that the United States has been particularly aggressive toward Russia since 1991, expanding NATO despite promises to do so and acting against Putin in a past Russia election, but this is not a grand conspiracy, as you make it sound like, using undefined words like "secret" and "globalists."  (These words might be very different things to different people.) What do you expect a power with as much strength as the U.S. do in this situation?  Any power with this amount of influence would try to increase their influence.  If Russia, Britain, etc., etc. had developed the same massive military structure, they would do the same thing. 

That being said, it is good to be critical of the US.  The wars in the Middle East, denial of climate change, etc.  They deserve more criticism than other powers because they are the most powerful.  Also, who can trust any nation state with the surveillance and military apparatus of the United States?

Countries allied with the United States are not necessarily puppets.  They--or at least the most powerful in their countries--are pursuing what they perceive to be their interests.


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 15, 2017, 10:41:45 PM
I do not think any government entity has ever been organized enough to pull off the sort of grand plans you talk about.  The talk of "secret" "globalist" plans bring up mental imagery of world leaders or financiers, etc. sitting in a room plotting stuff out.


sigh.... you need to think more.

Conspiracies are the norm, not a rare outlandish concept.

Like propaganda, secretive conspiracies to topple governments and murder politicians are as old as civilization itself.

Ancient Rome was chock full of conspiracies- some that happened, some that were uncovered and thwarted. Look up Catiline, the Roman senator who conspired with malcontent aristocrats to try and overthrow the sate. His plot was uncovered by Cicero.

Look up the gunpowder plot. When a band of conspirators tried to kill King James 1.

Look up  the pazzi conspiracy. When Pope Sixtus IV tried to wrest power from the Medici family by assassination and then takeover of the city government.

Look up the July 20 plot. When a group of Hitlers commanders tried to assassinate him and take over Berlins supreme command headquarters.

Look up the Newburgh conspiracy. The Lincoln assassination conspiracy.


It is a constant of history that humans tend to form groups with similar objectives and then use force or machination, wether open or secret, to achieve their aims, usually by eliminating those who oppose them.

Human nature hasn't suddenly changed, politicians are not now angelic. Power corrupts as it always has. The only difference now is that the technological ability to deceive, propagandize and conspire is greater than ever before.


 
Quote
The Global Wars of the 20th century made the United States the most powerful empire in the history of the world

America is an empire? lol. That's new. What do they own? Guam? Hawaii?

Quote
  Do political states ever act in accordance with moral principals? 

Principles.

I believe they do at times, and that America has in the past, yes. But to act on moral principle means you first have to have a guiding morality, and the west has been shedding its historic moral underpinning for quite some time already.

The current US political establishment is obviously corrupt and devoid of any guiding principle beyond self enrichment and amassing power.

Quote
What do you expect a power with as much strength as the U.S. do in this situation?

To act fairly and responsibly like they did in the past.

Quote
Any power with this amount of influence would try to increase their influence.

Real power is inclusive, not exclusive. It accrues power by consensus not dictatorship. America is hated around the world now because their foreign policy consists of forcing other countries to do whatever they want, not respecting and working with other nations. Do you see the difference?

Quote
  If Russia, Britain, etc., etc. had developed the same massive military structure, they would do the same thing.
 

Not necessarily. It depends on the ruling philosophy behind the government.

Russia could have taken over Ukraine in its tea-break. Did it do so? No.it could invade and take western Europe in a very short time, without too much hassle. Has it done so? No. Communism is dead, the driving force has gone.

Israel could own half of the middle east already, if it had decided to invade. It has never stepped foot outside its borders, it has voluntarily returned territory won.


So what, I hear you ask, is the ethos behind US aggression?

While they do a lot by stealth or deception via their media propaganda, their goals really are no secret, it is plainly stated in the Wolfowitz doctrine, it was stated by Bush. American global hegemony via globalism. A new world order. The neo-cons are a sort of religious cult that believes Americans are the indispensable people, with a right to dominate the world.
The elites, with their special interest groups, the military-industrial complex, the agro-chemical businesses, the multinational corporations want to make the world their exclusive playground. They want to eliminate national governments and bring the world under one centralised power structure (with them in control, of course). They want to run the show.

The US political establishment has been hiacked by the oligarchs, as upper-powerful elite that want to take over the globe and reduce the common man to the status of a dumbed-down worker drone, a slave doing their bidding.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 15, 2017, 11:20:55 PM
You're right comrade, the US has indeed been hijacked by Russian oligarchs.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 16, 2017, 05:34:41 PM
I concede that I stupidly used the word principal/principle wrong.

Also, I rambled a lot as I was writing as a way to procrastinate.

You have world affairs figured out so well in such a clear, even binary way. Please explain how the neo-conservatives were able to take over such complicated agencies with often contradictory aims after Bush took office.  Not to mention getting enough bipartisan support to enact their policies.  Seemingly little to no continuity in policy.  A drastic change brought about by a kind of "religious" political "cult."

What were the values that the US used to have? 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 16, 2017, 10:26:59 PM
You're right comrade, the US has indeed been hijacked by Russian oligarchs.

Not only that - but they've also hijacked waygook!  :shocked:
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 17, 2017, 12:14:54 PM
You're right comrade, the US has indeed been hijacked by Russian oligarchs.
Really? How so?

If Putin really did start backing Trump since 2011, as that "dossier" claims, then Putin has to be either the greatest Political Scientist ever (and a psychic to challenge Ms Cleo) or utterly insane. I love the logic- Putin thought the guy with the best chance of winning was the guy he allegedly had video of paying prostitutes to urinate on beds. Yeah, that makes total sense.

The only hijacking that has taken place is the NeoCon/NeoLib War Party that has taken our country into Iraq, seeks the utter destruction of Russia, and conjures up bugaboo after bugaboo for us to attack, invade, and most importantly, purchase weapons to defeat.

I'm glad you've fallen for their propaganda and their agenda. Let's go drone strike some Yemeni children and try to provoke a war in the Baltics.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Ptolemy on January 17, 2017, 01:53:33 PM
Regarding "hijacking", a more accurate understanding is that the US has been hijacked (controlled) by the legal entities known as corporations.

It's not really a country anymore, just one big corporation. Since a corporation mindlessly chooses the decision that maximizes profits, it is quite easy for other countries to "hijack" the US via their corporations, by temping them with short-term profits (even though it destroys American citizen's own long-term best interests).

CN has been doing this for decades, the US has been doing it to themselves, perhaps RU is now doing it too? But the central issue is internal; the US vs themselves.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 17, 2017, 03:19:18 PM
You're right comrade, the US has indeed been hijacked by Russian oligarchs.
Really? How so?

If Putin really did start backing Trump since 2011, as that "dossier" claims, then Putin has to be either the greatest Political Scientist ever (and a psychic to challenge Ms Cleo) or utterly insane. I love the logic- Putin thought the guy with the best chance of winning was the guy he allegedly had video of paying prostitutes to urinate on beds. Yeah, that makes total sense.

The only hijacking that has taken place is the NeoCon/NeoLib War Party that has taken our country into Iraq, seeks the utter destruction of Russia, and conjures up bugaboo after bugaboo for us to attack, invade, and most importantly, purchase weapons to defeat.

I'm glad you've fallen for their propaganda and their agenda. Let's go drone strike some Yemeni children and try to provoke a war in the Baltics.

Ok so you think Korea is the greatest country on Earth, you hate America, and you think an anti-American dictator is pretty good.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 17, 2017, 04:08:31 PM

Ok so you think Korea is the greatest country on Earth, you hate America, and you think an anti-American dictator is pretty good.

I do not think Korea is the greatest country on Earth. Never have said it and I don't believe it. For one thing, I haven't been to every country on Earth or know enough to assume such a thing. Not agreeing with every hysterical judgment passed on this place does not mean you think it's the greatest place on Earth.

As for America, I'm no great fan of Trump, but I think the Trump Hysteria is ridiculous. I agree with some of Trump's general concepts even though I find him personally questionable. Not liking the NeoCon/NeoLib War Party is not the same thing as hating America and millions of Americans on the left and right share the same view as do millions who think this whole Russia craze is ridiculous. Good on Trump for at least questioning the whole MIC and reevaluating the American Empire and worrying more about America's borders, American jobs, and trade deals that benefit America rather than global corporate elites.

Seems to me the people that hate America are those that think we should clear everything with China first, sit back and watch jobs get outsourced, support a non-neutral primary that tipped the scales against Bernie Sanders, refuse to accept our electoral process, and push into confrontation with the second-greatest nuclear power in the world.

In other words, I think Korea should look out for Korea first, America should look out for America first, the UK should look out for the UK first, and Russia should look out for Russia first, at least as long as the global order does not seem to be operating with people's best interests in mind.

Putin is not anti-American insofar as he is not seeking to destroy America but rather maintain Russia's status. Is Putin plotting WWIII against America? Hardly. Back in the early 2000s Russia was looking to cooperate with America, particularly in fighting terror. It's only when America started walking NATO up to Russia's doorstep and supporting the overthrow of the legitimately elected pro-Russian President of Ukraine that Putin objected, as was right for him to do. Russia wants to sell us natural gas, not destroy us.

On the other hand we have posters who think foreigners are right and Koreans are wrong and that Koreans should put the needs and concerns of foreigners above those of Koreans; people who think the U.S. should pay more attention to refugees, corporations that outsource, and illegal immigrants than Americans; think Britons should take their orders from Brussels instead of 10 Downing St.; and that Russia should let NATO and the U.S. walk all over it because they have a more authoritarian and commanding form of government (which is generally how the Russians like things). 

My view is consistent. Can you say that the NeoCon/NeoLib world order is the same when it comes to values of progress, self-determination, and representation?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 17, 2017, 05:43:33 PM
So to reiterate you hate America and want to destroy NATO just because it upsets Putin, and because Trump likes pee-pee.

We saw this kind of fascism-friendly BS in the West in the 1930's and it's not going to turn out any better this time.

(http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/frontpage/images/peacethumb.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 17, 2017, 06:04:22 PM
So to reiterate you hate America and want to destroy NATO just because it upsets Putin, and because Trump likes pee-pee.

We saw this kind of fascism-friendly BS in the West in the 1930's and it's not going to turn out any better this time.

(http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/frontpage/images/peacethumb.jpg)

Did you even read the post above?  Or are your reading comprehension skills that inadequate?



Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 17, 2017, 06:26:41 PM
So to reiterate you hate America and want to destroy NATO just because it upsets Putin, and because Trump likes pee-pee.

We saw this kind of fascism-friendly BS in the West in the 1930's and it's not going to turn out any better this time.

(http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/frontpage/images/peacethumb.jpg)

Not moving NATO up to Latvia or Georgia (and giving them the power to engage us in full-on war with Russia) is not the same as wanting to destroy NATO or hating America. That's the same logic as saying to a British person in 1912 "You must hate the UK because you don't want to ally with Serbia and give them the power to drag us into war against Germany."

We saw the same kind of MIC imperialist war cabal in Japan in the 1930s that was on a collision course with a sleeping giant and hopefully we avoided that.

Do you really think Putin is about to blitzkrieg across Poland and into East Berlin? Are you out of your mind?

Then again, you actually believe the pee allegations, which have zero corroborating evidence, not to mention key elements of that dossier have been debunked and the whole thing has turned into a debacle for Buzzfeed. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of anti-Trump hysteria.

I'm no huge fan of Trump, but my goodness, people have just lost it when it comes to reflexively disagreeing with him simply because he is Trump.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 17, 2017, 09:34:50 PM
explain how the neo-conservatives were able to take over such complicated agencies with often contradictory aims after Bush took office.  Not to mention getting enough bipartisan support to enact their policies.  Seemingly little to no continuity in policy.

They infiltrated both parties. Globalists are everywhere- heads of industry, media, agribusiness, banks ....the lot.

What the elites are working toward transcends something so minor as party affiliation. The aim is US global hegemony. And there is a secret element to it, because ..its only because the Wolfowitz doctrine was leaked that we know what the neocon policy toward the world is.

Quote
What did America's values used to be?

They used to include a belief in democracy.

In recent years American freedoms have been seriously eroded at home.

Abroad, they now show a similar contempt for democracy as they topple democratically elected governments and replace them with puppet leaders who will look after US interests.

They used to believe in being a benevolent superpower.

A benevolent superpower would foster democracy in other nations, not try to enslave and subordinate them to US interests.

They ignore human rights violations in all kinds of countries, yet target entirely peaceful regimes simply for the crime of being independent and not kowtowing to US demands.

They used to act responsibly.

Needlessly making an enemy out of a nuclear-armed regional power, just because the minority ruling elite want to make billions out of defense contracts... is not acting responsibly: it is bringing the world to the edge of nuclear annihilation.

They should seek to make friends and allies, not make enemies and invent threats. Which is all the mischiefmakers in Washington do all day.

We got a very interesting few years ahead. The globalists will do everything they can to either neutralize Trump or bring him into the fold.

At the moment they're trying to pressure him into joining their plan of making conflict with Russia.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 17, 2017, 09:52:10 PM
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/open_letter.png)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on January 17, 2017, 10:21:37 PM

Quote
What did America's values used to be?

They used to include a belief in democracy.

In recent years American freedoms have been seriously eroded at home.

Abroad, they now show a similar contempt for democracy as they topple democratically elected governments and replace them with puppet leaders who will look after US interests.

They used to believe in being a benevolent superpower.

A benevolent superpower would foster democracy in other nations, not try to enslave and subordinate them to US interests.

How many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc.? None? Give a specific example. (Of something within the past 40 years.) The more recent the better.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 17, 2017, 10:56:50 PM
So to reiterate you hate America and want to destroy NATO just because it upsets Putin, and because Trump likes pee-pee.

We saw this kind of fascism-friendly BS in the West in the 1930's and it's not going to turn out any better this time.

(http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/frontpage/images/peacethumb.jpg)

Not moving NATO up to Latvia or Georgia (and giving them the power to engage us in full-on war with Russia) is not the same as wanting to destroy NATO or hating America. That's the same logic as saying to a British person in 1912 "You must hate the UK because you don't want to ally with Serbia and give them the power to drag us into war against Germany."

We saw the same kind of MIC imperialist war cabal in Japan in the 1930s that was on a collision course with a sleeping giant and hopefully we avoided that.

Do you really think Putin is about to blitzkrieg across Poland and into East Berlin? Are you out of your mind?

Then again, you actually believe the pee allegations, which have zero corroborating evidence, not to mention key elements of that dossier have been debunked and the whole thing has turned into a debacle for Buzzfeed. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of anti-Trump hysteria.

I'm no huge fan of Trump, but my goodness, people have just lost it when it comes to reflexively disagreeing with him simply because he is Trump.

No need to keep repeating yourself. We get it, you love third world dictatorships and you hate pesky things like America, human rights, and unassassinated journalists.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 17, 2017, 11:09:26 PM
TROLL WAR is now in full swing.  Enjoy it while it lasts, folks.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: waygookkorea on January 17, 2017, 11:14:53 PM

Quote
What did America's values used to be?

They used to include a belief in democracy.

In recent years American freedoms have been seriously eroded at home.

Abroad, they now show a similar contempt for democracy as they topple democratically elected governments and replace them with puppet leaders who will look after US interests.

They used to believe in being a benevolent superpower.

A benevolent superpower would foster democracy in other nations, not try to enslave and subordinate them to US interests.

How many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc.? None? Give a specific example. (Of something within the past 40 years.) The more recent the better.

Why would it matter if a country is a democracy?

Democracies are terrible. Why would you have a system where everyone gets a say on politics? It completely corrupts the government. Politicians simply pander for votes instead of actually working to improve the country for citizens.

Why would you give a fast food worker a say in who becomes president? That is straight up retarded.

And guess what? The U.S. now allows citizens to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. The U.S. now executes citizens without trial.

At least Putin seems to actually look out for Russia. Putin doesn't have to pander to lobbyists and foreign governments like every U.S. politician.

Let's face it, Russia has a superior form of government in many ways.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 17, 2017, 11:33:08 PM
http://www.theonion.com/video/5-things-know-about-vladimir-putin-54960 (http://www.theonion.com/video/5-things-know-about-vladimir-putin-54960)

This is pretty funny. 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr C on January 18, 2017, 12:43:00 AM
Why would it matter if a country is a democracy?

Democracies are terrible. Why would you have a system where everyone gets a say on politics? It completely corrupts the government. Politicians simply pander for votes instead of actually working to improve the country for citizens.
At least theoretically, "pandering for votes" = "working to improve the country for citizens".  Far from perfect, but democracies at least allow for leaders to be replaced on a periodic basis if the citizens so choose.

And, again theoretically, everyone having a "say" in politics decreases the likelihood of corruption in government.

You may poo-poo that "theoretically" but democracy is the only system in which it is even theoretically possible.

Every other system of government notably lacks the kinds of checks on power provided by democracy.  You seem to pump for a Trump world--but note that it is possible in America only because of democracy.  Granted, a highly imperfect democracy where the top vote-getter doesn't get into office.  In other systems, vote-getting is irrelevant, like say, in North Korea.
Quote

Why would you give a fast food worker a say in who becomes president? That is straight up retarded.
I guess you are ignorant of the Electoral College system in the US which specifically doesn't allow the fast food worker's vote to directly elect the president.  I guess you are ignorant of quite a lot of things.
Quote
And guess what? The U.S. now allows citizens to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. The U.S. now executes citizens without trial.
Cite?
Quote
At least Putin seems to actually look out for Russia. Putin doesn't have to pander to lobbyists and foreign governments like every U.S. politician.

Let's face it, Russia has a superior form of government in many ways.
Well, in the ways that allow Putin and a dozen of his friends to rape the Russian economy and the nation's resources for personal gain.  Meanwhile, since they literally have complete control of Russian media (having murdered, imprisoned or exiled all the legitimate journalists), they get to set the agenda and decide all the talking points for the citizens.  Naturally, a lot of Russians are therefore happy with their government, in the way that many North Koreans are virulently pro Kim Jong-eun.

But, what goes around comes around.  Eventually, Putin's control will fail, just as the Soviet system on which it is based failed.  Remember, he's not called the Butcher of Grozny for nothing. 

I am worried about the coming Trump administration, but am convinced that American institutions of liberal democracy are strong enough to withstand their fascist onslaught.  The fact that millions more citizens voted against him than for him gives cause for hope.  Eventually, our better nature will triumph, because, I believe, what goes around comes around. 

We're living in a dangerous time, where the basic ideals of civil society are under siege--personal matters of sexual identity, control of one's own body, religious freedom, expression, safety...seem to depend on the next election. 

People like you, waygookkorea, espouse ideas that are a threat to civil society and I call on you to admit so, or to renounce them: Putin (and Kim, by extention) is good, the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances (lobbying) is bad, freedom of the press is not really relevant since it doesn't exist in Russia which has in many ways a superior form of government ....

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 18, 2017, 01:31:59 AM
How many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc.? None? Give a specific example. (Of something within the past 40 years.) The more recent the better.

How long have we got? the list is endless.

First up even the US government admits toppling other democratically elected governments. So when you claim that what I say is paranoid conspiracy, you're actually denying the US government and the recorded facts of history.

What I tell you is documented fact, freely available to anyone who is intellectually curious enough to seek out truth.  Most people don't care, so they end up brainwashed victims of the mass media.

Quote
Yes, we now have confirmation that the CIA was behind Iran's 1953 coup. But the agency hardly stopped there.

he era of CIA-supported coups dawned in dramatic fashion: An American general flies to Iran and meets with “old friends”; days later, the Shah orders Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh to step down. When the Iranian military hesitates, millions of dollars are funneled into Tehran to buy off Mossadegh’s supporters and finance street protests. The military, recognizing that the balance of power has shifted, seizes the prime minister, who will live the rest of his life under house arrest. It was, as one CIA history puts it, “an American operation from beginning to end,” and one of many U.S.-backed coups to take place around the world during the second half of the 20th century.

The U.S. government has since publicly acknowledged some of these covert actions; in fact, the CIA’s role in the 1953 coup was just declassified this week.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/ (http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/)

What do you think the CIA does all day? go after parking violations?
Its a tool of the deep state.

When they're not paying journalists to pull the wool over your eyes, they're toppling governments that dare to put their own national interests ahead of the US.

Quote
Iran, 1953

Guatemala, 1954

Congo, 1960

Dominican Republic, 1961

South Vietnam, 1963

Brazil, 1964

Chile, 1973



Quote
The more recent the better


Ukraine, 2014. Victor Yanukovych


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: waygookkorea on January 18, 2017, 01:41:34 AM
Why would it matter if a country is a democracy?

