Youtube comments of irresistablejewel (@irresistablejewel).
-
312
-
95
-
46
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
34
-
33
-
27
-
26
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
If you recall: Alex Salmond was accused of 14 offences, including two counts of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault, and one of breach of the peace; it ended his association with the SNP (the court case and media "circus" was overshadowing party matters, so he quit) and what was the result of the trial?
One charge of sexual assault withdrawn (before it got to court); twelve not guilty; one not proven (insufficient evidence). Salmond was awarded £500,000 (costs); it damaged the party and the prosecution had already been advised not to proceed, as the action was likely to fail. Odd that, isn't it?
Still it was the season to be smeared, see Jeremy Corbyn: over half of the bullying allegations came from one person; Hodge and her millionaire buddy using the Jewish press to claim they were victims and the right-wing press (just like now) saturating the news (likely as a useful distraction from: PM Johnson; the fragile UK economy; remaining in the EU (best of three? etc).
Now I've not seen anything worth voting for in some time; I'm becoming increasing suspicious of the media trying to lead people by the nose; I do not trust the Tory/ Tory light Westminster government and if Nicola Sturgeon has a lot to explain (although no charges have been made) it would be to a Scottish court and not the "Daily Telegraph" or the "Glasgow Herald".
I've been encouraged not to deal in "whataboutism"; but compared to Westminster, don't you find potential financial scandals in Holyrood to be "small beer": currently there are legal matters surrounding the third last PM; plus millions and billions diverted to: an America/Russia proxy war; a Garden Bridge (never happened); HS2 cost over-run (something the Tories will likely sell off); an incredibly long list of financial "errors", proposed unfunded tax cuts for millionaires (nearly blew the pension funds), while bets against the pound paid handsomely.
So while UKplc continues to get asset stripped, by real companies, is this Scottish scandal really about a £110,000 motor home?
In other words, the UK (Pentagon leaks) is involved in a direct war with a nuclear superpower; people in an oil rich country can't afford to turn on the heating; food inflation is going "through the roof"; civil unrest (across Europe) and yet the far-right media wants us to focus on a court case that might happen (or not); the financial "health" of a political rival (while banks; hotel and catering; small businesses close)........ ever feel you are being diverted?....... and when it comes to charitable contributions of "lethal aid", charity begins at home, does it not?
It's characters like Blair that should be in court; this is another "side-show" and the courts take ages, so see you same time next year. Now that Stormy lass...
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@xuldevelopers It's not really a show for the benefit of Western commentators; it's about May 9th 1945 (not before), many countries hold war memorial services (Russia isn't a totalitarian regime and unlike some two party, so called, democracies it's not possible to buy the political system there). A lot of Russian things are going to look strange judged by our values; a lot has changed since 1945 when both Russia and America were allies and of course it's staged (the logistical structures for an event this size are immense). Sorry to hear you were so disappointed in the lack of military hardware, but nuclear weapons have been moved to forward positions; the skies were likely cleared over Moscow and it doesn't look like they will run out of troops any time soon.
So you understand why the T-34 was there, well that's a start; but here in the 21st century tanks are a lot less use, without air cover almost obsolete and while the (mainly) American msm try their best, it was Russia that put the first space station in orbit; they are leaders in hyper-sonic missile technology and they have their own satellites. One of the most highly educated populations I've encountered; an NHS; zero homelessness (and they are solvent). I'm not trying to sell socialism, or even take sides; but when it comes to lagging behind, it's not Russia (or China).
I've heard: Russia is so powerful it can elect American Presidents; it has such vast reserves of oil and gas and food it can afford to sell some; the Moscow Metro is smaller than London; NYC and Paris, but it's a work of art and moves more people (monthly travel pass $17); casinos and hedge fund managers are banned; the building opposite the VIP section is a shopping mall. Also: you must never "toast" the guest of honor (alcohol related); shake hands across a doorway (arcane reasons); or break promises (easier not to make any). Yes it is strange these other cultures; but I never saw homelessness (-20 in Winter) or old men!? (a guest of Joe Rogan mentioned this, it's true).
I thought it was a lovely day for it; respectful, Lest we forget (27,000,000).
8
-
8
-
America always trying to blame others. A lot of Western companies moved their manufacturing to China and Asia (their call centers to India, or the Philippians); because they benefited from: the comparatively low wages; less (or more pliant) regulation; the Asian work ethic and they could avoid American taxes. Don't you understand it's the "duty" of these companies to maximize profits; so quite a few American companies operate(d) "sweatshops" in Asia, they sent their product designs there and the profit margins went up, a lot!
When you talk about keeping their own subjects under constant surveillance; it's like you don't understand that meta-data (the sites you visit online) is worth money and (I'm told) from six independent "likes" our social media (and government agencies) can build a pretty accurate character profile (which they were selling). The Senate has recently put a crimp in that business model, they stuff you post online belongs to the individual, not some social media behemoth. China (and Russia) don't want our social media; the media giants complain that government control that; but looking at some of the stuff going on here I can't blame them.
Certainly state funded private companies is a dubious concept; they can take losses normal companies can't; they're always ahead of new legislation and they can even product dump; but the American government seem to be heavily influenced by certain private companies and that's a dubious concept too.
So no, China didn't destroy America's manufacturing base; America gave it away. The government is upset that multinationals don't pay much in the way domestic taxes, but they can always spend a few billion on lobbying and the government can get somebody like Peter Z to point the finger at someone else.
So China didn't do well though covid, well who did? People can't pay for these imported products if the company closes, or they're homeless or going broke.
Meanwhile America owes China a lot of money, try smearing their leader (like the msm have done with others) and I expect they'll call in the debt. (a friendly warning).
Another comment suggests a religious theocracy ruled by a Pope; but doesn't seem to realize that Zappa was correct; America already became a fascist theocracy.
It's all about money and short term gain now; all the Trillions in tax havens isn't coming back either; I think Peter Z needs to understand China is just better at capitalism than America.
So I hope before the big collapse (Peter Z predicts everywhere but America) America will repay China.
We in the West are under constant surveillance, it's starting to annoy people in Europe (this more authoritarian approach using modern technology); they are starting to use robots as: police; judges and soldiers (not workers) and that mistake is likely to be fatal (further down the line).
If you get a warm feeling over economies collapsing; I hope you enjoy yours; because those "globalists" obviously don't care about you or I; just how they can divert public funds to themselves. Currently investing in war with Russia and China; using public money; but one should never confuse a memo with reality (look at the homeless in America) they only care about maximizing short-term profit; that's why the whole Western economy has been (put simply) asset stripped. How that is fixed I don't know but maybe jailing a few industrialists (Russia) or beheading a few bankers (China); but there is too much money in politics (in the West) and ironically we civilians are paying for it all.
Peter Z and his PR work is increasingly difficult to take seriously.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Hope you are feeling better, Alex. I had trouble, at first, adjusting to the temperatures and air-con on the Malay Peninsula; the spicy cuisine I grew to love, night and day always being around twelve hours each (means a lot of people eat at the bustling night markets, or very early when it's cooler). I recommend: Quay Teow; Laksa, even the Kenny Rogers Chicken emporiums; Penang Satay, but careful with Beef Sambal, it's v hot! Shame about all these wars; Malaysia seems to have reached it's 2020 vision; it was already hi-tech when I was there in the 90's.
Three different cultures: Malay; Chinese and Indian, they seem to get along; but the joke (locally) is that the Chinese and Indians do the work, while the Malay run the country.
I never got used to the Mosques calling the faithful to prayer at 5 a.m. That just meant it was time for Roti Chani with curry and strong coffee on the side. It's a fabulous place.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The reason "Western interests" imposed sanctions on Russia is mainly because they are losing their grip on the global economy: the recent decision by the G7 to tell Russia what price it can charge for oil and gas is yet another example of a parallel reality that the (mainly American) msm appear to live in and that includes Rosenberg , his former colleagues in CBS and the BBC. The whole concept of trying to economically inconvenience a nuclear-superpower that exports: energy; food and, of course, weapons is flawed; barriers to free market capitalism have "the CRIBS" setting up a new: clearing bank; exchange mechanism and a Gold backed currency (e-Yuan, only available to Chinese citizens). Meanwhile the hypocrisy of America and it's NATO is fresh in many people's memories, after: trashing Iraq and Libya; hunting for Bin Laden then staying for the opium (Afghanistan) and failing to effect regime change in Syria, it's on to Ukraine and Taiwan now.
I really don't believe Rosenberg and his "dumb bunny act"... economic sanctions are a form of war (see "oil for food" program; World Trade Center, NYC targeted twice; Venezuela banned from using dollar); sanction Russia and they can sanction back (so no EU gas supply now); steal Russian oligarch's stuff (they legitimately walked off with) and Russia impounds 450 commercial airliners... it doesn't seem to be working (Steve) and who is he trying to fool? Those "Western interests" don't care about people; they are interested in: oil; selling weapons; auctioning rebuilding contracts and money; Russia told the West to keep out of Ukraine (they didn't); the msm are certainly winning the propaganda war (here); but actions speak louder than words and unfortunately Ukraine is being used as a chew-toy as American oligarchs (in particular) persist in throwing our money towards their "cause". Also; I don't believe Russia is trying to portray itself as the "innocent victim"; they drew a line, the West crossed it (repeatedly) and they have "put their foot down". Is it not time that the media (in general) started reporting facts instead of offering their opinion as with the facts we can make out own opinions (thanks). One fact is that the UK national debt is just over £2.7 Trillion; American national debt over $27 Trillion; with inflation over 10%; a hike in energy prices, while they display large profits and more food banks than McDonald's outlets (I'm told)... giving millions to Ukraine (who could have stopped this before it started) does seem like a parallel reality. The UK doesn't rely on Russian energy (besides the Chinese will sell Russian oil, if required; assuming that's morally acceptable); the price rise was not because of the Ukraine crisis (Biden/Truss excuse); so I don't buy what this chap is trying to sell.
If you want my opinion... Yes, it's a special economic exercise (as mentioned by "the wags"); it looks like civilians (us) are either going to be driven into poverty or be at war (civil, or foreign) because lunatics are running the asylum; the G7 are being ridiculous (the buyer doesn't get to set the price, now there's none); £2.7 Trillion in debt (system working?! Send more money!?) and a new UK PM that better screw the heid pretty quickly because the UK is starting to disintegrate. I hear charity begins at home (ends up in Panama; I heard that I did).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
All largely made up, the shops look better stocked than when I was there, so short of sugar that there's a full pallet and if CNN wants to talk about rising prices; take a look at our shopping bills for food and fuel... as for fighting in shops, call that a fight? Has CNN never seen a "Black Friday" sale? (I guess not, they get paid so much). Same sort of coverage as Venezuelan sanctions (they didn't work either), but notice the reports usually boil down to money, so let me tell you, prices are going up!
As for the Ukrainian crisis; American interests started that 8 year civil war; the corrupt media already lied us into two wars and this time (let's see) it looks like WW3 is just about to start as America sends weapons, makes up propaganda and NATO does not care about people (it kills people) and it is clear Russia will totally destroy Ukraine rather than let NATO or the EU have it. Just so you know... we are being lied to by a corrupt Western media while our leaders pocket millions.
CNN are largely making things up and the reason fuel prices went up, it's because they can (and you'll pay). America is currently in five wars, in case you missed that, as usual it's (us) civilians that pay.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@maximemeis2867 I think you have strayed a bit from the OP's original statement which was about some groups being obliged to pay taxes, while other groups had found ways not to pay tax and how that led the OP to hate their country. This is a serious matter in itself and I would say they are not the only one, by any mean, experiencing growing discontent with a system that appears to be corrupt and while that may be making some very rich indeed, it's clearly not good for that country as the national debt exceeds $20,000,000,000,000 (and the taxpayers can't even cover the interest). Historically speaking; as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer there comes a point where conflict breaks out; the government don't want that and while I no longer live in America, I can sense a great deal of frustration with things as they are.
I tend to agree with a lot of what "Tragoudistros .MPS says ... in some ways it is a question of scale: some multinational companies have the same size economies as some small countries; some hedge funds can sell short even large countries (see Soros v UK) and there is a lot of industry involved in "tax avoidance" (which in reality don't produce anything). While I still hold the opinion that the current President won't do a thing to inconvenience corporations in any way; these tax loopholes have been around for years; money parked offshore is known to exceed the $20 trillion (and that doesn't include: property, art and shares) ... I would have to ask you how rich should one individual be allowed to get (before we recognise they are playing the rules; not the game)?
I'll confess: I'm a "lefty" (a real one); I live in a country that, like Canada, follows democratic socialism and so we have centrally funded healthcare and tertiary education. We currently labour under phoney austerity (already debunked on the Steven Colbert show (before he lost his mind over Trump). The problem in the Western economies currently is a fundamental misunderstanding of money (which is a neat way to exchange goods and services ); the likely solution to some of the current problems in America is a more equitable distribution of resources (then wait about 25 years). It would also help (many) a great deal to keep money out of American politics (as some of these "poor" people are having trouble finding places to stash it); so I hesitate to call the current system in America "Capitalism" as it looks more like socialism for the few while the rest get exploited by capitalism.
I'm not sure we will resolve the: labour v capital; poor v rich or management v workers/unions disputes any time soon while we view it as a conflict. I'm not going to suggest we all pull together (because obviously we are not); but I'd recommend a British movie from 1959, made by the Boulton Bros; called "I'm All Right, Jack!". It's a bit cartoonish and exaggerated for comic effect; but the matters raised seem years ahead of their times. Maybe watch that before you get back to me as many of the problems in America are due to corruption of the system and whatever solution you propose is extremely unlikely to get you (re) elected.
Without price discovery capitalism doesn't function properly, printing more money makes that worse; "Wall Street" backs both main parties (and they are not known to be charitable types), so last election the vote was for war or war (your choice); if a socialist government can't provide for the direct needs of it's people, it's not fit to govern and that's the bottom line.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@djmevans With wind speeds in excess of 157 mph, wave peaks maybe 50-70 feet (it felt like being on the "Big Dipper" roller-coaster, Blackpool, for most of three days); you then have a 40,000 ton vessel basically free-falling from a peak into a trough. I'd skip the last step because: usually it was quicker; the carpets (on a steel deck) were quite "bouncy", but I'd become detached from the ship. So to move about the vessel you need to act like "Spiderman" and stick to one of the corridor walls (...or it might strike you).
(FYI Typhoons and Hurricanes are different names for the basically same thing, a "Tropical Cyclone"; called Typhoons in the Pacific; Hurricanes in the Atlantic).
While I was "hanging around" in mid-air (seemed like ages): my mind must have concluded this was a "near-death-experience": it produced an image, from some old war-comic; somebody parachuting, coming in to land. I'd never been parachuting (before); not too bad a landing (from about 100 feet), that sequence of events still amuses me.
These "Super-Typhoons" also pick up a lot of moisture and throw that around too; "the eye" maybe 200 miles wide; the Captain tried to stay in it (about 3 hours), then back in.
While I don't get seasick (except in revolving restaurants); I find it very difficult to watch a big wave rise up and coming barreling towards the ship; it is quite daunting.
5
-
@bogdanmeleszczenko1271 No. Russia is a major exporter of: oil; gas; grain and fertilizer (so more than self sufficient); these American led "sanctions" were never going to work, so I believe the main purpose of them was and is to "play" the European Union (E.U.). They seem willing participants, but now have supply issues; I'm sure America will help (at a price) or they can buy Indian petroleum in dollars, refined from Russian oil paid in Rupees or Roubles (legally avoiding sanctions, which is quite bizarre, imo).
Russia doesn't need (or apparently want): Western: hedge-funds; casinos, or banks (Russia and China formed their own bank and exchange mechanism already).
The: Rouble; Rupee and Yuan/Renimbi are "soft currencies" (not a store of value); try and play "dollar games" they'll take your money.
Despite the msm drone; Russia is technologically driven (that's how they put the first space station in orbit (without "capitalism")). State funded health and education is an asset.
Sure, when I worked in Russia (1992), most people were poor as church mice (except the mafia), but monthly Moscow Metro/bus pass ($0.50); Vodka $1.20; bread $0.20.
Inflation? It went from $1/Rb 450 to 1450 in less than a year; then all currency before 1992 was declared non-legal tender; they also switch the hot water off for a month.
It seems to me that more and more trade deals are being done excluding the "West". "Globalism" and this NWO (New World Order) doesn't work for them; it doesn't work at all.
As far as I can see: Russia has oil; grain and ore; India has refineries and Steel; China has tertiary manufacturing and arguably the fastest computers. It looks a good fit to me.
Whereas the West (where I live) seems to be debt driven; lacks an objective and all this public money being exported?? It smells like corruption.
Yes, a falling currency helps exports, hinders imports; but I suggest we stop trying to price everything in American dollars now; the $/Rb rate is redundant anyway.
Btw I am highly critical of my government and their media (I know they lie); I don't think they'll be sending me "lethal aid" and them trying to lecture others, it's frankly absurd.
I'm not saying Russia or China are in any way perfect; but Russia jails oligarchs that try to influence government; China executes them; it's worth thinking about...
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@EdJames-tb9oz Yes, lets do the maths: Scotland has 59/650 seats in Westminster, these very rarely affect the final result (the SNP doesn't field candidates outside Scotland) so one of two parties govern the UK (occasionally in coalition) and when it's Tory v Tory light this leaves a lot of people with basically nothing to vote for, also when the two parties form a unionist coalition and take turns voting down items in "The Scotland Bill" (leaving Westminster holding the purse strings in matters like corporation tax, or having power of veto over Holyrood), it starts to look like Scotland isn't being represented properly. The SNP (formed to get Scottish Independence) at best had 56/59 seats (Tory; new Labour; LibDem 1 seat each) and that was largely through adopting (old) Labour policies: no tuition fees; no selling off state sector industry (that supply needs); no selling off the NHS; they have a national objective of 100% renewable energy (but Westminster can cut funding at will).
The SNP don't act as a protest party in Westminster, since they almost never vote on English matters (although they did help block foxhunting, as those substantial new powers (for Scotland then one and all) never emerged); while if the UK government feels it can ignore Scotland politically, then the 59 seats have no purpose and Scotland should govern itself. Since both main Westminster currently appear to be pro-war; globalists; that seem to represent money interest; it's not just Scotland lacking representation (the labour unions must be wondering why they fund new Labour); while Cameron's UKplc just allowed the UK to be asset stripped by real companies (see you in Panama); so Flynn (of SNP) wasn't protesting; he was ridiculing "Thatcher's children" (metaphorically speaking), because money doesn't "trickle down" at all; the rich keep it and some try to: buy political influence; invest in our competitors or even bet against the UK economy (a case of mair money than sense). With FPTP one only needs to buy two political parties, because whoever we vote for the government always gets in... Now if they only had a national objective we could all get behind; but they don't (it's all about money).
4
-
4
-
@genconsensus4205 I don't share your speculation: Musk appears to be doing what businessmen do: sourcing raw materials; building things and establishing trading links. Both China and Russia are technologically driven (not money or "debt obligation" driven); both have space programs (bigger than his Space X); the Chinese view robots as workers (and like Musk they are good at manufacturing), they have advanced computer and A.I. technology; not sure where they are with electric cars, but if battery technology improves Tesla is well positioned.
There are Western businesses still operating in Russia and China, some say that's a bad thing; but then they are usually the ones trying to find enemies or blame others (largely to divert attention). Both Russia and China have no need for: hedge-funds; Western social media or companies that give money to government (unless they are state controlled). Russia ejected all them and casinos, but you'll find any number of Western hotel chains operating. Not sure if Radisson know their hotel used to be the HQ for the Ukrainian mafia, but it is a stunning building.
I don't see any evidence that Musk received Russian funding or that Twitter is suppressing Ukrainian content providers, so like your conclusion that Musk is compromised it seems to lack evidence. He got drunk in Russia (during the World Cup) well that's not a crime (lol) it happens a lot there and if you are trying to tell me that Musk doesn't have people that look out for him that's very hard to believe. The Steel dossier turned out to be a fake; part of the Clinton Russia gate hoax; I'm not saying the Russian KGB didn't have two way mirrors in Hotel Intourist; but Musk would most likely be viewed as a foreign dignitary and therefore could come to no harm.
Who knows what happened, you don't!
Again you level unfounded accusations this time that Musk is in the pay of authoritarians and fascists; it sounds like drivel and besides neither the Chinese or Russians are fascists; that's more the far right in America who seem to fund both main American political parties. The Chinese are communists and the Russians are socialists as far as government goes; you must be an American. They generally aren't that good at geography or political ideology and currently with two right wing parties, the next vote will be war or war and they've let their oligarchs asset strip most of the Western economy. $33 Trillion in debt?!
Meantime the owners of the Western media seem to be in the business of setting people at each others throats, fostering hatred between supporters of the two main parties; Russia; China; Africa... cheerleaders for war (after lying us into two already); one of their fav strategies the smear campaign (just like what you're trying to do).
As for Ukraine; they don't care about the people of Ukraine or the homeless that litter the streets of America, they are interested in money (they talk about it all the time); nobody uses the $/Rouble, but they talk about it all the time and they are (imo) running "cover" as billions gets exported as they try to "play" Europe.
So I don't believe Musk is the problem here; it's just another attempt to divert attention and I do believe the far-right are going to need some diversion as their charitable contributions to Ukraine appear lost. Choosing Russia AND China as enemies (at the one time); we must admire their ambition and dull stupidity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
The week long occupation of Chernobyl and siege of Kiev/Kyiv was a demonstration of intent, by Russia. This is different from the subsequent invasion and occupation of the Eastern regions: in terms of men and machinery; the objective and while the Western media has their version of events, it was clear Russia had total air control (as their supply convoy sat in the open untouched); it was also a surprise attack and it wasn't an army of occupation.
They told the civilian population to keep away from the national broadcaster's TV mast, destroyed that; peace negotiations were arranged in Turkey and they left. These peace negotiations were blocked by America and the UK as it would mean the foreign corporations that had gained control of Ukrainian agriculture and the gas pipeline through Ukraine would almost certainly have to go.
Since Ukraine was still intent on joining EU and NATO; there had been a "corporate takeover" and the Eastern regions had voted for independence in 2014 (nobody recognised); Russia "intervened"; recognised the "breakaway regions" independence referendums and occupied these regions militarily.
It seems Russia intends to reintegrate these (mainly Russian speaking) regions into Russia and while Odessa is of great cultural significance, Kyiv is not as important.
What Russia is currently doing is called a war of attrition; this requires a lot of logistical support, which they have and while the concept may be foreign to the Western globalist warmongers; it's not about winning or losing, it's more about how much everyone loses. It seems the foreign corporations (part of the military industrial complex) have already lost.
Militarily Russia has nuclear weapons, they won't use them on fellow Slavs, but legally they can on countries that have them.
So I would advise the UK government to shut up and stop "poodling" to American interests, because shorty they'll be looking for a "patsy".
Short answer is, this is Russia holding ground and if what's left of Ukraine isn't neutral the war will continue until the globalists go bust.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mechanic6682 I hope you are not intentionally trying to be misleading, but the nuclear weapons in Ukraine belong(ed) to Russia (who not only built them but had the launch codes). Ukraine kept nuclear power; leased a port to Russia and charged (quite high) tariffs on a Russian gas pipeline to the EU; there was a division of conventional military weaponry. As for the Budapest Memorandum, that was primarily an agreement between Russia and Ukraine; while America made it clear that it only offered an "assurance" not a "guarantee" (some diplomatic distinction) and the UK (who lease Trident from America and don't have launch codes) will do as they are told. The subsequent "Minsk agreement" now appears to have been a ruse; allowing Western interests (EU and NATO) time to arm and train Ukrainian forces; they had already gifted Ukraine billions and Russia had already made it clear if Ukraine gave up neutrality it would be war.
So the EU and America trying to play innocent is really just for public consumption, all their "investment" (with public money) isn't really for humanitarian reasons and while we don't know if America would have used nuclear weapons, as threatened (see Cuban missile crisis); it's a similar situation now. I'm sure Steve Hall and his CIA know a lot more about the fine detail but they appear to be a law unto themselves. All Ukraine had to do was say they were not going to join a Western military alliance, but then the globalist interests would have lost their "charitable" investments, however the more America and EU "invests" the closer we are to nuclear war.
So the lesson isn't "Ukraine should never have given up their nukes", because they didn't own any; really it's, don't mess around with superpowers in their own backyard!
Unfortunately the globalists have no reason to listen to anyone: if there's a war they won't be going; sending money and weapons to corrupt countries doesn't work (third time lucky, maybe?!) and while the (mainly American) media are doing what they usually do before their wars; this isn't: Libya or Syria or some tribal nation with no air defense, these are technologically sophisticated countries (Russia and China) and I don't recall seeing homeless people when I lived there.
So while we decide: if America would have started WW3 over Cuba; or how money could be better spent; if you can't find Ukraine or Taiwan on the map you have been diverted.
The only solution I can see is Russia and Ukraine negotiating (something). If the West wants to keep sending money it will need to send a lot more, then Russia will likely move to full deployment and then there will be a World War (just not sure if that's an assurance or a guarantee). According to D Cheney, "War Pays!" (it paid him well, but millions died).
Anyway, my condolences to those affected by war; I'm not going (nothing in it for me), don't even speak the language(s); hope you (all) have a lovely day!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jspy8138 No, the EU directives didn't force the sale of infrastructure; other EU countries have nationalized rail (own 7 UK rail franchises, it's ironic, I think: socialism by proxy) and really the claims at the time of lower prices (due to competition) and own a share of British (state-sector) industry turned out not to be true; it was in effect selling shares in something we already owned; to a few, at a low price and (understandably, even predictably) many sold them when the price shot up and so it's largely banks and funds that receive the state-sector revenue now and if things go wrong, the state has to step in, or needs are not met. Employment rules were favorable; but not now, after decades of a right-wing UK government; that's the largely the fault of repeating "Horse and Sparrow" economics; but selling off infrastructure and planting Blair in the Labour Party it's an act of ideological sabotage as "The Left" require state-sector revenue to subsidize state-sector industry that can't "make money" (Fire-brigade; NHS "save money", but it's not about the money). So Thatcher had money from: sale of utilities; council houses; North Sea oil revenue and told everyone better get a private pension and health insurance; loadsamoney... and where did it go? Offshore tax havens; invested in our competitors; possibly misappropriated. Actually the unions let strivers make money; but that was in the days of Empire and heavy industry; it's been all downhill since then; it would help if our overpaid MPs left their second jobs and woke up to the fact people are starting to sharpen pitch-forks. All this chatter about money (millions; billions; £2.4 Trillion... ssh!, while we all go bankrupt, really starts to grate. Presided over a fire-sale; died a millionaire; still demanded a state funeral. Of course the Left hate Thatcher, the feeling was mutual; but Blair is probably the worst PM of 21st century, he was even more an anti-socialist.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@chrisflach5911 You do have an immigration problem: on one hand "cheap labour" is highly desirable (mainly to the rich); on the other you are required to have a "green card" to work legally... but if you have a "green card" why work for low wages? That's your problem.
I've worked all over the world... In China; Russia, even "darkest" Africa I require a visa (it usually lasts a year). In America, I worked illegally... I don't care to be an American, or Chinese or Russian citizen... I care about professional standards; getting things done quickly an efficiently. America is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to reside there. I don't know about 99% of Americans, but you do have an immigration problem, because it's either that or no job. The solution is work visas, but the rich don't want that. There is a huge black market for labour in America and the main reason is there's a demand. Building a wall? You'll be wanting Mexicans to do that won't you? Hypocrisy in high places, that's rife... besides all the white people were immigrants, illegal aliens, rejects from other countries...?! lol (I'm joking). Sort out your employment laws, or pay a decent wage; or do it on the qt (it's the American way).
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You may want the Russian economy to fail, Mark; but I don't see any reason as to why Russians, with: an NHS; state-funded education and low cost energy and transport would want that.
While thousands of miles from Eastern Europe there is a country: with over $33 Trillion national debt; that somehow still finds money to keep funding foreign wars (when there are people living on the street); with what amounts to tribal warfare between the supporters of two right-wing parties, both backed by profit seeking corporations (some that don't even pay tax there).
I think you might be believing their publicity, system working send more money?! Yes there are dark days ahead; here... and just printing money won't solve this, any ideas?
I'm not an economist, but I have lived and worked in: the UK; America; USSR; China (even "darkest" Africa) and I have to tell you that Western metrics are highly unreliable in the wider world.
For example, USSR (without the benefits of capitalism), put the first space station in orbit; amassed a large nuclear arsenal and was largely autonomous behind the "Iron Curtain"; while currently there is nothing Russia needs or wants from the American oligarchs, except for them to "stay in their lane"; stop messing around on their borders and remove NATO missile bases.
The corporations that moved into Ukraine to take control of agriculture and a gas pipeline might claim they were just there to maximize shareholder profit; but that's not the whole truth...
All this talk about the $/Rb rate; but that's largely redundant (American policy makers are driving countries away from the Dollar); while trying to compare an internationally traded "commodity" such as the $; £ and Euro, with a domestic soft currency such as the Rouble or Yuan; is like trying to compare chalk with cheese... Did the "strength" of the dollar against the Rouble make any difference to you? It's pretty much the same for Russian and Chinese citizens; the global currency markets and share prices hardly feature in most people's lives; while Russia is more than self sufficient in: grain; gas; oil; coal; fertilizer; iron ore... etc. So these sanctions did nothing except inconvenience Europe (perhaps the plan all along). While all these war America funds is starting to create a lot of hostility amongst the general public as public money is diverted who knows where? (The "tax havens" are bulging).
I believe we are on the wrong side of history; or rather our leaders who want to play "the Great Game", while the economy here and now is in a dreadful state. If you want to destroy the Russian economy see if you can get Russia to join the European Union (EU); that should do it. Otherwise I think you're barking up the wrong tree... Now Western policy makers want to fire missiles at Russia and claim it's Ukraine (those in the know, simply don't believe that...). Firing missiles at a nuclear superpower; trying to lecture them about economics, or land war in Europe; it's farcical and with just the loans and rebuilding contract to fight for I expect America will move on to it's next target (if there's not a world war). Since Russia and China are technologically driven, while America and the EU are debt driven; I think I know who is the future. In short the Russians have no reason to bring down Moscow and every reason to avoid money-grubbing America.
3
-
@pplr1 This Prof already detailed the provocation(s), in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's fault?": the prospect of further NATO expansion was only one reason, an eight year civil war was another and (in case you missed it, from 2014) foreign corporations (mainly American) had amassed millions of acres of prime farmland and likely had a controlling interest in the EU gas supply route, while the billions sent by America and EU were not for charitable, or humanitarian reasons. So much for the neutrality agreement that the UK and America cosigned; they either didn't understand it, or ignored it, and from Russia's perspective if Ukraine isn't neutral; it's war and they hold Ukraine totally responsible.
In reply to the OP: China is unlikely to go to war with Taiwan, because the governments are basically different branches of the same political ideology (One China).
Currently what's left of Ukraine, is so heavily in debt to the Western interests, it's no longer an independent country: the World bank would like ownership of state sector infrastructure (usually); Russia turned off the EU gas supply, after alternative routes mysterious exploded (no profit there); all that farmland and (43) labs (according to the Pentagon) a casualty of war. Putin never claimed Ukraine would fall in three weeks, or three days (that was Gen Milley trying to get more funding from the Senate); while: Russians Ukrainians and Belarusians are Slavs (who have more in common with each other than even Western Europeans, never mind America), while it seems it might be in Poland's interest if Ukraine fell apart (like Yugoslavia did after the "NATO intervention) as they can expand.
Since Ukraine has turned into a "money-pit"; I doubt diverting more public money is going to get people elected; while if the plan was to separate the EU from relatively cheap Russian commodities; that at least has worked. There is sufficient evidence to show Russia doesn't want Kyiv (they want Odessa); the Oblasts they mainly occupy largely speak Russian (they even voted for independence from Ukraine, which nobody recognised; until Russia did in 2022); while the Western concept of winning in Ukraine is faulty.
The problem for the Western lobbyists and Ukraine is that funding may dry up (possibly in late Nov); then the conflict would stop and some explaining would be required.
If American missiles start landing in mainland Russia; I hope you understand, it would not be Ukraine held responsible for starting a global war, it's heading that way currently.
3
-
3
-
@george cushing Of course there is something wrong with the American political system when (as you say) there are foreign interests that can buy political influence, within America. There is also something wrong when some main stream media outlets openly give political donations; whistle-blowers (to impropriety in government and the secret service) are viewed as the enemy within, by the political establishment, and there is something really odd about a candidate who lost, but won't go away ... perhaps so much money has been "invested" in what we were told was a sure thing or there is anger at having to choose between Clinton and Trump, but there is definitely something wrong with the political system with all that going on.
You say socialism sucks, I don't agree with you; but I think we can agree "crony-capitalism" does, unless you are an insider; when it seems you would be above the law. Yes Venezuela is in a mess, but I don't think America is entirely innocent regarding that; as it casts a baleful influence over a number of South American countries and I think if you look a little under the surface you'll find credit default swaps and much the same rot that seems to be plaguing most of the Western economies (except Iceland, who let their banks go bust and jailed bankers). I'm not trying to blame America for all of the problems in Venezuela, but neither would I describe Venezuela as having a particularly good socialist government. Try Canada; Norway; Scotland; even Russia for better forms of socialism and it should be pointed out that China with its one communist party seems to be putting most Western economies to shame; although state subsidised "private" industry doesn't appear to be a totally honest way to do business.
I would insist that there is something wrong with a system that can be easily hi-jacked (only I think this occurred a long time ago, in America, it's just become a bit too obvious to ignore now); those that view money as a religion and profit as their "prophet" seem misguided (although it has made many of them fantastically rich); also there seems to be the mindset that if you can't beat 'em, you have to join them, but their objective is profit ... their profit, not your profit and foreign "investors" in politicians don't need to care if America goes bust or erupts into civil war because they aren't invested in America for the long term, short term profit will do just fine. Certainly no system is going to work particularly well if it is corrupt; but since America doesn't have a main party that is socialist (both the Democrats and Republican parties are definitely right wing); I don't see what socialists or socialism has to do with the mess we see before us.
The root cause, in my opinion, is "Reaganomics", which was a re-hash of "horse and sparrow" economics; which led to the great depression of 1929. Repealing Glass-Steigal (a useful 4 page bill) removed a lot of the stops and the banks started trading "debt obligation" like it was money and now somehow the taxpayer is supposed to pay for a lot of these bad bets; while getting no interest on savings ... so it means there is trouble brewing for pensions funds as they struggle to get a return. I doubt socialism, or electing Trump, will pull this out of the fire. I guess someone has to go bust before America does; but the banks put millions towards the Clinton campaign (and they aren't short of ammo yet) to insure sure they don't go bust ... and seem to be having a "bunfest" with all this printed money. It clearly can't continue much longer this way; -$20T will not be paid by cuts alone ... but don't you find it interesting the people who oppose everything the President tries to do. It's very revealing ... I think as President you get one "wish"; one policy you'll get through; but the rest is up for auction ... looks like Obama just got Marijuana legalised. Closing the Cuban based torture facility was a bridge too far. So maybe lay off the socialists, Bernie (who may be a bit socialist) got sidelined ... but that's a DNC matter and there is far more to America than two right wing political parties.
Have a nice day!
3
-
I don't understand what you are trying to say, George.
I'm told that currently Venezuela is in a mess. Of course I'm being told this by many of the same main stream media (msm) outlets that gave political contributions, so actually are biased; but certainly if the electricity supply is failing then the country has serious problems. However I seem to recall that Venezuela has the eighth largest natural gas reserves in the world, and consistently ranks among the top ten world crude oil producers ... so it seems most odd to me that, of all things, there are energy shortages.
I think you'll find that American oil companies in the 20th century were all over Venezuela, like a rash, they took 50%; the government took 50% (so loads of money); but it seems the country is very corrupt and (for reasons I don't understand) oil has been called "the devils excrement". The government there eventually nationalised the industry, which didn't seem to help either; then there is the cocaine trade and probably a host of internal issues that are too subtle for outsiders to really understand.
Yes I keep hearing the right wing holding up Venezuela as "the poster boy" for socialism, when: there are far better examples; the oil industry seems to have had some influence over proceedings and corruption is rife. As I said already, systems (any) don't work at all well when corrupt and corruption is quite corrosive to structures. I admit I don't understand many of the issues; I think the msm have an agenda; but I believe enough to not want to holiday there.
Sure; sometimes people just say stuff ... eg Trump is a Russian spy, or there are idiots who give the likes of Andy Borowitz (New York Times) prizes for writing fake news. There is clearly a lot of frustration in America and why not? The electorate being given a choice between two rich white Americans, who both accepted large cash contributions in order to run for the office of President. I'm not calling anybody corrupt (yet), but that's a game few can play. I can see why the right wing would like to talk about Venezuela (it's a distraction from the mess America is in); or why the establishment wants to throw any kind of mud at non-establishment candidates (to keep the game "in-house") or even try to call other: ideologies; systems or structures a failure if judged by their rules (which don't seem particularly good).
I'm not sure how the American people rid themselves of corruption in government; maybe ask the Russians and Chinese, because there is lots of low level corruption in these countries (I've lived in both), but if corporations offer the government money (for services rendered) somebody goes to jail. In that way at least the left differ from the right; but of course they have other problems. The bit that annoys me is where people seem to think there is a left wing party in America. Maybe the Green Party is; the Liberal party traditionally occupies centre ground; but you won't hear much about them near election time as it then becomes a two horse race between two right wing capitalist political parties.
USA hijacked is a betrayal of the American constitution. I believe the DNC experienced an internal leak (judging by download speed). Other American hotel chains (and fast food companies) have gone into 50/50 partnership with Russian companies, but Trump plc hasn't so I doubt collusion with the Russians, but other American companies would have had to pay kick backs to get in, so they probably did collude. Still at least Clinton didn't win; because she was bought and paid for some time ago and since her major sponsors come from Wall Street there is nothing left wing about her (Also I think she's in real trouble for starting this Russian witch hunt). The American political system is still very corrupt.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Time will tell; but Peter is wrong on a couple of points: actually the grain deal (free passage) expired and Russia won't renew it (claiming Western weapons are being brought in on grain ships and the grain corridor is being used to launch attacks on Crimea); the destruction of cargo loading/ unloading facilities, particularly in Odessa, is new; but the result is the same. It has been reported that these grain shipments were estimated at 97% EU/ 3% Africa and Russia (largest grain exporter in the world) says it will cover the 3%.
Recently Russia crossed off a lot of African debt (reports vary between $20-30 Billion), while China is building infrastructure; this seems to more attractive to some African countries than Western imperialism and after the destruction of Libya it's really no surprise that Blinken's trip to Africa (last August, to counter Russian influence) didn't go too well.
The CRIBS held a summit in South Africa (and Putin didn't attend); some African leaders then traveled to Moscow and they have a peace plan; already China has proposed a peace plan and while the (mainly American) media seems to hold the position "if you're not with us you're against us" it seems clear a lot of countries are neither.
The Chinese have already said, "do not try to involve us in American power games" they have good trading relations with Russia and Ukraine, they say, war is bad for business.
A lot of Africa isn't interested in American interests (they were fairly blunt regarding that) and there seem to be more and more trade deals emerging that don't involve "the West".
If the above is true then the blockade of Ukraine grain shipments is really another problem for the EU; as is the loss of Russian gas and fertilizer, plus another refugee crisis. I don't know who thought trying to sanction an energy and food exporting superpower would ever work, but India and China seem to have benefited (and they can refine Russian oil and sell it to the EU thus avoiding sanctions); while Africa will benefit from less debt and improved infrastructure.
It would seem to me that it's "the globalists" that might run short of friends, as diverting billions (of public money) when there is homelessness; growing poverty and civil unrest brewing (while claiming they care) sounds rather hollow. Talk of war criminals when America doesn't recognize the international criminal court seems to be a trap for fools.
So I believe the Chinese and Russian "soft power" approach is a better deal for Africa; than what America has been doing and Russia can pick up the 3% shortfall in grain.
In my opinion America is playing Europe, the result will be loss of the petrodollar; a multi-polar world (and the globalists did that to themselves) or thermo-nuclear war.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's the American far right's core values (money and oil wars) that seem to be a real problem; while it's understandable a country wanting to protect it's own interests but you seem to ignore how many civilians America and it's NATO have killed; the trail of destruction across the middle East and North Africa usually in oil-rich countries. Yes indeed there are problems in America (there are problem right across the Western economy); with inner city decay; visible homelessness and massive national debt ($33 Trillion+) is this what we are supposed to be fighting for? (If so, then we have already lost). There is a loud-mouthed minority in America, who: regularly talk in terms of millions and billions; are profiting from all these American led "interventions" and they are again diverting public money (to a select few).
Some of these are the same people that were co-signatories to an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, that contained a Ukrainian neutrality clause, then they: sent; billions; bought land; set up bio-labs; possibly even toppled the Ukrainian government (after failing to do the same in Syria). They don't care about the people of Ukraine; Iraq; Libya; Afghanistan; Yemen etc only what they can get... and what they've got is the start of WW3. Their media is working overtime on their latest "cause"; forget the "war on terror" this time it's Russia and China that are the enemy of all they hold dear (money). They hoped to buy Ukraine, they weren't sending money because they are charitable and I believe a lot of the world want to see the end of "the globalists" because they are exploitative and the "tax havens are bulging while Americans live on the streets. America is not viewed as trustworthy, by countries; even whole continents; that doesn't mean they support Russia (or Ukraine), but they (largely) view the far-right as murderous money-grubbers. I don't think they are going to win a proxy war on Russia's doorstep; I suspect they don't believe that either, but it's a great chance to damage Europe (which they have done). They've also lost the petrodollar; created a multi-polar world and they won't be fighting, but you can. I doubt Russia is targeting civilians, that's more a NATO strategy and next election the vote will be war or war?... So much for democracy.
Send more money, system working...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I really don't understand the point you are trying to make: Elon Musk is a businessman; profit/loss determines if he's a successful businessman, or not and if people are not going to pay for his companies goods, or services, then they won't receive them. If I remember correctly: America has it's own satellites (but giving them to Ukraine might be viewed as America v Russia); Ukraine put Musk on a "kill list" (enemy of the state) and while Starlink has many uses, if it's weaponized then it is a legitimate target. The bottom line is there's nothing in it for Musk, except trouble.
He certainly has upset the warmongers, who incidentally won't be going, they are busy diverting billions (in public money) a lot of it to themselves and I would agree with you that people, even countries, are becoming less charitable towards Ukraine, likely because there's absolutely nothing in it for them, except trouble.
I therefore agree with Elon Musk when he advocates negotiations between Ukraine and Russia; but it has become increasingly clear that various Western interests do not want peace and the reason is, there's something in it for them and/or they stand to lose the billions in "investment" used in trying to coax Ukraine to join them (in spite of Russia's repeated warnings).
A reasonable summation is that Elon Musk is not against, or with, the warmongers; that's his call and it's been made. He doesn't make weapons; war is bad for business, NOT HIS PROBLEM!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Steve Cochran. Then "sign up", if Ukraine is so important to you; stopped at all cost you said, so what price are you prepared to pay? The lady (and you) seem to forget that America (in the guise of NATO) have invaded a series of countries; made a bloody mess and I don't believe "The World" (as you put it) can afford to have America fueling conflict in Ukraine; Iran and the South China Sea... however the American war machine is short of a war...
D Cheney said "war pays" (it paid him well); M Allbright insists 50,000 dead kids is a price she's prepared to pay (because she's a ghoul), but Russia (and China) are not small countries that can be bullied and with shorter supply lines (and faster computers) America seems to forget its place.
With missile bases on the Russian borders; sanctions on Russian companies impacting the EU and America fiddling about with the exchange mechanism (SWIFT) and with Ukraine; it turns out: NATO is a liability; America is on the make (again) and while it may suit some politicians as a distraction from their own party's problems, Crimea voted to rejoin Russia and with it Russia's one warm water port; the CRIBS countries have formed their own exchange mechanism and you seem to forget that Russia was one of "the allies" in WW2 and paid a huge price... it's actually America that keeps attacking other countries (or did you miss that?). China and Taiwan, that's another matter entirely, as is Iran, but it's becoming abundantly clear, where America goes trouble always follows.
Btw, in war with Iran, America would lose; just like in Afghanistan; no easy war for America and the EU won't support NATO in Ukraine (it's got no business being there). Do you really not understand that if Russia wanted to invade Ukraine it would have already done that? The EU trying to buy the Black Sea Naval base, bu offering bankrupt Ukraine money to join; was one of the most stupid things I've seen in many a year; sanctioning Russia (for a civil war in Ukraine), Russia just closed it's agricultural sector; Putin has actually been quite restrained (imo) while the Western media (bought and sold) froths and while Raab and his weak government have food banks and a cost of living crisis, there's always money for weapons?! America trying to start a war in Europe... well they were late for the last two world wars... and that's when they were solvent. This is all propaganda, as far as I can see, but why not sign up Steve? (Just in case, or are you one of those chicken-hawk politicians that want other to die for...what?)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It should have been easy enough to understand: all that Western "charity" and corporate investment was upsetting the concept of a neutral country between Russia and NATO/EU; it had been made clear by word and deed, that the alternative was war, but our leaders don't listen (even to their own citizens), too wrapped up in money matters perhaps, or a seat on the board.
There's good news and there's bad news...
The good news is that Ukraine got a pretty good deal from USSR who "recognised" their independence referendum in good time; later agreed neutrality and (if I remember how things worked there as USSR broke up); Russia will hold Ukraine entirely responsible for the decisions it made, there is a price to pay for choosing war and that's entirely their business (best avoided).
The bad news is that outside interests, who can't mind their own business (take a look at the economy) want to keep pushing and drawing others into supporting their interests and sharing their "fears", but if America believes it can supply missiles and operators to target Russia; that's a different matter entirely; it's not Ukraine that would be held responsible, for an open declaration of war.
"There is a limit to the amount Putin can reasonably escalate matters...". But there is no limit to how much Russia can escalate matters, if attacked by America; they don't need to take it and won't.
Talk of defeating Russia can wait until after the nuclear war; because nobody is listening and America's interests clearly do not interest: Russia; China, or me. WW3 over Ukraine?? No thx.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@siyar-mc1xz In the Ukrainian government version: they've wiped out the Russian forces several times over; 1000's of tanks destroyed (when Russian forces are primarily using artillery and have air control); after an eight year civil war the (mainly Russian speaking) disputed regions are occupied, but they will defeat Russia, send more money.
It started in 2014; Russian forces bombarded Kiev for a week (have you seen where it is ion the map); "Western interests" blocked the peace talks (in Turkey) so they withdrew and then invaded. The map has hardly changed in a year, so claims this is about re-establishing USSR also appear false; these regions don't want to be part of the "Western friendly" Ukraine and if the CIA did topple the old government they've started something Russia MUST finish (nuclear weapons have already been moved to forward positions).
Since the far right in America are so heavily "invested" in Ukraine I tend to believe that they've been fiddling about; at least this time they support the government, unlike Syria (where they still occupy the oil fields); Libya (where they lied about regime change and we saw NATO justice is a lynching); they and the EU are now "sanctioning" China and it seems that America needs war. Since Crimea is now Russia their port facilities are secured; so (and it's a mafia thing) one has to demonstrate who makes the rules (I've seen it happen). Every time the guy stands up you punch them in the face and you keep doing that until they accept the point; if you don't then it's work work work (people trying it on).
That is what Russia is doing; the mainly American msm keep searching for a cause (who will save the children? Well not them 50,000 kids dead in Iraq/ Afghanistan); stopping the terrible civilian death toll; droning tribal people with no air defenses, over 90% civilian casualties); for democracy (already bought in America); their "freedoms"; Ukraine had it's freedom from USSR and the current government blew that... it's money (that's the American cause, but it's going to cost a lot: $3 Trillion Iraq/Afghanistan). After Kiev half the population left (and good luck to them); the msm know virtually nothing about China or Russia (but Ukrainians and Russians know each other well); msm don't even speak the language or know the rules here. The attack on mainland Europe (pipelines) well somebody has to pay for that, but not in money; it's not about the money).
The real question is not about the start; it's about finishing this before WW3 starts (which won't last long); I don't believe the EU wants war (just more member) they have $15+ Billion "invested" in Ukraine; Ukraine is not a member of the EU or NATO, these are not charitable people (just ask Greece or Venezuela); they expect a return, so what should Russia send them? The EU sanctions (11th round) has offended China, who take things literally and can sanction right back; Russia is now in top eight economies (by debt to GDP, a fanciful measure at best). As far as I can see the msm narrative is starting to disintegrate; the Western economy possibly too; I don't believe it is a case of winning/ losing regarding the conflict in Ukraine; it's just a different way of conveying the same message, in Chinese cause "loss of face" and they will beat you unmercifully until you cry "Uncle!.
On the bright side, maybe the planet could do with a couple of billion less people... Russia and China are not bluffing (in my experience).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Who are these pretenders? We are seeing a human tragedy provoked by Western interests (another regime change); a rogue faction with an attack on mainland Europe (Nordstream2) and all these two do is talk about GDP (easily manipulated) and money. It may be about money for for the arms industry (profits booming); it might even make fracking viable (the EU being "cut off"); but trying to "sanction" an: energy; food and weapons exporting nuclear-superpower: didn't work; won't work and was never going to work. So far Russia has closed it's agricultural sector; it burned an estimated $10 billion of energy due for the EU and trying to steal Russian oligarchs stuff (from billions they "legitimately stole") and Russia keeps 400 commercial airliners. Sanctions like the disgusting "oil for food" program doesn't work on Russia which has both and a national health service. Actually these American led sanctions mainly rebound on the EU and have driven countries off the dollar (a self inflicted wound); another refugee crisis America has "invested" in and is it not time for these economic experts to admit the Western "globalist" economic model has failed?
Over $32 Trillion national debt; a cost of living crisis but still money to burn; sending money to corrupt countries: didn't work; won't work and is never going to work.
"Russia energy exports to EU down 80%" Of course, they are cutting the supply off; the G7 trying to tell a producer what price to sell them energy, it seems they've forgotten how free market capitalism works (despite claiming to be such fans) now they have none; Russian oil is now being sold in Roubles (or can be bought on the q t from India or China, just don't tell anyone).
Russia posting bogus GDP figures; pot calling the kettle black is it not Prof? I can't speak for Russia, but it seems clear to me they don't like those "Western interests"; they're at war now; so all done on a "need to know basis" Prof and you don't need to know. "Rouble stronger than before war"; largely immaterial; it's a "soft currency" (fluctuates; not a store of value; not considered a commodity, which is probably good). It would seem to me the Prof is living in the same bubble that reinforces the view of the zealots that this is a "normal" proxy war, but it's not!
The claims from the msm that poor weak Russia is about to "march on Paris" is not only fiction; it's a dangerous fantasy; the msm "cause" keeps changing, but who will save the children? Not them!! That's for sure (50,000 kids dead in the $3 Trillion war in Iraq/ Afghanistan), but they are crying "crocodile tears" (War Pay! Cheney). It's about money; diverting it; but this is a human tragedy and Russia, for Russia money is no object. It should be mentioned that the Russians traditionally like the Ukrainians; but don't break promises to a Russia (better not to make any); so just imagine what they'll do to people they hate. The military generals can take a back seat; there is very little America can tell Russia, or Germany, about land war; it's clear Russia has deployed a fraction of it's military; it is clear Russia occupies the Russian speaking regions and that only Russia and Ukraine can resolve this. In case there's any doubt what happens when a super-power attacks, maybe ask America and the whataboutismists; that trail of destruction (usually for reasons of oil or opium); that's what's happened; is happening and no Russia won't stop.
If you want to know the true enemy; it's this faction that blew up Norstream2; those who want to start WW3. If it's "open season" on infrastructure then I see satellites falling from the sky; further explosions, then WW3. Yes, Prof: you can't get a value on the Rouble; so you can't play currency games and hedge fund managers were ejected from Russia; they use money to exchange for goods and services; trying to make money from money or using debt obligation like money; casinos banned (immoral). In short: Russia (and China) solvent; different culture; different rules and they no longer want to play a rigged game. Unfortunately we (in the West) are stuck in it; the msm say system working send more money; it seems likely the government sold out (because the money's so good). First things first tho'; NATO needs to find the people who blew up Norstream2 before the Russians do; or else they have to agree it's open season. What about your own economy Prof?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The last left-wing (socialist) Labour government was in 1967, since then (as in America): politics has continued to move to the right; one of the two main parties always forms a government and when Blair and his "New" Labour appeared, the UK voter had a choice between two right-wing (capitalist) parties, one of whom liked to call themselves "The Left".
The current "Conservative" (Tory) government is quite far-right politically; they seem to want: war (with Russia); to dismantle the NHS (privatizing the profitable parts; nationalizing the losses, while claiming the NHS costs too much); over the last 12 years they've slashed budgets to local government and when the last but one PM (3 in one year) proposed unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest (a repeat of "trickle down" economics, that's failed twice) even "the markets" rejected this. The pound/ dollar almost reached parity; the pension funds nearly collapsed and she (Truss) was gone in 55 days.
The Labour party (of old) founded to give "blue-collar" workers political representation; who nationalized state-sector industry (the infrastructure that provides "needs"); helped found the NHS; fond of "red-tape", it no longer exists and an attempt to return to this socialist model (electing Corbyn) was defeated by attacks from out-with and within the party, also a concerted smear campaign by the UK msm and Jewish press. What we have now is new "New" Labour who are: split between left and right; the current leader (Starmer) is a globalist who claims the UK voter were wrong to vote the UK leaves the EU (when the UK voter is never wrong in a major referendum (crazy; misguided; misinformed perhaps, but never wrong). This Labour party will not support the striking workers (politically), so many unions are asking why not? (since their members largely fund the Labour party).
So while there are often bitter divisions between Tory and New Labour (aka Tory light); again as in America) there are some matters they don't argue about, they nod it through (like their wage rises, decided by an "independent" body; always much higher than other state-sector employees; military expenditure; them having second jobs (that pay more, so who are they working for... clue, it's not the voter). Both parties can play their games (and they do), but (largely socialist) Scotland has nothing to vote for if there are two right-wing parties and with (only) a possible 59 seats out of 650, the two main parties (either) can vote Scotland down which they often do. This polarization of the UK political system (largely because the money's so good) is not healthy for wider society; those who give politicians money (Truss 2 x £50K) can avoid tax on their profits (£500K) so it's debatable they even see the problem with this, "all about the money" method. Meanwhile with people in an oil rich country struggling to pay the high energy prices while the distributors coin it in, are angry and for good reason.
The Conservative party represent the rich; they prefer smaller government, less regulation and to generally speaking to keep the "status quo" (where the rich stay rich and "damn the torpedoes"); similar to the Republican party in many ways, two parties representing the rich is one too many, but the money... well it's odd they both talk about money with towering national debt... where is all the money going, going, gone? As some Democrats might have been described as Republicans 25 years ago; it's the same in the UK; but there is nothing left wing about it (none of these parties would support anything like "Occupy Wall Street", or even workers striking for first pay rise in a decade that matches inflation; the BBC (whose CEO got appointed after loaning the third last PM (Johnson) £800K) I don't need to say allegedly because even the BBC had to cover that story.
As one of your great Philosophers (George Carlin) said, "it's a rich persons club and we aren't in it".
As one of our great Philosophers (David Hume) said, "Reason is the servant of passion".
(so all this talk of "mere" money tends to turn the Scots cold while we stir our wrath to keep it warm)
So while I do agree with you that there is very little in the behavior of the current Tory government that could be described as conservative (parties during lock-down; millions and billions disappearing, garden bridge; "lethal aid" to corrupt countries); one or two of the Tories are only slightly to the left of Hitler; but it's easier to describe UK politics and the economy as a big ugly mess, with constant rewards for failure being bad for moral, all rather depressing stuff. Best avoided...lol. I suspect it's all a "front" for organised crime (imo).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I've spent time in Russia too; during the breakup of USSR (92'); one of two casino troubleshooters, working out of the House of Unions; I've more experience of the Chechen "independence campaign" (Russia shelling it's own White-House). I would hope things have changed since then, with casinos now banned; "The bad tooth of Moscow" (Hotel Intourist) demolished; everyone officially heterosexual; while the HQ of the Ukrainian mafia (then) now appears to be one of the Radisson collection. I'm sure lots of people lie to themselves; some seem to believe things they heard somewhere, but arriving in Russia was like landing on another planet (got lost in the Metro, couldn't read the writing); but one thing I learned was not to break promises to Russians (easier not to make any). Other things like declaring all currency before 92' as no longer legal tender; switching the hot water off for a month a year (to clean the pipes); while the oddity of only getting a state apartment when married; with everything paid, a wage of less than $200/month (but months travel pass... 50 cents!).
I like the Russians; if you want USSR propaganda look at VDNK, that is the utopian vision; while I find Adam Curtis "Pandora's Box: The Engineers Plot" to be a better description of the "craziness" of a purely technologically driven society (not fiscally driven), than most of the recent commentators on Russia and Russians (who come up with some tripe).
I have no problem with national pride, in fact I insist; a different language and alphabet, a different way of thinking well I don't make the rules (in my profession you need to know them)
So if a heavily armed bunch of people; offer you a choice between neutrality or war, what say you? Talk amongst yourselves, but unless there's something in it for you (your choice).
I didn't find the Russians particularly religious; some wished the communists were back (streets were safer); while there was a "turf war" going on between mafia groups, things could get violent. It's important to know the rules, what's negotiable and what is not; also that if things turn violent (somewhat ironically for a troubleshooter) I don't carry a gun.
I liked the Russian humour; the underground scene(s); it took me 10 moves to become a member of the central chess club of the Soviet Socialists Republics (with Bobby Fischer in the main display: Reykjavik 72'); the Russians have a lot to be proud about (first space station in orbit); they really "dig" technology.
While Western commentators try to think up the next thing to throw (that was a bad one, calling Xi a dictator; I know a lot about the Chinese, although turned the Triads down in Hong Kong); a lot of these so called experts do seem rather clumsy (imo); I think the Russians hate their government as much as we hate ours. Best avoided (and they do).
Still with state funded education; an NHS and a good transport system, my guess is most people Moscow don't notice the war; they're just getting through life. Same with London; NYC or other places, perhaps because there's nothing in it for them (put bluntly). I though Ukraine got a good deal (on breakup of USSR); while Russia raised Grozny to the ground.
I don't know what the American far right think they are "investing" in; but me, I would back away from this; it's up to Ukraine, neutrality or war? (As I see it).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I agree, he's clueless. Russia has around $300 Billion national debt (with a balance of payments surplus); a national health service (NHS) and state-funded education; being a major exporter of energy and grain, it's at least self-sufficient and a monthly travel pass for Moscow (bus and Metro) is around $4.
Compared to America: over $33,000 Billion national debt (plus $1,000 Billion "interest" annually, just to maintain that); high student and credit card debt, no NHS.
It's pretty "rich" some American kid trying to claim others have got it wrong... when it's clear he's never been to USSR, likely not to Russia either (only has empty words)
Back in the early 90's I was working in the casino industry in Moscow (now banned; viewed as immoral) and it was mayhem, as USSR (and Warsaw Pact) ended.
In my view the Supreme Soviet's intention was: to restore the map of Europe to prewar (1938) borders; demolish a wall and demilitarize (effectively ending the "Cold War") then try their hand at right-wing capitalism (their version). The map of Europe today is pretty much identical to that of 1938 (the occupied regions part of Russia).
The influx of private sector corporations and the rise of the oligarchs (who had political and mob connections) didn't help most Russians; a two-tier economy appeared; so Russia eventually ejected: banks; hedge funds and let the oligarchs walk (as long as they stayed out of politics), the one that didn't they jailed for 10 years (out in 9) asset stripped and ejected.
The "theme park" VDNK still remains as a monument to the Soviet utopian vision; probably better to stay at Hotel Cosmos (and pay Russian prices); not the spectacular Hotel Ukraine (now America run; charging Western prices;...used to be HQ of the Ukrainian mob).
Meanwhile here's America and the EU funding a war in Eastern Europe; firing missiles at the nuclear superpower that put the first space station in orbit and pioneered laser-eye surgery... a technologically (not debt) driven country (11 time-zones wide).
That's not to say Russia is perfect; wages are very low; it's -20 in the Winter and they switch the hot water off a month a year (to clean the pipes).
The Western media provide a very distorted portrayal of Russia (and China); while America and NATO seem to depend on war; Russia won't have further NATO/EU expansion.
Shame about Ukraine; but if you let the foreign multinationals in they want ownership (agriculture and a gas pipeline) not much of that left now. They lost.
You might ask yourself, what has Ukraine (or Russia) done for you recently?... before you march off to war. If you can't find Ukraine on the map...you have been diverted.
Hope you have a happy new year... if you're American or British, better batten down the hatches, there may be trouble ahead. Where is all that tax going? Not to us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unprovoked? Sure, all that investment and supplying military advisors was for reasons of charity. No military threat? The Ukrainian government was shelling Russian speakers for eight years in a civil war (possibly caused by American regime change). War crimes... 50,000+ kids killed by NATO in two illegal wars in Iraq/Afghanistan; "shock and awe"; "oil for food" program; two nukes dropped on population centers... a litany of war crimes, General. America gave assurances regarding Ukrainian neutrality, didn't respect that and now it has the war it wants right on Russia's doorstep. I don't see that 54% on the maps; Russia occupies the mainly Russian speaking regions, been like that for over 18 months while American led economic sanctions seem to inconvenience the E.U. most, plus another refugee crisis to deal with (after Libya, where the World saw NATO justice; it's a lynching).
Ukraine was independent; a sovereign nation; it was also bankrupt (largely due to endemic corruption); the Western interests tried to buy it; despite clear warnings and as long as it takes... as long as it takes to start nuclear war is what this highly decorated stuffed shirt advocates. It's not a "war of choice" for Russia; but when it comes to land war I'd choose Germany or Russia as the go-to guys. I participated in the break-up of USSR; Ukraine got independence; Chechnya didn't; it was a very violent time and I doubt the American far-right truly understand what they are up against. That's a lot of public money and Ukrainian lives they're using (up); while American homelessness and inner city decay is visible indictment on Miley and his sponsors.
Ukraine runs out of troops eventually; that's based on simple arithmetic; they don't have air cover; Russia has short supply lines; I'm no military strategist, nor is Miley by the sound of it.
Now about America's other declared enemy China... a 2000 year old culture that wrote the book on war; what do you think the America far-right can teach them, General?
Unprovoked war, indeed?! All that charity from America (it's not like them); "investing" again in corrupt countries; it looks more like money laundering to me. America doesn't care about people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Again you present a rather distorted version of history JG. The American Bill of Rights was not an accident; quite a lot of thought went into it and they didn't give the final draft to Benjamin Franklin in case he hid a joke in it. It wasn't a forced concession either; because it was the formation of a new country (in their eyes) and they could write the rules the way they wanted. The founding fathers tried to avoid the problems that had caused many to leave Europe, namely: the church; the monarchy and powerful land owners exploiting the situation and while some aspects of the bill of rights and constitution may have dated, to call it a mistake is simply nonsense.
I'm sure if the money is rolling in that some people are content to be wilfully blind; I'm also sure a few groups, throughout the rather short history of America, have costed out how much it will be to buy two political parties; but there eventually comes a time when the public won't play ball; like when they work a 40 hour week but require food stamps to make ends meet; that causes a lot of frustration and it invariably ends up in some form of conflict. Of course government (or the powers at be if you prefer) understands civil unrest; sometimes they even provoke it; but when people know they are being ripped off ... well let me just put it this way, "The Hamptons" is not easy to defend militarily. As Bush and Blair proved, the public will tolerate quite a lot; they'll even take some pushing about, but it is clear that patience is wearing thin and we can already see a few of the rich nefarious types start to engage in damage limitation.
If they tried some of the stuff that is currently going on in Russia, you'd be jailed (just like that oligarch that was dragged off his private plane and jailed, because he dared to dabble in politics) and in China I hear they beheaded some bankers ... I'm not saying it's a good idea; but it certainly sharpens up peoples moral compass. Of course we haven't even got to a solution yet, but I asked and I'll ask again, "Do you think the American government (or powers at be) have lost control of America?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Once the corporations start to boss government it quickly turns to fascism. That's because corporations are focused on profit and people are incidental to them, at best they are a commodity; at worst expendable. I'm not exactly sure who constitutes "the permanent state" but there does seem to be one and they seem like quite a cynical bunch. Usually "the establishment" refers to the army of un-elected civil-servants and they are considered part of government (even if they don't like the ruling party or President). Maybe the permanent state is a collection of CEO's with political connections, but whoever it is they seem to be playing games with the economy is similar fashion to the board-game "Monopoly" and the majority of citizens don't even appear on the board ... unless as the ones that get moved out when a hotel is to built.
I really think Trump is simply a distraction; because regardless of party or President it seems to be the same game. A lot of the right-wing (it's all right-wing) media seem to hate Trump, but as Wolff pointed out at the White-House correspondents dinner; really they love him, because he makes headlines and sells their papers. The Democrats hate Trump, but really they love Trump because they helped vote through new powers for the President (the guy they warned us about); even the Republican party loves Trump, because he's their candidate and since they lead most of the investigations into Trump well what do you think, would they impeach him?
Personally I think "Russia-gate" is a huge hoax, but one of many and they are designed to keep the spotlight on Trump while some really nasty stuff is going on. Remember America and most of the Western economy has alarming levels of debt, they aren't even covering the interest and they keep coming up with new names for old things. Economy? I think they've broken it. War? Seven or eight to choose from. National objective? None; so nobody will be disappointed.
All very disappointing; the solution starts with eliminating corruption, but hey; the money's so good; the law is for little people, but look! There's Trump: terrible; trashy; turbulent Trump. No look he's going to do something in a minute; you just watch!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It didn't say "their" at 6:26; it said "eliminate all nuclear weapons" (which does not imply ownership). Had it (just) said "all their nuclear weapons" that would still permit others to station their nuclear weapons in Ukraine and if Russia: designed; built; maintained and locked these nuclear weapons (also took them back, to decommission them) these are clearly Russian weapons.
After H Clinton, in the UN security council, "reinterpreted" the wording of an agreement with Russia and China (who abstained) over Libya; America got its regime change; but the UN security council no longer had any credibility. The words would have been chosen carefully, what a diplomatic blunder it would be to put "their" (NATO could put their nuclear weapons there instead).
So back when everyone was on the "same page"; using Russian facilities and American money, a lot of weapons were decommissioned (some of which, due to age, were frankly a liability).
While UN document No 52241 (featuring the date 2nd Oct 2014) is a slightly different page, the original agreement was signed on 3rd Dec 1994.
By 1995, Ukraine was considered: independent; sovereign; neutral and a non-nuclear-weapon state (by all) it's territorial integrity and political independence respected... or maybe not?
In December 2013, V Nuland said in a speech to the US–Ukraine Foundation that the US had spent about $5 billion on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since 1991.
Since Ukraine was already a democracy, it seems odd (to me) for the US to spend $5.1 billion promoting democracy there; some might even consider that a breach of agreement section 3.
The 2014 armed overthrow of the elected government is another point of note; the pro-EU side claim election tampering; the pro-Russian side that it was American inspired (CIA); whatever it was, this sparked an eight year civil war.
I don't know who the CSCE are, or the specific principles referred to, or if simply giving $5,100,000,000 can be considered economic coercion. If this was an attempt to secure some kind of advantage (economic or otherwise) it would be in breach of section 3.
Or put another way, if I offered V Nuland $5.1 billion to sleep with her (I heard she likes to blow pipe (sorry)), would that be considered: economic coercion; charity; maybe an incentive, what?
In 2014 the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, had a Queen and was in the European Union (EU), by 2023 it left the EU (by referendum) and now has a King.
Not sure who was representing EU interests, but after the Maidan revolution, there was a flood of Western corporate investment (they found a way around the "farmland moratorium")
In the report from "The Oakland Institute" (another "think tank"), titled "Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict; from July 2014, it described how to walk around the wording of the moratorium on buying Ukrainian farmland (buy industrial land, build processing facilities on that and pay to lease the farmland); or buy shares in UkrLandFarming.
The report details how all aspects of the Ukrainian food system and supply chain were being acquired by transnational corporations. It was in their interest to "buy in" to Ukraine's agriculture, which some might not describe as economic coercion (but unfortunately that is how some of these transnationals have behaved before); also the IMF and World Bank tend to lend money in exchange for access to state sector industry (their model is for private sector companies to own things like: gas; electricity and water distribution; they are NOT charities).
So however the Western interests wish to interpret the Budapest Memorandum: the armed overthrow of a democratically elected government (although quite corrupt); the "gifts" of money by the American government (still giving) and private companies acquiring land (around 2.3 million ha) and moving to control Ukrainian agriculture did not go down well with Russia. That's not my opinion, the Russia government: complained; then warned; then acted. Even a show of force (laying siege to Kyiv for a week and occupying Chernobyl, although out of commission for around 10,000 years) was ignored.
So I would discount the "flowery" American version of events where they were only there to help; they just can't understand why Russia would take issue with what they were doing and when it comes to what Russia is targeting in Ukraine, it's not people (fellow Slavs) it's all that Western investment (be it: weapons; land; GM labs; agricultural plants, even that rebuilding contract, already awarded). So while the Western media does what it usually does before war or elections; if the grand Western "cause" is to protect their "investment" (a term the Senate uses), I don't think they can; I doubt America will be required to offer further assurances; the EU having lost relatively cheap Russian energy and grain; with other economic issues and another refugee crisis (they've got their own problems). While the West trying to force matters militarily, may run into full Russian deployment and a nuclear ultimatum (if the Russian nationalists get their way).
What one perhaps needs to know is: that there is the word of the law and the spirit of the law; the concept was a neutral buffer state; the other "interpretation" is war with Russia (that's all).
2
-
2
-
@Mr Grumpy The Russian "oligarchs" also benefited from IMF bailout money (usually provided with strings attached) as due to weak policing it ran through the system; then the Russian government allowed them to, put simply, leave Russia on condition they didn't get into politics. One, known as Russia's richest man (arguably Russia's craziest man) decided to try and get into Russian politics and form an opposition party and the government response was to jail him (for 10 years); asset strip and exile him.
It puzzled me why Russia would simply allow billionaires and their billions (it's their's now) to leave; but I don't believe they wanted all this money influencing politics or even in the Russian economy. It was already turbulent enough in Russia with: former Soviet states vying for independence; Western companies moving in and casinos (now banned) attracted only those with money, which were largely the mafia.
So I never really believe in "Russia-gate", it might just be Russia politics the government was referring to but why take the risk and I doubt the oligarchs really want to return to Russia and they've have had years to "legitimize" their wealth; buying football clubs; real estate and, of course, yachts. As for legal loopholes, it seems billionaires can pay people to find them or throw parties politicians attend; Western companies leaving Russia all at once (did they jump or were they pushed?) might actually be good for Russia in the long run as some of them do like to get into politics (it seems) and it's usually regarding their profit margin, or government contracts or splitting hairs (evasion/ avoidance) and a lot of the corruption here seems to relate to all those millions and billions trying to find a place to "park". All this money printing is going to show up somewhere; distorting commodity markets; millions spent on quangos and absurd prices paid for art or anything that might keep it's value (negative interest gilts, anyone?).
So far we have discovered "trickle down" economics doesn't work (failed twice); the rich keep the money (it's why they're called the rich); Cameron and his UKplc was equally ridiculous (countries don't work like companies or household budgets) and I'd go so far as to say some politicians are simply the front for organised crime (no names).
On secrecy the NSA and MI6 were walking around the law; there isn't a lot that's secret these days (see social media: sale of meta data) and it seems to me that Russia had the correct idea, not keeping the population poor it was keeping profit seeking entities minding their own business (and not ours).
Unfortunately with laws, there is a huge industry here (that produces nothing) trying to find ways around/ through the latest law and fines are viewed by some as the price of doing business. It's an ugly mess.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xostler I required an English translation of a Russian question (if they wanted an answer); perhaps a second opinion about the chap with the "Hollywood Russian" accent (because I believe he is a fraud, just exploiting this dire situation; a parasite). In return I have some funny stories (funny now) about Moscow in the early 90's.
It doesn't make me any kind of "geopolitical expert" (because nobody is and besides I don't read tea-leaves); but I can tell you that Russia (and China) are nothing like the way the American corporate msm portray them and so they have a few unpleasant surprises ahead (but what they are exactly I don't know). Their lies are going to find them out.
My point is that I know a lot about the criminal underworld; not just in Russia but there that included the owner of the company (who had obviously been "kneecapped") and about 99% of the customers. I was one of two casino troubleshooters; my mission was usually to resolve gang violence and walking into the Hotel Ukraine was a bit reckless, because I don't work for the Ukrainian mafia (and they knew who I was, introduced themselves, it made my hair stand on end).
At the time that group had a habit of putting radio-active elements in bank managers chairs; a lot of the poisonings were gang related and if you want to know what they look like today, take a look at the current Ukrainian administration. (I'm deadly serious)
My point is that things do not work in Eastern Europe, or China; at all the way they do in the West. They make the rules there, not "the West"; matters are rarely resolved by litigation and if Ukraine gives up neutrality, Russia has to react. This was obvious beforehand; we are where we are and I blame the Western self proclaimed "elite", who prove being rich and greedy doesn't make you clever.
If you like, google VDNK or the stats for a category 5 Typhoon, because I've been in both and it may not be quite what you expect.
I'll leave you with a question, re Ukraine, what's in it for you? In Russia it is unwise to interfere in other people's business, if there's nothing in it for you. It could be fatal.
The Western oligarchs claim that this war was unprovoked; is untrue; I no doubt believe a few untrue things myself, but the Russia capacity for violence I understand very well. So careful there...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't regard Ian Gurvitz as either a centrist or a progressive; he's just another Clinton supporter who is upset she lost, so I won't be buying the book.
While it is true that the American mainstream media gave the Trump campaign a lot of free publicity, they were so desperate to throw mud and demonise Trump that it eventually turned into comedy. Media outlets giving political donations then trying to claim they were unbiased; more comedy. Then the Democrats trying to blame virtually everyone else for their candidate losing (who we were reminded on a daily basis was going to win by a landslide) still continues.
Even the suggestion that a candidate who: took large contributions from Wall Street; wanted to expand America's wars and lied in UN security council to get regime change in Libya was remotely left wing is another joke (a bad one).
I don't agree with the author's assessment of both the problem or the possible solutions to whatever is going on in the American political system. Rather I think the guest in the clip was closer to an understanding when he asked, "How bad a candidate must Hillary Clinton have been to lose to someone like Donald Trump?" ... and the answer is very bad indeed. So I don't buy into this call to repackage what is an inferior product, people didn't buy it last time in sufficient numbers for a variety of reasons. If we really must have someone to blame then it would be the two main parties for selecting such poor quality candidates (of course one has to win).
The argument that voters for Trump (or Clinton) are morons doesn't work, we can assume both candidates split the moron demographic, but they seem smart enough to find the polling station; slipping in derogatory terms (his "little" rally next week) doesn't help the author's argument (does he think we don't notice?); I think he needs to face up to the facts; the Democrats chose Hillary Clinton and she lost. If the Democrats want to win the next election then I suggest they try a bit of honesty for a change because if the take lots of money from Wall Street then a lot of people won't vote for them and while large campaign funds seemingly are a part of American politics I think that is where the rot has set in, because these "investors" want a return.
Actually since the Democrats just helped the Republicans sign a bill that gives President Trump more surveillance powers it looks like both main parties are roughly the same thing and that they trust the American people less than this man Trump they kept warning people about. Currently it just looks like a bunch of crony capitalists who live off the American taxpayer and practice socialism amongst themselves while inflicting capitalism or war on the rest of us. It's not good enough. It's possible that the only reason Trump won was he wasn't Clinton, but I think America's problems run far deeper than that (and no this time it's not the Russians ... if it ever was). Looks to me like the voter doesn't trust the political system in America; productivity has shot up since the 1970's but wages have hardly moved (in real terms); we don't need a plutocracy where money can buy law changes, sure it works for some; but it's a betrayal of American values (or is it? You decide). More of the same promised by Clinton; no thanks ... do the Democrats think we are morons, it seems they do. Well they better change their attitude, because the public are increasingly better informed and getting very impatient.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I hate to be a detractor; but Mr Bill Browder is a rather dubious character, (ex-American, now a British citizen; a fund manager, in Moscow, in the early 90's); I'm not even convinced his "cause" is just; but it is clear why he hates the Russian government. They raided his offices in Moscow; confiscated millions (claiming tax was not paid); he hired a Russian lawyer (Magnitsky), who died in custody; in the attempt to expose corruption in Russia.