Democracies are terrible. Why would you have a system where everyone gets a say on politics? It completely corrupts the government. Politicians simply pander for votes instead of actually working to improve the country for citizens.
At least theoretically, "pandering for votes" = "working to improve the country for citizens".  Far from perfect, but democracies at least allow for leaders to be replaced on a periodic basis if the citizens so choose.

And, again theoretically, everyone having a "say" in politics decreases the likelihood of corruption in government.

Yes because U.S. politicians don't have to bow to Israel or face the wrath of their lobby  :rolleyes: They never pay any attention at all to lobbyist in their actual policy decisions  :rolleyes: They don't ever literally play to people's emotions in order to divide them based upon relatively meaningless social issues in order to pander for votes  :rolleyes: They aren't actively inciting racial division in order to gain votes on both sides  :rolleyes:

You may poo-poo that "theoretically" but democracy is the only system in which it is even theoretically possible.

Then why is Russia actually trying to represent it's citizens and the U.S. is currently fighting about the simple task of actually having a border and a legal immigration process? There are literally protests in the U.S. in which people wave the flags of foreign countries and the country is split on whether that is ok or not :rolleyes:

Every other system of government notably lacks the kinds of checks on power provided by democracy.  You seem to pump for a Trump world--but note that it is possible in America only because of democracy.  Granted, a highly imperfect democracy where the top vote-getter doesn't get into office.  In other systems, vote-getting is irrelevant, like say, in North Korea.

And yet they actually attempt to do good by their citizens and aren't afraid to kick out big money taking over the country, unlike the U.S.

Quote
Why would you give a fast food worker a say in who becomes president? That is straight up retarded.
I guess you are ignorant of the Electoral College system in the US which specifically doesn't allow the fast food worker's vote to directly elect the president.  I guess you are ignorant of quite a lot of things.

You seem to think there are no fast food workers in swing states...

Quote
And guess what? The U.S. now allows citizens to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. The U.S. now executes citizens without trial.
Cite?

Look up the definition of a "terrorist" under the patriot act and the even worse update. U.S. citizens literally have no rights under law if they are declared terrorists. Literally anyone can be declared a terrorist with no evidence required. Obama executed 2 U.S. citizens without trial, one was a 16 yr old.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/14/13577464/obama-farewell-speech-torture-drones-nsa-surveillance-trump

Quote
At least Putin seems to actually look out for Russia. Putin doesn't have to pander to lobbyists and foreign governments like every U.S. politician.

Let's face it, Russia has a superior form of government in many ways.
Well, in the ways that allow Putin and a dozen of his friends to rape the Russian economy and the nation's resources for personal gain.  Meanwhile, since they literally have complete control of Russian media (having murdered, imprisoned or exiled all the legitimate journalists), they get to set the agenda and decide all the talking points for the citizens.  Naturally, a lot of Russians are therefore happy with their government, in the way that many North Koreans are virulently pro Kim Jong-eun.

But, what goes around comes around.  Eventually, Putin's control will fail, just as the Soviet system on which it is based failed.  Remember, he's not called the Butcher of Grozny for nothing. 

At least the Russian people actually know who rules them rather than some vague idea about big money being in charge. Putin actually has to be accountable in a way U.S. politicians aren't.

I am worried about the coming Trump administration, but am convinced that American institutions of liberal democracy are strong enough to withstand their fascist onslaught.  The fact that millions more citizens voted against him than for him gives cause for hope.  Eventually, our better nature will triumph, because, I believe, what goes around comes around. 

What exactly are you worried about with Trump? Let me guess, some vague platitudes about racism and sexism based upon his opposition's propaganda? A classic example of the idiocy of democracy - the guy hasn't even taken office and you believe he is tyrant. Ya, you aren't easily manipulated at all  :laugh:

We're living in a dangerous time, where the basic ideals of civil society are under siege--personal matters of sexual identity, control of one's own body, religious freedom, expression, safety...seem to depend on the next election. 

Give a single concrete example. Or even just a quote indicating any of this. You are the problem with democracy, the TV can convince you of absolutely anything. Nothing has happened and there is zero indication anything is going to happen and yet you are convinced Donald Trump is literally Hitler  :laugh:

People like you, waygookkorea, espouse ideas that are a threat to civil society and I call on you to admit so, or to renounce them: Putin (and Kim, by extention) is good, the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances (lobbying) is bad, freedom of the press is not really relevant since it doesn't exist in Russia which has in many ways a superior form of government ....

The threat to civil society is giving power to every idiot over the age of 18. People are inherently selfish and vote in what they perceive to be their own self interest or ideals. The problem goes even further when you realize most people simply vote for 1 of 2 political parties based upon who their parents raised them to vote for. The problem goes even further when you realize people don't vote based upon actions but rather meaningless rhetoric designed to appeal to their emotions. The problem goes even further when you realize politicians can literally tell complete lies and no one cares so long as their speeches hit the right emotional buttons.

Democracy is absolutely terrible and no sane person can defend it. Democracy is the perfect system for the few to absolutely **** the many.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 18, 2017, 12:28:04 PM
Whether democracy is good or not depends on the conditions within a country. Democracy can give you Lincoln or Hitler. On the whole, I would say that western nations with a long history of democracy are on balance, better with it, even if the "idiots" get a say (and those "idiots" are often anything but). That is not to say this idea is infallible and will not produce negative results. On the other hand a country like Iraq or Syria, minus a strong authoritarian leader, might descend into bloodletting and ethnic strife leading to millions killed and wars that spill over into other countries.

Also, what "represents" the country does not necessarily have to be democratic. I think it's fair to say that Putin does "represent" the will of a clear majority of Russians. That they favor a more orderly autocratic form of government does not invalidate his rule.

I think anyone who believes in some sort of Platonic ideal form of government is a nitwit. Human nature guarantees that any form of government will eventually become corrupted. There are democracies that turn into kleptocracies and dictatorships that provide relative stability and cohesion in society.

No need to keep repeating yourself. We get it, you love third world dictatorships and you hate pesky things like America, human rights, and unassassinated journalists.

What human rights were involved in U.S. drone strikes that killed civilians? Warrantless wiretaps?

Is Russia innocent? No and they don't really try and pretend to be. Is the U.S. innocent? No and we should stop pretending that they are.

That's not "hating" America. One doesn't "hate" America when they take stances like those of Ron and Rand Paul against our national security state. It's called The Constitution and not policing the world.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 18, 2017, 01:37:15 PM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

And...

(http://www.sequentialtart.com/images/1003/13q1003_3.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 18, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Fine.

If you accept the premise that we have to deal with a variety of regimes, not all of whom share our vision of an ideal or at least benevolent regime constitutes, then you are left with whether the benefits of interaction outweigh the costs.

I think better relations with Russia are in our best interests. I think that if we cooperate with Russia in defeating ISIS and stabilizing the Assad regime, we can eliminate ISIS' base of operations and deal a major blow to the Caliphate. With ISIS territory under joint US/Allied-Syrian-Russian control we can begin to bring stability to the region. We'd also be in a position to negotiate with Assad- perhaps recognition in exchange for relinquishing some territory to both a Kurdish state and a Sunni one in Iraqi-Syrian territory. Balkanize the region along ethnic lines. To the Kurds they get Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan in exchange for relinquishing all claims to Iranian and Turkish areas that have Kurdish populations. Obviously this is oversimplified, but this is waygook.

The alternative is that proposed by the Clintonistas and the NeoCons- backing "moderate" rebels with links to Al-Qaeda, ineffective drone strikes, ISIS retains territory, continued bloodshed, and a tense relationship with Russia.

In other relationships we could negotiate an end to sanctions on Russia in exchange for reducing stockpiles of Nuclear Weapons, potential cooperation on the North Korean issue, cheap imports of natural gas which would stimulate the economy, and perhaps walking back NATO from Russia's border and not giving countries such as Estonia and Georgia the power to drag us into armed confrontation with Russia over some strip of land on their borders. Obviously we would make sure to tell Russia that any attempted full annexation of a currently recognized independent country would be unacceptable, but other than that, give Russia relatively free-reign in its backyard, similar to us and the Monroe Doctrine. We would acknowledge Russia's Crimea claims and if there were to be any partition of Ukraine, provided that was through a fair and free referendum agreed upon by the Ukrainian people, that we would promise not to interfere and both sides would respect whatever outcome took place.

However Russia wants to run its government is up to them. We have relationships with the Chinese, the Saudis, and various other authoritarian regimes and there's no reason that we can't with Russia as well provided it is in our interests.

Now one might say that this is the next Munich Pact and we'd be no better than Chamberlain or be setting ourselves up for Molotov-Ribbentrop, Part Deux. Of course on the other hand taking an increasingly lordly and victorious stance against Russia might end up being more like Versailles and less like Munich. It's a fine line.

Regardless, Russia does not seem to have any strong desires for conquest. There's been no massive upscaling of military forces. Russian shipyards aren't churning out submarines. Russian Army strength hasn't dramatically increased in size. There is no indication that Putin is preparing for, or has any desire to fight, a major war of conquest.

I have to ask- are some of the people against increased ties with Russia against the idea on principle or simply because it's a position shared by Donald Trump? if it's the former, let's hear a sound argument (not a few drive by sentences accusing people of "hating" human rights and America). If it's the latter, then I think they should re-evaluate their thinking and whether being reflexively against something simply because a certain person supports it is a sound method of decision making.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on January 18, 2017, 04:24:38 PM
Ukraine, 2014. Victor Yanukovych

You think that was the U.S.?

This is what Wikipedia says:

Quote
On 22 February, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from his post, on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties.[14] Although the legislative removal by an impeachment procedure would have lacked the number of votes required by Ukraine's constitution,[15] the resolution did not follow the impeachment procedure but instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and citing "circumstances of extreme urgency",[16][17] a situation for which there was no stipulation in the then-current Ukrainian constitution.[18] Parliament set 25 May as the date for the special election to select his replacement,[14][19][20][21] and, two days later, issued a warrant for his arrest, accusing him of "mass killing of civilians."[22]
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on January 18, 2017, 04:34:05 PM
How many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc.? None? Give a specific example. (Of something within the past 40 years.) The more recent the better.

How long have we got? the list is endless.