The Magnitsky act advocates "sanctions" against both China and Russia; confiscation of assets; it's aimed more at individuals (largely because "superpowers" can sanction right back); it's in line with current American foreign policy, but "legally stealing other people's stuff" seems a dubious concept; I do not regard Bill Broder as an honest broker and I'm prepared to tell you why, because there will undoubtedly be repercussions (tit for tat); it's not really about Magnitsky, or Chinese Muslims, it's about money; Mr Broder was a fund manager, in Russia; made millions; therefore he must be corrupt.
You see Moscow in the early 1990's was like Chicago 1930's, as seen in the movies; it was extremely violent; there were powerful groups: the Chechen mafia were about to start a terrorist campaign (for independence) their HQ was in "The bad tooth of Moscow"; Hotel Ukraine was the HQ of another; the IMF bailout money went straight through the system, then (curiously) the oligarchs were allowed to leave (just don't get into politics!!); my partner and I were casino trouble-shooters (they're now banned, which is good imo; because Russians don't have money to gamble, it's immoral; only the mafia had money to gamble). Yes along came "capitalism"; foreign multinationals could form a 50/50 partnership with a Russian company, could lease land and property and that involves a flexible attitude to things like bribery. So how did Bill Broder make his millions?
Now I hate the legal profession, almost as much as hedge fund managers; but trying to expose corruption in Russia?? Well look what happened to those American "whistle-blowers"...
Let's be honest here, Broder wasn't on any crusade to stamp out corruption in Russia, he wanted the money back, I'd call that his "ill gotten gains" because the average wage was around $200/month; he's got $230,000,000. That's probably why the Russian government raided his business. His lawyer went to jail, but he didn't; the Russian legal system is hellishly slow (usually gives time to leave); but trying to sue the Russian government claiming corruption (when you had hundreds of millions), that is a fatal mistake. It's such a large sum of money (in Russia of that time), it's blatantly obvious something is not on the level. I would say it's Mr Broder; who reminds me of the chap from "Catch Me If You Can"; a pleasant enough chap in appearance, but quite a dangerous person when let loose on the general public. I'm only writing this because Mr Browder is now a British citizen and I'd rather he didn't use us, in his crusade, to steal more. There is some confusion about Russian oligarchs; they were allowed to leave with billions; the one that tried to get into politics was jailed for 10 year (out in 9), then asset stripped and banished; he doesn't like the Russian government either (don't get into politics"" Remember?). It is a terrible thing when people die in police custody; or get jailed for telling the truth; it shouldn't happen; it's tiring when the corrupt find a "cause"; I don't want to say Mr Browder sent his lawyer to certain death, but he's not an oligarch (they left); it was a very violent time, low level corruption a way of doing business (it works), but he virtually signed his death warrant, then left Russia. The Russian Oligarchs have had years to legitimise their vast fortunes, they of course can hire expensive lawyers, every mafia group had assassins (of course they have "connections"); I doubt they want much to do with the American or Russian governments (too busy being rich); the Western media really have the wrong end of things (as usual). "Making Russia pay", I don't see what they owe the British, Mr Broder and money again; how much to pay him to go away?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of course China doesn't want to see a nuclear war (it's bad for business), but that would be between Russia and America (not in a proxy war in Ukraine). The Chinese also said, "Don't try to involve us in American power games!" and while things often get lost in translation, that is an unusually blunt warning (by Chinese standards) and I share the opinion that America plays games. At least this time they support the government side; previously they backed the "rebels" in Syria and Libya (where they managed to turn Libya into an Islamic state and we saw NATO justice, it's a lynching).
So far, America and the EU (in an unusual display of charity) have sent billions to Ukraine; now it's loans (from misappropriated funds?!); no idea where it ends up... but kiss that goodbye.
G7 I wouldn't trust any of it's leaders to run a bath; that's not good for (my) morale; because these are members of a rich person's club the majority of us are not in, but somehow pay for...
Since Russia just deployed forces to the Caribbean; possibly equipped with Kindzal and Avangard; I wonder when the Western interests are going to realize, Russia is not bluffing!!
This is in response to American (or NATO) operators launching missiles (that can carry nuclear warheads) at mainland Russia, claiming it's Ukraine. It looks like Russia doesn't believe the excuse.
Let's see who turns up at the Swiss "peace talks"; if Russia; China and America do not attend, it'll be another one of these games... One question, never mind Ukraine; where's our lethal aid?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm glad you described this as being motivated by American politics; but it is a shameful chapter in what some call "British justice"; with, at one point, the then Home Secretary William Hague wanting to enter an embassy by force to remove an individual (for "jumping bail") over Swedish charges (that don't feature in UK law); after the Swedish legal system let him go?! (After change of chief prosecutor: Sweden decided they wanted Assange back; over same charges; resulting in costs of policing a London embassy, for years, to effectively keep a journalist under "house arrest").
This is clearly not about condoms, it's political: seems government can't handle the truth (about themselves) that much is clear. Snowden; Manning; Assange all persecuted; those supposedly in charge forgiving each other their sins, while sending a clear message: there are some who are above the law; they use the law to hide their criminality and they use their media to speak out against journalists and journalism, so they have corrupted that as well.
The UK government is complicit; but since American foreign policy has hardly changed, I doubt it's one party or president; it must be what some call "the deep state". In the UK that is known as "the establishment" which is mainly comprised of non-elected "civil-servants" who remain the same while governments come and go. There are also government sponsors and lobbyists (who have more influence in American politics; but it used to be £250,000 for dinner at #10 with Blair or Cameron and people don't pay that because the soup's so good).
Looks like the corrupt are running the place; since they can print money to order and move it out the country that's what they'll be doing and the American military budget, it seems around 25% of that cannot be accounted for; hunt for Bin Laden was nonsense it's opium (see oxycodon); sanctions on Venezuela (oil); but knocking heads with Russia and China: that will not go well and the British destroyer in the Black Sea that didn't get a warning shot across its bow... Oh yes it did; the Western media (onboard) can spin that any way they want; but in my experience you only get one of them and I agree with Putin, that sinking a UK military vessel is unlikely to start WW3. I don't believe that Russia lost H Clinton the election, she did it all by herself and if that's true then Russia has been very tolerant and trying to blame China for a global pandemic seems a bit like more of the same. When does the American (&UK) administration(s) intend to take some blame for the trouble they have caused?
We have Blair (the arsonist) trying to make a come-back dressed as a fireman and wanting to lecture us on fire prevention; but really he's a war-criminal who took the UK to war on a lie. The trouble that caused...
2
-
It's highly unlikely that either main American party would introduce a national health service (NHS), one reason being that the "health-care lobby" (big Pharma; private health care and health insurance companies) will spend billions to prevent that, as it would affect their profit margins. In similar fashion neither main party would support the "Occupy Wall St" movement because: Wall St funds both; clearly money is more important to the political parties than people it's what guides them; besides they don't need an NHS (they're "covered"). There is no "left" (it's profit before people).
It's not that a(n) NHS is a universal panacea; it has its problems too: the cost of certain new drugs, intensive care; specialist machinery and care of the increasing numbers of elderly people.
There are also problems from the current right-wing UK government: below inflation pay "rises" (for the last decade); high "student debt" for doctors and nurses; selling the largest UK blood plasma maker to Mitt Romney and Bain capital, it's obvious they want to sell (privatize) the profitable parts; "socialise" the losses (tax payer gets that bill) and then claim the NHS costs too much.
Factor in: law suits (surgeons reluctant to try and beat the odds); private heath care (sometimes foreign) offering better wages; budget cuts (to social programs the "right" don't need to use) and of course administrative managers that will never fire themselves and thrive on "red tape". It's a complex, non-profit business; the NHS is under attack; there are strikes, the media trying to demonize doctors and nurses after encouraging us to go outside and applaud them (mystical thinking); that doesn't work you see.
The main objective of the NHS is about people it's a "left-wing" objective; it should be appealing to the "right-wing" (keep the workforce healthy), but they "love money"; "outsourcing" (to their pals) and abdication of responsibility (some "Quango" is responsible, not government (poor excuse); selling off assets to rent them back, in perpetuity (poor accountancy) and long waiting lists (no staff); in the "right-wing" model of "health insurance" that's all about money and anyone over 50 can consider themselves a "liability".
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no "left-wing" in American politics; a handful of politicians, but at a party level they are both "right-wing" on many issues (not "left" and "right" wing).
If I recall correctly: Obama proposed "Universal Health Care"; the "health lobby" gave the Republicans a lot of support and they stopped government (would not pass federal funding bill), until it became "Universal Health Insurance" (all about the money). I don't know if Obama was sincere, or not, but the "health lobby" has a big budget; a hostile media and (it seems) the Republican party on their side, but (as an outsider looking in) I expect the Democrat party would do the same, or find an excuse; because the money's so "good". If an NHS was introduced, it would damage the profit margins, even put some private concerns out of business; so they are fighting for their existence; since they are "profit orientated", that is their priority. So how about $1 million to go away?
At least (like it or not) Obama largely legalized medical marijuana; but an NHS, there's a huge amount of opposition, some with their back against the wall.
The NHS is not a universal panacea; a minority don't want it, but they do want to profit. The NHS want to keep people healthy; save lives; afford a basic level of healthcare for all.
These objectives conflict; in my view (as a socialist); the private sector trying to extract profit from ill people is ghoulish. Giving recovering patients a big bill likely to push them over the edge...
Still; if you are looking for cheaper medicine, try asking your pharmacist for the "generic" version of your favourite brand name drug; that should annoy the ad people.
Btw. Last time I visited America, watching someone trying to read all the "disclaimers" (half a page) on some drug, in 20 secs "...and may cause death". Funniest thing, I nearly died laughing.
Generic medicine; same ingredients, now outwith patent law... we have to save that poor person reading the ads (and me), I mean life is the chief cause of death, innit? I guess it's our fault...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In law there is the presumption that the accused is innocent (until proven guilty) and that the accuser is sincere (until proven otherwise); these are very important caveats, but I don't think many in the court of public opinion recognise this. The investigating committee seem to have turned this matter from a job interview into a trial; they seem to be acting along party lines and (for me) there is something (actually a few things) about it all that doesn't ring true.
I don't know what is fact and what is media invention, but it seems clear that: the FBI have a week to conduct another investigation of this candidate; the committee voted 10 Democrats against/ eleven Republicans for and so, if the FBI find nothing conclusive the senate will vote.
Cases where there are allegations of abuse (any kind) are sometimes very difficult to resolve; they have to be dealt with on an individual basis and in this case one major problem is the length of time since the alleged abuse took place. It's not really helpful to discuss ongoing cases, but there appears to be: no physical evidence; a lack of witnesses and some doubt as to the year and location of the alleged sexual abuse.
The problem I have with this (and it may just be particular to me) is this: first of all I don't trust the lawyer, because his last case was an attack on the Trump administration and was all about trying to prove where some money originated (to try impeach the President) which was entirely politically motivated; if it is true that Dianne Feinstein had these allegation "on her desk" for some weeks then I don't trust her; because that looks like a clear case of obstruction of justice and I find the timing of these allegations rather suspect. It's maybe just a huge coincidence but it may directly benefit the Democrat party, to slow down this appointment until after the mid-terms when they might hold a majority.
TYT are of the opinion that this damages the Republican party; when I would say this matter may damage everyone involved. If the FBI find something then their earlier investigations look suspect; if they don't nobody will be happy and both the accused and accuser may very well have tarnished reputations. If Feinstein has been withholding these allegations for political reasons then that is a very ugly thing indeed that could seriously damage the Democrats. Her excuse is that she was holding on to them until the witness came forward; but I don't believe that, the witness came forward by lodging the complaint and although it was about something that allegedly happened over 30 years ago it should be acted on immediately. Feinstein's other claim is that this is not a trial, it's a job interview, but it looks like a trial to me, at times like the Salem witch trials (when some urge him to quit, just because he got accused).
I believe lots of people and groups will be damaged here; I tend to agree with the President that it looks politically motivated and if so Feinstein is guilty then. There is a verdict of "unproven" in some countries, in criminal trials; I doubt that would suit anyone here, but like this lawyers last case I don't see how he intends to prove guilt. A week is a long time in politics, but legal cases take ages; however something doesn't ring true here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Clean water for Flint seems to have been a subject of discussion for some time and this dispute has even reached the UK as it's sometimes referenced in political articles.
I'm curious to know, what is the source of the Lead that appears to be contaminating the water supply in Flint, Michigan?
In the UK: Lead was replaced by Copper pipes and removed from petrol as it was shown that it damages human development, although regarding other types of heavy metal contamination I saw houses built on an old Mercury factory sold with instructions not to grow your own vegetables. I wouldn't want to buy one and so I guess people aren't hurrying to move to Flint.
If the Lead has been left behind from a previous private industry, then one might expect the company to repair the damage; but if the company no longer exists, or won't accept responsibility then the taxpayer basically gets the bill for what could be a costly clean-up.
I think there is a distinction between Federal and State governance in America; so perhaps if the State won't 'fess up to there actually being a problem, the Federal government can make a separate judgement. I have to admit I don't exactly know how these two forms of government relate to each other, but I expect it is possible for a group independent to both to send samples to the lab, then present evidence to both. That's because there are some clear rules when it comes to empirical science and measurement which everyone should be following.
I tend to agree that if money is the deciding factor that matters can often be corrupted by those with a vested interest; it was a struggle to get petrol companies to remove Lead, for a while they claimed it couldn't be done; however Lead in drinking water means something has gone wrong. You can either view this as being about people or being about money; yes somebody will have to pay for it, it may cost a lot; it's a place too contaminated to clean-up, but on the matter of clean water, it's a need and if government can't meet that need then it's not fit for purpose.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Kan Ko No, it's likely you. American oligarchs are pushing hard to start WW3 (in the short term it has been very profitable for them); meanwhile the EU energy supplies have been put in doubt; there is another refugee crisis impacting Europe and while fourteen tanks might be viewed as a symbolic gesture, it is an open deceleration that Germany is (again) at war with Russia. It may seem that all this public money being diverted to the weapons industry is without consequences, that high energy prices will make shale gas extraction viable; that Blackrock will "clear up" on the rebuilding contracts they have secured and Germany can be blamed for starting the next World War, but unlike the American foreign policy makers Germany is not known to be stupid, this symbolic gesture will have lit a fuse. Germany has donated humanitarian aid; housed refugees, but they won't be played for fools by America.
End of March fourteen tanks, Germany wanted America to donate first (but they refused); actually it's us that is being made fools. It's a money laundering exercise for the Western interests; at the risk of WW3; that's not Germany's business. So Russia has been bombarding Ukraine all day, Russia has not run out of missiles (yet another msm lie), I hope you are enjoying this, because you (& I) are paying for it. The American arms and oil lobby aren't going to use their money, or fight, let's you and him fight they say... as I say they're stupid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course it's impossible to write a top ten list of male American comedians because: there are different ages and styles of comedy; this list ignores all the "double acts" and comedy is very much a matter of personal taste (still it's a good way to start a fight). There is a(n obscure) British movie called "Funny Bones" (1995) that has a lot to say about the nature of comedy; amongst other things it draws a distinction between physical and scripted comedy and I believe it's an important distinction.
You are missing a very important figure in American comedy, from your list and that is Jonathan Winters. In my opinion he's the complete package: timing; mannerisms; impressions, an absolute master of physical, surreal, improvisational, comedy and both Robin Williams and Bill Cosby claim he influenced them greatly. He never swears, engages with the audience completely and his hero (he said) was an English comedian, Stan Laurel. Winters really pushed the boundaries of American comedy.
Seems to me that George Carlin and Lennie Bruce (and Bill Hicks) deserve to be mentioned; because they made it their business to tear through hypocrisy and although I never liked Bill Hicks style (as much as some here obviously do); but we need people like them to satirise and upset our politicians and, so called, leaders.
Another American comedian I like is Emo Philips; surreal; sharp; intelligent and incisive, all the things I want to see from a comedian and his ability to move along the front row and tease/ torture the audience members, is (imo) quite awe inspiring.
Richard Pryor is another truly great American comedian and he and Gene Wilder make a great double act.
So I won't make a list; I feel it's a privilege to watch people that have (had) the nerve and ability to stand up and deliver. I'm glad I was there to see it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Robert Lewis A return to the Gold standard can be viewed as a move toward "stability", as it's based on something real; compared to simply printing money backed by paper assets and other paper, or a large military, and since the CRIBS (ranked by size of economy) started a new bank and exchange mechanism it is clear they want to trade without using the American $ (aka petrodollar). It's problematic trying to judge other countries (and their intentions) by the values of another; it is also a problem when there is blatant manipulation of: key rates (Libor); the Gold and Silver "fix" (decided by committee); restrictions on free trade (SWIFT: sanctions) and while Western economists sometimes compare the GDP of Russia to that of Spain, one of them: put a space station in orbit; has a large nuclear arsenal and covers eleven time zones. Before criticizing the economies of the CRIBS, we should recognize that many Western economies are running huge national debts (plus interest, never forget the interest); printing money to cover it is the equivalent of writing a bigger IOU and the introduction of a Gold-backed currency (like pre-72') is likely to put a stop to that. So while I largely agree with S.F. (here, if not censored); it's no laughing matter for those who talk in millions and billions; the last two leaders that proposed a Gold/oil exchange mechanism are dead and economic sanctions won't work on a trading body the size of the CRIBS, who can sanction right back, it rather looks like they want nothing to do with "the West" as whoever is actually pulling the strings can only be trusted to look after their interests first and last; so that may explain why with poverty rising here; somehow there's money to give to Ukraine.
Despite what the American msm media insists: they were cheerleaders for invasions; they never cared about people before (in wars for reasons of oil or opium); their opinion pieces often make no sense; they continually set the context of money and I don't trust them or what our leaders say. If you can figure how to pay off $28.4 Trillion you could be a national hero; but I think the problem with a proxy war in Ukraine is that for the Western "oligarchs" it's about money; for Russia it's their way or it's WW3 (just sayin') and the media blame game is mainly to distract from domestic problems and hide the truth that the majority of the public have no representation.
In reality, Ukraine had independence from the (old) Soviet Union; it's known to be highly corrupt; a civil war since 2014, but the msm only started counting in 2022; it handles a lot of the EU gas supply Russia told NATO (America) and the EU not to mess around in/with Ukraine and they didn't listen; the Chinese told the West not to mess about with Taiwan and they didn't listen. In my opinion the CRIBS want to return to open trade based on a solid currency and leave the West to deal with what looks like economic collapse. the CRI have been buying lots of Gold; America has been increasing it's military budget (both parties always approve; lobbied to the hilt), it shows their priorities.
Unfortunately the move back to the Gold standard while creating stability in the East is very likely to cause chaos in the West; we (the civilians) will pay for this ideological dispute, either funding the weapons or being on the receiving end and the clouding of various issues with: "fake news"; spin and uninformed guesses, by the msm has corroded trust; led to almost tribalism, a lot of their rhetoric is clearly propaganda; a recession is a serious matter (for us); rising poverty cast doubt of the worth of government (responsible for providing needs of society, really); it seems to me that there is too much money in politics, too many games and censorship won't save this.
We can only hope that the policy makers (who "weaponized" the petrodollar) change policy rather than spark WW3; the levels of debt and cries of system working, send more money (it's not) need to be reduced or crossed off; interest on junk debt is not going to be paid. As the commentator said, this abusing the monopoly on money is and was doomed to fail; money is just a neat way to exchange goods and services (negative interest rates is fantasy); I don't don't know what crypto is (but I can tell you what it's not, it's not money in the traditional sense); if the CRIBS do release a new currency I'd buy 1, if I was you (I'm not). As for a lot of us (me included): we are clearly being "mushroomed" (kept in the dark and fed manure); a recession will hit us like a ton of bricks; but it does look like an ideological split was on the cards from some time ago, too much jiggery-pokery America banning trade in dollars (they did it to themselves, really; rather forced the issue); in some ways a conflict between long term and short term economic interests, both domestically and in foreign policy. It will be difficult to "kick" the money printing habit; maybe ironic that the CRIBS prefer free-market capitalism; but anyone who thought Russia would allow "The Cossacks" to join a Western military alliance does not understand Russia at all. It's this "love of money" that seems to corrupt all it touches; lack of trust in institutions we are supposed to be able to trust; the rot set in years ago and look at the Western economy, if you want to know where the money went try Panama or some "tax-haven".
1
-
1
-
@PUAlum Your description is not accurate. Ukraine did not have it's own nuclear weapons, it had nuclear power; but these weapons belonged to Russia. "The West" (America and the UK) were co-signatories to what was essentially a deal between Russia and Ukraine; one key clause (for Russia) was that Ukraine remained neutral. A number of former Soviet states became sovereign countries; some went on to join: the EU; NATO, even both and there was no trouble, but Western interests (EU and America) started to "invest" billions in Ukraine and when the current Ukrainian administration (elected in 2014) decided to apply for membership (of EU and/or NATO) that started a civil war.
Until then Ukraine was independent and sovereign (it was also bankrupt and notoriously corrupt), but regarding the two agreements "Budapest memorandum" and "Minsk" it seems that in similar fashion to assurances given to Russia and China regarding Libya and regime change that these were hollow. Perhaps Americans might understand that as American troops still occupy the oil fields in Syria (about 20% of the country) that these "Western interests" don't care a jot about the integrity or sovereignty of counties (it's just more hypocrisy).
Ukrainian democracy? Since the government banned opposing parties; Russian (in schools and on the media); it's not a democracy and unlikely to become one any time soon.
American democracy (as an outsider looking in) seems perfectly stable: there are two main parties, both right-wing; both backed by Wall Street and while their media spins domestic issues this way and that; regarding foreign policy the choice is war or war? (your choice).
Until 2014, Ukraine leased a key port to Russia (around $200 million a year); charged (quite high) tariffs on EU gas supplies from Russia and it had it's own army and navy.
There are clearly a lot of things we are not being told, but proposals to build alternative gas supply routes from Russia to EU (now destroyed) were resisted by Ukraine and America (them again); NATO military advisers; Ukrainian Gold reserves gone missing; odd oil deals (see Biden's son); it's unclear what was going on before 2014, but Russia will know.
Since I live in the West; it grieves me to report that our leaders are largely: self serving; money (and power) orientated and don't even seem to care about our citizens. Listening to them try to talk about other leaders being bad; or their countries economic matters or how they are here to save the day (again) really grinds my gears.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine; where Russia sells it's oil and gas; matters between China and Taiwan, that's their business. They aren't about to take lectures from Western interests, that have left a trail of destruction behind them, that have asset stripped the Western economies and got rich in the process. While their msm saturates us with a foreign war they very much want; the idea that Biden or Putin actually make foreign policy, or that they are in any way charitable; large hikes to the American military budget has superpowers building up. One other important matter is that the msm give an inaccurate portrayal of Russia and China, these are technologically sophisticated super-powers, with nuclear and space programs and they are not stupid. China already said don't try to involve us in American power games (with reference to Ukraine); that's their position and mine.
Russia had an agreement that Ukraine would stay neutral; Ukraine gave that up and it was known there would be hell to pay. The far right (globalists) in the West are currently investing heavily in starting a nuclear war, because that's where this is going. Their msm don't care about people, they never did and their "crocodile tears" are nothing but an insult.
Follow the money...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia' has been out of missiles since March according to the American media (aka the "fake news brigade"); Russia won't be aiming at civilians (that's obviously another media invention) too many ethnic and cultural ties between them.
A more accurate description is that Russia will continue to dismantle Ukraine: bridges; power infrastructure; rail lines, that is clearly what is happening.
The American corporate media, asking "What about the children?" is nothing but an insult (50,000 kids dead in Iraq/ Afghanistan, for reasons of oil and opium it seems) they don't care about people, never did; just their sponsors profits. The proposed truce, since Putin is an atheist, isn't about (corporate) Christmas; it's not for that reason. Perhaps a time for American policy makers to reflect?
Russia hates the corporate media; calls them propagandists (which they are); they're not telling them anything, so they are clearly making stuff up.
If the CIA did perform another "regime change" in Ukraine (2014); it's time to close the CIA down as they've started WW3. (Possibly killed JFK too). Russia is angry; they're going to tear Ukraine into little bits (or it's WW3); for the "Western interests" their money laundering may cost the planet dear.
Anyway the truce was rejected, so it's old news, or no news; however I hear Russia blows up it's own pipe-lines now (that was another lie), WW3 won't last long.
1
-
1
-
@importantname Is that the best you've got, you clearly are a government stooge (your subscriptions to "the usual suspects"; it's such a giveaway, clumsy too).
Facts are facts.
Clinton "The Twister" is the worst politician in American political history (she lost to Trump with the: banks; media and even Republican politicians on her side; she came, she saw; she blew her election chances in one sentence... how delicious)
The Sackler family business, Purdue Chemicals seem to have found a lot of opium somewhere (got lots of Americans "hooked" on Oxycodone (That's why America occupied Afghanistan for so long... all about money.
These are facts while all you do is witter on; talk about supervisors (you're delusional); of course you can't dispute them (they're in the public domain... it's still to be revealed what America was doing in Ukraine (2008-14), I would assume up to no good as usual.
Russia (& China) gave America and the UK "the benefit of the doubt" previously (both abstained on Libya intervention) they know they were lied to, so were we; fooled them once (Eh? Hillary), but breaking a promise to a Russian; causing someone Chinese to lose face... made a lot of enemies there!!
So you don't have a substantial argument; but Russia does; China does and the people diverting public funds to the Ukrainian "cause" are not know to be charitable; the call this an "investment"; I call it money laundering and since Russia isn't bluffing (about WW3) a very poor investment.
(Your punctuation is non-existent and you (sure) can talk about non-nonsensical, but that's you, that is). You're a "useful idiot"; Ukraine is going to get destroyed; send more money (never worked before tho') I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people, America profiteering for this is very ugly!1
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hugokappes4077 It's a different culture for a start; we are actually quite close to WW3 (shouldn't we all be tense?) and like those psychologists that break their own codes of conduct, by claiming they can diagnose people on TV; it's not an exact science (far from it). To put the matter in your context, if body language expertise worked; they'd all be out playing poker.
I've played poker (at Binions); I've been a casino manager and I was one (of the two) casino troubleshooters in the Moscow casino scene in the early 1990's.
You (or rather that line-up of American generals) would be unwise to try and "call" Russia for the simple reason, they aren't bluffing; they can't afford to lose and so they won't lose... because Russia is a nuclear superpower, it has air superiority; hypersonic missiles... and they just fired the (traditional) warning shot (Satan2).
How do Russia get the Western "interests" to back off without global thermonuclear war?
That's a more pertinent question.
As for the KGB; Ukrainian mafia; the Chechens, the Russian mafia... they knew me and my partner and we knew them... and their capacity for violence, well the stories I could tell you; they would stay with you, so I won't. I'll just say, this isn't a "Putin" matter; it's a Russia matter and so the American media are wasting their time with all their bitchiness... he's KGB; it's business and it's not about money for Russia... while NATO, they don't care about people; never did.
American media might think they are playing poker; but this is more like chess and we should all know what happens when a superpower invades a "normal" country... if not ask America; they do it frequently and have wrecked several countries. I can't stand the crocodile tears; the propaganda; I trust Putin more than Biden or Johnson... and the media pundits, they don't seem to know much about Russia at all... they only view things in their terms (and who are they?) lied us into two wars already; but this is not Iraq or Libya (and Russia has hardly even started).
Whoever toppled the Ukraine government (in 2013); they should be tense, that's because Russia wants revenge... here's a tip, never break a promise to a Russian (never!). Better not to make a promise and don't try to shake hands with a Russian across the portal of a doorway (they won't).
I'm just trying to tell the Russian mentality is different; American media lie and WW3 won't take long. Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you sure you are being completely honest here, Russell? Prof Richard Dawkins was at this event to take part in the debate, "Why you are not a Christian" and I don't believe (even for one second) that Dawkins ever described himself as a "cultural Christian" at this debate because it would make no sense; he's not just an atheist, he's an anti-theist! (So, you got that wrong).
As for the student protests in America; what has that got to do with Dawkins? The answer is nothing! If you want to know what motivates them, you should ask the students who are protesting, "What motivates you to protest?" (doh!)
His answer to your question (Russell) was "no comment" and I'm sure the reason he is angry is because he knows exactly what you are trying to do (quote-mining), but that's not good enough for you; he has every right to avoid offering any opinion (and where is the clip of him mentioning antisemitism, because I've looked and looked and I can't find it). Did you get that wrong too?
He doesn't do "gotcha journalism" get used to it. Your claims he visited Epstein Island (you do have evidence of this, do you?) and Jimmy's oral fixation maybe try smoking, or use a dummy?
You claim to be an honest journalist Russell; I'm beginning to have my doubts; look how much hatred you just created; Dawkins already told you (by tweet) Gaza is where poor people are losing the little they have and are being killed... it's with weapons your country is supplying; so it's really your problem (not his) and you need to fix it!!.
As for your attempts at smearing "Darwin's Rottweiler", the Gaza debate was elsewhere (but you didn't report on it); all you got was "no comment"... because he knows a lot about monkeys.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickdolinski7105 I'm not claiming to be an authority on nuclear weapons, Comrade Dolinski: however there is a lot of information freely available in the public domain and that includes the quantity (and quality) of Soviet-era weapons of which Ukraine had custody; a concept called a "Permissive Action Link" (PAL) in case nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands which originated in America (in the 1960's); it has various forms, Russia employed this technology too; there was also a civil war in Ukraine from 2014 to 2022
"By early 1994 the only barrier to Ukraine's ability to exercise full operational control over the nuclear weapons on missiles and bombers deployed on its soil was its inability to circumvent Russian permissive action links (PALs)" ("Pulling Back from the Nuclear Brink" by Barry R. Schneider, William L. Dowdy).
"Ukraine did not possess nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were not the third largest nuclear power. They did not give up those weapons because they did not possess them". (Deterrence in Ukraine, by Jeffrey Lewis; Aaron Stein)
There are other sources, but these two indicate that the Prof is quite wrong in his claim that Ukraine ever had a nuclear deterrent against Russia using the Soviet weapons.
After the armed overthrow of government in 2014: Russia annexed Crimea and three Oblasts voted for independence (no country "recognised, until Russia did in 2022); the same regions then voted to (re)join Russia. (The Western media claimed these results were fixed, not that regions haven't the power to vote for independence; so they looked like fools)
The annexation of Crimea was conducted by Russia, two options on the ballot; Ukraine or Russia (no independence option). It was an easy choice Ukraine was bankrupt...
The three regions most likely conducted their own independence referendums (or Russia would have recognised them immediately); they mainly speak Russian there.
Rejoining Russia I don't know about; but it seems they prefer the Eastern European model to the Western one; that seems to be going bankrupt.
I lived in USSR as it was breaking up; 1992-3 I worked out of the House of Unions, employed to break up trouble in the Moscow casinos, thankfully now banned. So I knew most of the leaders of various armed groups... and they knew me and my partner (I found that out when I walked into the Hotel Ukraine). Ukraine got a pretty good deal: independence; division of assets military and commercial; gas tariffs and port leasing fees... that held until 2014, after which foreign corporations took control of Ukrainian agriculture; likely the gas-pipeline too... all very provocative.
The bottom line however is, Ukraine was given a choice, neutrality or war; they made the wrong choice and so Russia holds them entirely responsible (as is their way) and Western commentators (like the Prof) don't seem to have a clue what they are dealing with; currently they are sleepwalking us into a global conflict.
1
-
@patrickdolinski7105 It certainly is a problem if opposing sides cannot agree on a few facts; it's another, slightly different problem, when both sides can arrange mutually agreed facts to make valid opposing arguments and it's a very serious problem when the talking stops and violence starts.
I'm not clear on what your perspective is based (or your prior profession); but I don't regard the Western media (in general) as particularly reliable and they also seem to (mistakenly) assume that other countries: should share their interests, or fears, or operate by the same rules (as their country); or even listen to them.
It might simplify discussing matters, regarding this conflict between Russia and Ukraine, if you can tell me, what's in this for you? (or even which country you call "home").
I call Scotland home; back in 1992-3 (as USSR was breaking up) I was a "Mayfair top dealer"; I wanted to leave London (she broke my heart) and the recruitment agency, said Don't go! (to Russia) and they work on commission?! When I got there I discovered: I had not been given a particularly accurate description of Russia and it was fortunate a monthly Moscow travel pass, unlike London, was 450 Roubles (approximately £0.30) as I kept getting lost in Metro because I couldn't even read the writing, or speak Russian.
While it might be a reasonable description of Russia then as a kleptocracy; it was my choice to live and work there; I take full responsibility for the decisions I make (not other people's); I would describe Moscow then as similar to Chicago 1930's (as seen in the movies); the people with money (our customers) were usually members of heavily armed groups, some vying for their country's independence, or disputing territory; while my objective was to entertain them and the "house" (casino) has rules (they are our rules).
Things have no doubt moved on since then, casinos are banned (considered immoral); but is it not a fact that Moscow is the second largest city in Europe?
I mean given the choice, over twelve million people live there; Russia has an NHS; state funded education; low cost energy; food and transport; free internet; but quite low wages.
That's not to say things are perfect; "ownership" is a key feature of capitalism; there the state owns the land; they turn the hot water off a month a year; it's different from here.
As far as I'm aware: Ukraine held it's own independence referendum in 1991; Russia "recognised" Ukraine as a country in 1991; terms and conditions mutually agreed by 1994.
Those terms and conditions included military and commercial assets; gas tariffs and a port leasing fee. If that's factual then Ukraine was an independent country, from 1994.
Neither questioned the 92% vote in favour of independence, on an 84% turnout; or it's validity. From that date Ukraine was totally responsible for the decisions it made.
Putin became leader of Russia last day of 1999; some here claim that his objective is to re-establish USSR, but it took him 22 years to decide to do that; which doesn't seem at all likely to me, instead I suggest we (both) look at the map of USSR 1938; in my opinion (just an opinion) that's what Russia (not Putin) wants; if Ukraine isn't neutral.
I do agree with you that the nuclear weapons issue is a bit of a "red herring"; both the weapons in Ukraine and those in West Germany had PAL encryption security, to prevent misuse; while it was in the interest of both Russia and America that Soviet era weapons in Ukraine were decommissioned. Also the rotting stockpiles of chemical weapons.
I consider it a fact that Russia insisted: Ukraine was an independent neutral country, without external political or economic interference and that it's borders be respected.
This seemed to have been agreed in 2014; between Russia and Ukraine, with cosignatories the UK and America (offering assurances). This agreement was signed after the armed overthrow of the Ukrainian government, after they refused to agree to closer ties to the EU. The claims were the government was corrupt and had rigged the elections; since Ukraine was considered the most corrupt country in Eastern Europe (against some stiff competition); I could believe the government was corrupt; not sure about the elections, but the rebellion started an eight year civil war; Russia moved on Crimea; three regions voted for independence (nobody recognised). Since 2014 there have been seven regional referendums; that much is a fact; are we supposed to believe all of them were rigged? These regions are predominantly Russian speaking people; the referendum results (if legit) are heavily not in favour of remaining with Ukraine. I doubt I could get odds on the Crimean one; I might question the legitimacy, but not that result.
1
-
@patrickdolinski7105 You asked me a question, "does Ukraine deserve to exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with borders most recently established at the collapse of the former USSR".
In my view the USSR; allowed the former Soviet states, in the West, to hold independence referendums and return to being independent countries; while it denied independence to others. In 1991 Ukraine did exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with established borders; it was a fairly amicable split; that was the way things were for a good 20 years; while Russia leased a key port; paid increasingly high tariffs on gas to the EU.
Former Soviet states, now countries joined NATO and the EU; but Russia was quite insistent the Yugoslavia and Ukraine didn't.
When the EU and NATO both held summits in 2008, they indicated to Ukraine that they would like to offer membership; that did not go down well with Russia.
I won't discuss what happened to Yugoslavia, except to say my partner lost family and friends when violence erupted there; NATO intervened and that country broke up.
Maybe you would care to check this out for yourself, but according to "Oakland Institute" from 2014 foreign companies moved into Ukraine and took over agriculture; it looks likely they also had a controlling interest in that gas pipeline (America was so interested in' protesting alternative pipeline).
It may not seem fair to you, but Russia would hold Ukraine totally responsible for allowing that to happen; I would consider all this "corporate interest" as economic interference; in which case the neutrality agreement has failed and so Russia is compelled to react with violence.
So no; I don't believe Ukraine deserves to exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with 1991 borders; because they gave up that agreement.
I also don't believe the Western narrative that this conflict was unprovoked or unexpected. I consider Prof Mearsheimer "Why is Ukraine the West's fault" as an accurate appraisal.
Nor do I believe America is here to help; I believe the plan was to dent the EU economically; if that wasn't the plan that's how things have gone.
I would advise the UK to mind it's own business (it's not good at that); if America wants direct conflict with Russia better to just let them get on with it.
Otherwise, only Russia and Ukraine can resolve this conflict. I don't know what America thinks it's playing at; perhaps it believes it's own publicity, but I don't.
In my view Ukrainian is the architect of it's own destruction, because it broke the rules.
1
-
1
-
@patrickdolinski7105 I'm just popping bubbles: USSR (and America) had PAL security systems built into their nuclear weapons, as a precautionary measure; that's not just "common sense" it also appears to be common knowledge (this Professor seems to lack both). Ukraine gained ownership of Soviet era nuclear power, but not the nuclear weapons; so they had no nuclear deterrent against Russia; that fact destroys the professors argument (and any built on this faulty premise) Pop!
"Russia running over it's neighbor because it can", is another fallacious argument. If Ukraine wasn't neutral, it was war (Russia made that plain again and again).
The Western powers and their "New World Order" (NWO) "allowing Russia"... Well the West isn't "The World"; the NWO only benefits a select few and short of nuclear war, I don't see a thing they can do.
While the claim that America is involved for reasons of: freedom; democracy or even people, is not supported by their history; it's invariably their economic interests. Pop!I
If Ukraine capitulates: the "investments" (made with public money); the corporate assets; the rebuilding contract; the loans (plus interest), they will all be worth nothing. Pop!
So there are a few profound lessons here: The Western powers need to mind their own business (they aren't much good at that, take a look around); stick your nose into Russia/Ukrainian business, it's likely to get broken and call it sophistry, if you like, but based on simple arithmetic; sooner, or later, Ukraine runs out of troops.
Anyway, if you enjoy people talking about things they don't really know about; there are plenty of them. The Western powers provoked this disaster in Ukraine; they did this!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gikiryu Bit of a cold, I think; are you alright? I was mainly talking about drivers that drive erratically, because they are not watching the road ahead; that "distraction" is the most common cause of accidents; while the relatively new automated "stealth policing" being introduced in England and 20 mph speed limits have different problems.
I can drive safely even well above the UK speed limit; so I think you are missing the point being made; it's about "Big Brother" (short of cash) always watching.
I do understand that roads have to be repaired; but some councils appear to be using the: 24/7; "Home Office approved" technology as an income stream. If they are going to fine people £500 and 6 pts (12 is a ban), for doing 25 mph in a 20; you better believe people are checking their speed frequently and also looking to check the speed limit (often variable). One Scottish alternative is a sign that gives the speed: in red, if above the set limit; changing to green, if below; there no money in that, but it's a better idea.
Using a mobile phone, is of course reckless behavior when driving; but an £860 fine; 6 pts and banned for a year for using a mobile phone, in a stationary vehicle; suggests to me that it's actually people's wallets that are being policed in England.
It's how people are reacting to this: lucrative; zero-tolerance policy; kept under 24/7 surveillance. Not well, in my experience... or to big SUV's tailgating.
So on the continent people are often destroying the robot policing systems; I'm sure they have their reasons; it's a misuse of available technology anyway (so I approve).
(Robots are workers; not police; judges or soldiers; giving them authority of humans does not end well). The 24/7 auto-fine machines need to go, it's a bad concept.
1
-
1
-
@leeannott498 Thanks (and I would recommend T.S. Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolution"). I already believe that a monster has been created in the financial sector and what started off as a pretty neat abstract concept (to simplify the exchange of goods and services using some type of "coin") has turned into something ugly, with a life of it's own.
It may suit some to keep feeding this creation, but it only seems to get bigger; already difficult to ignore; simply creating more coins is not a solution. The point I was making is that this is really a Western creation; the USSR had a different economic model (and a different monster: see Adam Curtis: The Engineers Plot); even today Russia isn't driven by money, or debt obligation, it's a technologically driven society. I think the USSR vision of utopia was VDNK (or perhaps it's just an advert for their socialist model).
When our leaders talk in terms of billions and trillions; it seems "there's a rich persons club we aren't in" (as George Carlin said); the majority of the people just numbers to them.
If the students are objecting to public money being turned into weapons that are killing civilians, it seems a valid objection to me (instead it could be used to cancel student debt).
While new technology (like the internet), has obviously changed society; but we really have to be very careful, because even a spanner in the wrong hands can cause irreparable damage. One problem seems to be quantity over quality; or the willful distribution of misinformation for material gain; while I'm bored with media opinion, short on facts.
I'm rather concerned about the new concept of putting robots in positions of authority (police; judges or soldiers); because "science-fiction" strongly suggests it does not end well!
I'm not sure if I agree with Bart Simpson, when he wrote, "the central bankers know exactly what they are doing!"; they may be "running the show", but their structure is built from something that isn't actually real; interest on debt obligation that will never be paid is really really not real. While I do agree with you that we need to mind our own affairs, we can't allow others who, in effect, wrote the rules get away with bending them out of shape and profiting too. However I doubt they will stop without a fight (like any dynasty). In USSR the structure was rather top-heavy; crammed with "red-tape" (keeping people in jobs, moving paper); rather boring in some respects, because if the state covers: health; education and the utilities, wages are very low (so no foreign holidays). Times have changed; but even before USSR broke up it was useful to some to call Russia the enemy.
So I wish to propose an abstract solution. We convince the superpowers to construct a "mass accelerator" on the Moon, then establish a human colony on Mars. This is not going to solve: world poverty, or other Earthly issues, but it's a global objective; something we can all support (we need a new "frontier"; before "infighting" destroys us).
Kuhn's book suggests we have a "window of opportunity"; the Egyptians built the pyramids with technology we don't have, what are we building? While I'm not so concerned about "saving the planet"; it will simply replace us. I agree with Robert Anton Wilson when he said, stupidity is our greatest enemy; one for the students to discuss; they're the future...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MisterHughes I don't agree; that's just one of the (mainly) right-wing media's stories, along with Labour being anti-Semitic and that they'll take the UK back to the 1970. The last one isn't much of a threat, if the internet still works, because since the late 70's (and Reaganomics); productivity has gone up virtually year on year; but worker's purchasing power has stagnated and the profits have gone elsewhere. If i remember correctly: the Labour party were founded by the unions to give workers political representation; then along came Tony Blair (previously chairman of the Tory club at his university) who moved the party to the right and while "New" Labour (aka Tory light) won three elections; his brand of populism involved: filling his pockets; chasing Murdoch around and cow-towing to a rather vicious Bush/Cheney administration. I don't regard "the Blairites" as moderates because: taking the UK to war (on a lie); introducing tuition fees and selling more infrastructure (He even sold the main blood plasma supplier to the NHS to ... drum roll ... Mitt Romney). All of that is better described as anti-socialism.
I regard Blair as the worst UK PM of the 20th century (and he's up against some stiff competition): Selling revenue streams for a lump sum (both parties have done it) only makes sense to politicians looking at the next election; but it's also ideological sabotage as the left (the real left) use these huge state sector industries to run a labour policy; but Labour (under Corbyn) would first need to buy them back; so Labour aren't going anywhere fast. I think Corbyn is a "Marxist", which isn't a particularly extreme form of socialism; but "the right" are running scared at the moment (and for good reason); crony capitalism has bust the Western economy and in the UK the taxpayer got the bill.
At the moment it looks like the remaining Blairites are happy to sink the party if they don't get their way; but it was far to early for globalism (too many poor people). I hope you don't hate Labour too much, because regardless of what the polls say; if May calls a general election, even with both parties still split over (maybe) exiting the EU, they Tories will lose.
Still you did answer my question about "leftism"; the Labour party are certainly left wing now, but since nobody in the party has proposed the armed overthrow of government (or seizing the means of production); then they aren't Trotskyites ... some of the UK voters might be considering that; but, like in America, some view politics as a game to be won and they'd like socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Problem is: the poor are becoming the majority; they feel the cuts (while the politicians don't) and if the rules don't work for them, they go and make up their own rules.
I hope it doesn't degenerate into smear campaigns and no policy next election (but that's all "the right" have), while the polls apparently provide the answer they are paid to provide and who needs the Russians with the foreign press all with their opinions on "Brexit" (it's bad). In my opinion it's time the UK workers did get some representation; corporations paid their taxes properly and politicians didn't squander public money before taking a job in the private sector (with the company they gave the contract to ... see Osborne). I can dream can't I? The right wing do not want this and they own "the news". The real problem is corruption.
1
-
@MisterHughes The leader of the Labour party might be irrelevant when it comes to the UK leaving the European Union (EU) since the Conservatives: led both the remain and leave campaigns; appointed remain campaigners to lead the exit negotiations and now, it seems, the EU control the time-frame ... however (like in America) it's a two horse race and he is in the running.
I don't know what you mean by political violence (compared to actual violence); but it's quite clear that the "Blairites" are fighting for their ideological existence and it seems, to me, that they want "New" Labour, or no Labour and if that is the case then it's no wonder things are fractious in the party. The "Tory light" brigade in Labour have suffered a string of defeats: a leadership challenge (failed); shadow cabinet ministers contradicting party policy on national TV (fired) and a coordinated resignation of senior ministers (nobody cared; they weren't much good in government and Labour aren't the governing party).
The main stream media (msm) have run smear campaigns (on Corbyn and Labour); but they are running into the "Trump/ Brexit" effect ... by which I mean: they've predicted doom and gloom for so long it's starting to attract laughter; there is such a queue of critics it's attracting publicity and since some of the detractors aren't particularly liked, or obviously in it for what they can get, or are proven liars; a popular view is if it's bad for the 1% it might be good for the 99%. By the way I'm not saying main stream socialism is perfect: it's not much use in the private sector (too slow); taxes would undoubtedly go up and things could get bogged down in red tape, but they won't build something like HS2 and then sell it off (to their pals).
Thatcherism/ Reagonomics ... aka "The Chicago school" economics aka "trickle down" was simply a re-run of a previously failed economic model which came to be known as "horse and sparrow" economics. Give the horses all the grain and we (the sparrows) pick through their dung; it ended up in the great depression; this time I suppose it might be called the great recession. Selling UK infrastructure back to the public ... no wonder the socialists are fighting mad ... actually the state sector is a ready made monopoly; if you break it up you lose grid efficiency; but if one company owns all the water they set the price because they are the market. For me, as a socialist, selling off revenue streams for a lump sum was foolish and an act of ideological sabotage. She shot the country in the foot to win "the battle"; Blair made it worse and we have the bill.
I don't have a ready solution for the constitutional crisis facing the UK; if the people we pay to represent us just won't do it or can't follow their own rules, then people will make their own rules. Who do our politicians actually represent, of it's not the voter? That's a question for later. I would suggest there are two problems: one is corruption and it could be argued the EU is corrupt, another problem appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of money ... a neat abstract idea to simplifying the exchange of goods and services. That is all it is: it's no use in a desert; works well if people exchange it quickly and if someone hoards it all the economy stops ... Some on the right seem to view money as a religion and profit their prophet ... The UK may vote Labour (warts and all) just to avoid these people. What say you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cindiheaton1048 By using "clickbait" titles the idea is to attract viewers; since it has been established by the American Senate that original content should be rewarded this individual (TRD) is making around $10,000 a month.
He also directs viewers to another site Patreon where he attempts to charge for clips already posted on YouTube that can be viewed for free.
He also asks for donations, but there is no evidence that TRD donates anything to Ukraine, or does anything other that pocket those. (That's three revenue streams).
It is also quite possible that he (and another clickbaiter, ex-crypto salesman; living in Canada) is a government employee.
These types are often called "sock-puppets" or the 50 cent army and their job is to present "one-sided journalism" (so they are not true journalists) or "obfuscate" shout fake or bot...
The first about two dozen comments on many msm sites, praise the host; thank them for their insight, it's become rather obvious (but 50 cents is 50 cents).
It is already well established the TRD is an unreliable narrator, said "It's over" maybe a dozen times; TRD hates Russia and Russians but still wants to call himself Russian. The problem here is he seems to know very little about Russia; describes things as a Westerner would (talks about money a lot) and TRD doesn't seem to support Ukraine either (allegedly) revealing their military logistics.
It's bad enough when CNN publish the location of the mercenary training camp (near the Polish border) and three days later Russia destroys it.
However this TRD publishes fantasy; later shown to be that by... TRD.
TRD is here every day; should really be called The Unbelievable Russian Dude (TURD) because that's what this dishonest money-grubber is, urging people to hate.
The fake accent; the fake hair; the fake news; I don't think there's anything real about this TURD.
Now I don't want you doing this Cindi; because one day this conflict will end (possibly in WW3) and people will remember this TURD and many will hate Russia without every going there; speaking the language or understanding what a superpower (there are 3) can do.
The corporate media have spent decades, creating enemies; calling for big military budgets; only they can save us... y'know.
So many enemies I'm beginning to think the msm are the enemy within.
So many civilians dead from NATO interventions, now they claim they care about people (well they don't not even their own homeless). Like TURD it's obviously all about the money.
I do believe they underestimate: technologically driven Russia; how angry Russia is and Eastern European corruption.
So that's how TURD lies and gets money; just give up any moral or ethical concerns and gloat over your fellow countrymen dying. Love of money... the root of all evil.
Hope I answered your question.
Hope the Canadian IRS meet TURD
Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lordXAVIJAANBJERGNOG No; I just read the agreement(s) between Ukraine and Russia; some of the terminology means more to diplomats (like the difference between an assurance and a guarantee) but the rest is fairly straightforward. It's not so much about what Russia wanted in Ukraine (a key port, they agreed to lease; a gas pipeline, they agree to pay tariffs on... which kept getting higher); they don't want NATO or the EU in Ukraine and that is why they are at war (breach of contract). It's a demand.
Otherwise (for over 20 years) Ukraine was: independent; sovereign; had all the freedoms it wished (but it was also: corrupt; going bankrupt and had it's own mafia issues)
I don't know much about Belarus and Kazakhstan, but they seem to maintain trading relationships with the West (and China) without joining up; while in Ukraine: with Western companies buying large quantities of Ukrainian farmland; America and the EU (not known to be charitable) sending millions; providing advisors and (curiously) America with lots to say about alternative gas pipelines (avoiding Ukraine and the tariffs), it seems clear enough that this was (as China describes it) an American "power game"; while for the E.U. more of a recruitment drive. While I am convinced this globalist "economic model" does not work (rich just exploit the poor) and suspect some of the main advocates know it.
So with America, in effect, standing on the EU gas pipe; economic sanctions (on a major exporter) never going to work; dollar and exchange system prohibitions largely affecting EU companies, plus another refugee crisis (after Libya) it rather looks like (to me) this "power game" is more about Europe (and the game of "let's you and him fight") and while the "globalists" in the EU are no doubt keen for countries to join; they don't aid their own members (prefer to own the infrastructure), their "aid" to Ukraine was not charitable; so I don't regard the West's intentions as honorable.
Russia have convinced me that when it comes to former Soviet States and the powerful armed (mafia) groups inherent in "the system", that their word is law; it's fine for some former states to: become independent countries; (some not); them join the EU, NATO or both, even redefine borders in skirmishes. However If you cross them (or the mafia) it carries potentially fatal consequences; this is no secret; nor was Russia wanting the Western interests out. So I read a former agreement as intending to keep a neutral country between West and East, essentially between two Slavic countries; the cosignatories put their signature(s) on it. What do you think they were signing? (Neutrality, or else).
Whatever it was, it fell apart; total diplomatic failure; there was already an eight year civil war; I don't know who makes the rules, but I don't think it's the American far-right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@atta1798 I think you are describing morals/ethics (not freedom); the values you learn from "nature and nurture" are not necessarily the same in other countries, but the American media are dishonest; they talk about money continually and after promoting a string of disastrous (and costly) interventions, that killed millions, it's pretty rich of America to complain about what they've been doing for years.
I was describing money as "freedom of choice"; it's what the capitalists say, but since the bankers invented negative interest rates, they lost the plot a while ago.
Freedom of speech; government is free to ignore that. I still don'y know what you (or they) mean by freedom(s).
The society I find myself in very much does influence me.
I've worked all over the world (mainly London); but I worked as a casino troubleshooter in Moscow (early 90's); a couple of the KGB took issue with me, said I didn't take life seriously; I could get hurt...I told them I'd take life seriously when life took me seriously, they said okay. I've met the Ukrainian mafia, or rather they met me, when I walked into their hotel (forgot where I was); shook my had, it made my hair stand on end; I walked from West to East Berlin and back ('bout 10 days after wall came down; sailed through a monster Typhoon in the S China Seas (turned the Triads down in Hong Kong); proud to take 10 moves to gain membership to Moscow Central.
Just saying I'm free enough; I set achievable goals and I can tell you a lot of the cold war rhetoric, is like this propaganda war; it's empty; these people are lying (for money) I view them as evil.
Ukraine did have independence; Russia will not allow Ukraine to join NATO or the EU. In my experience they are not bluffing; my experience of working in China; don't insult the Chines, or try to drag them into this and my experience of working in America; the people are nothing like their government (they're great; the government doesn't care what it says; it's all about $/oil the shame).
I still don't know what you mean by freedom. It's just a word the use. If they're spending money on guns; I want my money back!
.
1
-
1
-
@atta1798 The point is "your freedoms" (and I say that's just something politicians say).
Yes, Russia has invaded Ukraine and people are dying (that much is true); but American media coverage is dishonest; unreliable and it's clear the price of oil (and how it will affect you), is more important than a humanitarian concern... let's forget all the (disastrous) NATO interventions; the atrocities (waterboarding; depleted uranium shells; 100 cruise missiles America fired into a capital city etc etc); it's those dastardly Russians versus the plucky Ukrainians, let's forget the eight year civil war (American "interests" caused).
Since Russia made it very clear that NATO and EU expansionism had gone far enough and "The West" chose to ignore that; Russia said (like America said regarding Russian missile bases in Cuba) they will use nuclear weapons.
That "message" still didn't get through... the EU tried to "buy Ukraine" (offering money for them to join; how unusual... normally their "credit rating" would bar them from membership; it included the Russian naval base they lease, so as an alternative to having no navy in the Winter; Crimea joined Russia); the prospect of more NATO missile bases on their border; even the existing ones in Poland etc... not acceptable, but that was ignored.
Sanctions on Russian individuals (because Putin wouldn't intervene and tell the pro-Russian separatists to lay down their weapons (they said no anyway) so Russia sanctioned the EU (closed agricultural sector) and still "the West" kept trying to push...
It's clear now that Russia gave NATO and the EU notice to get their troops; diplomats and ex-pats out of Ukraine. The Western media clearly knew the date Russia would act; they predicted it; told people to get out of Ukraine.
What was the alternative to the invasion? Do you have one? The West won't leave Ukraine alone; the Western "globalists" are ideologically opposed to non-globalists (Russia; Iran; China etc); most of their interventions are about $/oil) and they give money to American politicians. So Russia; invaded; people are dying and the (mainly) American media wants to blame Russia for aggression (they've got so much blood on their hands; they lied and that resulted in millions dying, they behave like criminals (it's the company they keep; too much money in politics; believing their own publicity).
To be clear; nobody is going to win in this conflict; but 13,000 Ukrainians have died (and the West supplying weapons, like in Syria, only increases the death-toll); NATO can't intervene (geographical reasons; no supply lines; it will go nuclear); the EU don't want a war (just new members) and it's their gas supplies on the line); $/oil who cares? It's already a sanctions weapon (see Venezuela); the CRIBS now have their own; if they can't sell oil to the EU; they can sell it to India or China. The upshot is the Western powers are powerless (for once) so they are using propaganda. Kids buried under rubble... well try 50,000 kids killed by NATO; interventions (NATO does it all the time, for oil reasons usually); it's the msm always bring things back to money (it's revealing).
You and I can only watch this; this might interest you... v=VPe5f5dcrGE (Why leaders lie). My problem is that objective journalists should not be allowed to lie; I would remove that "freedom". If I ruled the World... luckily I don't; but I don't see Russia had any alternative. Message ends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@victoriacharlesworth7099 It's more what he represents which, put simply, are "Western interests" and the repeated attempt by the EU and NATO to enlist Ukraine; despite Russia cautioning both against this course of action. In 2013-14 the Ukrainian government was toppled (it looks like the CIA, with the support of the oil and arms lobby; that's a debate for others); this sparked a civil war and with NATO troops in Ukraine; rumours emerging of American funded bio-labs and the EU offering (bankrupt and known to be highly corrupt) Ukraine, money to join shows Russian concerns were ignored.
Had Ukraine joined the EU, Russia's only warm water port in Crimea (they leased from Ukraine) would be in doubt, so Russia forced a referendum, Crimea joined Russia (so they don't need to lease anymore), the Western media were (clearly) furious as Russia outmanoeuvred the EU; 13,000 dead already in the civil war; the "Western interests" (again) tried to sanction Russia, so they sanctioned right back; media claims the referendum was rigged seem dubious (besides Russia kicked them out of Crimea), there wasn't an independence option; but it was a foregone conclusion really (they all speak Russian).
Then Zelinski hinted that Ukraine might join NATO, but Russia already said there would be WW3 before that ever happened, still the "Western interests" persisted. Russia already objected to NATO missile bases on it's borders, but the (highly corrupt) Western media tried to "spin" that away and then Russia gave the EU and NATO about two weeks notice to remove troops and diplomats, then they joined the civil war and invaded Ukraine... and in case there's any doubt... when a super-power invades a non-super-power the latter invariable gets destroyed (just ask America... Iraq; Libya... destroyed).
So now it seems the Western interests" (them again) are right behind Zelinski; the flood of propaganda (for that's what it is)... who will save the children? (well not NATO they kill lots); funny that the gas supplies still run to the EU; Western leaders drop by the re-named Kiev; while China says don't try to involve us in American power games (or words to that effect). Zelinski is viewed as a Western puppet by some; the American media talk about money non stop: £/oil (countries moving off that; $/Rouble (who cares); the cost of fuel (the suppliers bumped that up early, government likes the tax).
Russia (it's not just Putin) will not stand for "The Cossacks" joining a Western military alliance. Only thing is tho'... this is not a "normal" American proxy war; it's not a Libya, or Syria or Iraq or the other wars America conducts as we speak; Russia is technologically advanced; the Western war-pundits really don't understand the geography or that Russia doesn't love money the way the Western oligarchs do. I hope that clarifies the odd matter of "geo-politics" and explains why there are food-bank while our leaders send money to corrupt countries and are in such a lather (they stand to lose their "investment"), but it's looking like WW3 soon and UK should learn when to shut up.
1
-
1
-
Ukraine had Russian nuclear weapons (created; maintained; Russia held the launch codes) while Ukraine kept nuclear power (unfortunately including Chernobyl, out of commission for around 10,000 years); Russia paid leasing fees on their Black Sea Naval base; tariffs on a gas pipeline to the EU (so high Germany and Russia built another route, now destroyed) and there was a division of USSR naval and military assets. There was also a neutrality clause; that was something the Western interests did not respect; that's the main reason for the war.
So while the E.U. plus America and it's NATO try to play the innocent party: the assets in question were all USSR "stuff" (not theirs); they offered Ukraine billions (the E.U. calling it "aid"; America calling this an "investment"); they bought thousands of square miles of (top quality) Ukrainian farmland; the Pentagon says there were 46 Bio-labs (I assume for GM food research, V Nuland expressing concern they'd fall into Russian hands... but they destroyed most or all of them); there were murky energy deals (see H. Biden, the oil tycoon). All in all it did not look like the Western cosignatories respected the neutrality clause. So after numerous Russian objections to (what they perceived as) Western interference; a show of strength (laying siege to Kyiv); they "intervened" in the eight year civil war and I believe the Prof is correct on only one thing; they are not going to stop.
As for nuclear proliferation; it was America that tore up various treaties; they key one relating to ICBMs, but there were others.
Russia kept to the conditions of the memorandum for decades, but they weren't going to let the Western interests simply buy up Ukraine and leave them without port facilities; or put more missile bases on their borders; or keep bending rules (they wrote, but have difficulty following). While the reason America is so interested in a non-NATO/non-EU country is they are trying to protect their (earlier) investment and that is what Russia is destroying (all that farmland is full of mines and cluster ammo, it's lost).
While the American corporate media trying to claim they care about people (after NATO killed 50,000+ kids in Iraq/ Afghanistan) beggars belief), sickening and cynical too.
The West hasn't anything to teach Russia about land warfare; while the Western interests cannot afford a neutral Ukraine (financially), now a word from your sponsor (buy guns).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martinhaley3718 There is certainly a lot of hypocrisy about, also propaganda; I was just saying the term "could" is opinion based and (too) often used by the media to fearmonger. We could be hit by an asteroid (close call two days ago btw). I don't see any point in speculating about what Russia will do next, because the only information we are getting is from a media that lied us in to two wars. Since "Tory" Blair just got promoted to "Sir" that's the cherry on top of the dung-heap for me. I've no reason to trust Boris Johnson (every reason not to) and with the return of New Labour that's enough for me.
My partner and I were casino troubleshooter in Moscow early 90's; it was extremely violent and I knew most of the mafia top brass; I managed to irritate the KGB more than once and I have something in common with Lenin and Stalin... we were all laid out flat in the same room, the difference is I tried to get up twice to take issue with that. I did learn a few things: Russians simply don't think about money the way the Western propagandists do; Putin isn't bluffing (he's been straight down the line... NATO and the EU should not be in Ukraine and Russia has complete air control over Ukraine (evidenced when they attacked the mercenaries in the West of Ukraine). They don't need to use nuclear weapons; there are many reasons to withdraw (usually it's to regroup, or to eliminate potential threats to supply lines). Anyway although America fired 100 cruise missiles into a populated capital city; Russia has close ties to Ukraine, so there is no reason to target civilians... I already know the Western media is lying, even on simple things (they are trying to throw anything they can think of and they are laying it on too thick. It's about: a gas-pipeline; oil/$ going bye bye and selling weapons; for Russia it's national security.America and the UK have been beating up small countries; rather believing their own publicity, but this is Russia and sending weapons is not about peace, it's tilting with WW3. I trust Putin more than Johnson, or the Clintonites (Biden); I suggest we leave this matter to Russia, it's not about Putin it's about Russia and after Orange man bad and Corbyn man bad, Putin man bad... I don't believe that either. Where's our "lethal aid"?
Russia doesn't need to start a nuclear war, not yet; sending money and weapons to a corrupt country (crazy idea); Truss as foreign secretary, clearly we are doomed!?
I just hate being lied to (not you) the corrupt American media and they need to be made accountable for their "fake news". Anyway have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@newenso2780 The average UK annual wage is £37,430 (according to the Office for National Statistics), unless it's London (average wage £47,455); so the term "rich" is rather subjective; while the (vast) majority don't earn anything close to the average wage, some workers even rely on state subsidy to reach the minimum or "living wage" (which seems to be lagging behind cost of living increases: food; energy; council tax). If you're earning 50K outside London, technically you're rich and one day might even be able to afford to buy the average house (no, don't look!).
I think by "the rich", many people mean: millionaires who's companies avoid tax; or like some pro footballers don't give a return for the money spent (Quangos; think-tanks; a lot of politicians...etc); "aid" to China and India (both with nuclear and space programs); or whoever got the money that was "crossed off" (as you say). Too much waste...
The Labour party were formed by the unions, to: give workers political representation; provide for the needs of the proletariat (not the wants) and (if I ever meet Tony Blair up a dark alley, it won't be pretty); cutting social provision (again) in order to go to war with Russia?! That's pretty rich... I suggest Starmer and his party lead by example then...
I don't think I ever earned 50K a year; but I'm not bitter; while some MPs earn more from second jobs (part-timers we don't need); Ukraine v Russia (that's their problem).
So while I'm not a fan of Trump, I think: taking an ax to some departments; not investing in war and driving the establishment to despair, they've been wasting (our) money.
I'm tired of being embarrassed by Starmer; don't know who he works for but it isn't us (and we are paying him); these constant rewards for failure are very bad for moral.
Anybody know what the UK does? (Looking at national debt; not more of the same; please). Tie MPs wages to those on "the dole" and it's time the lobbyists paid proper tax!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamiearan I would suggest that: it's in the national interest of some countries to not get in the way of American foreign policy; while the European Union (EU) is usually very keen to recruit new members, as is NATO. However the bigger the EU gets, the more difficult it is to get unanimous agreement, also to find one rule that suits all members.
Over time the EU has moved from the initial concept of a "common market" (free movement of goods); to a currency union (free movement of capital); then to free movement of people. This last move has caused a lot of problems: it may suit corporations to import "cheap labour" (from the East) but it undermines domestic wages in the West and if skilled labour (from countries with state funded education) move to take unskilled positions, it has the effect of a "brain drain". So European perception varies considerably across the EU.
Prof Mearsheimer, describes himself as an "offensive realist" (I'm not); but like me, he has spent a number of years living and working in: America; Russia and China and unlike many Western commentators he has actual "first hand experience". In his lecture "Why is Ukraine The West's Fault?", he describes Russia's position (far better than I can) and I agree with pretty much every point he makes. While other's may not want to hear what he is saying; I do think he has America's best interests at heart (me I don't care); but I do share his pessimism. There is no doubt that American foreign policy has been heavy handed and we might ask, who is making these policies and what is their objective?
While; when it comes to Russian policy, it's clear to me what their objective is and I am well aware of how heavy handed the Russian government (and the gangs) can be.
Some transnational corporations: want cheap labour; to register their tax affairs elsewhere and spend large sums on lobbying (seem to view fines as the cost of doing business) and this isn't necessarily in any countries national interest. I see some similarities to the UK's East India Company and the opium wars (with America's invasion of Afghanistan); while Ukraine is a potential "Gold mine" for the big agricultural companies; China and Russia for the "social media" companies. It was very difficult to say no to an entity like the (old) East India Company (that could mean war), because this is the British Empire's military/industrial complex and it's prepared to use force. I just watched a movie (today) called "Snowden" and if half of it's true; it's amazing how much force America can use and explains why Pompeo (CIA) had a sticker over the camera on his lap-top...
To sum up: it's in the interest of the EU to expand (but not at the cost of war with Russia); since NATO was formed to oppose the Warsaw Pact (which no longer exists) it needs another reason to exist and the reason Germany didn't object to infrastructure (they co-owned) getting destroyed is, that's getting in the way of American foreign policy (so simpler to let Russia object). While the World bank, like to lend countries money on condition "the utilities" (ready-made monopolies) are privatized. I mentioned "globalism" because that's what it is and precisely what Russia and China reject. They have their own ways of doing things and they don't need (or want) things like foreign social media companies, or bio-tech companies interfering. So if you do watch the Prof's lecture; basically Russia agreed with Ukraine, neutrality or war; that's between them, so what the UK thinks is irrelevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottdavis421 What's going on? Okay. This guy is a con-man who is trying to solicit donations or get people to pay for free clips and all he has to do is keep stirring up hatred against his fellow countrymen (allegedly) or give away Ukrainian military strategy (allegedly); but it's become clear that he just makes stuff up (and is in it for the money).
Things he missed out: after the second attack on the Kerch bridge, the grain deal expired and Russia isn't going to renew it; they claim that Western weapons are being imported using the grain ships and that the grain corridor was used by Ukraine to attack the bridge, so cargo ships may be viewed as legitimate targets (they say). Then for about three days Russia has attacked Odessa, destroying loading facilities; they also attacked two other ports. The Western media claims things like Russia is starving the world; but it seems 97% of the grain was going to the EU, the 3% going to Africa Russia says it will provide; worries about ships getting insurance, but that's not really a worry, because insurance companies are in business to make money (so won't insure, potentially "legitimate targets" and regard those over 50 as a liability). There may be more going on than just a reply to the Kerch bridge attack, it's unusual for Russia to attack Odessa (for cultural reasons); but that's the end of free passage for Ukrainian grain.
The fake Russian missed all that, although it's been widely reported; but then he's in Canada and we can only hope he meets a real Russian someday. As the OP mentioned he's enjoying death too much to look at this creature with anything but astonishment. He doesn't even know much about Russia, but clearly this is a better gig than trying to flog crypto.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Since Crimea is now Russia and the (mainly Russian speaking) "breakaway"regions have been under Russian control since early 2022, despite "the globalists" diverting billions of public money to their "cause" it looks more like it's the American far-right that are struggling. I think they've lost.
Look at the towering: national; student; and credit card debt; homelessness, no NHS; an opium "epidemic" (see Purdue Chemicals: Afghanistan).
Is this what we are fighting for?
(You don't get this in Russia).
If you are asking what a technologically driven nuclear superpower with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal; bomb; liftoff-platform; geared for land war with (according to the fake Russian parasite) 3 million troops in reserve; the one that constructed the first space station.
Well I don't want to give anyone any ideas (it's not my war), but they could conceivably knock this planet off it's axis.
The mainly American msm not only fail to recognize: that the conflict in Ukraine started in 2014; Russia didn't export it's manufacturing base to Asia; that since sanctions won't work on an energy and food exporting superpower, the American far-right's intention all along was to "play" Europe (at the risk of WW3).
If you want a reality check, here it comes...
The Russians like the Ukrainians; but the matter of Ukrainian neutrality was always a red line. (not open to negotiation!!).
When the msm claims Russia is targeting civilians this is a lie.
Actually this is what NATO does, they've killed millions of civilians, but I digress.
Things don't work the same way in Eastern Europe as they do in the West.
Let me put it this way, if the Ukrainian mafia snaps it's fingers under the Russian governments nose, then they have to display (to all) the consequences of that.
(In the case of Chechnya, they raised Grozny to the ground; they shelled their own "white-house" to evict protesters, but bombing the metro; killing schoolkids, they were incandescent with anger).
I doubt Russia will do that to Kyiv or Odessa or move to full deployment yet; what they appear to be doing is maintaining equilibrium (but that isn't popular with the Russian nationalists).
You claim Ukraine has "one tiny under powered army", well it is starting to look that way now; if Russia deploys 3 million (I still think the fake Russian is lying) not only would it spook the EU, but how is Ukraine expected to match that?
The Cossack's reputation in battle goes before them; as does the Russian's in tank warfare, while it seems to puzzle the msm why Russia would use hyper-sonic technology on a small electrical substation, I can clear that one up for them. (they're just showing you what they've got).
The reality is (as far as I can see) is that Monsanto and their bio-labs; Biden and his oil deals; the billions of public money diverted, even the whole "globalist" concept... they've lost!
Btw I just come here to marvel at this base creature; trying to teach others to hate his (allegedly) fellow countrymen, while knowing virtually nothing about Russia.
You'll know more about Russia by typing VDNK; Hotel Ukraine or Moscow Metro than from this fraudster or the "fake news" brigade.
If you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask, but just one question. Why are we sending so much money to the Ukrainian mafia? They aren't even in the EU or NATO, but since the Russian word for stop is stop at least they have that in common. Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukraine Poised to Devastate Russia if... if what?... If pigs could fly? Now the war is expanding outside Ukraine; firing American missiles at Russia (legally) makes America a legitimate target.
Meanwhile Polyanskiy (First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN) dismisses the story that three Ukrainian amateur divers blew up Nordstream as something only children might believe; "those who want to promote this fairy-tale want to create a smokescreen around confessions of top American officials", he said, and Russia describes it an obligation of Germany to provide crucial details about the (terrorist) attack to the UN security Council.
While Germany has cut funding to Ukraine, due to the story that Ukraine is using this to attack German/Russian infrastructure; they both also want reparation from Ukraine.
The figures published by the Ukrainian Ministry are becoming absurd (8,500 out of 3,000 tanks destroyed, so far); 103 cruise might be correct, as more reputable news outlets report the largest missile attack since Russia invaded (6 dead), but:' they are designed to be destroyed on contact; it's clear Russia is not running out of missiles and America apparently pays more for them than Russia. 1280 personnel eliminated? This is what is called prop-a-ganda Prof and you are distributing it willfully.
I don't know why Russia mounted such a large missile attack (some Western leader may have said, or done, something provocative; that's usually the reason); I doubt it's because France arrested the Telegram CEO (that's either part of the war against free speech, or he's a bargaining chip); but the Ukrainian "special operation" did not get to the Kursk nuclear facility and now occupy around 100 square miles of villages (civilians already mostly evacuated). Now the Ukrainian forces and British tanks are in danger of being trapped; while numerous sources report large Russian gains on the Eastern front.
Here's a sobering thought for you, Prof. If Ukraine capitulates, all this American "investment"; the assets of those foreign corporations that moved into Ukraine (from 2014) and all these loans (that are unlikely to be repaid anyway), these would all be worth nothing. If that were to happen, what a massive waste of (our) public money that would be; but it might actually benefit what's left of Ukraine to rid themselves of the parasitic money-changers; might be a good idea for us to do the same.
Still think it's possible to win against a nuclear superpower that as a last resort can destroy the planet? For all those advocating firing American missiles at Russia; don't forget that while it's illegal to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries, it's entirely legal for nuclear superpowers to use them on each other. I wonder when you are going to realize that this is where further escalation is leading; does there have to be a global thermonuclear war before this sinks in? Russia is not bluffing, Prof.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrVancityeagle @MrVancityeagle
The only sources I can find that in any way support what you are saying are all pro-Clinton Democrat supporters, who then go on to "spin us another one". As was made crystal clear before the election: there are loopholes written into American tax law; Trump (and others) use everyone they can and while there are moral and ethical issues arising from this (such as the ordinary taxpayer having to make up the shortfall), it is legal and that is all their accountants care about, or need to care about.
By the way: it wasn't Trump that paid for this legislation (others did); it's yet another example of one rule for the rich, another for the rest of us and it is highly unlikely Trump will change this as he profits from it.
As for Wikileaks: if you are telling me Wikileaks helped Trump get elected, yet Assange is still blockaded in a London embassy, then I have to tell you that sounds ridiculous.
Now that Trump is President: he calls the IRS, they don't call him; he can put his face on the money and since he controls a central bank, he won't be filing for bankruptcy any time soon. This is just another tree to bark up and you've missed the boat on that one (sorry to mix my metaphors).
You seem to want to ignore that Wikileaks (publishing info from: Manning; Snowden and whoever in the DNC downloaded info directly from their computers) have shown some of the ugly goings on behind the veil of state secrecy (from Bush Jnr onwards) and that caused America a severe loss of face. That's why some in the Democrat and Republican party want Assange dead. There is no doubt Assange gave "whistle-blowers" a platform; not a shred of doubt in that. It's not Trump that's a fascist, he is just the latest "facilitator". Fascism occurs when corporations get to make the rules; Clinton was signed up to that; Trump is in the process of learning what he can do and what he can't.
As I see things: it's not Trump that made America fascist, it's two right-wing parties in hock to their corporate sponsors and the influence of "chicken-hawks" (those who advocate war, but have never seen combat and have no intention of doing so) in the establishment. Trump didn't create American fascism, in one way of thinking, American fascists created Trump.
You don't seem to see any of that; how so?
1
-
@MrVancityeagle You said, "So called "progressives" defending a fascist and an intelligence asset masquerading as a "whistleblower" who helped put that fascist in power." and I don't agree with that description at all. Assange isn't a whistle-blower, he's a journalist; I don't consider Trump to be a fascist, but I believe the American establishment is far-right as they allow private profit seeking entities to call the shots (sometimes literally). This not a recent phenomenon either, it has been going on for decades now but this kind of market fundamentalism has made the rich richer; the poor poorer; it has damaged the economy and it's one reason the voter was given two very unpopular candidates last election.
I still doubt that Wikileaks has joined in the recent tribalism or been co-opted. The reason is that currently there are moves to charge Assange under some old legislation related to espionage. I'm not saying Trump is behind this, but someone in America is and I don't think it will succeed as this can be viewed as an attack on journalism and (as before) we are invited to jump to a conclusion on no evidence since some media outlet can't do a simple fact check. Sure people releasing info just before an election can alter people's opinions; but there was a lot of information released about both candidates (much of it derogatory in nature) some entirely made up and the two parties campaigns had little to do with actual policy, it was mainly mudslinging. At the moment America wants Assange to face charges in an American court ... and I doubt it's to forgive him.
I'm not even sure " Israel was behind the anti-Clinton rhetoric" as she turned out to be her own worst enemy, with: her (leaked) speech to the banks showing duplicity; operating an illegal (now legal) server showed she believes rules are for other people and her story that the President got to press the nuclear trigger at will, showed she was either mad or bad (as she foreign secretary and should know protocol is a war committee decides).
It seems highly unlikely that Trump is an Israeli agent; more that he is a blundering fool as moving the American embassy had been talked about for years; but he was the President that moved to do it. There is certainly a lot of American antipathy towards Iran; that's been going on for years too and if you connect the dots, they are next after Syria ... but Iran is no Iraq or Libya and Russia just equipped them with S-300s.