It is endless? A list of a single country within the past 40 years? Which isn't even correct. Again how many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 40 years? Past 50 years? One would assume many if the U.S. is really the evil empire you claim it to be.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: waygookkorea on January 18, 2017, 04:47:43 PM
How many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc.? None? Give a specific example. (Of something within the past 40 years.) The more recent the better.

How long have we got? the list is endless.

It is endless? A list of a single country within the past 40 years? Which isn't even correct. Again how many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 40 years? Past 50 years? One would assume many if the U.S. is really the evil empire you claim it to be.


So if a country isn't a democracy the U.S. should just topple their government?

The fact that you have to put that little disclaimer on your point is hilarious.

It's no different than declaring holy war or manifest destiny  :laugh:

I mean, if that's what you believe then fine but don't act like you have some kind of moral high ground because attacking foreign countries without any cause other than spreading your belief system isn't exactly the pinnacle of morality.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 18, 2017, 04:56:43 PM
Ukraine, 2014. Victor Yanukovych

You think that was the U.S.?

This is what Wikipedia says:

Quote
On 22 February, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from his post, on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties.[14] Although the legislative removal by an impeachment procedure would have lacked the number of votes required by Ukraine's constitution,[15] the resolution did not follow the impeachment procedure but instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and citing "circumstances of extreme urgency",[16][17] a situation for which there was no stipulation in the then-current Ukrainian constitution.[18] Parliament set 25 May as the date for the special election to select his replacement,[14][19][20][21] and, two days later, issued a warrant for his arrest, accusing him of "mass killing of civilians."[22]

Eh, expect a bunch of Russian troll propaganda from the usual suspects about how brave humble man of the people Yanukovych was brutally ousted by a bunch of Nazi Ukrainians. Never mind that Yanukovych was incredibly corrupt and a Putin puppet and eventually the Ukrainians had enough of being screwed over by a bunch of sleazy foreigners.

This is what happened the last time Putin tried installing a puppet in a foreign country:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565697/House-fit-tyrant-Protestors-storm-sprawling-luxury-estate-Ukraines-fugitive-president-private-zoo-golf-course-half-size-Monaco.html

Hey, if ya can't beat 'em or install a corrupt puppet as their president, just annex 'em!
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on January 18, 2017, 04:58:43 PM
WaygookKorea, I don't need a disclaimer on my point. I was responding to this:

In recent years American freedoms have been seriously eroded at home.

Abroad, they now show a similar contempt for democracy as they topple democratically elected governments and replace them with puppet leaders who will look after US interests.

They used to believe in being a benevolent superpower.

A benevolent superpower would foster democracy in other nations, not try to enslave and subordinate them to US interests.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 18, 2017, 05:17:30 PM
Eh, expect a bunch of Russian troll propaganda from the usual suspects about how brave humble man of the people Yanukovych was brutally ousted by a bunch of Nazi Ukrainians. Never mind that Yanukovych was incredibly corrupt and a Putin puppet and eventually the Ukrainians had enough of being screwed over by a bunch of sleazy foreigners.

This is what happened the last time Putin tried installing a puppet in a foreign country:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565697/House-fit-tyrant-Protestors-storm-sprawling-luxury-estate-Ukraines-fugitive-president-private-zoo-golf-course-half-size-Monaco.html

Hey, if ya can't beat 'em or install a corrupt puppet as their president, just annex 'em!

So our we backed our SOB and Putin backed his SOB and both sides were SOBs in achieving their goals.

No one is arguing that Putin is some sort of benevolent ruler. What we are disagreeing with is your presentation of the United States as some sort of innocent party who consistently acts in a virtuous manner for democracy.

Do you not see anything wrong with regime change, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries to further United States interests, and THEN getting upset with other countries when they engage in the exact same thing.

Look, there's a way to argue this- "Yes we do nasty things to. We ill do nasty things in the future, but I think it's in America's best interests to confront and beat Putin with interventions and meddling in other countries." That's a fair argument to make. But stop pretending that we don't do the same thing and then getting upset when someone else does it and that somehow makes them evil in comparison to us.

If you're an idealist, then you should seriously question America's past actions when it comes to intervention and meddling. If you're a realist, then you shouldn't pretend that America is some sort of virtuous actor. That's all we're trying to say.

Also, do you really think everyone who is disagreeing with you is some sort of Russian troll? You're delusional.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 18, 2017, 10:26:53 PM
A list of a single country within the past 40 years?

Why are all the ones more than 50 years ago suddenly not valid to you?
It proved my original point that the US topples foreign governments (which hippo couldn't bring himself to believe).


You guys must be out of breath, moving goalposts all day long.


Why would you arbitrarily stipulate within 50 years? It couldn't be because you think the files haven't been declassified yet? could it?

But if you insist.. here:

A) countries where Washington attempted regime change but failed, or has thus far failed:


Costa Rica 1970-71

Angola 1975, 1980s

Zaire 1975

Seychelles 1979-81

South Yemen 1982-84

Suriname 1982-84

Libya 1980s

Iraq 1991

Somalia 1993

Somalia 2007- present

Syria 2012


B) List of governments the US succeeded in toppling:


Chile 1964-73

Greece 1967

Bolivia 1971

Australia 1973-75

Portugal 1974-76

Jamaica 1976-80

Chad 1981-82

Grenada 1983

Fiji 1987

Nicaragua 1981-90

Panama 1989

Bulgaria 1990

Albania 1991

Afghanistan 1980s

Yugoslavia 1999-2000

Ecuador 2000

Afghanistan 2001

Venezuela 2002

Iraq 2003

Haiti 2004

Libya 2011

Ukraine 2014


And that's not even counting the individual leaders that they've had removed. There was also all those latin American leaders they framed or colour-revolutioned out. Dilma Rousseff, Cristina De Kirchner..etc etc.

Who's next? They're currently trying to get Maduro of Venezuela, and Duterte of the Philippines out. Its obvious they're in the crosshairs because the mass media has started the usual preliminary campaign of demonization.. which always precedes either a coup of US military intervention.



Quote
Q: Why will there never be a coup d'e'tat in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.


Quote
To place the coup in Ukraine in historical context, this is at least the 80th time the United States has organized a coup or a failed coup in a foreign country since 1953.  That was when President Eisenhower discovered in Iran that the CIA could overthrow elected governments who refused to sacrifice the future of their people to Western commercial and geopolitical interests.  Most U.S. coups have led to severe repression, disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, corruption, extreme poverty and inequality, and prolonged setbacks for the democratic aspirations of people in the countries affected.  The plutocratic and ultra-conservative nature of the forces the U.S. has brought to power in Ukraine make it unlikely to be an exception.
http://www.alternet.org/world/americas-coup-machine-destroying-democracy-1953 (http://www.alternet.org/world/americas-coup-machine-destroying-democracy-1953)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 18, 2017, 11:16:40 PM
Eh, expect a bunch of Russian troll propaganda from the usual suspects about how brave humble man of the people Yanukovych was brutally ousted by a bunch of Nazi Ukrainians. Never mind that Yanukovych was incredibly corrupt and a Putin puppet and eventually the Ukrainians had enough of being screwed over by a bunch of sleazy foreigners.

This is what happened the last time Putin tried installing a puppet in a foreign country:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565697/House-fit-tyrant-Protestors-storm-sprawling-luxury-estate-Ukraines-fugitive-president-private-zoo-golf-course-half-size-Monaco.html

Hey, if ya can't beat 'em or install a corrupt puppet as their president, just annex 'em!

So our we backed our SOB and Putin backed his SOB and both sides were SOBs in achieving their goals.

No one is arguing that Putin is some sort of benevolent ruler. What we are disagreeing with is your presentation of the United States as some sort of innocent party who consistently acts in a virtuous manner for democracy.

Do you not see anything wrong with regime change, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries to further United States interests, and THEN getting upset with other countries when they engage in the exact same thing.

Look, there's a way to argue this- "Yes we do nasty things to. We ill do nasty things in the future, but I think it's in America's best interests to confront and beat Putin with interventions and meddling in other countries." That's a fair argument to make. But stop pretending that we don't do the same thing and then getting upset when someone else does it and that somehow makes them evil in comparison to us.

If you're an idealist, then you should seriously question America's past actions when it comes to intervention and meddling. If you're a realist, then you shouldn't pretend that America is some sort of virtuous actor. That's all we're trying to say.

Also, do you really think everyone who is disagreeing with you is some sort of Russian troll? You're delusional.

Again literally using stale old propaganda tactics from the Soviet era to defend brutal dictators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Title: Putan, Prostitutes and Pissgate
Post by: Adel on January 19, 2017, 05:09:53 AM
Some context for that pissgate story from the Lamestream!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHX031UoCXA

As a side note, I was just wondering whether comrade Aurata might be interested in substantiating  comrade Putin's claims about their Ladies of night?
Is it true that they are undoubtedly the best in the world?

PS. I doubt he was just taking the piss!
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 19, 2017, 11:31:59 AM
Eh, expect a bunch of Russian troll propaganda from the usual suspects about how brave humble man of the people Yanukovych was brutally ousted by a bunch of Nazi Ukrainians. Never mind that Yanukovych was incredibly corrupt and a Putin puppet and eventually the Ukrainians had enough of being screwed over by a bunch of sleazy foreigners.

This is what happened the last time Putin tried installing a puppet in a foreign country:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565697/House-fit-tyrant-Protestors-storm-sprawling-luxury-estate-Ukraines-fugitive-president-private-zoo-golf-course-half-size-Monaco.html

Hey, if ya can't beat 'em or install a corrupt puppet as their president, just annex 'em!

So our we backed our SOB and Putin backed his SOB and both sides were SOBs in achieving their goals.

No one is arguing that Putin is some sort of benevolent ruler. What we are disagreeing with is your presentation of the United States as some sort of innocent party who consistently acts in a virtuous manner for democracy.

Do you not see anything wrong with regime change, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries to further United States interests, and THEN getting upset with other countries when they engage in the exact same thing.

Look, there's a way to argue this- "Yes we do nasty things to. We ill do nasty things in the future, but I think it's in America's best interests to confront and beat Putin with interventions and meddling in other countries." That's a fair argument to make. But stop pretending that we don't do the same thing and then getting upset when someone else does it and that somehow makes them evil in comparison to us.

If you're an idealist, then you should seriously question America's past actions when it comes to intervention and meddling. If you're a realist, then you shouldn't pretend that America is some sort of virtuous actor. That's all we're trying to say.

Also, do you really think everyone who is disagreeing with you is some sort of Russian troll? You're delusional.

Again literally using stale old propaganda tactics from the Soviet era to defend brutal dictators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Again literally using stale old propaganda tactics from the Red Scare era and McCarthyism as well as Bush era fearmongering to goad us into wars and imperialism.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 19, 2017, 05:44:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYnL5oUePM8
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 20, 2017, 07:53:19 AM
I think this is awesome - even better than Kpop vs Apop thread. 

Keep going, folks!
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 21, 2017, 01:12:29 AM
Its always funny to see life improvement lose a thread.

Facts cause him to disappear.  Or start posting irrelevant youtube videos.



Neither adel, life improvement, hippo, or mayor haggar ever actually answer questions or formulate a logical argument, of course.



Aurata wins again.   :undecided:
Title: Aurata's Deluded Self-indulgence
Post by: Adel on January 21, 2017, 02:27:50 AM
Its always funny to see life improvement lose a thread.

Facts cause him to disappear.  Or start posting irrelevant youtube videos.



Neither adel, life improvement, hippo, or mayor haggar ever actually answer questions or formulate a logical argument, of course.



Aurata wins again.   :undecided:


It must feel wonderful to proclaim yourself a winner so regularly!
Tell us, is it something you like to do while pleasuring yourself in front of a mirror?   :wink:  :wink:
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 21, 2017, 12:16:31 PM
Its always funny to see life improvement lose a thread.

Facts cause him to disappear.  Or start posting irrelevant youtube videos.



Neither adel, life improvement, hippo, or mayor haggar ever actually answer questions or formulate a logical argument, of course.



Aurata wins again.   :undecided:

Remember when you told us what country you were actually from and why a Westerner supposedly teaching English in Korea would turn into an anti-Western Putin cult fanboy?

Yeah me neither.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: hippo on January 21, 2017, 04:18:44 PM

It proved my original point that the US topples foreign governments (which hippo couldn't bring himself to believe).

Where did I say I did not believe that?

State powers act according to interests, and there's usually a lots more continuity than change in long-standing states.  You seem to suggest there a big change with the Bush administration and the Wolfowitz Doctrine. While you might be able to suddenly create drastic foreign policy changes in a dictatorship or in newly formed states powers, it's hard to introduce drastic changes with long-standing bureaucracies.  At the most basic level, there has to at least be structures in place that would allow for pursuing neoconservative policies.  Saying that "globalists" somehow took over so many different agencies in the Bush administration, and giving vague explanations of how U.S. policy used to be different (no dates, etc.) makes it hard to address what you say.

It is strange to see people defending dictatorships.  At the same time, it is to see criticism of the policy of Western governments as being somehow necessarily out of sympathy for a foreign adversary.  Even when the Soviet Union existed, why was it bad to criticize aspects of Western foreign policy without saying the Soviet Union and the West were equivalent?

It is strange to be talking about this topic on a board primarily for English teachers and English teaching in Korea.


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Ptolemy on January 21, 2017, 08:13:59 PM
It is strange to see people defending dictatorships

Why do you guys keep talking about dictatorships in a derogatory fashion? Westerns always do this, it's such a cliche. "Oh bla bla democracy is so great, not like an evil dictatorship". Get real.

Dictatorship is one form of government, and like all forms it can work well, or not. The US would be so lucky as to have a dictator like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. There have been many dictatorships in human history, some good for the people, some not. There have been many democracies, some good for the people like early US, and some filled with misery like current US.

The goodness of dictatorship depends on if you have a benevolent dictator, or a malevolent dictator. Benevolent dictatorship is the ideal form of government, there is nothing better. Democracy, that's pretty crappy stuff, filled with idiots arguing, and lies to control the ignorant mob. None of this nonsense is necessary in a dictatorship, you just get stuff done. Bam, do it. The US is moving to malevolent dictatorship (Trump), because their democracy is completely dysfunctional.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 22, 2017, 04:42:23 PM
I used to think the Chinese would take over the world too, then I saw the state of their bathrooms.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Adel on January 23, 2017, 06:09:22 AM
I used to think the Chinese would take over the world too, then I saw the state of their bathrooms.

(https://i.cbc.ca/1.3941282.1484765806!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/trump-looking-rooster-statue.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on January 23, 2017, 10:10:40 AM
It's interesting, but I'm noticing that all trolls have fancy profile pics here on waygook.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 23, 2017, 04:59:10 PM
It is strange to see people defending dictatorships

Why do you guys keep talking about dictatorships in a derogatory fashion?

Those poor dictatorships! Won't anyone think of the poor dictatorships??!!?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 23, 2017, 05:28:09 PM
Well, which was better- the empire of the Kaiser or the democracy of the Nazis? The dictatorship of Assad or the Hobbesian world of ISIS? The dictatorship of Mubarak or the democracy of Morsi?

Ideally in a perfect world, a country has a reasonable democracy or republic. Situations aren't always ideal. Democracies can turn into mob rule. Republics can grow corrupt. Foreign enemies can invade. Uprisings can take place. In such times, authoritarian government might prove to be beneficial.

I doubt a democratically elected Russian government in 1941 could have staved off Hitler. It would have fractured. Sad to say, probably only Stalin had the will necessary to see Russia through that fight. Conversely, if France was more authoritarian in 1939-1940, it might not have capitulated so quickly.  Now, before you say that the UK under Churchill and the US under FDR were democracies- colonialism and Jim Crow.

A government's first job is to provide order and safety for its citizens. Putin somewhat succeeds at that, Russian drivers not withstanding. Their lives certainly prospered up until the sanctions hit. The same goes for the Communists in China.

Now, we can go on a crusade and denounce every government that isn't perfectly democratic and refuse to do business with them, or we can grow up and accept the world as it is, not how we wish it to be. Just understand, that the more idealistic and pure you get with your views on democracy and dictatorship, the greater the chance of war.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 24, 2017, 12:02:44 AM
Look, there's a way to argue this- "Yes we do nasty things to. We ill do nasty things in the future, but I think it's in America's best interests to confront and beat Putin with interventions and meddling in other countries." That's a fair argument to make.

It would be fair if there was even an element of truth to it.

But it clearly wasn't a hack.

Former british Ambassador to Craig Murray says that the information on Hilary was leaked to him by disgruntled insiders, not russians.

Julian Assange has said the same thing over and over.

Quote
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)


So we're left with the same conclusion: the central disinformation agency fabricated the wholesale antagonism and demonization of Russia all over again, as they have been doing for years and decades.

Quote from: Adel
It must feel wonderful to proclaim yourself a winner so regularly!

Its kinda more fun watching Hilary attend trump's inauguration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xwKQ8XTWWk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xwKQ8XTWWk)

her look at 0.38 is priceless  :laugh:
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on January 24, 2017, 03:48:09 PM
Quote
Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct.
Quote
His account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on January 24, 2017, 04:03:39 PM
Why are all the ones more than 50 years ago suddenly not valid to you?

Because you wrote this:

In recent years American freedoms have been seriously eroded at home.

Abroad, they now show a similar contempt for democracy as they topple democratically elected governments and replace them with puppet leaders who will look after US interests.

Now = within the past 50 years, not decades before we were born. You want me to go back further? (Maybe talk about slavery?)

How many democratically elected governments has the U.S. toppled in the past 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc.? None? Give a specific example. (Of something within the past 40 years.) The more recent the better.

How long have we got? the list is endless.

Let's see this endless list. There are none. Not even within the past 50 years. 1973 in Chile is the most recently you can reasonably attempt, but even that one wasn't the U.S. It was an internal coup d'état, which was quite common in the region at the time. Recent evidence shows the U.S. played no role in that. But that is ancient history anyways. Tell me about the democratically elected governments the U.S. is toppling now. You claimed it; back it up.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 24, 2017, 05:31:18 PM
Look, there's a way to argue this- "Yes we do nasty things to. We ill do nasty things in the future, but I think it's in America's best interests to confront and beat Putin with interventions and meddling in other countries." That's a fair argument to make.

It would be fair if there was even an element of truth to it.

But it clearly wasn't a hack.

Former british Ambassador to Craig Murray says that the information on Hilary was leaked to him by disgruntled insiders, not russians.

Julian Assange has said the same thing over and over.

Quote
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)


So we're left with the same conclusion: the central disinformation agency fabricated the wholesale antagonism and demonization of Russia all over again, as they have been doing for years and decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWxkCP3dD9w
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Adel on January 28, 2017, 04:56:43 AM
Look, there's a way to argue this- "Yes we do nasty things to. We ill do nasty things in the future, but I think it's in America's best interests to confront and beat Putin with interventions and meddling in other countries." That's a fair argument to make.

It would be fair if there was even an element of truth to it.

But it clearly wasn't a hack.

Former british Ambassador to Craig Murray says that the information on Hilary was leaked to him by disgruntled insiders, not russians.

Julian Assange has said the same thing over and over.

Quote
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)


So we're left with the same conclusion: the central disinformation agency fabricated the wholesale antagonism and demonization of Russia all over again, as they have been doing for years and decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWxkCP3dD9w


Well it appears that there may be  evidence (https://themoscowtimes.com/news/americas-alleged-spy-in-the-heart-of-russian-cybersecurity-56945?mc_cid=d22e6a1966&mc_eid=ba2db135c1) from the Moscow Times indicating how the CIA knows that the DNC was hacked by Russians. For the origin of the story на русском (https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/01/26/71296-troyanskiy-kod), a credible chap, like Aurata, might like to help with the translation. ;D


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on January 30, 2017, 05:22:26 PM
Well it appears that there may be  evidence (https://themoscowtimes.com/news/americas-alleged-spy-in-the-heart-of-russian-cybersecurity-56945?mc_cid=d22e6a1966&mc_eid=ba2db135c1) from the Moscow Times indicating how the CIA knows that the DNC was hacked by Russians.

How you do arrive at these ridiculous conclusions?.

The report says they discovered an American spy.

In other words America was hacking Russia, not the other way round.


Multiple witnesses say that Killary's emails were leaked by a disgruntled insider. Why do you find this so impossible?

In any case, the crime at issue is Hilary's treacherous actions against the US. The person who exposed her should be given a medal. Not criminalized. But you seem happy with government corruption?


Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Adel on January 30, 2017, 05:43:56 PM
Well it appears that there may be  evidence (https://themoscowtimes.com/news/americas-alleged-spy-in-the-heart-of-russian-cybersecurity-56945?mc_cid=d22e6a1966&mc_eid=ba2db135c1) from the Moscow Times indicating how the CIA knows that the DNC was hacked by Russians.