I'm no great supporter of Trump, but I though Clinton was beyond the pale, I don't know about Jimmy Dore these days; but TYT have sold out and while they claim to be progressives (whatever they are), they clearly hate Trump and are desperate to get offended by something ... anything, it seems. I don't think Jimmy Dore is a sucker for Trump propaganda, I rather think he wishes the Democrats were worth supporting but after what happened to their more Liberal candidate Bernie Sanders, I'm guessing he thinks the whole system is rotten through and through. I can see that there is a powerful Israeli lobbying group in Washington, along with lots of others and Goldman Sachs seems to have a finger in every pie; but America seems to pay more attention to Saudi Arabia and their wahabists although after their murder of a journalist maybe relations have changed.
The msm don't tell me a lot of things, such as the whistle-blower who revealed details about the Clinton Foundation having their house raided by the FBI. They do talk about Russia a lot, but some of them seem to believe we should reach a conclusion and wait for evidence. So I don't think Russia helped Trump to win; although they would obviously prefer any candidate to anti-Russia "chickenhawk" Clinton, and I've not seen any evidence with any substance to prove they did. The American security services should know how the leak happened in the DNC, but they won't even allow their computers to be inspected by the FBI. I can only assume there is more damning evidence they don't want the FBI to see.
I don't think Assange is really taking sides; except against those that wish to hide what is really the truth that some wish to hide. It has to be clear by now that the UK isn't spending millions on a simple rape allegation; so it's again about who controls the narrative. Whoever it is doesn't want whistleblowers, which is why Assange is again a target.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting to watch the Murdoch Press at work... "Xi Warns Putin Not To Go Nuclear" is significantly different from China does not support the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine and while the latest former "special assistant" is following the American script (and trying to involve China and Iran).
China warning Russia?... it doesn't work like that. America has already been told, "China has a good relationship with both Russia and Ukraine... Don't try to involve us in American power games... it's naive to insist China condemns Russia (it would make no difference)". Is that not clear enough? Apparently not, hence the misleading headline and the tag-line "Russia hasn’t yet understood that it’s most likely going to lose the war" is simply more spin, as SPAD William Courtney says it's unwise to make predictions (or words to that effect) so Henry Bonsu is not hosting "well informed discussion" at all, he can't even quote his guest correctly?!
The reports from Times Radio that Russia was running short of missiles has now been shown to be woefully inaccurate; claims Russia attacked Poland seem inaccurate (although the American President and the American intelligence service seem to disagree on that) it was definitely a Russian made missile, but the question is still, who fired it? (discussions continue).
Don't ever forget that the Murdoch press already lied the UK into two wars; here they are again to "spin" us another; Russia told the EU and NATO to keep out of Ukraine (repeatedly), the truth is that the Western oligarchs want war; the American political class want someone, or something, to blame as they've run the Western economy into the ground and here's News Corps supporting more money being sent to what is a rather corrupt country and this highly biased reporting is for our "benefit" because Russia stopped listening to the hypocrisy (whataboutism) after Clinton and Hague lied to Russia and China in the UN security council; they've clearly had enough. It's the end of the petrodollar; that's why America is laying it on so thick; they never cared about people, but this latest "proxy war" is up close and personal for Russia and if you don't recognize the Ukrainian mafia, I do. If America and the UK keep blocking negotiations, there won't be much left of Ukraine; meantime it's the civilians that will pay for it all; while Henry Bonsu spins us another...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
davecoyle4483 I'm not saying a Scottish independence referendum is a particularly good idea; but the UK courts have ruled a country cannot hold a referendum if or when it pleases.
As for regions of Ukraine voting for independence or to join Russia, that's their business; but a lot of people seem to be making up the rules as they go along.
Re The last indy referendum
Cameron's odd "Edinburgh agreement" contained the clause "...or unless there is significant change"; not sure if the UK has actually left the EU yet (maybe still being blocked or delayed), but Scotland left the EU. I hold that countries can hold major referendums any time they want; that the people are sovereign, Westminster disagrees.
I do recall the assurances from Tory/Tory light, that staying in UK was only way for Scotland to stay in EU; the games they played with assurances of substantial new powers (for one and all) hanging Scottish Labour "out to dry", as it was another empty gesture. Making it up as they go along... I didn't vote in the EU referendum; seems Scotland was leaving the EU either way. I'd vote "leave" (in a ridiculous "best of three"). However if a country hasn't the power to decide matters by referendum, then who has?
Btw "The Russian Dude" is a fake; don't buy what he is selling; daily coverage from Canada?! Knows how to reel them in, but he's a blagger; the UK gov should avoid "American interests" for a while, try running the UK properly, but fat chance, it's making them money (our money).
So roll on the indy referendum...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@William Spaniel Have you missed that: the Western economy is a shambles; $30 Trillion (and the rest) is not something America can just "inflate" away and while the, so called, Western experts like to talk about Russia and China it's invariably within their context; the thing they clearly love... money.
I'm told Russia has a GDP about the size of Spain and what that means is it's not a particularly good measure; not only can GDP be manipulated (by, for example, running down the infrastructure; cutting services and fudging figures), does anyone really believe that a country that led the space-race; has hundreds of nuclear weapons and crosses eleven time zones is anything like Spain (even the weather)? After the ridiculous episode where the UK chancellor included the (untaxed and unregulated) "sectors" of "recreational substances" and prostitution in the UK GDP figures (presumably to make the figures look good) then gets a tax bill from the EU (for doing so well); it's clear GDP is yet another dubious concept, like: negative interest gilts; debt obligation mountains and runaway "interest" on junk debt?
I can tell you from my limited experience of Russia that since the state funds: heath; education; state apartments (only available if married) having no rent; gas; electricity; council tax, that monthly wages would frankly terrify Westerners; still a monthly travel pass (Metro/bus: 1992) had to be paid for, it was about 50 cents. So while I don't know how others think; I know Muscovites don't think like those who talk in millions and billions; the context is not money; or how to pay the rising gas bill (because there is no gas bill). What I'm trying to explain to you is that the context is not money in Russia; even open displays of wealth (wearing furs and jewelry to the Bolshoi ballet) is viewed as "crass"; one reason (I suppose) the Russian "oligarchs" were allowed to simply leave with billions (the government didn't want the money in the economy), just don't get into politics (they were told)... the one that tried, got jailed for 10 years (Putin let him out in 9); asset stripped and exiled. Unlike Western oligarchs who seem to have got into: politics; the media and keep their wealth offshore, it seems Russia is quite firm on that sort of behavior and while the Western media (msm) like to talk of Putin's: wealth; health and intentions, they don't know because Russia hates the Western msm calling them propagandists (and the msm clearly are as they were so keen on invasions before; now call their indiscretions "whataboutism", they do not have the moral high ground, not at all.
If Putin steps down, his successor will continue this; economically Russia doesn't obey Western rules (the Ruble is a soft currency); the CRIBS nations now have their own bank; exchange mechanism and like Zimbabwe might introduce a Gold backed currency. It seems to me that the Ukraine crisis is also an ideological war between "the globalists" in the West and the CRIBS; it's not about one individual; it's not about Ukraine being independent (it was already granted independence from the Soviet Union); it's not about democracy (a rather woolly concept when there's a choice between two right-wing parties... oh yes they are... in America and UK), or one party (China). "Freedoms" leave it out msm; can we have that in $'s and cents and with those free to attend food-banks while "trickle-down" economics trickles up and people buy: space-rockets; 5 apartments and politicians seems to get fantastically wealthy; it seems like corruption and on that point the money given to Ukraine and "lethal aid" will be lost.
On the topics you raised:
Russia doesn't carry anything near the same national debt, it's an: oil; gas; food and weapons exporter (China and India want oil and gas).
Capital flight: I very much doubt the Russian "oligarchs" want to talk to the Russia or American governments (don't want to get into politics; better to be rich); they may be viewed as the heads of organised crime, but I didn't say that); they can hire lawyers (and assassins), had years to legitimize the money "gifted", the piddling problems of billionaires are not my concern. You can't export land of Russian infrastructure; the Moscow Metro is one of the most efficient and beautiful (subjective) machines I've ever seen and no you can't buy it and if you keep the trains running on time, you are considered a hero and given a medal. The Russian population is one of the most highly educated ones I've encountered (benefit of state funded education); the cold-war rhetoric is largely a lie, Russia is a technologically driven society (which has it's own problems: see socialism). Low wages mean you don't have enough to start a big business; there isn't a financial incentive to work long hours; how do you fine people on low income?
The global economy seems to be: in recession; a broken concept (too early; too much poverty; rich exploiting poor); Russia supplies EU gas; I have to wonder why America is so keen to stir up trouble with Russia and China (Iraq; Afghanistan; Libya; Syria....) it seems to be a business model and let's be clear, exporting weapons does not stop war and if America wants to mitigate gun crime, perhaps give everyone a musket or flintlock (very 1776). Trade will continue; but inflation topping wage rises for years now and nobody will have an incentive to work.
Forget exchange rates; the $/Ruble means nothing to the vast majority; the markets (with so much fiat money sloshing around are like casinos; banned in Russia now (just a magnet for trouble as only people with money were the odd tourist and trouble. The hike in fuel prices; it's largely the suppliers, but there still is the question of why America is messing around with the EU gas supply? Russia and China do not operate the way "the markets" do in the West; they both will know what a large hike in American military expenditure (both parties nodded through, again) is likely to mean; that is a prime indicator; one the money-grubbers should recognize (how other's see us).
Dwindling cash reserves; I doubt it; maybe officially; but it has been shown that: India; Russia and China bought a lot of Gold (not the paper kind, the physical kind) and I very much doubt they are telling the truth (why would they?) when faced with a dishonest msm and Western leaders and institutions even I don't trust?
Looks can be deceiving; sure can, but with bread at 70 cents; the needs of the population largely met; Western sanctions (an attempt to block free trade) are unlikely to do much except rebound.
As for the Western media having the moral high-ground they don't (and Russia views the msm as largely propagandists, the ones giving political contributions almost certainly are and before they talk about war crimes, lying us into two (oil) wars; fake news; divisive political "tribalism", they have some responsibility and if the publish fact I can make my own opinion.
What caused the Russian invasion? The lecture, "Why is Ukraine the West's fault" explains that in terms I understand.
All these ex-military; now weapons-salesmen with their war "weather map" should take into consideration (profits aside): Russia told the West to keep out of Ukraine, they didn't; Russia is quite good at war (they sacked Berlin, remember?) and it's their way or WW3. As for Ukraine defeating a nuclear super-power (any) they won't and the msm stories of little Natasha being blown up with her teddy bear is an insult; crocodile tears because we know what you did! 50,000 kids dead in Iraq/ Afghanistan; 100+ cruise missile fired into Tripoli and those that tell the truth get jailed (Assange).
Where are those tax dollars going to come from? Lol Only the mafia in Russia talk in dollar$; you're in the wrong: country; age and ideology... ask America!!
Reserve funds $642.2 Billion; $75 Billion spent (you claim) in 6 months; so what? Russia occupies the Donetsk; 8 years at that rate to go; unfortunately for Western commentators, it was never about "the money" and in the face of WW3 perhaps it's time the Western leaders minded their own business and stopped pretending to be charitable to their latest "cause"; before the riots start that is... still time to jail a few: oligarchs; lobbyists and bankers I'd say... but of course with: censorship; tampering with language and politicians only doing things for their rich sponsors; there's nobody listening to the actual workers and the rules of "Fight Club" (and what's actually going on), are a secret.
Economic sanctions on Russia? Well after America and China have been angered by America; it's too late to realize they work both ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He lives in Canada (he said); after spending time studying in America; don't know where he got the accent (possibly the movies). Probably not a good idea to publish your e-mail on an open forum (even if you are in the cia); but Atem (here) is very keen on money (and doesn't seem to care how he gets it). That partly explains why he gloats over the deaths of (allegedly) fellow countrymen, while (allegedly) revealing Ukrainian logistics, plus all the "It's Over!" clickbait titles, he is simply in the business of selling hatred (and curiously: seems to know very little about Russia; Moscow or the way things are done in Eastern Europe. How does he know what's going on in Eastern Europe on a daily basis? The answer is he doesn't; he simply repeats the talking points of the far-right American media (including their mistakes); might be from Ukraine or one of the Baltic states (there's not much
Russian about him) and while my country (Scotland) is fairly tolerant, if I was doing what he's been doing they'd like put me in jail (charge: disturbing the peace).
I liked Toronto; the CN tower and the Canadians I met (the day I was there); whereas I dislike this individual (who has recently turned to trying to gain sympathy, while coining it in). The conflict in Ukraine is an old USSR matter (if Ukraine gave up neutrality the alternative was war with Russia). Best avoided.
The Western interests who took control of Ukrainian infrastructure (from 2014) are likely to lose their "investment" (farmland now full of mines); the requests to America ($60 billion) and EU ($55 billion); they gave ($0.2 billion and $0 billion), while Russia has said after peace negotiations were blocked repeatedly (by USA and UK); offers of mediation (China; African congress and others) rejected; that they will now only negotiate on Ukrainian terms of surrender (a sobering thought).
I don't know what the Western interests thought they were doing "investing" (USA) and sending "aid", to a non-NATO/EU country (they are not known to be charitable); but there's a lot we haven't been told. While I know what this chap is doing, it's called "grifting" and, as JFK RIP said, "Do not get into direct conflict with a nuclear superpower" (then they shot him. Turns out war is big business, but not this one; in this one everyone loses (just how much is still to be decided). Except for the war profiteers, like this chap; hate sells.
(all he's got to offer really... sorry to hear you got him). That's one problem with immigration, countries exporting their undesirables (so did he jump or was he pushed?).
1
-
The Ukrainian Ministry of Information has a better shot at calculating their own battlefield losses, but that's information likely to assist the enemy; so it's top secret.
The estimated Russian losses are largely fiction (which some assume are fact); this serves as: a talking point; moral boosting propaganda; the product of Western investment, but there is very little hard evidence to support it.
American Intelligence estimated Russia had less than 3,000 tanks, when they invaded/intervened; while tanks in general may be considered twentieth century weapons, not completely obsolete but vulnerable to twenty-first century technology; so claims of destroying 7,635 tanks seem rather far-fetched and there's a complete lack of evidence to back them up.
As you say: comparing the number of troops suggests that Ukraine runs out before Russia does, which looks very bad for Ukraine.
While I find it very difficult to believe: a professional army, with air and artillery superiority, loses over 1000 troops a day, every day; that just doesn't make sense, It looks like fiction too.
So what we have here is the Ukrainian ministry's version of events; the Prof regards it as fact; but it just doesn't add up. At some point Ukraine runs out of troops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oh Lawd The Russian invasion of Ukraine is largely a response to NATO and EU expansionism.
After "Western interests" helped overthrow the Ukrainian government, there has been a civil war there for about the last eight years; when the EU offered money to (bankrupt) Ukraine to join that also included the Russian naval facilities in Crimea (that Russia leased from Ukraine; their only warm water port); but the prospect of more NATO missile bases on the border of Russia is unacceptable (at any price).
Russia already told "The West" that if Ukraine joins the EU or NATO that this would signal the start of WW3 but these "Western interests" persisted: sending money and weapons; to what can only be described as a rather corrupt country.
Do you believe for one second that Russia would allow "The Cossacks" to join a Western alliance?
There are indeed far-right groups in other countries (even in Russia); but that isn't the main issue...
If Ukraine accepted the EU offer, Russia would have no navy in the Winter months; so Russia forced a referendum in Crimea; kicked out the Western media and given a choice between staying or going with Russia (no independence option) since: they all speak Russian; it's a Russian holiday destination and there was a civil war, it was basically a foregone conclusion. Now no need for Russia to lease a port.
The American media (already claiming Russia elected the American President?!) howled in protest; it was anti-democratic; people being marched to polling booths (but remember they weren't there, the American media are already known to have lied us into at least two wars; currently aiming at WW3 by the looks of things).
Since Russia had now secured it's naval facilities, "Western interests" tried sanctions, but only individuals (the EU is dependant on Russian gas; it moves through Ukraine, who charge tariffs; smells like oil)
So Russia sanctioned right back (closing their agricultural sector). Still the "Western interests" persisted.
Zelinsky said Ukraine might join NATO and that, I believe, really set the cat amongst the pigeons!!
In the case of Iraq it was certainly the "oil for food" program and economic sanctions by America that were killing people; it's likely the reason for the attack on the World Trade centre. A war the media lied us into; it was really all about oil and then came the invasion of Afghanistan (coincidentally an opium epidemic occurs in America, see Purdue chemicals); in these wars over 50,000 kids dies (the price we have to pay say's M Allbright). War pays! (says Cheney). On to Syria... another American invasion; attempts to overthrow another government fails, when Assad asks Russia for help. Russia has it's naval refuelling depot in Syria, a proposed airstrike on Syria gets called off (Russia deploying anti-aircraft and anti-missile ships, to protect their interests; the next raid, wasn't near that port and happened). On to Libya and another regime change; America firing 100 cruise missiles into the capital city; a lynching; then a massive refugee crisis, Libya now a Muslim state... Western interests and their corrupt media did that.
Yemen (another refugee crisis); Somalia... we don't get a lot of coverage of that; but I'm being saturated with news of the invasion of Ukraine... where "Western interests" previously installed a far-right government; the smear campaigns move from "Orange man bad" to Putin man bad and it is crystal clear (now) that NATO and the EU were told, get your troops out of Ukraine because Russia is coming (on 24th).
Does anything justify invading another country?
The answer is probably no; but we should first ask America (because they do this all the time). It's clear the "interests" behind the American government don't care about people, they never did before and it's very difficult to believe they do now. They are interested in: oil or opium or keeping troops in various countries; the American media usually frame this Ukrainian crisis in terms of money... $/oil; $/Rouble or the cost... of fuel, of war, or "loss of profit"; if you care to look.
Another refugee crisis, yes" But it's us in Europe that have to deal with this and the "Elephant in the room" is what was America doing in Ukraine in the first place?? Bio-labs; messing with EU gas supplies; sending money and "lethal aid" (those is guns children, it's just an aid to carnage: see Syria).
So like it or not (they never ask me); Russia has told the Western interests we are looking at WW3 if NATO doesn't back off... see Cuban missile crisis). It's nice and clear; Russia has fired the traditional warning shot; complaints about the slow progress of war (see Afghanistan); Russia (and China; careful there) are not interested in what America has to say, actually they've a bit of explaining to do (see hypocrisy) and yes war is hell... but the "Western interests" (the globalists) could have stopped this before it started, but it smells like oil (and self interest) again as $/oil seems to have run it's course.
It's not really about fascism (although with a choice between two right wing parties, in America and UK) things have been drifting to the right... to the point that the Democrats would like be called Republicans in the 80's) and "Sir" Blair, why it's just a rich person's game, here in the West.
Sorry to tell you but Russia will completely destroy Ukraine, before it will allow it to join a Western military alliance. Can Russia do that; of course they can; militarily they haven't even started and the American late show comics (or used to be) look like they're going to laugh us into WW3.
You asked about Afghanistan; it's a tribal society and a lot of them don't recognise the concept of Afghanistan, the Taliban (the students) they don't like opium, so have a guess who's to blame...
So WW3 it is; I hope we are all decided, now back to the news... Poo-tin a bit puffy, McDonalds leaves, it's now a "no-fry zone" it's time to hike fuel prices (because we can) and we only talk in billions now... it's not about people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@howiescott5865 It's up to the buyers how they come up with Roubles (or Yuan), one way is to deposit American dollars in an account where they will be converted into Roubles. It's not that the CRIBS that quantify their economies in dollars (it's the mainly American media that does that for their own audience); but since it has become common knowledge that America manipulates $/oil; uses exclusion from SWIFT (exchange mechanism) as an economic weapon and their recent wars are really about oil or opium (not people) it's clear that the developing nations no longer have any use for the petrodollar. China manipulates its currency in much the same way as America does, when America prints more dollars (to try and inflate away huge national debt and/or pay the interest on largely junk debt); China follows suit (and that upsets American policy makers, who've been "piddling in the pool" for some time. So if countries want Russian oil and gas, like China and India, they must pay in Roubles (the American dollar is off limits and it's American policy makers that did this). As for an: energy; food and weapons exporting nuclear superpower, it's not them going bankrupt; rather instead it looks like the whole Western economy and why America is trying to start WW3 in Europe, sending money and weapons to a corrupt country... it's because they hope to profit and the emergence of this new Gold-backed e-currency (just in China) spells the end of "rampant" money printing. The money-changers can't play the usual games with the Rouble or Yuan; they are "soft" currencies, not exactly a store of value (or a commodity, like £&$), if gamblers on currency try to sell short; Russia and China will burn them on their own bonfire. Like the companies that (as one) said they were leaving Russia; business is now conducted through Chinese; Indian or other intermediaries (I assume it's the same with oil and gas); it's just a game to them. I don't know about Turkey (Turkayee), but the government in Kiev/Kviy;Keeve (who banned opposition parties; jail political opponents and want to ban Russian) they obviously don't care about democracy; the msm don't care about people and the millionaire/billionaires don't care about us. Turkey must pay in Roubles, that's Russia's condition; the Western concept of measuring worth by GDP doesn't really work regarding Russia; they put the first space station in orbit without hedge-fund managers. Turkey has control of the entry to the Black Sea, I'm sure they'll think of something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kaitronoamv The US$ used to be the World reserve currency, but largely due to the actions of a group of: short-sighted; greedy; self-serving "users", they've managed to lose that. Too much "fiddling about" with: large scale money printing; key rates being manipulated and the US$ being used as a weapon.
These $ sanctions have, in effect, forced other countries to find an alternative and while the msm now wants to focus on the $/Rb rate, really it's irrelevant, so this is yet another distraction.
Domestically a high inflation rate erodes the buying power of the currency, we are seeing this right across the Western economies, demands for wage rises to cover these hikes in food and energy costs are being resisted, so we are (generally speaking) getting poorer, except for a very select few. That's relevant to us.
If we look at the comments section (here); look at how many seem to be interested in the Rouble, when it has no relevance (to them, or at all); the Rouble and Yuan don't work like the $ or £. They are "soft" currencies; used in closed economies, not responsive to global currency markets.
What we should really be focused on is why the $ and £ (both considered commodities) are being misused. All I was saying was the msm are again trying to distract from their sponsor's self serving ways. That's what we need to focus on before we all end up in the poor-house. Losing the $ as reserve currency can only be considered a blunder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peace is part of Putin's war strategy (sounds like "doublethink", to me)... while America (in the shape of Bojo) does not want peace; they want other's to fight wars for them; while America's NATO and it's "interventions to save civilian life" do the opposite, war is NATO's reason for being and both they and the EU are okay with UK, or France, going to war with Russia, without them.
It turns out: that all the major powers knew if Ukraine wasn't neutral Russia would go to war; that Bush and Blair's "New World Order" (NWO) simply results in the rich (individuals and countries) exploiting the poor and if the UK is so concerned about national security, Lord Lebadev of Siberia should not be in the House of Lords or have ownership of the Evening Standard, it's also clear that the security services of America and UK colluded to spy on their citizens and that the UK government does not represent the majority of voters (it's something else).
The timing of the joint statement by Moore and Burns is likely due to time running out for Ukraine; if funding stops so will the war; but luckily there's always money for war (just print some more).
It's a shame: about Ukraine; that the real reason for America being so heavily invested there is kept quiet; that Ukraine heavily in debt to Western interests has, in effect, been bought.
I'm more concerned about: the misuse of public money; the competence of UK government (or those who actually run things); most of all that America leaves the UK to "carry the can".
Too much "vested interest" about that I don't share; a growing lack of trust in: the mainstream media; banks and Western government; it's absurd for them to try and lecture others on economics; or land war in Europe; while it should be clear enough that nuclear super-powers don't lose (everybody does) and if UK missiles land in mainland Russia, the Ukrainian conflict will expand.
It's clear America puts it's own economic interests first and last; they're the common denominator in many wars, while NATO and EU expansion had to stop sometime (and they don't listen).
I believe the American plan was to take control of Ukrainian agriculture and the EU gas supply; since that failed, to separate the EU from relatively cheap Russian commodities and since that worked, to keep what's left of Ukraine indebted to them permanently. While Russia is likely to escalate right up to nuclear war rather than have NATO bases in Ukraine, or missiles on their border.
I just can't remember what Ukraine, or Russia, did for for the UK last; but I won't be following the American security services new search for faeries at the bottom of the garden, it's already known London was the money-laundering capital of the world; now it might be Kyiv. UK v Russia shouldn't last too long, since UKplc got asset stripped by the same corporations that proposed this?!.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Scott Johnston Why do (some) Americans seem to believe that the term "progressive" actually means something politically; or let the Democrats get away with calling themselves "the left", when they are (also) funded almost exclusively by right wing corporations and on the main issue: that the lobbyists for the private health industry paid a fortune to the Republicans to bring the country to a standstill (freezing the budget) until a capitalist version of healthcare was implemented, so it's really all about money?
Remember Obama became President just after the Western banking system collapsed (after using debt instead of money); American foreign policy has never changed regardless of party, or President, the lobbyists won (again), so the majority lost and really Obama's only success was legalising medical marijuana ... the rest was damage limitation.
What I'm trying to say is that going back to Obama isn't progressive; what Obama might be saying is, here is a new idea ... we do what was initially proposed and put people before profit.
Of course with it all being about money that is highly unlikely to be allowed to happen, but for politicians (who all have healthcare) this is a cash cow that just keeps giving. Maybe us foreigners are saying wake up because both main political parties in America are actually the same thing. Just look at the wealth of some career politicians; how they pretend to fight then agree to vote together on huge military expenditure. Currently America is progressing towards war, not just the seven countries where it is dropping bombs currently. Both parties support this, by the way; so it's not about favourites, or which party a media outlet supports (sometimes with donations??) it's all a game, a game where most of us are excluded yet our taxes fund the whole charade. I don't think the majority of Americans recognise this ... they seem to believe the election is a competition, when the choice on offer is invariably war or war.
Obama got a bust economy; couldn't pass his primary policy, but legalised medical marijuana. 6/10.
I think Jimmy's barking up the wrong tree here ...
1
-
1
-
Ash Under Cameron the Conservatives (Tories) were very much like the Republicans ... they tripled tuition fees and raised interest on them to 6.1% (but let the rich pay off student debt, thus avoiding the interest); in a so called "era of austerity" they gave the rich another tax break; spent a lot on weapons while cutting social programs (often for ideological reasons) and then spent billions to "reform": the NHS; welfare and prisons ... all of which have been an abject failure. The East coast train line was re-privatised once it was shown to yield a profit, despite the taxpayer having to bail out private franchise holders ... need I go on?
It is clear to PM T May, or at least it should be by now, that: taking from the poor to give to the rich is becoming very unpopular indeed. In the style of Clinton the polls predicted a landslide victory for May if she called an election, so (despite a previous promise) she called one and lost he Tory majority ... so spent a billion (again ... in this so called time of austerity) to get the DUP (of N Ireland) to support them on a "supply and confidence" arrangement (because no-one wants to form a coalition with them after they trashed the Libdems previously). None of that is "Labour light" (whatever that means), because Labour would nationalise: power distribution; rail and tertiary education first chance they got; actually it's more "Tory meltdown". Yes a cap on gas prices is unlikely to be of much use, because it's an example of phoney capitalism (a different type of market manipulation). However "the right" like to ask how much will it cost and the answer is nothing for rail; but a lot for: power distribution; education; water; mail ... which is actually a good example of why these should never have been sold (off) in the first place.
So May gets her insulin from the NHS, but appoints a man to run the NHS who previously wrote a book on how to break it up and sell it? That might fool you; but it doesn't fool me. Did you get a price to fix a broken leg yet? Prices range from $16,000 for a simple break. Health insurance companies regard those over 50 as something of a liability, so I wouldn't put them in charge (even though it is another ready made monopoly ... or rather because it's a ready made monopoly). If a gas cap is May's idea of socialism, she's lost already. Too hard-right; run by the banks; promoters of class division (this time it's rich v poor ... middle class gone). The NHS is an effective system; the Tory investment in the NHS is more to fatten up bits for privatisation (imo). Didn't the Tories already ridicule Milliband's gas cap proposal ... if so again, like the Republicans, they don't care how they look as long as they win.
Problem for them is that there is far more poor than rich and "project fear" has lost it's bite. NHS (Scotland) won't be sold off though; because our politicians understand if that is proposed we'll come for them. That's not a threat by the way, it's a promise.
1
-
Jupiter Cyclops I sympathise with your problem; I also agree that Jimmy Dore (JD) highlights important issues that most of the main stream media (msm) tends to gloss over. If what JD says is true then former President Obama is talking rubbish. It's actually the people applauding and cheering that trouble me more ... are they for real (can't the "Google" the facts"? I have to make clear that American domestic policy doesn't concern me, because: I don't have a vote; it doesn't impact me directly and besides the political process is different in the UK and again in Scotland (so a lot of the subtleties are lost on me). Still it's a bit curious that similar tactics have been employed here; by the same msm.
For example, at the moment, the UK is in the process of leaving the European Union (EU) ... only Scotland didn't vote for that. The msm like to call this "Brexit"; which was (and is) a complex issue, but the referendum has some uncanny similarities in the tactics adopted by much of the msm before the last Presidential election. You see the UK msm features some of the powerful American media companies (and a Canadian one); who clearly didn't like Brexit (they are not shy in interfering in UK politics; no Russians required); Obama and Clinton dropped over to tell us America didn't like Brexit , basically saying screw "the special relationship", the UK would be at the back of the queue for trade deals (or words to that effect) if it left the EU and all the polls predicted a landslide for the "remain". Then the UK voter voted 52% to leave the EU ... but still the msm wouldn't give up (sound familiar?). Seems those that voted to leave were: ill-informed; poorly educated or stupid to start with; then a wailing and gnashing of teeth ... then accusations ... now look what you've done! Doom and gloom predicted, every drop in the pound or closure linked to the dread "Brexit" (although it actually hasn't happened yet). Funny thing though: the longer this goes on the more the msm looks like the enemy of democracy. In other words: the msm are currently destroying their own credibility; they show themselves to be blunt and dull and when some gave political donations in America, to be corrupt as well.
I'm not sure I can provide you with the answers: holding people accountable, as JD seems to be doing, is certainly one way; but the msm pump so much sludge that this often gets lost in the mix. It seems to me that a lot of people know that something is very wrong; but with both main parties being right-wing entities; the political system is polarised and they've shown that they are the same thing by voting through a big military budget and more powers for Trump. By the way this happened here in the UK with the Tories v "New" Labour and it nearly resulted in the breakup of the UK. Negative campaigning; no policies and the laughable "... but I'll tell you what we won't do!" left the socialists nothing to vote for; the electorate confused (the two main parties, one who always wins are the same) so the Scots turned to their own party and despite the, a vote for the SNP is a vote for our opposition and the SNP can't win (true because Scotland only has 59 seats in the UK parliament of over 600 seats and the SNP only stand in Scotland). Final result: Tories 1 seat; New Labour 1 seat; Libdems 1 seat; SNP 56 seats. The three main Westminster parties were rejected here; then Labour returned to the left (despite the New Labour stragglers trying to destroy the party); the Tories also split leading the Brexit and Remain campaigns. This suggests to me that things will change in America (but maybe not the way some people will like it) but I can't see the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Russian state previously told the oligarchs they could keep the billions and go; just don't get into politics. One instead decided to form a political party, so they took him off his private jet; jailed him for ten years (out in nine); asset stripped and exiled him. So I doubt the Russian oligarchs want much to do with the Russian, or American, governments, they'd likely prefer to stay obscenely rich; while it's also likely that people falling out of windows (more a Czech thing) and poisoning with radioactive material (more a Ukrainian thing) is a product of inter-gang warfare (settling old scores).
It seems Russia doesn't want money interfering with politics; unlike in the West where oligarchs: own media and give political contributions; Washington DC is full of lobbying companies and usually the Presidential candidate with the most funding wins. Whereas in China there are no elections; but if you are a corrupt bank manager they may behead you.
If Putin stands and wins the next election (in 2024) it's six years in office; if not and a nationalist gets elected (they want Russia to fully deploy) things may heat up a lot.
I'm not sure if this is true, but I believe Putin said: you get elected; then shortly afterwards a group of people in suits show up and they tell you; how things run and how things are going to run... So while the Western media do like a hate figure (there's been a long list) I don't believe Putin makes the decisions when it comes to this conflict (and I hope none of the G7 leaders do); it's a committee decision and money is not a deciding factor. I wouldn't fret about the oligarchs; they aren't exactly nice people and can easily employ high power lawyers and assassins; they've had years to legitimize their windfall and trying to take stuff they legitimately walked off with would concern the Russian government (paradoxically).
Sending money to corrupt countries that aren't EU or NATO members, does seem rather idiotic to me; all this talk of Russia marching on Europe seems nonsense, but some people (like D Cameron, now a Lord) and this bozo have weapons to sell.
Russia holds the Russian speaking regions; they want a neutral rest of Ukraine and NATO missile bases off their border. That's something the Western oligarchs can't afford; all that "investment" in land covered in mines already lost, they are playing with public money and Ukrainian lives with no accountability. If Putin steps down the nationalists will likely sack Kyiv (and if you don't think they can; ask Germany); while I don't support American interests, or the globalists; look at the state of this country!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JamesAnderson1988 It's no laughing matter (all this misinformation we are being given).
Russia isn't "beating" Ukraine, it's "beating up" Ukraine, destroying bridges; power and rail infrastructure, it's around seventy years since the battle of Kursk (where Russia lost 860,000 men; 1000 tanks.... and won), it's up to them what they want to call this military "intervention" (that's what the Western propagandists like to call theirs... interventions to save civilian life, they say, then kill 50,000 kids). If you want to claim that it's NATO v Russia; I believe America, using Germany, have just done that (End of March).
I take China's position on this, "don't try to involve us in American power games"; they said... "don't be naive" (that's fightin' talk).
If anyone is being disingenuous it's the Western corporate media (msm), the oligarchs who own it and are trying to control the narrative; the arms and oil lobby.
They are profiting from this conflict, arms sales; shale gas might even become viable; the best analogy I come up with is they are playing poker with our money, they are the cowards, they aren't going to war, instead their "win at all costs" approach is going to start a really big, because Russia is playing chess (and you don't bluff in that game).
It's all about money, if you listen to the msm (they never stop talking about it); Putin never put up gas prices in America, the oligarchs did (because they could).
It's not about democracy (a dubious system at best, but Ukraine gov banned political opposition; it's not about a NATO member being attacked (Ukraine isn't in NATO); it's not about "the people" NATO never cared about people; it's not about Ukrainian independence (Ukraine was granted independence as long as it stayed neutral); it's not about Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons (these were Russian nukes)....
So what is this cause you support?
It looks like money laundering to me from a Western perspective; Russia pounding Ukraine until what's left of it declares neutrality (I could be wrong).
I do find it interesting that "the usual tactics" keep rebounding on the Western policy "wonks"; I do find that funny, but sending 32 tanks plus 14...70 years after the battle of Kursk... when the world and technology has moved on. $400 million when 31 tanks should cost $275 million, I guess the rest must be P&P?!
Btw I'm not trying to have a go at you... clearly you're not a "bot"; I just hate the lies. It's up to Russia and Ukraine to sort this out; the global superpowers never listen to me... but America isn't here to save the day, looks like the petrodollar is being abandoned; the Western economy is going bankrupt and the truth is $45 billion (or whatever) could be better spent (although it's "funny money").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mombaassa You seem to be just parroting the American neo-conservative line; but China builds things: roads; bridges; a lot of American product and, in that respect, are perfectly reliable; while you are either unobservant, or easily convinced, because clearly AMERICA is the world's most powerful "fair-weather friend" (just ask Libya; Iraq, or even Russia, all their former allies).
I'm not changing the subject (and I'm not a bot) If you spread lies or unjust criticism of that one party communist country it's considered "loss of face" and they aren't just going to take it like Russia (that's why the corporate media and individuals like this fake Russian are dangerous at this time, it's because they tell lies).
China did not start this conflict; they aren't supplying weapons to either side and their peace plan was rejected. The neo-cons and you want to involve China, why?
Or, in other words, where is the evidence for your derogatory statement(?); because the evidence that you are wrong is overwhelming.
"China has good trading relationships with both Russia and Ukraine" (which is true). "It would be naive to demand China takes sides" (which is true) and their business model "belt and road" is vastly superior to America's "perpetual war" model (is that not true too?).
So 滚蛋 (roll away you turtle's egg). For a valid statement you require proof, so where is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MitchGoldhvu What I'm saying to you is that America already treats war as some sort of business model; NATO interventions are about $/oil (or opium) and what is the justification for: firing 100 cruise missiles into a capital city (Tripoli); 50,000 dead kids (Iraq & Afghanistan) and supporting the overthrow of the Ukrainian government (in 2013) that sparked a bloody civil war (13K dead)... I see no justification for that, do you?
The American media were all for war; toppling governments, economic warfare "oil for food" etc. The American oligarchs have left a trail of destruction across the middle East, turned the most prosperous country in Africa into a "basket case" under Sharia law (with a huge refugee problem Europe has had to try and deal with), not to mention Yemen and Somalia (because their corrupt media never do) and much of this is illegal; but it happened anyway...
Trump didn't call for Putin to be "taken out" Biden did; it's the height of stupidity for politicians or diplomats to call for the murder of politicians or diplomats. As for you, you seem confused, if the US or NATO (or Mossad) attempt to assassinate the leader of Russia I expect America will lose Washington DC; NYC; Boston... because Russia isn't Libya or Iraq and they've stopped answering the telephone. Try looking at the pictures of America's illegal wars, it's far worse than this... but notice something, the gas supplies to the EU are still working (odd that); the West doesn't want peace... it's sending weapons and after Orange man bad, the globalists have moved on to Putin man bad. If you think Ukraine stands a chance against Russia you must be deluded; but this is not a normal American proxy war for oil; Russia will not allow The Cossacks to join NATO or the EU... and that's final!
What was America doing in Ukraine; funding fascists; bio-labs; dodgy oil deals (see Hunter Biden), they were up to no good! My conclusion(s): the American media is full of sh*t; American oligarchs run the government and so it's a corrupt oligarchy (not democratic in the least). Biden needs to learn when to shut up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidhowse884 Twelve replies (only six visible). There is a certain comedy aspect listening to Americans: talk about America being a beacon of democracy; trying to describe two right-wing parties as "left" and "right" or even criticize other countries and their version. It's about a billion to run for President; Wall Street backs both main parties and when Trump won the Presidency (Clinton the "popular vote") the story was America had previously tried finding candidates people liked, but that didn't work.