How you do arrive at these ridiculous conclusions?.

The report says they discovered an American spy.

In other words America was hacking Russia, not the other way round.


I know nuance isn't your strength but you should note the use of tentative language in the post toots, it's hardly conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, even Trump acknowledges it was the Russians so the CIA must have found out somehow. Espionage tends to cut both ways. Use your critical thinking skills to connect the dots.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 05, 2017, 01:28:12 PM
From John McCain's Facebook page:

In just the last three years under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened militarily in Syria, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in his wake.

Russia’s war on Ukraine has killed over 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Russia supplied the weapons that shot down a commercial aircraft over Ukraine and killed 298 innocent people.

Russia has conducted a massive military buildup along NATO’s eastern flank, conducted large-scale military exercises, violated the borders, airspace, and territorial waters of its neighbors, and intensified its propaganda efforts to undermine the governments of our allies.

Russia has propped up the murderous Assad regime as it has waged war on the Syrian people and killed more than 400,000 civilians. Russia’s military has targeted Syrian hospitals and first responders with precision weapons. Instead of targeting ISIL, Russia has focused its operations against the moderate Syrian opposition, which has only empowered extremist forces in the country.

And in the most flagrant demonstration of Putin’s disdain and disrespect for our nation, Russia deliberately interfered in our recent election with cyberattacks and a disinformation campaign designed to weaken America and discredit Western values.

Each of our last three presidents had high hopes for building a partnership with the Russian government. Each attempt failed, not for lack of good faith and effort on the U.S. side, but because Putin wants to be our enemy. He needs us as his enemy. He will never be our partner, including in fighting ISIL. He believes that strengthening Russia means weakening America. President Trump should remember this when he speaks to Vladimir Putin. He should remember that the man on the other end of the line is a murderer and a thug who seeks to undermine American national security interests at every turn. For our commander-in-chief to think otherwise would be naïve and dangerous.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 05, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
Well it appears that there may be  evidence (https://themoscowtimes.com/news/americas-alleged-spy-in-the-heart-of-russian-cybersecurity-56945?mc_cid=d22e6a1966&mc_eid=ba2db135c1) from the Moscow Times indicating how the CIA knows that the DNC was hacked by Russians.

How you do arrive at these ridiculous conclusions?.

The report says they discovered an American spy.

In other words America was hacking Russia, not the other way round.


I know nuance isn't your strength but you should note the use of tentative language in the post toots, it's hardly conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, even Trump acknowledges it was the Russians so the CIA must have found out somehow. Espionage tends to cut both ways. Use your critical thinking skills to connect the dots.

Look..if I believed you had even one functioning brain cell I would continue trying to reason with you.

But you've already proved fully resistant to facts and logic so we'll just let you continue happily in your brainwashed matrix.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 05, 2017, 02:21:17 PM
From John McCain's Facebook page:

In just the last three years under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine

An obvious lie that cannot withstand any close scrutiny.

Quote
annexed Crimea

At the request of an overwhelming majority of its people after a referendum

 
Quote
threatened NATO allies

more nonsense.

Quote
and intervened militarily in Syria

While America intervened militarily in seven countries


Quote
, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in his wake.

is he talking about the Obama administration?



McCain is obviously not that bright.

or maybe he's just blind.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 07, 2017, 03:40:14 AM

Quote from: Aurata
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)


Well it appears that there may be  evidence from the Moscow Times indicating how the CIA knows that the DNC was hacked by Russians.


it appears the source of the leak was DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was mysteriously shot dead in the back days afterward.

Quote
On August 9, in an interview on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, Julian Assange seemed to suggest rather clearly that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered for it.

Julian Assange: “Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often face very significant risks. A 27-year-old that works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons, as he was walking down the street in Washington, D.C.”

Reporter: “That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?”

Julian Assange: “No. There’s no finding. So … I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.” (See also Washington Post, January 19, 2017)
https://williamblum.org/aer/read/148 (https://williamblum.org/aer/read/148)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 07, 2017, 05:51:58 AM
http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Adel on February 07, 2017, 05:57:29 AM

Quote from: Aurata
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)


Well it appears that there may be  evidence from the Moscow Times indicating how the CIA knows that the DNC was hacked by Russians.


it appears the source of the leak was DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was mysteriously shot dead in the back days afterward.

Quote
On August 9, in an interview on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, Julian Assange seemed to suggest rather clearly that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered for it.

Julian Assange: “Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often face very significant risks. A 27-year-old that works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons, as he was walking down the street in Washington, D.C.”

Reporter: “That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?”

Julian Assange: “No. There’s no finding. So … I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.” (See also Washington Post, January 19, 2017)
https://williamblum.org/aer/read/148 (https://williamblum.org/aer/read/148)

So your evidence is that Assange hinted at it during a TV interview, not that Assange provided any evidence of where the leak was from because Assange couldn't know given that Wikileaks is supposed to be a double-blind publishing system (http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australian_outlook/who-is-wikileaks-working-for-2/). Hence, Wikileaks editors shouldn't know the source of their information, if they are to maintain their credibility as a trusted whistle-blower.

Does the fact that the murder took place before the DNC wikileak trouble you? I mean, how do dead men leak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak)? Furthermore, if the published leak was the motive for the murder, then at the time of the murder, there wasn't a motive.
Nice work Sherlock (https://i.imgflip.com/si6ee.jpg)!
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 08, 2017, 01:04:01 AM
Does the fact that the murder took place before the DNC wikileak trouble you? I mean, how do dead men leak?

He passed the emails to wikileaks before he died, Dumbo. 

He was murdered on July 10th.

Wilikileaks released 19,252 DNC emails on July 22nd.

The emails covered the period January 2015 to May 2016.

Seth Rich had worked for the DNC for two years prior to his death.

There seems to be a vacuum between your ears, so let me spell it out for you:

 circumstantial evidence wholly supports Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails.


   





Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Adel on February 08, 2017, 02:12:36 AM
Does the fact that the murder took place before the DNC wikileak trouble you? I mean, how do dead men leak?

He passed the emails to wikileaks before he died, Dumbo. 



 circumstantial evidence wholly supports Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails.


 

In other words, you are quite happy to ignore the evidence to the contrary because you either want to believe or are being paid to do so. Further, you expect other people to believe your half arsed conspiracy theories by attempting to intimidate with insults that you've learned from your kindergarten students!

Good luck (http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e6/e629db26acc671ac3f50926ecee4264db74a692811b73a86f938b5525da63c15.jpg) with that toots! :laugh:
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 18, 2017, 01:36:41 PM
McCain is obviously not that bright.

or maybe he's just blind.

In 1984 he scored 133 on an IQ test. That's high enough to be in MENSA (the cutoff of which is 132). He's not blind (to the truth) either. He's been serving his country for a long time.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 18, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Even the Russian state media is turning on Trump. Sad!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39004987
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 19, 2017, 03:42:28 AM
McCain is obviously not that bright.

or maybe he's just blind.

In 1984 he scored 133 on an IQ test. That's high enough to be in MENSA (the cutoff of which is 132). He's not blind (to the truth) either. He's been serving his country for a long time.

 :laugh: :laugh:

McCain is a fake.

he spent the war making communist propaganda and broadcasting it for Viet cong.

Quote
McCain may never have been tortured and that he instead spent his wartime captivity collaborating with his captors and broadcasting Communist propaganda

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-tokyo-rose-ran-for-president/ (http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-tokyo-rose-ran-for-president/)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 19, 2017, 09:33:49 AM
Oh, is that a fact?

Instead of a sentence fragment, how about posting the whole sentence next time?

Quote
Shocking claims were made that McCain may never have been tortured and that he instead spent his wartime captivity collaborating with his captors and broadcasting Communist propaganda, a possibility that seemed almost incomprehensible to me given all the thousands of contrary articles that I had absorbed over the decades from the mainstream media. How could this one article on a small website be the truth about McCain’s war record and everything else be total falsehood? The evidence was hardly overwhelming, with the piece being thinly sourced and written in a meandering fashion by an obscure author, but the claims were so astonishing that I made some effort to investigate the matter, though without any real success.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 19, 2017, 12:04:55 PM
I'm sure Aurata knows all about communist propaganda.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 19, 2017, 01:25:38 PM
Russia plotted to assassinate the prime minister of a European nation and overthrow its government last year, according to senior Whitehall sources.

An election-day coup plot to attack Montenegro’s parliament and kill the pro-Western leader was directed by Russian intelligence officers with the support and blessing of Moscow, to sabotage the country’s plan to join Nato.

The plot was foiled only hours before it was due to be carried out, but would have caused heavy bloodshed and plunged the tiny country into turmoil on the eve of becoming Nato’s 29th member.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/russias-deadly-plot-overthrow-montenegros-government-assassinating/
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MWeb37 on February 19, 2017, 01:34:05 PM
In 1984 he scored 133 on an IQ test. That's high enough to be in MENSA (the cutoff of which is 132). He's not blind (to the truth) either. He's been serving his country for a long time.

Yet he falls for pranksters posing as high level government officials and places his treason on full display.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqrw2vIvBv0
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 19, 2017, 08:31:50 PM
Is that even him? Because the only sites mentioning this are disreputable ones who have a long history of reporting fake news.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 20, 2017, 12:32:50 AM
Is that even him? Because the only sites mentioning this are disreputable ones who have a long history of reporting fake news.

They found the actual recording:

Quote
To the Vietnamese people and the government of the DRVN: From John Sidney McCain, 624787, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, born 29 August, 1936, Panama, home state Oregon. Shot down 26 October, 1967, A-4E aircraft.I, as a U.S. airman, am guilty of crimes against the Vietnamese country and people. I bombed their cities, towns and villages and caused many injuries, even deaths, for the people of Vietnam.

I received this kind treatment and food even though I came here as an aggressor and the people who I injured have much difficulty in their living standards. I wish to express my deep gratitude for my kind treatment and I will never forget this kindness extended to me.

http://www.trunews.com/article/john-mccains-1969-tokyo-rose-propaganda-recording-released#sthash.h1pqbD58.dpuf (http://www.trunews.com/article/john-mccains-1969-tokyo-rose-propaganda-recording-released#sthash.h1pqbD58.dpuf)



Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 20, 2017, 09:01:08 AM
They found the actual recording

Of the prank call? The Vietnam one sounds more like his voice. For all you know he could have had a gun to his head while reading that. What would you do in that situation? Die?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 20, 2017, 10:37:21 AM
Yet he falls for pranksters posing as high level government officials and places his treason on full display.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqrw2vIvBv0

Or maybe you fell for a fake video on a pro Russia / pro Trump YouTube site.

Are you aware new technology exists for audio manipulation to make a voice seem liike another person? On top of some people being able to mimic the voice of another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LlSP9b_k-g

The only sites reporting this "news" are pro Trump / pro Russia alt right fringe sites like Zero Hedge, Sputnik News, InfoWars, RT, TheDonald, Friends of Syria, etc.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 21, 2017, 02:18:04 AM
For all you know he could have had a gun to his head while reading that.

We know that's not true.

Quote
McCain was not tortured, PoW guard claims

The Republican US presidential candidate John McCain was not tortured during his captivity in North Vietnam, the chief prison guard of the jail in which he was held has claimed.

In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Nguyen Tien Tran acknowledged that conditions in the prison were "tough, though not inhuman". But, he added: "We never tortured McCain. On the contrary, we saved his life, curing him with extremely valuable medicines that at times were not available to our own wounded."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/14/uselections2008-johnmccain (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/14/uselections2008-johnmccain)


Sorry to burst your bubble limpr. But your boy's own hero is a charlatan who used a crutch as a prop to exaggerate his hero status.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 21, 2017, 06:37:40 AM
We know that's not true.

No, we can't know something based off one man's claims. Especially because it's in his interest to deny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Prisoners_of_War_during_the_Vietnam_War#Severe_treatment_years
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Adel on February 21, 2017, 07:31:51 AM
We know that's not true.

No, we can't know something based off one man's claims. Especially because it's in his interest to deny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Prisoners_of_War_during_the_Vietnam_War#Severe_treatment_years

Aurata has no interest in what actually happened nor the necessary mental faculties to understand even if he did. When you engage in dialogue with him you give him relevance. He is best ignored like those deranged drunks (http://www.runawayguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sleeping-japanese-11.jpg) one might occasionally encounter on the subway throughout one's Korean sojourn.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on February 21, 2017, 07:51:07 PM
Look..if I believed you had even one functioning brain cell I would continue trying to reason with you.

But you've already proved fully resistant to facts and logic so we'll just let you continue happily in your brainwashed matrix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17JLZsCm9CM
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on February 22, 2017, 01:55:15 AM
No, we can't know something based off one man's claims.

Especially those of john McCain.

Quote
Especially because it's in his interest to deny.


Especially because its in his interest to fabricate and exaggerate his past?

He built a political career by carefully honing his image as a veteran war hero, in case you hadn't noticed. So its hardly suprising he has worked so hard to keep the real facts from being discovered.

Quote
John McCain Has a Bizarre History of Hiding Evidence About His Fellow POWs

McCain has worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home.
 
By Sydney H. Schanberg / The Nation Institute

September 21, 2008

Research support provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero people would logically imagine to be a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as McCain has made his military service and POW history the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War have also turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a Special Forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington and even sworn testimony ....
http://www.alternet.org/story/99721/john_mccain_has_a_bizarre_history_of_hiding_evidence_about_his_fellow_pows (http://www.alternet.org/story/99721/john_mccain_has_a_bizarre_history_of_hiding_evidence_about_his_fellow_pows)


Facts slide off you like water off a duck's back. But don't worry limper. I know that you are determined to stay immune from reality.

I only post for those others who read.. who actually have open minds to some degree. Who are able to exercise objectivity and rationality.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Adel on March 02, 2017, 05:09:26 PM
Do we get a countdown until Trump tweets that this perjury report of Jeff Sessions is Fake news?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118


(http://orig03.deviantart.net/f823/f/2014/012/3/e/united_states_of_russian_occupied_america_flag_by_finnishecosocialist-d71xghp.jpg)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on March 16, 2017, 08:14:41 AM
With all the misinformation on the web, a trustworthy web site like Snopes used to be is essential. Unfortunately, a site that is the purveyor of falsity cannot also be the antidote for it.

I’ll miss Snopes, but until it acknowledges its ethics breach and convinces me that the site’s days of spinning and lying were a short-lived aberration, I won’t be using it again.

How ironic a fake news site convinced you to no longer trust Snopes.

http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/your-news-wire

Your News Wire publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

http://www.snopes.com/tag/yournewswire/

http://www.snopes.com/tag/yournewswire-com/

http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-scrubs-twitter/

the disreputable web site Your News Wire published an article reporting that First Lady Michelle Obama had deleted all mentions of Hillary Clinton from her Twitter

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: some waygug-in on March 16, 2017, 09:54:12 AM
 :rolleyes:

Still trying to defend Snopes?

Oh well,

This will make your day then.

http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-03-14-trump-tax-return-bombshell-backfire-paid-38m-in-taxes-in-2005-media-panic-msnbc-comedy-central.html
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on March 16, 2017, 12:45:21 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

http://www.snopes.com/tag/natural-news/
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on March 29, 2017, 07:18:38 AM
the mainstream media has been attacking him 24/7.

It's their job to keep the public informed and hold those in power accountable. Hold their feet to the fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CopDK_jI6DI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCAbBnWm4LM
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: kojinsing on March 29, 2017, 10:55:08 AM
Thank you Super Deluxe.
Title: Will Trump Be Impeached?
Post by: Adel on April 01, 2017, 03:46:13 AM
RT, Sputnick News, Propaganda and a trail of dead Russians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHwfqddsAe0
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on April 01, 2017, 04:30:14 PM
If Trump really was a Russian puppet, the information would have already been released and Obama, the military the FBI, the CIA, and so on would be hauling Trump & co. off in cuffs months ago, not waiting for some committee to meet to propose the timetable for the appointment of the committee to chair the committee that will determine whether or not to investigate the issue.

This is just a Benghazi sideshow. Get a clue people. When shit is real, people move fast and decisively. When it's just the usual noise, people do what they're doing now- posturing and positioning and mugging for the camera.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on April 01, 2017, 04:35:22 PM
Dems have little power in government at this point. (They are a minority.)

So how can they impeach Trump?

They can't.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on April 01, 2017, 08:06:40 PM
If Trump really was a Russian puppet, the information would have already been released and Obama, the military the FBI, the CIA, and so on would be hauling Trump & co. off in cuffs months ago, not waiting for some committee to meet to propose the timetable for the appointment of the committee to chair the committee that will determine whether or not to investigate the issue.

This is just a Benghazi sideshow. Get a clue people. When shit is real, people move fast and decisively. When it's just the usual noise, people do what they're doing now- posturing and positioning and mugging for the camera.

Remind us how long Watergate took to unfurl?

Sorry Steelrails, this isn't going away. And meanwhile nobody in the West will take Russia seriously again.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on April 01, 2017, 08:37:56 PM
And meanwhile nobody in the West will take Russia seriously again.

More like nobody will take the FBI seriously again.  :laugh:



Nor the CIA, who can't provide a shred of evidence but hide behind "anonymous sources". While they contract their false reality based on their ridiculous conspiracy theories.

America has become a joke.


In other news, the desperate NY times is now offering 60% off. Form an orderly qeue, kids!    :laugh:

Quote
Get 60% off for one year. Cancel anytime.
https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/inyt/lp8U87X.html (https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/inyt/lp8U87X.html)





Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: eastreef on April 01, 2017, 09:51:46 PM
Actually, it is people working in the previous administration (maybe still working) that probably need to be worried.   Information is slowly but methodically being put together to show that members of the Trump campaign were under surveillance long before the election.  The “legal” cover for this surveillance was that Trump and/or his staff came under surveillance as part of the surveillance going on regarding any possible Russian activity concerning the campaign/election. 

However, it now appears that at least some of the people involved in this surveillance were really hoping to get information that could be used politically against the Trump campaign.  They were willing to “unmask” the Trump people if they felt it would politically damage the Trump campaign, but all they could really get was Flynn. 

Here are some links for general information about unmasking and Trump:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/20/trey_gowdy_grills_comey_who_has_the_power_to_unmask_a_us_citizens_communications.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-surveillance-idUSKBN16T2GQ

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/29/circa-obama-changes-allowed-nsa-intercepts-of-americans-to-fall-into-political-hands-n2305719

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2017/03/31/huge-fncs-adam-housley-out-with-new-report-on-unmasking-of-trump-associates/

Further to Mr. DeMartino’s point.  With the amount of surveillance that it now appears was taking place of the Trump campaign, along with the fact that some of the surveillance and unmasking had a political basis, if these people had found any real damage and/or violation of U.S. laws, codes, rules or whatever, they would have released it to the elitist media for use against the Trump campaign.  These people wanted Trump to lose.

IMHO, the real illegal influence that took place during the campaign was not Trump collaborating with the Russians, it was the use of U.S. intelligence agencies and/or U.S. law enforcement agencies for political reasons.

I’m piecing all this together by reading many, many different sources of information, and I now believe that generally what I have stated above is now being documented and will come out to the public.  Unfortunately, in the media today we don’t have a Woodward and Bernstein who are willing to follow the real story - i.e. like follow the money was in the movie -, because the real story will hurt the elitist agenda.



Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on April 01, 2017, 11:37:18 PM
And meanwhile nobody in the West will take Russia seriously again.

More like nobody will take the FBI seriously again.  :laugh:



Nor the CIA, who can't provide a shred of evidence but hide behind "anonymous sources". While they contract their false reality based on their ridiculous conspiracy theories.

America has become a joke.


In other news, the desperate NY times is now offering 60% off. Form an orderly qeue, kids!    :laugh:

Quote
Get 60% off for one year. Cancel anytime.
https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/inyt/lp8U87X.html (https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/inyt/lp8U87X.html)

Hey, guys, the Russian troll is lecturing us about false reality again. We should all listen and take notes, he probably knows what he's talking about!
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on April 02, 2017, 12:15:27 AM
We should all listen and take notes, he probably knows what he's talking about

Its really very simple: you just have to back your arguments with evidence.

Quote
the Russian troll

Well its obvious you're not working for any intelligence agency  :laugh:





 

 
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on April 02, 2017, 04:05:04 AM
Actually, it is people working in the previous administration (maybe still working) that probably need to be worried.   Information is slowly but methodically being put together to show that members of the Trump campaign were under surveillance long before the election.

it seems though that truth cannot compete with lies in todays America. People don't seem to be able to distinguish bs like they used to.