There isn't going to be competition in a fixed election (oxymoron), Putin odds on fav anyway; so looks (to me) like the Prof is just fishing for clicks.
While here in the UK: two main UK parties (the far-right Tories and "New" Labour aka Tory light); one always governs, both represent money interests while a lot of MPs and Lords have: better paid second jobs; or a promised seat on the board; or capitalize on inside info (sometimes all three), a lot seem to bank in Panama, to avoid the "taxman".
So it's rather difficult for Westminster to criticize others (but they do); often the taxpayer; while they like to blame the poor (who don't have proper representation, or "the money"); now started on the working class, who run essential services (most now privatized and subsidized). Since the Labour party (founded by the unions) no longer exists; the only recourse for workers is to strike (which the Tories want to ban); then... get this... they try to lecture others on matters economic (the UK £3 Trillion in debt).
Currently: America and the UK only give the appearance of democracies; China isn't, it's a single communist party, so run by committee; Ukraine isn't (no elections); the E.U. isn't (President by appointment); Russia is, with one candidate (odds on); while in Scotland (democracy, through proportional representation) it's designed so no single party should hold a majority, but the right-wing UK parties are so unlikable it was SNP 56; Tories 1 Scottish Labour 1; Libdems (center party) 1 so that didn't work out either.
However there is a certain comedy aspect with the pro-war Democrats trying to claim they are left-wing (socialists); anti-socialist more like; too much money in politics!
Put our leaders on minimum wage and watch them scatter... don't know what or who they really represent, but it is not the majority of us (somewhat ironic, eh?).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I heard it said that, "socialism is too boring; capitalism is too exciting" (or maybe I made that up); but the question "Why is Russia So Crazy?" is a loaded question and the destruction of Dresden that was us (the allies); if you win it's not called a war crime and currently Russia isn't crazy; it's very angry and it's at war.
Maybe it's: high levels of student debt; large medial bills; towering national debt, making people crazy? Oh no wait, that would be America.
Maybe it's with the state instead covering these and the utility bills too; subsidizing the transport network; they don't need to pay you much. There's no shortage of bread and Vodka; but it's boring.
In other words it's not easy to start a business, or take foreign holidays on (say) $200/month; there are no casinos; they let their "oligarchs" walk off with billions (of largely IMF bailout money). Just don't get into politics they said and they jailed the one that tried (reputed to be Russia's richest man); asset stripped him and now he appears on the msm news complaining.
All I can tell you is that Russian and American society view money entirely differently.
As for Russia being short of creative talent; I would say that is a myth the msm like to push, I don't know how much longer that will stand up to close scrutiny; but they put the first satellite in space; built the tallest hotel in the world (on loam); they have their own social media; punk music scene; but LGBT is not open for discussion. Officially everyone is heterosexual.
I'd go as far as saying that trying to judge other cultures/societies by our rules/standards doesn't work; also they're clearly not interested and run by gangsters; the msm they can talk.
I don't believe banning LGBT marches affects Russian creativity; it's similar to the Western morality of the 1950's; gambling is viewed as immoral; in the early 1990's Moscow was virtually run by gangsters; the mobsters from the breakaway states (including Ukraine; Georgia; Chechnya and of course Russia); it was like Chicago 1930's in the movies... and I was there.
So I like the Russian people; while I hate the msm and paid killers; one for profiting from peddling misinformation which I regard as evil; the other for also not caring a jot about people.
Still, I'm shocked; I never thought about it before; Bryan Callen I believe is correct, there were no old men!
At this time it seems America (Western interests) want Germany to deploy tanks in Eastern Europe; it looks profitable, but maybe look at pictures of Stalingrad before deciding how angry Russia will be. The msm have spent years talking smack about Russia (Russia-gate?!); they back two right-wing parties; have never seen a war they don't like; lied us into two wars (I believe); if they are looking for a World War, well Germany and Russia are the go-to nations. If we want to know about superpowers wrecking countries we could very well ask America (our sponsors); Russia wasn't going to let the EU buy their leased port facilities in Crimea from under them; tanks on the modern battlefield won't last long; but the msm talking about the suffering of people (it's an insult); they love money; but msm talk of World domination (is it not the globalists; their sponsors, trying that?). By the size of the forces deployed; Russia has hardly started; they don't accept the promises of the Western interests, I believe Ukraine agreed to be neutral after Russia took their nukes out; if that's true then Russia is responding with righteous indignation; so careful there!.
Russian elections; they have eight parties; China and Ukraine have one each; America and UK have, in effect, two parties; one always wins; some groups back both.
Until Assange is released; Snowden gets a pardon; I'm not interested in the fate of journalists; colour me cynical, but I don't believe the msm stories (and for some time).
Only Russia and Ukraine will resolve this, best avoided; meanwhile back at the ranch, rising debt; inflation; falling life expectancy, so where's our "lethal aid"?
While Joe ribs Brian about Russia (where the legal system takes 7 years); it was us that bombed Dresden; dropped nukes; declared Russia to be the enemy after sacking Berlin.
"There were no old men" (I'm still in a state of shock); how did I not notice that. I know how you get weed out there Joe (they're just like us, in some respects; Russian punk rock doesn't seem to sell in the West; Moscow is a stunning city, the Metro a work of art, got lost first time; couldn't read the writing).
Let us dispense with some msm myths: Russia is not weak and trying to take over the world (both can't be true); they don't blow up their own undersea pipelines instead of turning them off; so they know someone else did and sending billions to corrupt countries in the face of a cost of living crisis... it sounds like something gangsters would do (but you didn't hear that from me, okay?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The EU have given far more to Ukraine: not just money and weapons; they've lost relatively cheap supplies of Russian: gas; oil and grain and have another refugee crisis to deal with (after Libya). The question might be why they would want to support America interest in Ukraine; the companies that moved in already have upset EU farmers (who know how to protest) and when it comes to ripping people off; these globalist zealots even do that to their own citizens. I don't think America can blame the EU; they can try, but all the majors powers knew that even the prospect NATO expansion (after Yugoslavia) would have Russia declaring war. I would expect that Trump and the hotel chains that still operate in Russia and China have better uses for money than war. While if NATO wants an enemy; one with teeth and claws, then Russia, or China, fit the bill. I don't think what America is doing is in the EU's interest.
My proposal is we get three nuclear superpowers to collaborate on putting a colony on Mars; this will not solve world poverty or (m)any of the existing problems; but it's something bigger than any one country and something we can all support. I remember the streets being deserted to watch the first man walk on the Moon; Russia putting the first space station in orbit and am amazed by what the Webb telescope is bringing us. While listening to talk about millions and billions from the G7 (money they don't have) is boring me to tears.
NATO was formed to oppose the Warsaw Pact; which no longer exists; if it fires missiles at mainland Russia; this makes NATO affiliates legitimate targets; I don't make the rules.
The question might be, who does? I don't think it's Biden, or Putin, while in my experience of USSR given independence and a choice between neutrality or war, you don't choose war.
As for being $34 Trillion in debt, have you checked the offshore "tax havens"(?) because there's a lot of money being exported out of the economy, to who knows where?
Odd how the American hotel chains manage to do business in Russia; I guess they know how to play the game; but I can't afford their prices, so I'd stay at Cosmos for VDNK.
While if America, or NATO want a nuclear war; they just need to keep doing what they are doing; no way are Russia going to back down (this time).
With American troops still occupying the oil fields in Syria (some 20% of the country) is it not obvious why America goes to war? The network media rather quiet about this...
1
-
1
-
@שושנהבןדור In 2008, in separate summits"; the NATO and the EU said Ukraine could join; that was the major escalation. While in 2014, both UK and America cosigned an agreement (giving assurances, not guarantees); that agreement was between Russia and Ukraine, neutrality, or war... they chose poorly.
After what happened in: Yugoslavia; Libya and Syria; I very much doubt Russia will back down (it didn't work before, so expect push-back); up to and including nuclear war.
According to referendums the voters in these (currently occupied) Eastern regions don't want to be part of Ukraine; so who is America to tell them and those in Venezuela they got it wrong? Looking at American: democracy; national debt and funding for foreign wars (I'd say: interfering; money-grubbing; busy-bodies; misappropriating public money.
American arms lobby and NATO need war; the good news for them, war is springing up all over the place; civilians are paying for it all (one way or another); but this business model is clearly angering a lot of "Joe Public". Probably because there's nothing in it for them; trust in government has evaporated and they don't share any American interests.
If the Western: policy makers; banks and corporations can't even follow their own rules; that's not a game worth playing; I hope they don't actually believe their own publicity!
American troops are still in Syria (uninvited); they occupy the oil-fields (about 20% of the country; but you have to understand that's okay when they do it, or you are "the enemy".
Imagine the cheek of America criticising Venezuelan democracy (just looking at their version); it's only a billion to run for President now each (for one of two right wing parties).
While I view the Democrat party as slightly to the left of that German bunch in 1938, regarding foreign policy. The arm lobby must have money to burn (and mostly ours).
Only Russia and Ukraine can resolve their differences (really); I doubt America will be required to sign anything; but them trying to force this militarily, it was never going to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RovertNosnikgdoh In 1992 the government declared all Russian currency, before that date, to no longer be legal lender. At that time it took three people to sell (me) two loaves of bread... One behind the display counter, showing different types with prices (to tell you about it); one at the till to take money and issue a receipt; one to take the receipt and dispense the bread (no bag, bring your own). If they run out of a type, come back tomorrow; too much I'm sure the staff take some home.
The price for two loaves, forty Roubles (it was over five hundred Roubles to one (American) dollar, then) and forty is pronounced сорок (soorok) just because it is.
The Western model (here) is: you pick up the loaves, you put them though the automated check-out; recycle the plastic responsibly (and at least two people out of a job).
The price for a monthly travel pass, in Moscow, (Metro and busses) was around $0.50 then. The priority seems to be getting people to work (not shareholder profit); providing bread (not shareholder profit) and if ink is cheaper than paper, an official stamp will suffice (and another job "created").
Yes, certainly complacency can set in; no need to advertise bread; push product; hard sell (it sells itself); very low wages (but no utility charges, rent; tax); a different set of priorities and if the police fine you (legitimately) it supplements the low wages (some might call that corruption, some might call it a financial incentive).
I'm not trying to sell: socialism, or capitalism (both seem rather bizarre); it was a shock to my system to find a totally different way to run an economy; if you keep the trains running on time they don't give you money, they give you a medal!
So economic sanctions on Russia won't work; getting "ripped off" for $1 a day (I find amusing), no problem, and VDNK (like Disneyland for Soviets) I found thrilling.
There was a lot of mafia turf wars; some trying to get independence for their home nation; but they are nothing compared to the Russian government with their "tails up".
The Chechen "independence campaign": bombing the Metro; a school massacre; occupying the White House... Russia shelled it's own White House, then raised Grozy to the ground. Compared to that I think Ukraine got a good deal and should have stayed neutral (as agreed).
I met their mafia, HQ Hotel Ukraine (now a Raddisson hotel?!); forgot I didn't work for them... (imo) It was a blessing when Russia banned casinos (they don't work in Russia).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's fairly simple: Ukraine had a choice between neutrality or war which was negotiated (along with the division of USSR assets); assurances given; agreements signed. Done deal.
Then some (let's call them "Western interests") decided to see if they could: talk; buy, or legislate their way around that (which, of course, they can't); it's not negotiable, it was never negotiable.
This is not about Israel, or religion, it's a matter of trust and a choice. To misquote Quentin Tarantino, "and you will know their name is the Lord when they lay their vengeance upon you!"
It seems the choice (for Ukraine) is still neutrality, or war; but on much less favourable conditions than initially agreed; loss of four Oblasts (regions) maybe more (Should have stayed neutral imo).
By your definition (Prof) NATO are not the good guys (horrendous civilian death tolls); they and the EU should not have been in Ukraine (it's not an EU or NATO country); Western companies should not have been buying land; the billions sent (let's not kid ourselves) were not for charitable reasons... but the rule (all agreed) was neutrality or war. In similar fashion to Russia/America and the Cuban missile crisis; this may well include a nuclear ultimatum (that's how the rules work, is it not?).The question remains as to what the American warmongers think they are doing?
These are not the "good guys" by any means (ask around); by using the term "investment" it's obvious why America is hanging around; so that is what Russia is trashing, the "investment".
If you consider America has: dropped two nuclear bombs on population centers; carpet bombed in Vietnam; set up a torture facility in Cuba; left Laos; Cambodia and Vietnam, riddled with cluster munitions; turned Libya from a highly prosperous secular country, to an Islamic state (with slave markets) 105 cruise missiles into Tripoli; "Shock and Awe"; "Oil for Food" program (probably why the World Trade Center was attacked, again); killed African leaders, performed regime changes etc. Enough "whataboutism"... when exactly did you think America had the moral high ground here?
In America's "war on terror" (seemingly against a billion Muslims) America was described as the great Satan; possibly they mean it sets low standards, which it unfortunately often fails to meet.
When you talk about fundamental human values, are you talking about yours or theirs? (it's not correct to simply assume they are the same). I believe in the Masonic tradition (a secret society of which I am not a member) if you breach trust, they will kill you. Even "God's banker" is not immune from the Blackfriars (P2); America (simply judging by the shape of the Pentagon; design of Washington DC and the symbolism on the money) should well understand this fundamental thing. The choice for Ukraine (not you or anyone else) was neutrality or war. Everybody knew!!
I talked with the Master of the Universe (at the Dean Gallery); it seems life and the universe are meaningless but you don't have to be, but careful what you choose (you might get it).
The Chinese (before they were insulted) said, "Don't try to involve us in American power games" re Ukraine. That's how I see it too; so (again) what is America doing in Eastern Europe?
Trying to back a highly corrupt country, not in the EU or NATO, that rejected neutrality... hardly a border issue for America and they don't care about people... investing in starting WW3 it seems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Professor-Gerdes Your title is "Tucker Carlson's Interview with Putin", but that had not happened (possibly may today); "The Hill" headline "Tucker Carlson Confirms Meeting With Putin" at least looks like a valid statement; so currently we know nothing about the interview... and what do we need to know? Nothing; because people are able to think for themselves.
While hearing one side of the story and not the other isn't really journalism, it's more like propaganda and we don't have to agree, or accept, what the "other side" says, but trying to prevent it or castigate independent journalism undermines the concept of free-speech.
As I've said; I don't much believe the corporate media narrative; too many mistakes and holes in the story; not just on the Ukrainian conflict, but American domestic politics and party political spats between two right-wing parties, doesn't affect or interest me.
I would expect a number of countries don't want "Frankenstein" GM crops; or high intensity industrial farming (Don't want to work on Maggie's farm no more); or the Vampires bleeding the gas pipeline tariffs or "back at the ranch" siphoning public money to basically themselves. If you want to clickbait "Interview With A Vampire" just look at America's military/ industrial complex... just here to help... usually themselves.
While really this conflict is a Russian matter, not a Putin matter, it looks like they don't want "The West" moving in next door and I can see why the corporate sponsors are upset; Russia has dismantled their operations and cut off the gas. They don't want that getting out.
Looking at the comments here; it would seem your followers view Tucker Carlson as a: traitor; a commie or even a commie traitor; what you seem to have done is fuel a lot of hatred and in my culture that is a very dangerous thing to do.
As I said to you before Ukraine got a pretty good deal from USSR; made an agreement with Russia, neutrality (or war); turns out that was and is non-negotiable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mspicer3262 Nordstream2 (designed to bypass Ukraine and their tariffs) wasn't in operation before the terrorist attack; it was full of gas (hence the ecological disaster), but Germany had put it on hold. After the G7 "price-cap" Russia, in effect, cut the EU off. Russia burned an estimate $10 Billion in gas on the Finnish border, partly because it's not easy to switch off supplies and also (I believe) as a demonstration that it's not about money and since Russia is running a trade surplus it's being sold elsewhere.
I was just pointing out how ridiculous the Western comparisons are: Russia is highly advanced in technology; innovators, even leaders in certain fields (hypersonic missile technology, for example); $12K goes a long way in Russia (no rent or utility charges; they have an NHS and state funded education) I have trouble believing it's as much as $12K.
As for space: Russia has it's own gps; the West has been using Russia's lift-off platforms since the space=shuttle was cancelled and after the USSR was dissolved, Russia is still eleven time zones wide. As for Russia's ability to conduct war; you might ask Germany; but there's something the msm keep missing out, the Russians like the Ukrainians; so just imagine what they'll do to people they hate.
Again you seem to believe that Russia is inept; it's the EU that needs oil and gas, Russia has that in abundance; they will have the same refineries they always did, but they've shifted away from $ customers and a dubious clearing mechanism; but if you think China and Russia can't build things quickly think again; their "belt and road" program is vastly superior to sending corrupt countries money; or auctioning rebuilding contracts before the next oil war.
The Rouble is not a store of value; the currency traders can't play games with it; the advert of a Gold backed e-currency (only available to Chinese citizens) threatens to end Western money printing; possibly the real reason for America "investing" so much is "aid" (lethal). The Western interests have proved they don't care about people (even their own); they love money (don't seem to care much how they get it); if you are wondering where the $32 Trillion + went, try Panama.
I do see distinct problems in the Western economy: at the millions and billions scale they've not been using "real money" for years; exporting manufacturing, buying in product (the cheapest option), it's a sell-out and with civil unrest growing in Europe (low wages; high inflation; lack of job security), plus "lock-down" have you missed all this??
Russia; China and India are at least solvent; they've been buying Gold hand over fist; an ugly rumor is that Fort Knox is empty (but even congress lacks the power to enter); I'm not saying it's all sweetness and light in these cultures, but try formulating an argument without using the term "money" because that's what they're doing. I doubt you need to worry about me or Russia; I've been a millionaire twice (Russia and Zambia); I don't care if my art collection is worth anything (I like it); but the increase in authoritarianism, that's not healthy and that's what we have here.
Did you miss the fire-sale of personal data; the attack ads fashioned from meta-date; 6 independent data points and they'll tell you your future; camera surveillance; our leaders many past retirement age, with better second jobs; all the money that keeps going missing? The owners of the msm certainly can talk; give political contributions while claiming to be unbiased; lied us into two wars already (for oil and for opium). Who are they to judge other economies? I can tell you with some degree of certainty that: this conflict isn't about Putin; he didn't put our gas prices up (our suppliers did); Russia isn't targeting people, it blew up a series of small structures with massive bombs to show what's in stock. The msm and their "unprovoked war"; their hypocrisy (whataboutism); but underestimating Russia; their lies will find them out, so with another bank failing, do you think the Western economy is something to be proud about? Btw if the msm try smearing Xi; that's enough for conflict; you can trust me on that. Russia has 1000+ nukes; it's time to stop sending the Ukrainian mafia money; before Ukraine ceases to exist (I'd say).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthseekerodinson5094 (continued) The Chechen war was a Russian civil war; Chechnya was not a former country and while there were various heavily armed groups in Russia vying for their home countries independence, Russia did not recognize Chechnya's independence and their response was to run a terrorist campaign. After the attack on the Moscow Metro; the school massacre (two things they hold sacred) and occupation of the White House, the Russian response was to raise Grozny to the ground.
They did not "incorporate" Chechnya because it was and is Russia.
Finland and Sweden was not part of USSR, nor was Poland (although it was a member of the Warsaw Pact); Finland and Sweden do not have NATO missile bases; Poland does and Russia has positioned short range nuclear weapons to oppose that. This is all legal, but it is not helpful when it comes to peace in Europe; Russia has already objected to the build up of NATO missile bases on it's border. While America has several military bases in Europe, if you want to talk about empires.
I don't know about the Tuzla Island incident, except that both Ukraine and Russia dispute who it belongs to and still don't agree.
Ukraine's President was poisoned with dioxin, in 2004 (that's a component part of "Agent Orange"); there's still a dispute as to who did it. There was a spate of poisonings (of bank managers) in Moscow early 90's using radioactive material; it was thought that this may be either the Ukrainians or Georgians; that's another dispute.
It should be noted that there are various heavily armed groups in Ukraine, that don't all agree with each other; I don't know much about them or their ambitions.
While people falling out of windows is more a Czech tradition; I'm not saying they hold the copyright; but certain groups work in certain ways (a lot of old scores to settle).
I recall Mexico putting the first space station in orbit or amassing a large collection of ICBMs; perhaps GDP is just something Western governments use to flatter themselves? It doesn't include barter, or the worth of infrastructure, these are fairly big omissions. With Russia returning the astronauts; at least there is some cooperation somewhere; but not regarding further expansion on NATO. China and India aren't interested in the Ukrainian conflict, or America's interests there.
The real question is not the sovereignty of neighboring countries (that's largely been decided); it's, what does America think it's doing fueling war in Eastern Europe?
There is no financial profit for them there now. My prediction is that regardless of who is elected President, America is going to drop Ukraine, like the hot potato it is...
Also that YouTube will delete this reply...
1
-
@truthseekerodinson5094 (continued) The Chechen war was a Russian civil war; Chechnya was not a former country and while there were various heavily armed groups in Russia vying for their home countries independence, Russia did not recognize Chechnya's independence and their response was to run a terrorist campaign. After the attack on the Moscow Metro; the school massacre (two things they hold sacred) and occupation of the White House, the Russian response was to raise Grozny to the ground.
They did not "incorporate" Chechnya because it was and is Russia.
Finland and Sweden was not part of USSR, nor was Poland (although it was a member of the Warsaw Pact); Finland and Sweden do not have NATO missile bases; Poland does and Russia has positioned short range nuclear weapons to oppose that. This is all legal, but it is not helpful when it comes to peace in Europe; Russia has already objected to the build up of NATO missile bases on it's border. While America has several military bases in Europe, if you want to talk about empires.
I don't know about the Tuzla Island incident, except that both Ukraine and Russia dispute who it belongs to and still don't agree.
Ukraine's President was poisoned with dioxin, in 2004 (that's a component part of "Agent Orange"); there's still a dispute as to who did it. There was a spate of poisonings (of bank managers) in Moscow early 90's using radioactive material; it was thought that this may be either the Ukrainians or Georgians; that's another dispute.
It should be noted that there are various heavily armed groups in Ukraine, that don't all agree with each other; I don't know much about them or their ambitions.
While people falling out of windows is more a Czech tradition; I'm not saying they hold the copyright; but certain groups work in certain ways (a lot of old scores to settle).
I recall Mexico putting the first space station in orbit or amassing a large collection of ICBMs; perhaps GDP is just something Western governments use to flatter themselves? It doesn't include barter, or the worth of infrastructure, these are fairly big omissions. With Russia returning the astronauts; at least there is some cooperation somewhere; but not regarding further expansion on NATO. China and India aren't interested in the Ukrainian conflict, or America's interests there.
The real question is not the sovereignty of neighboring countries (that's largely been decided); it's, what does America think it's doing fueling war in Eastern Europe?
There is no financial profit for them there now. My prediction is that regardless of who is elected President, America is going to drop Ukraine, like the hot potato it is...
Also that YouTube will delete this reply...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthseekerodinson5094 If I remember correctly: Ukraine was fully independent by about 1994; division of USSR assets (military and commercial); gas tariffs and port leasing fees; with Russia and America having combined to decommission old Soviet weapons stocks... but later (largely due to corruption) it went bankrupt.
America had already given Ukraine around $6 billion, to cover the cost of decommissioning weapons (nobody was maintaining) and to "aid democracy" (Nuland); the EU gave billion in aid, but Ukraine ran up a large gas bill and some did not like the Soviet style government and wanted to apply to the EU.
In 2004 (in separate summits), both the EU and NATO suggested Ukrainian membership might be a thing. This did not help Russia-Ukraine relations.
However I would say 2014 was when Ukraine ceased to be neutral; a lot of things happened in that year, the armed overthrow of government split the country and civil war broke out; Russia moved to secure the key port in Crimea and the other Oblasts (currently occupied) all voted for independence (nobody recognised).
Who or what inspired the regime change is open to debate; it's not one I'll enter.
2. One question is who decides? In Scotland the people (the voters) are sovereign; in England the government is sovereign, it's one or the other. In my view, the people are sovereign and while they've voted for a lot of crazy things in the past; in national referendums they are never wrong. In my understanding a country can hold a national referendum, but regions do not have that power (this is an issue in several parts of Europe), not just Ukraine.
When the UK parliament tried to block the electorates decision to leave the EU; that only reinforced the view that the UK government does not represent the electorate (it's something, or somebody else).
When it comes to agreements or promises, in Slavic countries; these are taken very seriously indeed; when I worked in the USSR I was told early on, do not break promises with Russians!! (it's better not to make any). This is something the Western interests do not understand, or don't want to; but since the Masons largely built America they should at least understand what breach of trust entails. It is possible for a country to be neutral and trade with the EU (see: Switzerland); but there are a lot of ideological zealots that are currently using Ukraine as their latest battleground.
I don't believe anybody but Russia and Ukraine can reconcile their dispute; if Ukraine is not neutral there is only one alternative. It's entirely up to them.
1
-
@truthseekerodinson5094 If I remember correctly: Ukraine was fully independent by about 1994; division of USSR assets (military and commercial); gas tariffs and port leasing fees; with Russia and America having combined to decommission old Soviet weapons stocks... but later (largely due to corruption) it went bankrupt.
America had already given Ukraine around $6 billion, to cover the cost of decommissioning weapons (nobody was maintaining) and to "aid democracy" (Nuland); the EU gave billion in aid, but Ukraine ran up a large gas bill and some did not like the Soviet style government and wanted to apply to the EU.
In 2004 (in separate summits), both the EU and NATO suggested Ukrainian membership might be a thing. This did not help Russia-Ukraine relations.
However I would say 2014 was when Ukraine ceased to be neutral; a lot of things happened in that year, the armed overthrow of government split the country and civil war broke out; Russia moved to secure the key port in Crimea and the other Oblasts (currently occupied) all voted for independence (nobody recognised).
Who or what inspired the regime change is open to debate; it's not one I'll enter.
2. One question is who decides? In Scotland the people (the voters) are sovereign; in England the government is sovereign, it's one or the other. In my view, the people are sovereign and while they've voted for a lot of crazy things in the past; in national referendums they are never wrong. In my understanding a country can hold a national referendum, but regions do not have that power (this is an issue in several parts of Europe), not just Ukraine.
When the UK parliament tried to block the electorates decision to leave the EU; that only reinforced the view that the UK government does not represent the electorate (it's something, or somebody else).
When it comes to agreements or promises, in Slavic countries; these are taken very seriously indeed; when I worked in the USSR I was told early on, do not break promises with Russians!! (it's better not to make any). This is something the Western interests do not understand, or don't want to; but since the Masons largely built America they should at least understand what breach of trust entails. It is possible for a country to be neutral and trade with the EU (see: Switzerland); but there are a lot of ideological zealots that are currently using Ukraine as their latest battleground.
I don't believe anybody but Russia and Ukraine can reconcile their dispute; if Ukraine is not neutral there is only one alternative. It's entirely up to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthseekerodinson5094 I was just pointing out that the 1938 map of Europe is almost identical to the one today; from 1991 countries regained nation status (plus Georgia) and part of Ukraine was Russia. USSR may be described as a union of nations (that's what the Stone Rose fountain, in VDNK, is advertising); but it could also be described as window-dressing, where the Russian Communists ran everything through a centrally planned economy; from Moscow.
Ukraine is internationally recognised as an independent country; Chechnya is not (it's a Russian republic).
Just like my country (Scotland), which has a parliament and government (even it's own legal system); but since it does not hold the "purse strings", it's not independent.
I don't have first hand knowledge of Ukraine; but there were and are problems there, no doubt about it. When it became independent there was a power vacuum and I was advised not to take a contract there (as it Kiev was even more violent than Moscow). In my opinion, Yanukovych wasn't selling out Ukraine to Russia, he was selling it out to his oligarch associates; staffing the government with people from his region (Donetsk) and feathering his own nest. While politically the East of Ukraine is pro-Russia/ the West, (still) pro-West; the voting pattern (still) indicates a clear split and I don't regard that as his doing.
The question I asked you was, what has any of this to do with America? (in your opinion). I think you know mine.
1
-
1
-
I wouldn't say a bad word about the Scots (they know where I live); I wouldn't even claim to have any great understanding of the political, or economic, dynamics of the UK; but when Scotland held an independence referendum in 2014: a lot of outside interests (who didn't have a vote) made it abundantly clear what they wanted. It was even worse in the UK referendum regarding EU membership (some groups appear to be still campaigning); while the EU, initially supposed to be a "common market" (for goods), then became a political union; a (Euro) currency union; then introduced "free movement" (of people); now maybe the EU will become a military alliance.
Back in 90's; things seem a lot simpler: it looks like USSR allowed former countries to hold independence referendums; the voters all chose independence and then there were negotiations on how to divvy up USSR assets. When it came to stockpiles of Soviet-era weapons: Russia provided the facilities; America provided $6 Billion and it seemed everyone agreed these weapons (some poorly maintained) were decommissioned (Ukraine kept nuclear power, including Chernobyl; out of commission for a thousand years). There were cosignatories to that and later agreements; both the UK and America gave "assurances".
There are two things to note here: all of the assets were Soviet assets (none belonged to the co-signatories); also in diplomatic language assurances are different to guarantees. Some commentators appear keen to "muddy the water"; but diplomats are paid the "big bucks" to eliminate ambiguity and so all parties to these agreements will know the difference. While the plain fact is that these Soviet-era nuclear and chemical weapons stockpiles were rotting and had to go.
I've no doubt that Yanukovych by staffing government with people from his region; allowing oligarchs to become billionaires, it's corruption; I'm less sure that the Ukrainian government were keen to still take orders from "the Supreme Soviet" in Moscow (but I don't know). More money was provided fro the EU (aid) and America (investment) and I doubt that was for charitable reasons. It's odd that Yanukovych after being beaten in the Presidential election, was then made Prime Minister; that's similar to the "rich persons club we aren't in" (Carlin). In my view, he and his associates aren't going to allow another group to cut them off from power completely. While we can regard the oligarchs as businessmen, they are ruthless and a few have a some old scores to settle; a few government officials were eliminated in "The Revolution of Dignity" (which I'd still call a "coup". Even the ones that moved to London and NYC penthouses; legitimize billions they "rightfully stole"
(buying sports franchises and luxury liners etc), I'm sure the last thing they want to do is to get into Russian or American politics; or run in to old foes.
While on the subject of frozen assets; when money is deposited in a bank, it belongs to the bank. One for the lawyers, but we shouldn't let the piddling problems of billionaires worry us too much.
In the Soviet economic model the state owns all the land; in Ukraine a lot of that land is valuable agricultural land; the Ukrainian government put a moratorium on the sale of agricultural land; so what the foreign corporations did was lease millions of hectares; buy industrial land and it looks like they had a controlling interest in a pipeline with the EU gas supply and kept hiking the tariffs. Proposed alternative gas supply routes were strongly opposed by America, why? It can only be they clearly had a controlling interest.
Both the EU and NATO supplied "advisors"; more money was sent; I've described the kind of people we are dealing with here, now they have hundreds of billions.
Previously a Ukrainian farmer would get around 3 hectares of land; in the Western model they work on some conglomerates land; also with modern farming methods, this is likely to put a lot of EU farmers out of business. In my view these corporations, buying into Ukraine, not only angered Russia; but EU farmers and upset the entire European economy.
So what I think Russia has doing is hitting them where it hurts (the bottom line), by turning off the gas; mining farmland and destroying industrial facilities.
I'm not saying that's a good thing; but if America is pursing a "sunk cost fallacy"; I don't think there's any of their assets left to protect.
While if America moves on; the EU isn't a military group (yet); the UK (due to cutbacks) and UKplc being asset stripped by real companies, means they have only talk.
Yes, had Ukraine handled things differently they could have traded with EU and Russia; but NATO setting up in Ukraine, will start a world war.
So the latest Ukrainian proposals about fast track into NATO, or getting "the bomb"; just seems an attempt to drawn NATO into their conflict (I doubt the West will bite).
I would point out that Globalism may work on paper; but the rich (countries and individuals) tend to exploit the poor; Russia; China & I reject that. It looks like there was an ideological war in Ukraine, going on too.
All very messy... best avoided!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelwiwchar3414 If these are the only choices; I shan't play... It was the reply from the Chinese ambassador to some American news anchor, "Don't try to involve us in American power games!" (and for those not familiar with Chinese culture, that's fighting talk); while China has bought hundreds of millions of American debt, so have other countries (and it carries interest), so they might just have told Blinken to, "Roll away you turtle's egg!". This conflict in Ukraine, what's in it for China? (nothing, except trouble).
As for Russia, I was there during the breakup of USSR, employed to break up trouble in the casinos (now banned); Ukraine got a good deal from USSR, then Russia and Ukraine agreed it was neutrality or war (and they picked the wrong thing); in that culture breaking an agreement has consequences. (I don't make the rules and I know them).
The nonsense is listening to people who have never been there; don't even speak the language or understand the culture, trying to lecture. Besides Ukraine is corrupt as can be...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That really depends on how you view invasion. The foreign multinationals that took control of Ukrainian agriculture and the pipeline (supplying Russian gas to the EU) all have quite close connections to government (and also seem able to avoid tax); much like the one awarded the rebuilding contract. (That's a part of the military/ industrial complex)
By 2022: two of these "American" multinationals had millions of hectares of prime farmland; farms; labs (possibly researching GM crops) and grain loading facilities.
All these protests, from America, about alternative gas supply routes, bypassing Ukraine (now destroyed) was because America obviously had an interest in the EU gas supply.Then there were the billions America gave Ukraine to "build democracy" (Nuland); then rumors of "American inspired regime change" (Armed overthrow of government, in 2014)...
Further billions from the EU (aid) and America (investment)... it really doesn't look like the Western "globalists" cared a jot about not interfering in Ukraine's economy.
Our corporate media like to talk about an unprovoked invasion, even a "surprise" invasion, but NATO & the EU withdrew their staff just before; while the media kept the readers guessing; it was actually America and the UK that blocked the peace negotiations, in Turkey, after the "siege of Kyiv" (the prof often ignores key detail); while the IMF/World Bank (aka "The Institute for the Study of War"); usually lend money to get hold of state infrastructure (ready made monopolies); a lot of the Western interests are interested in money.
Just like the arm manufacturers who would like to see public money in their pockets (despite the American military budget being rather large already). A lot of money, billions.
While for Russia; who would be well aware of how Western "business" is conducted; as the eight year Ukrainian civil war continued; Ukrainian gave up neutrality, so that meant war.
Things do work differently in Eastern Europe, to the West; regarding: land ownership; money and who makes the rules (and just for starters it's not the American corporate media).
So what Russia has done is occupy the mainly Russian speaking regions of Ukraine; which already voted for independence (in 2014); then to rejoin Russia (in 2022).
The cut off the EU gas supply (because they wouldn't pay in Roubles); mined farmland; destroyed the grain loading facilities and labs; so the corporations lost their "investment".
Two years Russia has been sitting; I don't believe they're going anywhere and I believe these regions will become part of Russia (like Crimea), if I know Russia; that's the price.
Largely due to economic sanctions; a lot of countries have moved off the dollar; while the EU has lost relatively cheap: gas; grain; fertilizer (and has another refugee crisis).
It's a funny game that America has been playing; all that interest in a non NATO/EU highly corrupt country, where they don't even speak the same language(s). Funny that...
One might even suggest (with elections coming up) that the American far-right care more about the people of Ukraine and Israel than their own homeless and poor.
I don't think diverting money to weapons exports is going to get people elected; while Trump 11/10 seems to view war as bad for his business (like China do).
So it looks like time is running out for the current Ukrainian administration and the "globalist" New World Order" (NWO) who seem to have asset stripped the Western economy.
Me, I'd be happy to see the back of the NWO and banks running the planet; they clearly don't care who suffers and want war (but won't be going); because they want to keep us poor.
This seems to be causing civil unrest in Europe; prices going up; wages not and billions going to "service debt" while public services (globalists largely don't use) rot.
If you want to send money to Ukraine; maybe ask yourself first, what's in it for you? Or in the context of "marginal utility", how could money be better spent? (since it's yours).
As for what's left of Ukraine; until it remembers how business is done in Eastern Europe; that it agreed neutrality or war; Russia isn't going to stop. It's just business and it's brutal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RobinHarris-nf4yv "“The Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed"
(That is the view of: Gerhard Schröder; Germany’s former chancellor; who was appointed the mediator at peace talks in Istanbul, March of 2022). It has been widely reported that America and the UK blocked a peace deal; various reasons given (depending on media outlet), I assume their earlier "investments" would be lost if Ukraine declared neutrality.
Anyways: I don't regard Prof Mearsheimer as an extremist (more a realist); he already detailed why Russia might go to war; or "intervene" in the ongoing Ukrainian civil war, around four years before it came to pass; he (& I) have first hand knowledge of: America; China and Russia, he seems to understand a lot more than most commentators (imo).
Don't see the problem with interviewers asking naive questions; like what does America think it's doing in Eastern Europe?
(answers on a postcard... to #10 Downing St. London SW1A 2AB)
The O.P. is perhaps correct (prob a fan of Kitboga too); that talk of optimism (when in comes to human nature) is maybe a bit ambitious (Which is no laughing matter)
I don't want to sound like I'm preaching sedition, but my trust in: government; banks and the media (here) is pretty low; I thought it was a good interview, by Lex.
From my point of view: it was clear (for a long time) that Ukrainian neutrality was a key issue for Russia (not open to further negotiation); the EU and NATO having recruited other former Soviet states, wanted Ukraine; it was for different reasons, but: buying land; sending "aid" (EU) and "investment" (USA); America's interest in the EU gas supply (from Russia), threatening sanctions on proposed alternatives, on which Ukraine charged tariffs, etc. Does it look like the cosignatories to a neutrality agreement were respecting it?
The rest of the agreement was all about USSR assets, not the cosignatories, in short I agree with the Profs opinion that Western interests are no use as a future cosignatories.
So when some (no names) claim the conflict was unprovoked; it had already been explained (don't break promises to Russians); neutrality or war.
The real question, Lex was asking was; how to stop this? I don't believe the Prof has the answer, but he can tell you what you are looking at. A total failure in diplomacy, for one.
Casinos are my game (banned in Russia, thank goodness!); never play 00 Roulette (rip-off); right or wrong, in the game of military top trump; if there's no peace deal, then we have time to look at what superpowers (with righteous indignation !?) can do. Or in Western terms, how they fix their own economic problems; without global conflict.
So while I hesitate to make predictions and I "have no dog in the fight" (I just hate the media hate); look at the map. It doesn't look like Russia is marching on Berlin.