Especially when the neo-liberal mainstream media is controlling the explanations given to the American people.

Quote
An Obama Plot to Sabotage Trump?
By Patrick Buchanan
March 24, 2017

The real scandal, which the media regard as a diversion from the primary target, Trump, is that a Deep State conspiracy to bring down his presidency seems to have been put in place by Obamaites, and perhaps approved by Obama himself.

 Consider. On Jan. 12, David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote, 

 "According to a senior U.S. government official, (Gen. Michael) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials … What did Flynn say?"

 Now, on Dec. 29, Flynn, national security adviser-designate, was not only doing his job calling the ambassador, he was a private citizen.

 Why was he unmasked by U.S. intelligence?

 Who is this "senior official" who dropped the dime on him? Could this official have known how many times Flynn spoke to Kislyak, yet not known what was said on the calls?

 That is hard to believe. This looks like a contract hit by an anti-Trump agent in the intel community, using Ignatius to do the wet work.

 Flynn was taken down. Did Comey turn his FBI loose to ferret out the felon who had unmasked Flynn and done him in? If not, why not? 

 In today’s Wall Street Journal, Dan Henninger points anew to a story in The New York Times of March 1 that began:
 

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Our Free Daily Newsletter
  You can't buy your way onto these pages
 
   
 "In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election – and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Trump and Russians – across the government."

 "This is what they did," wrote Henninger, quoting the Times:

 "At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government – and, in some cases, among European allies."

 For what benign purpose would U.S. intelligence agents spread secrets damaging to their own president – to foreign regimes? Is this not disloyalty? Is this not sedition?

 On Jan. 12, writes Henninger, the Times "reported that Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed rules that let the National Security Agency disseminate ‘raw signals intelligence information’ to 16 other intelligence agencies."

 Astounding. The Obamaites seeded the U.S. and allied intel communities with IEDs to be detonated on Trump’s arrival. This is the scandal, not Trump telling Vlad to go find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails.

 We need to know who colluded with the Russians, if anyone did. But more critically, we need to unearth the deep state conspiracy to sabotage a presidency.

So far, the Russia-connection investigation has proven a dry hole. But an investigation into who in the FBI, CIA or NSA is unmasking U.S. citizens and criminally leaking information to a Trump-hating press to destroy a president they are sworn to serve could prove to be a gusher.

 As for the reports of Lynch-White House involvement in this unfolding plot to damage and destroy Trump the real question is: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46729.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46729.htm)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: MayorHaggar on April 02, 2017, 02:58:11 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/world/europe/chechen-authorities-arresting-and-killing-gay-men-russian-paper-says.html

MOSCOW — First, two television reporters vanished. Then a waiter went missing. Over the past week, men ranging in age from 16 to 50 have disappeared from the streets of Chechnya.

On Saturday, a leading Russian opposition newspaper confirmed a story already circulating among human rights activists: The Chechen authorities were arresting and killing gay men.


(https://memecrunch.com/meme/3H5ER/what-a-country-yakov/image.jpg?w=400&c=1)
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: maximmm on April 03, 2017, 01:18:33 AM
One day, waygook will create a thread exclusively for MayorHaggar, Life Improvement and Aurata.  It's going to be amazing.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Life Improvement on April 03, 2017, 01:38:41 AM
Make Waygook Great Again
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on April 03, 2017, 02:00:54 AM
MOSCOW — First, two television reporters vanished. Then a waiter went missing. Over the past week, men ranging in age from 16 to 50 have disappeared from the streets of Chechnya.

On Saturday, a leading Russian opposition newspaper confirmed a story already circulating among human rights activists: The Chechen authorities were arresting and killing gay men.


Chechnya is a muslim state and you wonder why they kill gays?

They also kill minority ethnic Russians.


This provided perfect conditions for Washington to start more trouble for Moscow when they funded and armed islamist terrorists to start the Chechen conflict. Another of CIA's wars to weaken and destabilize Russia.


Quote
According to Yossef Bodansky, then Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in “yet another anti-Russian jihad, seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces.”

Bodansky revealed the entire CIA Caucasus strategy in detail in his report, stating that US Government officials participated in,


“a formal meeting in Azerbaijan in December 1999 in which specific programs for the training and equipping of Mujahideen from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon, culminating in Washington’s tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US ‘private security companies’. . . to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing Jihad for a long time…Islamist Jihad in the Caucasus as a way to deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism.”

The most intense phase of the Chechen wars wound down in 2000 only after heavy Russian military action defeated the Islamists. It was a pyrrhic victory, costing a massive toll in human life and destruction of entire cities. The exact death toll from the CIA-instigated Chechen conflict is unknown. Unofficial estimates ranged from 25,000 to 50,000 dead or missing, mostly civilians. Russian casualties were near 11,000 according to the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers.


The more you post the more you fulfil the stereotype of a typical American who knows nothing about the world.

Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: eastreef on April 04, 2017, 10:20:15 AM
Interesting article.  Many times the cover-up gets people into more trouble than the activity they are trying to hide.

Amazing how the elitist media has been trying to keep the focus purely on Trump and Russia, yet information is slowly coming out about what the previous administration was doing.  I wonder what we might already know if the media was not so obsessed with Trump and was actually reporting on the whole story.

Below are some excerpts.  See the link for the complete story.  Although some say what she did, as we currently know, did not violate the law, it appears she previously denied knowing anything about this…….

Quote
  Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-asso     

April 3, 2017 10:13 AM EDT  Eli Lake

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law……   
                         
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Aurata on April 05, 2017, 03:38:24 AM
Amazing how the elitist media has been trying to keep the focus purely on Trump and Russia, yet information is slowly coming out about what the previous administration was doing.

yep we're seeing the traces of a plot against a government elected by the people.


Quote
The Russia Hacking Fiasco: No Evidence Required 

 By Mike Whitney 


“So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia to steal the US presidency – nothing…Stop to let that thought reverberate for a moment.”

— Paul Wood, BBC News, Washington, March 30, 2017

 March 31, 2017 "Information Clearing House" -   Here’s what bugs me about the Russia hacking story:  Why would the media, whose credibility is already at its lowest point ever, go after Trump when they had no facts to back them up?

 Why?

Do the media bosses really think that if they set their hair on fire and run around yelling, “The Russians did it, the Russians did it”, the American people will sheepishly nod in agreement?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46775.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46775.htm)

Russiagate is not a Trump/Russia collusion, its a domestic spying operation carried out by democrats.

Trump should follow the law and arrest those responsible. What we have, plainly, is treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government of the US.

Most probably Trump is too afraid to do so though because he fears the power of the elites/ deep state. So they will continue to do their utmost to destroy his presidency.
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on April 05, 2017, 03:28:43 PM
1. Unmasking allowed in event of criminal activity but as of Jan. 20, Clapper said there was no evidence of criminal activity.

2. If names were redacted and deemed incidental, how can Rice know where to look, who is involved, and why unmask 'incidental' contact?

3. If these names and people were 'incidental', why were only Trump campaign officials unmasked? Shouldn't ALL politicians be unmasked?

4. Why did Adam Schiff, after seeing the info that Nunes got, refuse to comment on the substance of the information and instead focus on him not being properly informed? Schiff on Sunday said there was 'no definitive proof' of a Trump-Russia connection. Absent definitive proof, is it appropriate to unmask individuals in a probe involving classified information like this?

5. Why did Susan Rice say she "knows nothing" about unmasking on PBS a week ago?
Title: Re: Russia vs USA
Post by: eastreef on April 05, 2017, 06:12:52 PM
And don’t forget the great credibility that Susan Rice has when it comes to public statements about significant news stories: e.g. Benghazi and Bergdahl.

The good news for Trump is that with Rice involved in the surveillance it means nothing was found that Rice believed was good enough to use against the Trump campaign.  Does anyone believe that if Rice had seen anything even remotely damaging to the Trump campaign that Rice would not have ensured that such information made its way to the NY Times, Washington Post and/or CNN/MSNBC? 

BTW, who leaked the Flynn transcripts to the Washington Post?

Quote
  1.  Benghazi: Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo, Rice told me this morning on "This Week."     

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/why-did-obamas-campaign-manager-brief-susan-rice-ahead-of-benghazi-tv-show-appearances/

The day before Susan Rice appeared on five separate Sunday morning TV talk shows to blame the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks on a YouTube video, the then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations participated in a telephone conference call with David Plouffe, the manager of President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

That revelation, which is laid out in the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s report, released on Tuesday, lends more evidence to support the claim that the White House blamed the YouTube video for political purposes. (RELATED: Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Committee Releases Full Report On Attacks)…..

That claim was panned almost instantaneously. Administration critics saw it as political spin intended to protect Obama ahead of the November 2012 election. And as emails cited in the Benghazi Committee’s report show, State Department officials saw it as an overreach as well.

One press official working in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs said Rice was “off the reservation” with her claims. Another said that Rice’s comments showed that “[The White House is] very worried about the politics.” (RELATED: Emails: Susan Rice Was ‘Off The Reservation’ For Blaming Benghazi Attacks On YouTube Video)……..

2.  Bergdahl: He served the United States with honor and distinction….he was captured on the battlefield……
     

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/susan-rice-biggest-loser-bergdahl-163200598.html

Susan Rice may want to stay away from the Sunday shows from now on.

Rice, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, appeared on CNN and ABC over the weekend to discuss the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the prisoner of war who was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2009. Bergdahl was released over the weekend in exchange for five Taliban prisoners who had been held at the U.S. military’s detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Things did not go well. Rice is now under attack for a number of statements and claims that appear to be demonstrably untrue.

Among other things, Rice tried to claim the administration had advised Congress of the deal in advance. She also said that Bergdahl had served the United States “with honor and distinction” and suggested that Bergdahl had been taken in a combat situation, saying he was “captured…on the battlefield.” These last two claims in particular are being savaged by Republican critics today, as details of Bergdahl’s actions in Afghanistan are becoming clearer.

It has long been known that Bergdahl walked away from his post in Afghanistan nearly five years ago, an action that would make him, at best, absent without leave from his unit. But in the days since his release, current and former soldiers who served with Bergdahl have come forward with stories about his behavior that suggest he may have planned to leave the Army permanently, which implies the more serious crime of desertion........