The Prof says, 4 Oblasts (regions) gone; they wanted to go; if this continues Odessa is of cultural significance to Russia (he's correct); while there's still that nagging question of what America thinks it's doing in Eastern Europe? Maybe trying to mess up the E.U. economically (although credit where credits due, their charity towards a non-EU member might look like a financial incentive... and who wants charity anyway?); the E.U. has it's own problems.
As a mediator myself (for the mafia, in Moscow 92'... it was like Chicago 1930, in the movies; no need to look for trouble )
... those who don't have a vested interest should leave the discussion; in other words... what's in it for you? (things could turn violent, I don't want that).
For me that should leave Ukraine and Russia in opposition; anyone else hanging around needs to explain themselves (even if they don't speak the language).
That's roughly how it goes; I may have to lock the doors and provide additional security (KGB moonlighting) until they sort it out, or nobody's leaving. I hate to insist.
Lex reminds me of my partner, fluent in Yugoslavian; Russian; English, strong silent type (lost a lot of friends and family in Yugoslavia, another story), good communicator, more importantly understands the "Slavic" mentality, while I deal in "battles of will" (if you will) and i know trouble when it walks in the door it's what I do); I can declare neutrality; I'm actually here to help. Russia demands a neutral Ukraine; any objections?
If America expresses a vested interest I'd like to know what it is? (if this is the Cuban missile crisis in reverse, it ended in a nuclear ultimatum).
Is there not a better use for public money that superpowers producing weapons? How about a base on Mars...?... before infighting or AI takes charge? Just a suggestion.
The Prof says he has a greater affinity to the Chinese way of thinking; they don't have a vested interest in the conflict, offered to mediate; so did Africa, instead you got me.
I know a lot of casino managers; I've never met Trump, but casino managers are not gamblers, they are "percentage men"; war is bad for (his) business; why fund it?
The OP talks of trust; or rather a lack of trust in Western institutions; I don't know what return on "investment" America seeks, I suspect Trump could resolve this in a day; but that's our secret. All I'd say is Chicago School economics and globalism doesn't work for me and I don't see Russia or China embracing it.
"I am grateful to Lex for his seemingly repetitive naive questions and for the Mearsheimer's bulletproof answer. Anyone exposed to this cannot make the mistake of thinking upside down" (dandysd). Couldn't have put it better myself. So I had to use all these words... time to mind our own business (no offence meant); some accountability.
I never needed a gun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CountScarlioni I agree; it's too provocative for American pilots to fly Migs into Ukrainian airspace (particularly as Russia has air superiority, shorter supply lines and the S-300 system)
It's not all about selling weapons; America has a massive military budget, it might even come under "foreign aid", but the weapons manufacturers will get paid. Maybe think of this more as a "loss leader"; an "investment" but more like free heroin, you'll be wanting some more, no doubt.
That is a good question, why are EU companies being sanctioned because their transactions were expressed in American dollars (even for a second)? Or Venezuela unable to sell oil in dollars, because they kicked out the private companies?
America and Ukraine were very much against Nordstream2 (now cancelled); that would have undercut Ukrainian tariffs, EU companies were getting sanctioned for working with Russia on this. It's a form of economic warfare; but if the lights haven't gone out in, for example, Italy; then at least we know the gas industry is still working (in a war?! Funny that).
The CRIB countries have set up their own exchange mechanism (an aid to free market-capitalism; how ironic). Still it looks like America will be selling more LPG; Russia hasn't turned off the gas, but (lets see) last time, if "The West" tries stealing Russian Oligarchs stuff (which they stole legitimately); The Western interests lose 400 aeroplanes and the rest have to fly around Russia.
Besides oligarchs can afford lawyers, but the piddling problems of billionaires don't interest me.
Russia has entered an eight year civil war (13K dead already); they gave NATO (America) and the EU about two weeks notice to get their troops/diplomats and ex-pats out; the media predicted the very day of the invasion and the reason for this and forcing a referendum in Crimea was because Russia drew a line, the Western interests crossed it (and do you think Russia is going to allow "The Cossacks to join a Western alliance? Does that sound even slightly likely?)
There are far-right groups in Russia; a chap from the BBC was doing some documentaries on Russian "counter-culture"; attitude to homosexuality (very prudish); in another he's trending on Russian social media, "What's the crazy black guy doing talking to the Nazi's?" It's not about fascism, more about imposing a right-wing government on Ukraine (that kicked things off).
There is indeed a mass of complications; not just a civil war; geopolitics and as is often the case completely different objectives. For the EU it's another member; they said they wouldn't admit an independent Scotland, but offer money to bankrupt Ukraine (17-20 billion in "grants" so far).
America, it's oil and gas; finding an enemy and since the EU is being described as NATO territory, I'm sure they'd like to get the EU another member. It's (always) all about the money with America!
Russia, aren't allowing the EU to buy out their leased Naval facilities, now they don't lease.
No additional NATO bases on the border; the existing ones if they can house Tomahawk missile either they go or short range nuclear weapons (it's legal) get aimed at EU countries.
Gas, Russia has gas; oil... 11 time zones... they've got oil. Militarily, they put the first: satellite; dog; man woman; space station in space; did the first space-walk; landed a probe on Venus (it lasted about 5 mins); I know (from working in Russia); this is a technologically advance country; a highly educated population and a lot of the cold-war rhetoric was guff.
There are wars in the 21st century. America is in 5; we get no coverage of Yemen; Somalia; troops in Syria; Iraq Afghanistan... selective (as you say); but no the American press only want to talk about the horrors of this war. The war is eight years old, what was America doing in Ukraine; bio-labs; peculiar oil deals; replacing the government? I've no idea, but something funny was going on.
I don't think Russia is in Georgia; with Crimea, rather a foregone conclusion; go back with Russia or stay, they all speak Russian; that wasn't the same as this. Indeed Russia have threatened nuclear war; I believe they perceive this as the Cuban missile crisis in reverse; they'll want NATO missile bases off their border (and so do I; as they cover Europe and America holds the launch codes). Me I'm more interested in: lies; propaganda and manipulation. I have no dog in the fight; my condolences to the Russian and Ukrainian people, because the Western interests could have stopped this before it started. A peacekeeping force from NATO is not required.
This chap explains the matter; I agree with him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vulture7918 Thanks for offering a correction; I thought the 36 hour one was perhaps for Christmas (seems now there's two, the corporate one on 25th Dec and orthodox 7th Jan). As you say, not going to happen; while it seems Russian terms and conditions of a permanent ceasefire would not suit the Western interests.
Don't quote me, but it's something like, what's left of Ukraine declares neutrality and is demilitarized. If so; I don't see that going down well with "the usual suspects".
The way I see this Ukrainian conflict is that a lot of foreign companies bought in to Ukraine; took control of agriculture; gas supply route (Russia to EU) and other Western "investments" were made. It's this that Russia has been set on destroying.
If so they've done a pretty good job, farmland full of mines; gas pipeline closed; labs shut down (maybe GM crop research?); Western weapons targeted.
All gone, so no investment left to "protect".
That's a very cynical appraisal, but since Wall Street Journal started offering advice on military strategy, I think they view foreign war as a business. While the Russians know a lot about: suffering; land war in Europe and -20 in the Winter. I expect they know what they're doing.
With elections coming up in America (and Russia) I'd suggest if you don't have a vote, duck! The corporate media seem to be keen on conflict, win at all cost; so I'm starting to think they're the enemy!
Thanks for saying and hope you have a prosperous new year. 新年快乐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertstanley3799 The 2022 RAND report "Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground" is quite a large document (279 pages) and I can't find anything in it that specifically deals with what started the war in Ukraine, or prompted the Russian invasion.
This report is sponsored by the army and looking at just the section headings in Chapter three: Economic measures; it appears to be a battle strategy on how to potentially defeat Russia (a number of these proposals have already been put into effect).
While in Chapter four: Geopolitical Measures, there are proposals to back the overthrow of the Syrian government and promote regime change in Belarus; which is the kind of thing that I believe started the Ukrainian civil war. Namely foreign interference in other countries domestic affairs (economically; politically or militarily).
(Since you and I can read this report, so can the Russian government and I doubt many of the recommendations would be looked on a friendly).
Regarding the matter of LPG (gas): America already voiced strong objections regarding alternative supply routes to the pipeline running through Ukraine, which may seem odd since it's really the EU gas supply (I believe America had a controlling interest and were responsible for raising tariffs). America applied economic sanctions to those building the German/Russian alternative (which were also affecting EU companies); political pressure on Germany (who suspended operations after the Russian invasion) and these alternatives mysteriously were destroyed later (highly unlikely Russia, or Germany, did that; since either could just turn it off). Since the EU would not pay in Roubles and can't pay in Dollars (due to American sanctions), Russia eventually turned off the Ukrainian pipeline; America can now sell LPG to the EU at a much higher price.
However Russia has an alternative market for: LPG; oil and grain; far larger than the G7... this market is moving off the Dollar; it's now the EU that suffers shortages.
Really the report should be called "How to provoke Russia into overextending"; since that's the gist of it. Overall it reads like a check list of the manipulative things America can and (often) does. Charter two (measure 4): Enhance Russia's Brain Drain. That's been happening for years; it's where countries (instead of investing in it's own people) just buy in foreign expertise. In a European context what happened was those with state-funded degrees in Eastern Europe moved West to take up unskilled employment at higher wages, or compete for employment with graduates with student debt (plus interest) where they could afford to take lower wages. This all may benefit some corporations, but it really doesn't benefit countries that invest in education, or countries where domestic wages are being undermined. It's a faulty concept.
Still at least we get to see how the American military/industrial complex thinks. Their plan is to undermine or eliminate the competition; sow division and act entirely in their own interest. Or is that too harsh a criticism, in your opinion?
The RAND report does assume that the Russian economy works the same as Western economies, but that isn't the case. I understand that countries generally act in their own interests, so I don't see any reason for China or Russia to act in American interest. While America messing around in other countries affairs when theirs is a shambles takes a lot of willful blindness. It certainly makes interesting reading, but I see nothing in the report about: mutual cooperation; free market trade, or building a better world and I can see why many countries no longer give America the benefit of the doubt (I guess they've read it too).
We can check off what America has done, but some of the proposals have serious "knock-on" effects; unpredictable ones too.
In my view "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" a lecture by Prof Mearsheimer (on here somewhere); accurately describes what started the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertstanley3799 America isn't helping Ukraine; those that run America are acting in their own interest (as usual) and after blocking peace talks in 2022, America now appears to be a victim of what is known as the "sunk-cost fallacy" (aka "throwing good money after bad"). In similar fashion to Yugoslavia (which no longer exists) those that run America were/are aiming to protect Western bank and corporate investments, while trying to expand NATO.
America wasn't helping Libya by overthrowing the government of the most prosperous country in Africa; turning it into an Islamic state, it wanted the best quality oil in the world; the Gold reserves and (like in the overthrow of the Iraqi government) to prevent a Gold backed currency emerging (that would likely replace the petrodollar).
America wasn't helping Syria by backing the overthrow of the Assad regime; it wanted the oil fields (which American troops still occupy).
America wasn't trying to help Afghanistan, either; it wanted rare earth minerals and opium (a side-effect was the "opium epidemic", courtesy of Purdue Chemicals)
It seems clear enough that Russia knows what motivates the American oligarchs (and you do not). All these human interest stories, after what America has done, is nothing but an insult; America and it's NATO has destroyed countries and the civilian death toll is horrendous!
Russia has already destroyed most of the foreign corporate assets (I'm reliably informed the bio-labs were first to go); the EU gas supply through Ukraine they cut off and all that "investment" and the loans (plus interest); even the rebuilding contract will be worthless, if Ukraine capitulates. That's what those that run America are fighting for; using public money and the Slavs. China calls this "an American power game" and gave a clear warning not to try an involve them!! (It seems they know what motivates America, too).
Are you sure YOU know why America is "helping" Ukraine?
(A country that is not a member of NATO or the EU and is notoriously corrupt).
I know why Russia went to war, Ukraine was encouraged to tear up the neutrality agreement and Russia holds Ukraine totally responsible.
If America (or UK) believe they can fire missiles at Russia with impunity, I don't. This would expand the conflict to include them. Despite the media blurb; Russia hasn't fully deployed (yet) and anyone who thinks involving Germany in this has not studied history.
So what is the justification for America being so heavily invested in Ukraine? There's no money for them there now.
1
-
@robertstanley3799 America isn't helping Ukraine; those that run America are acting in their own interest (as usual) and after blocking peace talks in 2022, America now appears to be a victim of what is known as the "sunk-cost fallacy" (aka "throwing good money after bad"). In similar fashion to Yugoslavia (which no longer exists) those that run America were/are aiming to protect Western bank and corporate investments, while trying to expand NATO.
America wasn't helping Libya by overthrowing the government of the most prosperous country in Africa; turning it into an Islamic state, it wanted the best quality oil in the world; the Gold reserves and (like in the overthrow of the Iraqi government) to prevent a Gold backed currency emerging (that would likely replace the petrodollar).
America wasn't helping Syria by backing the overthrow of the Assad regime; it wanted the oil fields (which American troops still occupy).
America wasn't trying to help Afghanistan, either; it wanted rare earth minerals and opium (a side-effect was the "opium epidemic", courtesy of Purdue Chemicals)
It seems clear enough that Russia knows what motivates the American oligarchs (and you do not). All these human interest stories, after what America has done, is nothing but an insult; America and it's NATO has destroyed countries and the civilian death toll is horrendous!
Russia has already destroyed most of the foreign corporate assets (I'm reliably informed the bio-labs were first to go); the EU gas supply through Ukraine they cut off and all that "investment" and the loans (plus interest); even the rebuilding contract will be worthless, if Ukraine capitulates. That's what those that run America are fighting for; using public money and the Slavs. China calls this "an American power game" and gave a clear warning not to try an involve them!! (It seems they know what motivates America, too).
Are you sure YOU know why America is "helping" Ukraine?
(A country that is not a member of NATO or the EU and is notoriously corrupt).
I know why Russia went to war, Ukraine was encouraged to tear up the neutrality agreement and Russia holds Ukraine totally responsible.
If America (or UK) believe they can fire missiles at Russia with impunity, I don't. This would expand the conflict to include them. Despite the media blurb; Russia hasn't fully deployed (yet) and anyone who thinks involving Germany in this has not studied history.
So what is the justification for America being so heavily invested in Ukraine? There's no money for them there now.
1
-
@James Patrick Perhaps think of it this way ...
Over the last 50 years the UK voters have been told a lot of things that have turned out not to be true: the referendum (in 1975) was to join a "common market", but the EU has moved so far from this, that remaining in a (tariff free) common market is now one of the leave options; we were told that "trickle down economics" (which had already failed in the early 1900's) would allow the country to be dragged up economically, by it's bootstraps however (just like last time) the rich got richer while the poor got poorer (despite "productivity" rising almost year on year) and we were told that selling our own infrastructure back to (some of) us would mean we own a bit of the countries profitable infrastructure; however unsurprisingly those allocated shares mostly sold them for a quick profit (which were snapped up by funds and banks) and not only had the Tory (right wing) government sold a revenue stream for a lump sum, but it was also a bit of ideological sabotage. The left wing ideologies need these revenue streams to run an effective economy through a "labour policy"; but at that time somehow Blair became leader of the Labour party and moved the party to the right calling it "New" Labour which got the nickname "Tory light" and this polarised the UK political system causing massive frustration, (particularly to the Scots who largely had nothing to vote for) as "Tory" Blair: sold more infrastructure; took us to war (on a lie) and introduced tuition fees ... and some idiots (I have to call them idiots, by now) still seem to think Blair was a socialist?! Actually he was much more of an anti-socialist. The Murdoch bubble burst when Cameron didn't win; seems Murdoch always backing the winning party was due to him frequently changing allegiance, not that he was a king-maker and he denies your quote ... besides since it's so "braggadocios" it's either an early example of "fake news", or Murdoch has gone mad.
All I was doing with that rather long paragraph was try to: set context; explain why the UK voter might be entirely fed up hearing whats good for them and suggest that since it's become all about the money, over the last few decades, that it should be no surprise that people compare their income with their outgoings and can decide for themselves how well things are going. Now I'm not trying to play political favourites here; I'd say between them that the Labour and Tory parties have managed to take the very worst of socialism and capitalism and combine them and that something has to change; I'm not sure if that was by accident or design but there are some who have profited from "austerity" and some who are fighting for their very existence and some of them are prepared to shovel shyte or even topple the system to get their way. As we can see from history though it's clear we are not good at seeing the future (although some claim they can; they are usually selling something). Some politicians claim that they know how to fix the huge national debt (plus interest) but it won't get them elected; but they are liars and usually the first ones to shout How much will it cost?" not because anyone knows how much it will cost to cancel tuition fees (now tripled); HS2 (that the right would sell off... it's what they do) it's just to keep the context as money when, in my opinion many don't (or pretend to not) understand what money is, or seem to believe it has magical powers ... money is just a neat way to exchange goods and services. Debt obligation isn't money, it's toxic sludge and there's tons of it about.
There are some similarities between the UK voting to leave the EU and the election of Trump: the polls said it wasn't going to happen; the msm indulged in wild speculation and fear mongering, but the electorate rejected the establishment view; the global village; the status quo. However there the similarity ends; Trump is: President; a Brand; a Ltd company; while Brexit is the breaking of a treaty arrangement and is time locked (or at least used to be ... postponed for two weeks).
I voted leave; I'd still vote leave ...
I would share Professor Blyth's guess, although I don't believe political science is a hard science, that conditions for UK workers would improve (generally speaking) as they can't get much worse ... it would pretty much stop the influx of skilled Eastern European workers taking unskilled positions (which saps the Eastern European economy, it also undercuts UK wages ). The argument is that UK workers can vote those in power out of power; while the EU doesn't allow that; or a full audit or an explanation as to why around 10,000 of it's employees earn more than the UK PM.
Besides getting 27 countries to agree; then Cameron vetoes the lot over the "Tobin tax" and threatens another over bankers bonuses ... then wants to negotiate a deal?
The only hope for the EU was to have a roughly equivalent minimum wage across all member states and roughly similar corporation tax. It turned out to be a gravy train, I think ...
1
-
@Hooga89 I'm not sure if you are replying to my post or the one by the OP; but you pose a difficult question because the answer is dependant on a lot of factors ... like what you eat and drink, for example. The UK is both an importer and exporter of food; there are some peculiar arrangements with the UK being in a "common market" such as farmers being paid not to grow crops (to avoid surpluses); UK fishermen limited to quotas (along with other EU member states) in UK waters and these arrangements would change if and when the UK leaves the EU (now postponed to Halloween). However; what usually happens when tariffs are applied to imports, is that domestic producers can raise their prices and still remain the cheapest option. It's a form of protectionism, some call it isolationism; but domestic producers would be for tariffs, or government subsidy (if they can get it) but both signal the end of the free market model (whoever does it).
As matter stand: there has been (and continues to be) a rot of rot talked; it seems "project fear" now have until Halloween (Oct 31st) to think up a real scare (boo!); but the report suggesting fish and chips (Britain's national dish ... for the overweight?!) would be under threat is fake news. Of course those qualified in journalism aren't always qualified to write about: economics; science or the future, but: Britain is self sufficient in potatoes; the 90% EU quota in UK waters would go and even during WW2 it wasn't rationed. Articles like that don't help anyone really; it was ridiculed with cries of, "let them eat Hake!". I haven't seen the pound plummeting but I must have see a hundred articles making this claim, I don't know what the opposite of "plummeting" is (as it's rarely mentioned) but somehow the pound always regains value, before plummeting one cent again. The mainstream media (msm) aren't being that honest here; the main reason the pound drops against another currency is we are printing more money than they are. It makes our exports cheaper; a foreign holiday more expensive; it's not that affecting the majority of people in the UK; it's (as you say) low wages.
If there is a customs union with the EU; then the UK is obliged to import unskilled labour; but (like potatoes) the UK is self sufficient in that respect. That's just one of the problems of being in the EU; but it is a major problem as domestic wages are undercut and skilled workers move to take unskilled work. It suits the multinational companies, but they are fair-weather friends at the best of times; a bit too close to government sometimes and entirely profit motivated. The truth of the matter is that it's difficult to find anyone that can be trusted; but I still don't see the EU as a Liberal, or left wing entity; it looks quite right wing at times (just ask Greece); the Euro mechanism is steeped in debt (like the pound and dollar); but whatever it is, it's not working for the majority. I'm not saying the UK government is any better; it's been right wing for decades and house ownership has dropped; poverty has risen and the banks are bust. I just support the concept of democracy and after years of right wing governments; I believe they've had their chance and all they proved was the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Well enough of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kasigi03 Yes, the Prof is definitely on a book tour "The Genetic Book of the Dead" (2024). He once said, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". I would simplify that and paraphrase his good friend Douglas Adams...
"Life and the Universe is meaningless, but you don't have to be".
America funding a massacre; these student protests, trying to start a world war with Russia; these things have nothing to do with him (and Russell can "shove" his filthy smears)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vesakaitera2831 Well there was always a danger that Western military aid would lead to direct conflict (between East and West); while if Russia fully deployed and performed one of these regime changes that Europe might consider itself under the threat of imminent attack; so what occurred was a sort of "war of attrition" which is not popular with Western globalists or Russian nationalists (while China says don't try to involve them in American "power games"; so if pressed they'd probably side with Russia).
I doubt Russia is targeting civilians; they can't afford to do that for: cultural; ethical, even religious reasons, war is not good for civilians, but take a look at how many kids died in Iraq/Afghanistan; tens of thousands, while armed robot drones killed over 90% civilians; who wants a NATO intervention?
The Russians seem to be targeting Western investment; not just military hardware; the land they bought (all covered in mines); oil deals worthless and they flattened a mercenary training camp in the West two days after CNN revealed it's location. I don't think the Ukrainian government figures are correct; 5000+ tanks, weapons manufacturers are profiting from this war.
I agree; the Crimean referendum result (Ukraine or Russia) was easy to predict; but the Western media (who had been ejected) claimed people were being marched to the polls, not it's legality. It was relatively bloodless, compared to the regions that voted for independence; there was an eight year civil war (the media keeps trying to ignore). Something upset the apple-cart in 2014; lots of conspiracy theories abound; but it was known that Russia would go to war if Ukraine broke a neutrality agreement with them (according to NATO CEO).
The Western regions of Ukraine may share the West's values; but they Eastern regions don't want to be part of Ukraine; the question would be who decides, I don't think it's America in any scenario and I consider their actions up to 2014 to be very provocative. All their charity, was far from innocent, more a financial incentive if you ask me. I'm guessing but I think Russia will demand Ukraine stays neutral; NATO moves missile bases off their border; other things the "globalist investors" can't afford. While there was never any way Russia was going to simply watch Crimea sail West; so they acted immediately. The media shaggy dog stories made them look foolish, by now I accept the Crimean voters decision was the correct decision (because in referendums the voter is never wrong); as to it's legality opinions differ. I doubt Ukraine (even with Western support) can force the issue militarily.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithbevins6688 This chap "The Russian Dude" is clearly in it for the money: he's moved from selling "crypto" to selling hate and I don't see why Canada would want or need those that gloat over the deaths of his (alleged) former countrymen, or (allegedly) reveal Ukrainian logistics in time of war. His loyalty is simply to his own bank balance.
This is why he uses clickbait titles; makes stuff up and if you think about it; what does he know, based in Canada (that you and I can't find from more reputable sources)?
I'd point out that: he seems to know very little about Russia; his accent is suspect (exaggerated); he makes the same mistakes as the msm (but you'd have to take my word for that).
I am sure that he has not thought as far as the end of this conflict: he just posts daily to maximize revenue; tries to sell free clips, I guess the merchandise didn't sell. He wants $$$.
"Friends" like him Canada can get any day.
I very much doubt that Crimea will return to Ukraine; the people (mainly) speak Russian; they chose Russia and a warm water port is essential for the Russian navy.
It's also unlikely that an energy and food exporting nuclear superpower is going to back off; the real danger is full deployment and a nuclear ultimatum (which I would take seriously).
Imagine Russia were to form a military alliance with (say) Mexico; send weapons and billions, do you think America would accept this? Do you think Mexico would defeat America?
This is the scenario that the American far-right "globalists" are enacting, using public money and Ukrainian lives; to a country that is not a NATO or EU member (and quite corrupt).
It doesn't look like "the globalists" can afford to back off either, their concerns are more money related; but they are not currently "investing" for humanitarian reasons.
So I would agree with you that the American political system has moved over time to the far-right, the next election will be a vote for war or war? (Your choice).
If corporations get to influence government, their objective is money (it's their duty to maximize profit); they don't need to care about people (look at the homeless, it's obscene).
America's involvement with other countries usually seems to involve: oil or opium or imposing the petrodollar; by the amount of dead civilians it was never about people.
The growing problem for the globalists appears to be a growing number of countries that are simply not interested in American interests; there are more and more deals being made that exclude the West; don't use the petrodollar and if anyone is to blame for that it's the globalists. So this is beginning to look (to me) like the globalists last stand.
Currently Russia occupies the mainly Russian speaking regions (that voted for independence in 2014); it's been like that for over a year (it seems obvious what Russia wants).
It's clearly too late to inform the pro-war msm that things simply don't work the same way in Russia or China; they both have soft currencies and they can push back.
The reason for Russia doing what it's doing is Ukraine agreed with them to remain neutral; the Western signatories didn't want to understand what breaking that would entail.
So while the Western interests talk about rules (they wrote) or the ICC (court) they don't recognize; I don't think Russia is listening to any of it (they have their own rules).
The msm have spent years trying to convince people Russia was a threat; now they are trying the opposite; but the term "nuclear superpower" is not used lightly.
I doubt China is interested in this conflict; they already said "don't try to involve us in American power games" (I believe they identify what this is and are calling out America).
All these economic sanctions seem little more than America "playing" the EU; Africa isn't interested; India isn't interested; China isn't. Looks like globalism isn't popular.
At this time I believe: Willfully distributing misinformation for material gain is an evil act (msm and "The Russian Dude"); economic sanctions were never going to work on a major exporter (with alternative markets); messing around with exchange rates and the petrodollar makes it too much trouble to use; a technologically driven society, with state funded health and education (Russia; China; Scotland; Canada; Scandinavia) is a better model than America has and the Russians are highly educated with their own social media; they get BBC world service and they will know what's going on. While if you look at moving pictures of Moscow; New York or London, life goes on as if there's no war. It seems to me that Frank Zappa was correct, America has moved to being a fascist theocracy; I'm not suggesting Russia is in any way perfect; but you don't get homelessness there. It's socially unacceptable.
I don't believe (for Russia) it's about winning and losing; it's about how much everyone loses; the globalists may count that in dollars, Russia in terms of credibility.
Ukraine agreed neutrality; the West's "charity" was very provocative to Russia and it was known there would be hell to pay if Ukraine decided to join a Western military alliance.
Since Russia isn't going to stop (credibility issue) and the globalists can't afford to stop (money issue); it looks like WW3 is inevitable.
Meantime no need to help this "bad actor"; he's no doubt coining it in; just like the American arms industry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bbbbllll8270 No I'm not Putin; I'm an ex-casino trouble-shooter from Moscow 1992; turned the Triads down in Hong-Kong (1994); helped set up Genting; I usually work for "the mob".
It was actually Russia that put the first satellite; man; woman dog; space-station in orbit (credit where credit is due). A side effect of the nuclear arms race; couldn't build a small American-style nuke so had to build a big rocket... but don't talk to me about civilized America dropped their nukes on people.
Quite a number of Russians preferred the old Communist way; the turmoil and gang warfare that arrived with capitalism made Moscow very dangerous; but people were not starving with bread at 5 cents and Vodka $1, but it's not a lifestyle many in the West would enjoy. No charge for: rent; utilities; health care or education the monthly wage would be about $100.
What mentality? The Russians live in a technologically driven society; highly educated; a diverse bunch (amazing art and literature) not that you would know as the msm need an enemy (for military budget reasons) and the way things are going their lies are going to catch up with them...
You keep going on about the civilized world, but do you not realize yet that the American government is not regarded as civilized; they can't even follow their own rules and appear to only listen to their sponsors. The destruction of Iraq and Libya, this is not civilized behavior; largely due to Clinton and Hague (UK) the West lost the moral high-ground years ago.
Putin is not a King, the Russian Bolsheviks killed the Russian royal family; do you still actually believe that Putin or Biden make foreign policy decisions unilaterally; it may suit the msm smear merchants to single out another leader (as a very bad man), but this is a Russia thing (and the likely successor to Putin is decidedly "hawkish").
People feel oppressed; poor; scared... well take a look around... those globalists suck the life out of everything (the Western economy is a dry husk).
As for other countries; the USSR granted many independence (and that included Ukraine); they went on to join the EU; NATO even both with no trouble. Then the neo-Cons decided on another regime change, it was asking for trouble and here it is; now an attack on mainland Europe (not Russia; Germany or Ukraine) so maybe you can tell me why Western interests are trying so hard to start a world war in Eastern Europe?
(since you want to talk about borders).
Do you think for one second that America would tolerate Mexico and Russia forming a military alliance, then building missile bases on that border?? No they wouldn't.
Well don't expect Russia to take it!!
Just to dispel another myth, the Russians and Ukrainians like each other; while the obviously hate those self-serving "Western interests" who keep destroying societies; so just imagine what they will do once they get going. I doubt you've even considered what Russia and China have in space; 300 Chinese satellites (half of them military I'm told); they have their own gps; technology America doesn't have; they could have been useful trading partners, but the backwards thinking prevalent in the West, they need an enemy so they can protect us (but who's going to protect us from them?
So yes Russia has had a few problems, introducing their style of capitalism was comical at times, but the Ukrainian mafia is back in Ukraine now (rather needy tho'); those Western interest are playing in Russia's ball-park and they are clearly not listening to the likes of this Prof and the drivel from the msm propaganda divisions.
Take a look at Shanghai China; VDNK Russia; the grand architecture of Rajesthan (India); they are the civilized world.
Another banking crisis; trouble in Georgia and China next... it looks like WW3 to me. Good luck with that.
1
-
@bbbbllll8270 Oh give it a rest; apart from the "fog of war"; the msm clearly making things up (both foreign and domestic); the fake news brigade and their claim this war (from 20114, not just 2022) is "unprovoked" is a lie!! Those "Western interests" have been provoking a whole load of trouble world-wide (usually for reasons of oil or opium); the last thing any country needs or wants is a NATO intervention (horrendous death tolls); did you forget the made up story about babies being torn from incubators; so convincing the little lying b; the msm have told too many lies to be considered credible. They want war! (don't care how they get it). Bombed maternity hospitals you claim; how about the school tragedy (at night, not on a school day) you lap this up. Russia isn't targeting civilians, those with any sense left; it's destroying the power and road infrastructure; sending Ukraine back to the stone age and if the West wants it so badly bring a dust-pan and brush. That's what they're doing.
How dare America try and point fingers; the utter cheek they have; 50,000 kids dead in Iraq/Afghanistan, $3 Trillion wasted (the price we have to pay M. Albright. Carpet bombing in Vietnam; two nuclear bombs, now here comes America to save the day, stop trying to blow smoke up my arse.
I've seen both sides of the coin; while those Western interest search for the "cause" and arms sales are booming, we are staring nuclear war in the face. stirring up trouble in Georgia and Taiwan, meanwhile their banks are collapsing; of course the "globalists" won't go without a fight; but they've opened Pandora's box; rich, dull and stupid; there is our enemy.
As for Russia and Ukraine; it's their business; get used to it.
American experts trying to teach Russia, or Germany, about land war; how absurd they are... GDP the size of Spain, but they put a space station in orbit; lose 860,000 men and 1000 tanks in one battle and win. This is not Libya; it's a nuclear superpower armed to the teeth; just pointing out the obvious. The East has had enough of the West (me too); all style no substance and if you don't know what the Ukrainian mafia look like I do. Send more money tho' such a good cause... war in Europe (third time that's the charm Eh?).
Btw I didn't bomb any hospitals; I didn't offer billions in "aid" or violate Ukraine's neutrality. If Ukraine doesn't negotiate soon; I doubt it will continue to exist. I hope NATO finds those that blew up Nordsteam2 before the Russians do; NATO justice, a lynching; that might be the easy option y'know. A lecture from America about morality; Kamila Harris what a comedian. .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randycook4742 So what? I've seen an obese woman, wearing fishnet, sticking something in a mouth on her forehead, in an attempt to sell gum?!
While it's clear enough that: you aren't running out of missiles; your centrally planned economy is ideal for war time and that you have vast resources (with alternative markets); while your man Lavrov is an excellent diplomat and when it comes to land war in Europe few, if any, have as much first-hand experience.
It was good of you to recover those people stranded in orbit; but I doubt you'll get any thanks from the West, since you dismantled the corporate assets in Ukraine and cut the gas off to the EU. The money men must be worried about all these loans they made (but since they've destroyed much of the Western economy and avoid tax, I enjoy their discomfort) and when Ukraine does run out of troops, I expect you will get your Odessa back.
All in all, a real tragedy for the Slavic people; but of course there was only one alternative to Ukrainian neutrality (as agreed) and I know not to interfere in other's business.
The Western powers are still obsessed with money (they haven't got) and winning (they clearly don't understand the game of everybody loses, how much you got?).
I expect: you; China India and others will do just fine without the Western "grifters" (unfortunately we are stuck with them). Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia just displayed a weapon that can't be shot down; what they are saying is that if America fires missiles at Russia they'll use it again and the conflict will expand. The ramifications of this escalation does not seem to have registered with you Ben and your prediction that Ukraine would capture Crimea (last November) were wrong.
I don't know why the Western "hawks" seem to think Trump and Putin are friends; by Trumps choices so far it rather looks like he is intending to dismantle some of the organisations, in America, that made his last term of office so difficult. We will have to wait and see what happens when he gets into office, but the outgoing administration seems to have poured gasoline on the fire instead of assisting with the transition, as is traditional.
I also don't see any reason for Russia or China to listen to a word America says. Look at the state of the United States, with: towering national debt; people living on the streets and various lobby groups basically running the show, for their benefit. Somehow large corporations have managed to put their interests before national interest and divert public money into weapons exports or just export it; which does not seem to please the electorate (who just get the bill). Who on earth thought it was a good idea to antagonize nuclear superpowers (was it you?).
All they can do...? They can land missiles in your territory and you can't stop them, they've just demonstrated that!! They were good enough to tell America first, this time.
There are already forces gathering to undermine the Trump administration; they don't like democracy unless it suits them; I, for one, want to see the back of the "globalists", they're wasters!
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with you that the Russian economy is quite different from the Western economies; if Russia trades oil; gas and grain to China and in return receives: shovels; washing machines and microchips, this doesn't even show up in GDP figures; we are told Russia has a comparatively small economy, but this country has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet; put the first space station in orbit and has Mach 27 missile technology... most of that accomplished without the benefit of capitalism. In Russia (and China) the state owns the land; the state owns the utilities; with "soft" currencies the government can set the value and Russia doesn't want or need: hedge-funds; foreign companies trying to buy state property or the opinions of Western leaders of countries steeped in debt, that have people living on the streets. That's not to say that socialism, or communism, is in any way perfect; it's actually rather boring without disposable income to start a business or indulge in foreign holidays; but contrary to network media blurb; with an: NHS; state funded education; very low cost food; fuel (and wages); free internet and a strong sense of national achievement (see VDNK; Moscow Metro; Hotel Ukraine), I don't see why Russia would want what the Western globalists are trying to sell (and neither do I). I'm not sure what a chap who: has never been to Ukraine; knows little about economics and nothing about ground war (something Russia is good at) can tell us; I think he's a paid PR man (based on channel production values); he presents the Ukrainian version of events (and if their one-sided casualty figures were half true; they don't need our money) while in my limited experience of USSR as it was returning Europe to 1938 borders, if you break a neutrality agreement, the alternative is war and the responsibility belongs to whoever broke that agreement. I don't know what other people think; but I am aware that Russians; Chinese and Americans do not think in the same way. When China said, "Do not try to involve us in American power games...we have good trading relations with both Russia and Ukraine" things may get lost in translation, but that is shocking to me: it's accusative; a threat and while I don't think China is "against" America, they are certainly not "with" them. While all this funding being sent to a notoriously corrupt country that isn't in the EU or NATO defies explanation by me, but I notice America usually goes to war to further it's own economic interest and interferes in other countries domestic politics regularly (some 64 attempted regime changes since the last world war). I don't know what Jake and his buddies expect to achieve, but their portrayal of: Russia; China, even America seems rather distorted and I'm no longer prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to my own government who I wouldn't trust to run a bath. All this concern about other countries economies; seems just a distraction from some rather serious issues right here; right now. Just based on simple arithmetic, Ukraine runs out of troops sooner or later; I have great sympathy for civilians caught up in wars between super-powers; while I have no sympathy for cheerleaders of war that won't go. In my opinion Jake is a grifter; who is willingly distributing misinformation for material gain (evil). I like the Russian; American and Chinese people, generally speaking; I found Russia had one of the most highly educated populations I encountered; a technologically driven society where the term peasant is worthy of respect (they grow the food). You must never toast the host of a party; shake hands across the portal of a door, or break promises to Russians; it's not necessary to understand why; just don't do that. While if America fires missiles at mainland Russia (trying to claim it's Ukraine); this conflict is going to expand and I've no interest in funding that. I totally agree with you that commentators (like Tucker Carlson) likely returned culture shocked, Russia is not at all the way the network media describes it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm only basing my comment on this extract from a longer program, but this is worse than nonsense and if you (Henry) are claiming that Trump got played by Putin right into the White house: I actually don't see any hard evidence for that; I also believe you underestimate how unpopular H Clinton was and if there really was a deal to make someone President in these "win at all cost" times I'm guessing there would be a virtual stampede to take it (call me cynical if you must).
I'm sure: a mixture of fact and fiction is helpful in stand-up comedy; that there are people who want to call any left wing ideology "communism", or individuals who will vote for their party regardless, or even zealots who will hang on to any half-truth because it might "further the cause"; but none of this is particularly helpful and preaching to the converted has resulted in tribalism. Ya boo politics doesn't interest me.
I'm from the tribe that: still doesn't trust politicians as far as I can throw them; believes between the two of them, the main parties have brought America to the point of collapse; that something went very wrong some time ago and while that is now the responsibility of the current President, it's not exactly his fault. Of course there are some in society who are profiting and are unlikely to want change (they'll even spend millions fighting to prevent that); there are some who can weather an economic downturn, while there are some who are badly affected by rises in food or gas prices (and in France they've started wearing yellow vests). The bottom line in a socialist economy is that if the government can't meet the direct needs of the population, then they are not fit to govern. The trouble with some economists and many communists is they want to treat individuals as exactly equal, when they clearly are not. That might fit some economic or ideological model but it rarely pans out once people get involved; in other words treat people like numbers and they won't like it.
I believe the root of the many of the current problems is/was repeating trickle down economics (aka "Reaganomics" or "horse and sparrow" economics). Last time the rich got richer; the poor got poorer; then the financial system crashed, there was a depression and a world war. This time throwing money (well QE) at it (debt obligation) isn't much of an improvement. Actually it is like something out of the 1950's ... that movie "The Blob", where some toxic entity absorbs anything and anyone that goes near it while growing ... if you've any answer to that I'm sure the current administration and most of the Western economy would be glad to know. Phone Putin perhaps? I don't think that is realistic; the Russians don't even use money the way the West does; they still use it simply to exchange goods and services. I'd also mention that if the latest American intervention in Syria was really just about an oil pipeline then there are some manipulative people in government and/or permanent state, or lobbyists; we could well do without. Maybe a nice gated community, one they can never leave; but who really wants to be a judge? Ask Cavendish (damn you auto-correct! ...lol)
I'm interested in straightforward debate, Joe. So I hope you don't mind me slapping your guest as he attacks the first lady and then goes on to say we shouldn't throw rocks. SLAP!
I don't know her; I haven't a bad word to say about Slovenia (the people seemed quite happy there) but I find it difficult to express sympathy for: rich successful people who some regard as being beautiful ... Has she written, "Help Me!" in the butter yet, when out dining? Is there something I'm missing here? I'll tell you; I've quite a few friends, male and female that have made some very peculiar life choices and that's their business; but if your guest tried to describe a female casino pro in that way to her face, he'd be trying to pick up his teeth with broken arms (metaphorically, or literally). As you would know Joe, sometimes it's far easier to inflict pain and let them figure it out. She's not there to defend herself; so really I must ... she only says nice things about you.
Bitchiness aside; I think too much attention is paid to "the people" rather than "the policy"; it seems to me American foreign policy has remained exactly the same regardless of party or President. Cheney was not correct when he said "War pays!". Sure it paid him well enough but that was no reason to let him or his kind near high office; because it's costing us lots. I just been waiting to see how long it was until Trump snapped into line (personally). I don't believe Trump dictates his relationship with Putin; American policy on breaking treaties on missiles tends to suggest otherwise so all the preaching about them being allies or buddies is irrelevant; it's media invention and it sells (youbetya!). America believes this ... and it's probably profit related.
Russia believes: you can be a billionaire oligarch, but if you dabble in politics you can forget your penthouse and your beautiful (some say) mistress; and your expensive lawyers won't save you; you are going to go to jail.
That is why I don't think Russia played any part in the last elections. Just that (not even for the multitude of other reasons). I think the Russians are really on to something there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukraine was independent from the USSR, by about 1994, with: a democracy; port leasing fees; gas tariffs and a division of assets (military and commercial); their 1991 independence referendum was "recognised" by Russia, along with other Western Soviet states that used to be countries and Europe largely returned to borders before the last great war. Many of these countries went on to join NATO and the EU with little, or no, opposition; but Yugoslavia and Ukraine were supposed to be neutral and at one time the major powers seemed to agree.
After a NATO intervention Yugoslavia disappeared; after an armed overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government (in 2014) civil war broke out; Russia moved to secure a key port (compelling a referendum in Crimea: Russia or Ukraine, but no independence option); the other Oblasts (currently mainly occupied by Russian forces) all held independence referendums (that nobody "recognised"; including Russia). In 2022 Russia recognised their referendums; in 2023 they voted to (re) join Russia. (media here claims they were all rigged)
After 2014 foreign companies moved in and took control of agriculture and a stretch of gas pipe-line, to the EU. Billions of "investment" from America and "aid" from the EU...
So much for non-interference in the economy and politics of Ukraine; the Black Earth of Ukraine; gas tariffs and recruiting Ukraine, profit (again) seems to have trumped common sense.
It's not about land, or commodities for Russia (they've plenty); it's not about democracy, Russia is a social democracy; Ukraine is no longer one and it's heavily in debt to Western interests (who are not known to be charitable (even to their own people). I agree with China's description, involvement in Ukraine is an American "power game" (best avoided) using public money and Ukrainian lives, while nuclear superpowers don't lose in the traditional sense and if Putin stepped down Russia isn't going to stop and the Russia nationalists are not happy with a war of attrition; their alternative is a large escalation that may include sacking Kyiv or giving America a nuclear ultimatum, if America wants war it will be a very big war.
Russia had an agreement with Ukraine, neutrality or what we see before us; it's not about money; they backed down over Yugoslavia and Libya and look what happened to them.
If the American neo-Con plan was to separate the EU from relatively cheap Russian: oil; gas and grain; that has worked; clearing out old weapons and more money turned into weapons keeps the arms lobby happy; but Blackrock and their rebuilding contract; the status of the petrodollar and international relations have all been lost. We are supposed to believe Russia and China are the enemy (of all they hold dear), but the people advocating this I do not trust. So now the East is moving away from the Western economy; it's in a terrible state having been asset stripped by the oligarchs and offshore tax havens are brimming; that doesn't help "Joe Public" it's a rich persons club and we aren't in it.
Ukraine had it all: independent; sovereign; democracy, but highly corrupt; now I have grave doubts it will continue to exist. America shouldn't try to play the innocent party in this and NATO/ EU expansion had to stop at some point; now they are starting to understand further escalation leads to a nuclear, or global war.
Sending money to corrupt countries never worked before; ever wonder why that keeps happening? There must be better investments... follow the money.
1
-
@robertmueller6979 Independent thought? An American professor (of leadership) that's never been to Ukraine, or Russia (by his own admission); can't even pronounce local place, or surnames, properly, claims Ukraine has destroyed 8,547 Russian tanks (Pentagon estimates Russia had less than 3,000, in 2022); gloats over the deaths of others and does not seem aware that we are on the verge of a world war (between nuclear superpowers).
So nice of America to send 31 tanks and no F-16's; while NATO operators firing American missiles at mainland Russia, claiming it's Ukraine, is clearly not believed by Russia, If they did deploy their Avangard (Mach 27) system near Cuba, realize it can carry a nuclear warhead and there is no known defense... while America trying to teach Russia, or Germany about land war in Europe (or economics) provokes laughter (and not in a nice way).
What amazes me is that people believe the Ukrainian prop-a-gan-da; while with over a million troops in reserve; in conventional war this "American inspired" war only goes one way.
Yes, there does seem to be a shortage of independent thought... but don't let me ruin the show; being a PR man for the Ukrainian ministry must pay well. He's here every day.
1
-
@robertmueller6979 Geographically speaking, it would be very difficult for America to even get to Kursk (or Iran); not just the long supply chains, a lot of countries will not have foreign warplanes in their airspace; also if NATO gets involved in a non-NATO country, it needs some excuse (and I doubt many believe a NATO "intervention to save civilian life" is true, now... not after the amount of kids killed in Iraq/Afghanistan; 50,000 "The price we have to pay" (M Allbright). Only it's civilians that pay for all of this (one way or another).
There seem to be a few popular misconceptions: America is not heavily invested in Ukraine for humanitarian reasons; sending billions to corrupt countries doesn't work; if NATO officially "intervenes" in Ukraine, that makes all member states legitimate targets and Professor Mearsheimer was correct: see "Why is Ukraine the West's fault?" (lecture)
I might ask you why billions of public money is being diverted to yet another notoriously corrupt country, while American (and UK) people live on the streets? (It's not a good look).
If you want to talk about reality...
From my experience of Russia (during the breakup of USSR); much of the media (here) are seriously mistaken on some key issues, one is their concept of winning and losing.
Russia cannot adopt NATO tactics of targeting civilians (fellow Slavs); they had an agreement with Ukraine, neutrality, or war... in their culture this is non-negotiable.
While I am not with or against Russia, or Ukraine; I know to keep out of other people's business; the assets of the foreign corporations that moved into Ukraine have largely been destroyed; lobbying for more is unlikely to get people elected; it appears Russia knows what motivates the American "elite" (profit) and have turned Ukraine into a "money-pit".
In short: no and only at the expense of nuclear war. while the OP doesn't seem to realize Russia is a social democracy, while Ukraine sold theirs at very great cost.
Currently you and I are funding an escalation toward nuclear war, not with Ukraine; between nuclear powers. I can assure you Russia will not back down, not this time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Which nation would that be? Currently, with elections due on July 4th, a lot of people in this sovereign democracy have little faith in the current administration (odds 1-9 against); the economic model, of the last 45 years; the media or the select few multi-millionaires that "invest" in politics, or avoiding legislation. As for dictators; we had: King's; Queens and Lords for a thousand years, the church holding power; now it's the "robber barons" exporting public money, draining the UK economy. Seems now the Emperor(s) want our clothes...
In actual fact; Ukraine was a sovereign democratic country, from around 1994; currently there are no elections so while the Parliament is legit; the current President has had 5 years in office, so isn't. So I don't have any trust in this post-Soviet Dictatorship, or two horse democracy, both backed by the same "club" and where the vote is war, or war?
These Ukrainian figure are clearly made up to suit; while Ukraine had the choice neutrality or war; now they will be in debt to the West forever, unless Russia wins (so I hope that happens)
America and the EU should not have been messing about in Eastern Europe; look at the mess they make; this isn't Libya they are facing; it's Russia. I trust they'll sort this out.
1
-
As a British and Scottish citizen; I'm hardly surprised, at all, as: "globalism" has failed (for the vast majority of people); public money keeps being diverted into weapons production, or exported, or just disappears and looking at the growing national debt and levels of poverty (right across the Western economy) something has to change, or it will all collapse.
I find it interesting that: the main advocates for war, will not be going; that those trying to undermine the office of American President (and Trump) produced the opposite effect, and that funding the Ukrainian mob has been portrayed, by "our" media, as an attractive proposition. A lot of people have stopped listening to politicians and simply watch what they do.
It looks (to me) like President Trump is back and has an ax to grind (with some powerful groups that often put their interests before the national interest); those that dragged him though the courts (largely for political reasons); those charging the state for: vastly overpriced components; quangos; "aid" that never gets there, or outright fraud; while a lot of the media seem to have their own agenda(s), offering opinions (rather than facts, so we can make our own opinions) and sometimes are the news; also a secret service apparently spying on: him; their newly appointed boss (oops!) and the whole population of countries (like the: UK; America; Spain....). Meanwhile there's $35 Trillion, plus interest, to find!!
Fact is: the majority of American voters voted for him, with majorities in the House and Senate; so he can play "hardball" with opponents; another fact is that transnational corporations setting up in Ukraine angered Russia and EU farmers (who know how to protest); that the alternative to Ukrainian neutrality, was war with Russia (and if there's any doubt, ask Russia because they wrote the agreements, Ukraine signed) and possibly most importantly, nobody wins in Ukraine (everybody loses) a "game" Russia knows how to play (that and chess). While American complaints (about anything) after leaving the EU & UK with another mess (you'll just take the minerals), well look at you!? Talk to the hand.
Well I've met plenty of casino managers: in casino terms America has stopped paying out; most of the customers (in Moscow) were the mob (from various "Soviet states", now countries; so the government banned casinos (only people with money were "connected", same with hedge funds and they let their oligarchs walk); the foreign Hotel chains still remain (leasing beautiful buildings: Metropol; Ukraine; Lenningradski) unfortunately charging Western prices (try Cosmos, it's near VDNK and Metro), point is they can do business in and with Russia... having visited: USSR; China and America, I find it amazing how much of the media BS people believe. (Like Ukraine winning anything, after listening to NATO).
The unelected EU "globalists" are a bit upset; PM Starmer (21.3%) and "New" Labour are on shaky ground; Macron too; I won't be fighting for Ukraine or Russia (not my problem).
I'll be fighting for Independence (like you should)... before Starmer and his globalist buddies have us all in the poor house. UK v Russia?? (why?). Ukraine did it to itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnkean6852 I've always thought of capitalism as a dandy way to try and establish a price point, somewhere between supply and demand; but when someone turns up with a big bag of money (for example, Russian oligarchs that were basically allowed to walk off with IMF bailout money) it messes up the domestic economy. The UK government don't seem to share my view; they seem more than happy to award citizenship and the number of an estate agent.
Both political parties seem fascinated by money; I used to find this comical until they started selling revenue streams for lump sums; with the excuse everyone can own a bit of the gas board. Actually we owned the Gas board, not everyone got shares and many sold them for a quick profit; so now banks and hedge funds run the utilities. They even sold the main blood plasma supplier to the NHS to ... Mitt Romney?! I'm not sure if that was blatant corruption or a lot of seemingly reasonable steps that led to something ugly, but I see these vast differences in wealth leading to war. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to be the same script that led from the crash of 1929 to WW2.
I'm not trying to pick on this Arab billionaire, who bought a fairly nondescript building on Park Lane (if he knocked the building down I'd have trouble remembering what it was); there used to be a lot of Arab money in London in the late 80's until the Gulf war and the bank down the street (BCCI) went bust then it left ... Sheikhs saying here's £100,000 give me it back on Monday, to surprised Londoners (really!). I left a casino dance in London, me in a tux; a young lady in a ballgown; we were walking to Waterloo (to get a cab); along Victoria embankment with it's beautiful houses and hotels; across Waterloo Bridge and then under the large roundabout in front of the station ... right into "cardboard city". What a shock! So we took our shoes off and tiptoed through ... if capitalism is really working we shouldn't have this; like in 1929 it's only really working for a few.
By the way; if you draw a couple of lines from London to Germany; it's better not to buy a house in that wedge shape area in the UK, because it's called "bomb alley"; damage from jettisoned German bombs is still a problem ... like in London; so don't dig to deep. That's capitalism too, but it does have it's uses in the right place. I'm not very confident about the future of the UK economy; the government would follow a fiver (£5) off a cliff .. and they keep telling us "I'm all right jack!" (a good movie, about this sort of thing; imo) ... a comedy about class war; maybe too British for you!?).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with you in so far as it's "cost effective" to offload weapons near their "use by date"; buy more up to date ones; while I have trouble imagining a million (anything) never mind the huge figures being discussed. With the American military budget $870,00,000,000 (for 2022); diverting more public money into guns and bullets might not be so popular with some; it might not get people elected, as voters have their own economic problems (some pressing).
I'm told a lot of foreign aid, is for reasons of trade (deals); one reason the UK keeps trying to give India (with a space and nuclear program) aid, even when they say they don't want it.
A lot of these government decisions seem to make more sense on paper, maybe a good time to buy shares in the arms industry, "business is booming" (joke), but it's the order of priorities I find troubling (or put cynically, what has Ukraine done for us recently?). I'm a fan of "marginal utility" how could money be better spent?. They could have written "Go Home Russia!" on the Moon, or put a base on Mars for the money they've "invested" (curious term) so far.
I don't like waste. (another $200 Million to Ukraine today; I feel I should apply too).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, it does look like: China; Russia; India and other's largely reject what the West has to offer; the Eastern regions of Ukraine rejected the government of 2014 (all voted for independence, that nobody "recognised"; until Russia did in 2022); subsequently they voted to (re)join Russia (I believe) possibly because they mainly speak Russian and don't want to join the West. While "The Tribunal for Putin" has some cheek talking about brutality because the war didn't start in 2022 and there was plenty of brutality (and provocation) already which should not be ignored.
It seem the Eastern states didn't want to be part of Ukraine (after 2014) now intend to be part of Russia (willingly), so I consider the C4P story, to be just that; a story.
While moving civilians, particularly children, out of war-zones is the correct course of action; but the Western media seems to object to this (but then they never cared about people before).
I also doubt that Oleksander Lytvynenko has any insight into the Kremlin's thinking; but the conflict in Ukraine is widely regarded as a proxy war between super-powers (which is hardly news).
The head of Ukraine's foreign intelligence doesn't seem to understand that there already is an alternative coalition (of developing countries); their bank and exchange mechanism is located in (Shanghai) China and the Chinese (regarding Ukraine) already said, "Don't try to involve us in American power games" (that's what they call American interest in Ukraine).
The East and West of Ukraine are historic Russian lands; while the other "contenders" didn't break a neutrality agreement with Russia. There is a difference; you obviously can't see that Prof; but breaking agreements does have ramifications (it's something the globalists should never have done, they cosigned that agreement too; although it involved USSR property, not theirs).
AP-NORC have stated: 33% prefer Pumpkin Thanksgiving pie; 17% Pecan; 17% other; 15% Apple; 12% Sweet Potato; 6% don't like pie. I think they should stick to what they are good at (you too).
Enough of this "pie in the sky"; with a Russian population of 143.3 (even if Ukraine's claims were true about eliminating the 0.3) do you still not understand what you are facing?
While if we were all to speak the language the greatest number speak it would be Chinese, so imagine how much land you'd owe them (but clearly that's not the distribution they are looking for).
All this American "aid"; it's not really aid at all; the far-right are trying to force an issue; while their economic model is disintegrating; I'd reject that too if I didn't live here.
So where do we apply for aid, Prof? I know many more deserving than a country that can't keep to an agreement or cosignatories that can't be trusted y'know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emm_arr No, actually I'm a troll buster... Buster: I'm not a bot; I'm not aligned to the Russian or Ukrainian side (because it's not my conflict, it's theirs) and I'm wondering how long the far-right "globalists" in America are going to be allowed to "play" us Europeans for fools? Their "win at all costs" approach is already very costly (both in terms of the lives of Slavs and the public money they are diverting, to who knows where? What is America doing messing around in Eastern Europe? (and don't give me, it's for the children, it's not)
As for this impostor: he's already a proven liar; having lived and worked in Moscow (during the breakup of USSR) I know he's not from there; anyone who tells you they know what others are thinking is trying to sell something (and what he is selling is hatred, of all things Russian). Not only is he doing that but he's "willfully peddling misinformation for material gain" an act which I consider pure evil. So since he wants to talk about hope; I hope Russia and Ukraine resolve this conflict and his lies catch up to him.
So if you are looking for trolls, there's one; it calls itself "The Russian Dude"; it gloats over the deaths of Russian troops; claims insight into what Putin wants (all the way from Canada) "to fail" it says (but it's not V. Putin conducting the military action, it's the Russian military); then it (taken at face value) blabs about "The Deadliest Ukrainian Trap" (not only displaying a vague understanding of capitalization, but clearly forgetting to say "spoiler alert" before (presumably) alerting the Russian elite forces (whose side is he on?).
Are you seriously telling me that you believe this stuff? Enough of the "throwaway comments" Does it's act convince you? (because it is an act, it's got a catch phrase too).
So when it says "hit the Russian Dude" here's hoping! (right in the kisser) Watching it gloat over death, while begging for money; there are consequences to this...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zhakurael I don't believe I implied anything of the sort. It makes no sense for Russia to blow up: pipelines; dams and other things they control. Since much the same effect could be achieved by opening sluice gates or turning off the tap on undersea pipelines, another explanation is required. I believe I also said that Jake Broe is dishonest; willfully publishing misinformation for material gain is the act of an evil, or mentally disturbed, individual.
His thumbnail is a lie; his one sided casualty figures are both fantastic and designed to mislead and his "evidence" is non-existent. He just wants your money.
I wonder where you get your information, because compromising the Crimean water supply, flooding land they control and blowing up their own stuff is extremely difficult to believe. Don't you worry tho': here's Joe and his tea-leaves; he knows, all the way from Canada, finger on the pulse that one.
The people who put the first space station in orbit are not stupid people, you need to get over that msm garbage; you might take into consideration that if Russia didn't blow up this dam, they'll have a score to settle.
You dorks can call the Russian's orc's, but it's not just numerical superiority here, they have nuclear and space technology; are holding territory and in Eastern Europe, they have home field advantage. Sending money and weapons to a corrupt country, you dorks aren't the sharpest tools in the box, now are you?
Let's see what goes bang next, shall we?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Philosophy_First Yes, the American msm lied us into at least two wars (and now they're lying again); there already is a term for "whataboutism", it's hypocrisy and those advocating sending money and "lethal aid" (aka weapons) are full of it; while your claim of opposing those wars, well clearly that accomplished nothing!
It should also be clear by now that the American government and their sponsors don't care about people; their "interventions to save civilian life" did nothing of the sort and that H. Clinton lying to both Russia and China in the UN security council regarding Libya was a grave error. Still everyone got to see 100+ cruise missiles fired into Tripoli; the bombing of the desalination infrastructure and NATO justice is a lynching. Yes, what about that? It looked very bad indeed; the hiking of the military budget sent other clear signals and since then both Russia and China have set up their own: bank; exchange mechanism and with the emergence now of a Gold backed currency, it signals the end of unrestrained money printing... and that is why these "Western interests" are now so interested in the Russian intervention in an eight year civil war. They don't care about people; they care about money, but their "investment" in Ukraine is lost; but with their backs against the wall they will continue to waste all they touch.
Me, I used to work as a casino trouble-shooter in Moscow in the early 90's; it gives me no great insight into the workings of their government, but most of the mafia "top-brass" knew my partner and I; a lot of them are dead now; casinos are now banned (which is good, because Russians don't think about money the way people in the West do); stories of our exploits seem to have become part of Russian mythology, but I do have something in common with Lennin and Stalin, we were all laid out in the same room; only difference is I got up twice to take issue with it. Later I turned down an offer from the Triads (but that's another story); yes I knew a lot of criminals and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that Zelinsky is one.
Trying to sanction an: energy; food and weapons exporting nuclear superpower, is ridiculous; smear campaigns, well don't try that with the Chinese because "loss of face" is how to make an enemy for life; they've already called the American msm "naive" (they say they have good relations with both Russia and Ukraine and issued a caution; "don't try to involve us (them) in American power games" and it's time those "chicken-hawks" started to listen. Russia has already called the msm "propagandists and liars (but we already know that) and Clinton (clearly the worst politician in American history who lost an election while holding all the trump cards and who wanted war with Russia) does not understand what that entails. There is certainly a lot of corruption in Ukraine and Russia, but those talking in terms of millions and billions of dollars are far worse.
Russia told both the EU and America's NATO to keep out of Ukraine; they didn't listen (they never do); the "news" we are getting from Ukraine is unreliable; the crocodile tears of the msm are unbelievable and NATO won't get an intervention through the UN security council because Clinton wrecked that, besides with shorter supply lines; air control and home field advantage Russia holds all the trump cards and (as Russia has stated) it may start WW3 (which won't last long). It is interesting to watch the corrupt American oligarchs shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly; send more money, system working... they are just laundering money, Did Putin blow up the bridge? Of course not, it was likely an accident and while it is interesting to hear this professor's views, the sources are unreliable and Russia isn't going to give information to the msm because (like me) they hate these lowlife peddlers of misinformation; the same ones that give political contributions yet try to claim they're unbiased (snarf). I don't support despotism; but I trust Xi and Putin more than Biden or whoever the Tories nominate to captain the sinking ship. The West is going bust; will they double down into WW3 let's see; but Ukraine defeating Russia... no chance!
So to sum up: the msm are proven liars; their sponsors don't care about people, they love money and for Russia it's not about money, or empty words, they'll deal with this their way and there's nothing America can do about that, except WW3. Do you understand now? (I doubt it).
1
-
1
-
@Steve Anquetil Really? Have you not noticed Western social media is riddled with "bots": not just crypto-bots; "text-me-bots" (that flood anti-war sites), but all these accounts with no content and half a dozen subscribers? One report suggests Twitter site is 80% populated by "bots"; if that's even half true this is A.I. (artificial Intelligence) trolling and since Russia is not giving the msm info, it would seem clear that much of the narrative we receive is, at best, one-sided and, at worst, based on fiction (because the Western msm often contradicts itself).
Interesting to see Professor Clark finding something to laugh about; another arm-chair expert, but also the go-to man for SKY and Times Radio (owned by News Corp, but likes to call themselves News UK); trying to predict the Russian strategy (on little or no info) this is clearly propaganda. Russia already told NATO/America and the EU to keep out of Ukraine or there would be trouble; they don't listen and now there is trouble. Russia isn't going to back down, so unless America stops trying to ramp up yet another of their proxy wars it looks like WW3.
As for the Ukrainian government that was shelling it's own people for eight years; they are known to be corrupt and yet the West sends millions and billions?? They never cared about people before (see Iraq; Libya; Afghanistan) pretty sure they don't now, if they are sending money to protect their "investment"; they've already lost. "A Russia troll" lol...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kimberlysheridan5530 Yes, but the UK is actually four countries and while Scotland has it's own: parliament (Holyrood); NHS; legal and electoral system; the UK parliament (Westminster), based in London, has additional powers and largely controls the UK finances.
In the UK referendum, regarding EU membership: Scotland voted to remain; the UK voted to leave; so Scotland left the EU.
When the UK was in the EU; the Tory government vetoed the 26 other countries, regarding EU bank reform; threatened another over a cap on banker's bonuses; then (after the EU referendum wanted a "good deal". This is the kind of lack of self-awareness commonly found in Westminster, but the referendum did show the Tory priority and that they didn't represent the UK voter (best of three?).
Since Scotland has: only 59/650 seats in Westminster; around 10% of the UK population, it's invariably one of two English political parties that form the UK government as that requires 326 seats (either outright, or in coalition), the Scottish seats seats rarely influence who governs.
The two main UK parties are "Labour" (originally formed by the trade unions to give workers political representation) and "Conservatives" (aka Tory) who traditionally represent: land owners; corporations and money interests. However that changed when Tony Blair created "New" Labour, which was (and is) a right-wing party: they sold off more infrastructure; took the UK to war (twice) and introduced tuition fees (they were more "anti-socialists"). While the SNP took 56/59 seats basically using old Labour (socialist) policies; there were now two right-wing parties in Westminster; workers lacked representation; a lot of Scots had nothing to vote for (it's an ideological split).
In the early 90's I lived and worked in Moscow; as one of two casino troubleshooters (out of the House of Unions); I previously worked in America; subsequently worked in China and darkest Africa; so while I only got snap-shots of different cultures and don't know how others think; things work differently and while I can only tell you a few things with confidence, "The Russia Dude" is a fraud; because he: doesn't think like Russians; exaggerates the accent and knows very little about Moscow and Russia.
If you want a glimpse of the Soviet "utopia"; type VDNK; or take a look at the Moscow Metro or Hotel Ukraine (where I ran into a rival group, of "businessmen" from Ukraine).
Ukraine was known as the breadbasket of the Soviet Union (USSR); it's also a Slavic country and uses a similar alphabet to Russia, so there are a lot of similarities, but on the matter of grain and beer; While Budweiser lifted the Pilsner process, from Czechoslovakia; America doesn't import grain from Ukraine; while this Ukrainian conflict isn't about Putin; I can assure you; this a Russian matter (regardless of who is President).
I'll skip the Bud-light issue; but Russia does not want: hedge-funds; casinos; LGBTQ and it has a soft currency. While the issue over Ukraine is more to do with American companies seizing control of Ukrainian agriculture (million of hectares of prime farmland); the "EU" gas pipeline and the prospect of NATO erecting further missile bases on the border; it's also to do with a cultural thing; don't break promises to Russians (better not to make any). So while the American corporate media give us there version of how things work in Russia, or the UK, it's often laughable. Poverty is becoming a real problem in the West; unions going on strike (no political representation) and with inflation leaving wages behind things could turn ugly.
I think what you'll find Russia has been mainly doing is destroying: what the foreign companies bought in Ukraine; the "lethal aid" (how twee) and anything that fires back. The corporate media keeps trying to justify sending billions to a corrupt country; using smear tactics and claiming the West is only here to help, I hope you understand why many civilians are becoming less charitable towards Ukraine (they need to eat; and heat their homes), but I believe the Senate lost their "investment" and while the media talks a lot about winning (and money); in Russia money doesn't mean that much and their intention seems to be that the foreign corporations (who muscled in) lose.
To "scotch" another few rumors: Russia doesn't fight 3 day wars; they are technologically driven (not money, or debt driven) and they are highly experienced in land warfare; you can ask Germany about that. Ukraine got a pretty good deal from USSR (imo); they were sovereign; independent; a democracy, but if they gave up neutrality then the alternative is war with Russia. It's not about land; it's not about marching on Paris; it's about who makes the law and lays it down (here that happens to be Russia).
Further "investment" from America is in starting a world war; the Russian Dude is simply selling hate and there is no left, left in America (it's all about money, not people).
Hope I didn't bore you; but I had some time on my hands; while if you look at the civilian death toll from NATO; an intervention by them is the last thing a country needs.
I'd say the price of fuel is more an issue than grain; America 70-80% self sufficient; most import from Canada; while Russia (major exporter of gas and grain, sanctions don't work, so the neocon plan does seem to have been to damage the EU economically... but at what price?). Trump 6/5; Putin 4/11... now on to election war!).
If you want an enemy; I suggest it's the corporate media and weasels like this chap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andytwentyman9573 Even just within the UK (4 countries, same currency) there are profound differences regarding the role of government; one key issue is the growing gap between rich and poor, with inflation at over 10%, it's starting to cause social unrest (same across Europe). The proposed solution from the UK (Tory) government was: to borrow money and cut taxes (benefiting the richest, while the poorest get nothing); introduce legislation to prevent strikes and run "cover" (claiming state sector pay rises will cause inflation, while they took theirs; that union leaders are "Bolsheviks" (far-left ideology advocating the armed overthrow of government and seizing of means of production) or Marxists (center-left, advocating profit sharing by workers; CEO paid max x12 of lowest paid worker (Spain), only workers are "shareholders etc). The msm trying to call UK union leaders "commies" is at best inaccurate at worst a political smear campaign. The (left-wing) Scottish government solution: they nationalized the railway network; gave rail workers 9%; nurses about the same; deal done. In England something like a "class war" continues.
I'm sure you (as an American) and I (as a Scot) look at politics differently. For example the term "progressive" doesn't mean anything much in UK politics; the term "Liberal" (here) refers to the center party (the Lib-Dems) who went into coalition with the Tory party and nearly got destroyed (supporting tripling tuition fees, for a vote on proportional representation (like the Scottish system), which both main parties campaigned against and blocked). We don't have state and federal legislation; Scotland and N Ireland have different legal systems (from England and Wales); England doesn't have a "dedicated" parliament; a bit like federal government for the UK as Westminster holds the "purse strings". However the main reason I describe Westminster as quite far right and Holyrood as "middle of the road" left-wing is how the deal with some of the key issues: health; education and war (foreign policy).
In Scotland the main party (SNP) have no tuition fees; no prescription charges; don't want nuclear weapons kept here and the Scottish government own and run the rail network. It's the complete opposite from Westminster, where the student debt "mountain" is huge.
I can't really comment on American domestic politics; no doubt as complicated as UK politics I don't have a vote (so I don't need to care); but the way to distinguish left and right is how they deal with: health; education and war. Not just how they fund these; it's the language (terminology) they use and how they choose to view the "World". In the right-wing ideologies, it's money and profit that is the key to success (or failure); in the left-wing ideologies, it's people and society, failure is when the government doesn't meet the needs (not wants) of it's citizens; in which case it's time for a new government. The two wings of politics control the economy in different ways, the right (fiscal); the left (labour) policies. When the Tories (and I include Blair) sold off UK state infrastructure, by a share lottery, not only were they selling "our stuff" back to us; shares (predictably) shot up in value; got sold on to banks and funds; the government could cut taxes, but long-term it was an act of ideological sabotage as without the massive revenue streams from the state sector (rail; utilities; mail) the left cannot run a "labour policy". Also is it not the "con" of the century (selling off publicly owned infrastructure to some of the public; then to hedge funds or even foreign state sector companies (who get subsidies and fund their own citizens pensions). Breaking up rail network is inefficient; expensive and complicated also). State funded private companies; it doesn't work.
Would it surprise you to know the price of a monthly travel pass (Busses and trains) in Moscow 1991... it's 50 cents. More important to get people to and from work.
I'm not trying to say one ideology is better than the other; just don't try to mix the two in one economic sector. State subsidized Iron & Steel equates to unfair competition, but handing capitalist ready made monopolies (even the "right" understand if someone owns all the water, they can charge what they please). I'd be interested to know how you view the difference between the two main parties in America & UK (because I don't see much).
As for the conflict in Ukraine; I worked as a casino troubleshooter in Moscow (think Chicago 1930's); I can tell you that casino's being banned there now is a good thing, because most Russians don't have money to gamble (or set up a business); it's not a good idea to get involved in other people's business (I'm sure Russia views their issue with Ukraine as a matter they will deal with their way) and the msm has (over the years) given an inaccurate portrayal of Russia. If we recall they put the first space-station in orbit (without capitalism); they are geared for land war (and if America doesn't know that Germany does). Adam Curtis "The Engineers Plot" is a more accurate description of those "crazy commies"; they built the tallest Hotel in the world (on loam?!) That's where I met the Ukrainian mafia (by accident, btw, forgot I didn't work for them). We have no reason to go to war with Russia (Scotland); charity begins at home, sending money to corrupt countries doesn't work. Okay, I'm rambling now... the lecture "Why is Ukraine the West fault?" explains (I think) why Russia stepped in.
The pro-war UK government is in for a surprise if they think gifting "lethal aid" doesn't make them a legitimate target.
Btw I very much enjoyed my visits to America; like Russia and China and EU the people seem nothing like the government.
(which is good, imo; all fine people). So Ukraine better start negotiating with Russia, I'm still riled up about Kamilla Harris and her speech about "morality"... one of these days, Pow! Right in the kisser! I don't know how you view the latest enemy of the West, but the msm need to stop talking about money; pretending they care about people; clean up their own act (imo). It's because all the ingredients for WW3 are before us... which will dent profits once it really kicks off. How do you see things going?
Btw I liked New York and Chicago, L.A. very much, but my heart belongs to S.F.
Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After America started firing American missiles at mainland Russia (trying to claim it's Ukraine) and there were attacks on their long-range; nuclear early-warning radar (that doesn't cover Ukraine) Russia said they would arm America's enemies (one of them would be N Korea). Russia also may have deployed nuclear weapons, possibly on Avangard (Mach 27) missiles, in the Caribbean, I can't confirm that but they are currently conducting "war games" there. While China; Russia; India... and others, already formed: an economic trading bloc; a bank and clearance house (clearly to move off the dollar mechanism) and may yet introduce their own Gold-backed currency.
While I would bet that China is not interested in the Ukrainian conflict, because they already said, "Don't try to involve us in American power games!" so I highly doubt China is supplying weapons to Russia, but they have plenty of other things to trade for Russian: gas; grain; oil and coal. China is in the process of building 27 heavy-water nuclear reactors, with their own technology, as transporting coal occupies a lot of their rail network (and causes pollution); however they will always require grain and Iron ore (but this isn't "friendship; it's just business).
In my view: "The East" is leaving "The West" behind; they are no longer prepared to follow rules that leave them at a disadvantage; while our media keeps finding things to distract us from rather serious problems here. As for Ukraine; they agreed with Russia to remain neutral, then let foreign corporations in and accepted "sweeteners" from the EU and America (who are not known to be charitable). So I agree with China that America is playing a game (they don't care about Ukrainians, or even their own people); in my view a very dangerous game and talk of winning and losing (or money) isn't how Russia views this. If Ukraine isn't neutral, there is only one alternative and Russia has systematically destroyed any profit margin and that rebuilding contract America awarded itself, I doubt is worth much. I'm looking at this whole mess with complete horror; I look at my own government with contempt and talk of Russian defeat can wait until after the nuclear war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamwasserman4934 Not in my experience: he's been on The O'Reilly Factor; Piers Morgan; even faced hostile studio audiences; these days he seems less inclined to offer opinion, or get drawn in, to subjects outside his "field" (evolutionary biology), while his position on some matters are well established (promotes Darwin's theory of evolution; only two sexes; belief in god/gods a "delusion"). I assume he attended this event because he is promoting a book (The Genetic Book of the Dead. 2024!?); he's 83 years old, came a long way to talk about the Christian God, not Gaza. Student protests don't relate to him (and both Israeli and Palestinians citizens are, in fact, "Semites"; it's a language thing)
While: even I know what Russell is trying to do; never mind a "battle hardened veteran"; so presented with a quote out of context, he shut him down.
So Russell goes on to describe him as a coward ("runs away"); a sex pest (Epstein Island) and like two cackling harpies, he and Jimmy seem to enjoy talking sh*t.
If they want to know what motivates student protests in America; they have ask the protesters; in my opinion it's obscene to back a massacre (but is anyone in government listening to anything, except their "sponsors"?).
Gaza is not Dawkins's responsibility; but have a look at the comments, just see what Russell has created. (a sh*t storm). All that from "no comment"?! (Monkey's! Eh?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes let's listen to a war report from the "experts" that work for weapons companies; their multiple sources (unnamed) and who is Hertling trying to kid, with his "sources on the ground" spiel? It's not an artillery duel; it's blitzkrieg (invented by the English, used successfully by the Germans); all these Ukrainian victories as the Donbass turns red and why are we listening to American generals, after Iraq; Libya and Syria were such a resounding success (not). UK intel: leave it out! Giving money to corrupt countries and it disappears (happens every time); superpowers attacking non-super powers, they trash the country (happens every time), while CNN is simply a propaganda outlet for those desperate for war (for other people to fight). Choose your words carefully Hertling the soldiers under your command did some pretty hellish things and if soldiers don't follow orders in war; of course you know what happens, so cut the sanctimonious crap; "when your leaders have been shown to be criminal" where were the war-crimes people when America killed 50,000 kids in the Middle-East? "The price we have to pay" (M Allbright).
Pull the other one CNN, it's got bells on it... you are corrupt; out to start WW3 and your war reports are so one-sided you can't even say surrendered. These two will fight to the last Ukrainian, but this isn't your usual oil war; far from it.
America should not have toppled the Ukrainian government in 2013-14; big mistake and now, as usual, civilians will pay for it. Too much money in American politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia just did cut off the gas to the European Union (E.U.): this is after the G7 (that doesn't include Russia or China) decided to try and set the price (on Russian oil and gas), also after Canada has failed to send vital components (for Nordstream 1), also after various "sanctions" related to trading oil in dollars (that affect EU companies and countries). There shouldn't really be any complaint from "the West" now, because America and the E.U. have got what they want; in the face of a financial and energy crisis they have removed a major supplier; fuel bills have risen sharply (largely because the energy providers can) and the share price of American weapons manufacturers have risen too (because that's where the government is "investing"). Meanwhile the (mainly American) Western msm already reported that Russian troops occupied the nuclear facility; so their later reports that Russia is shelling the facility means they are not reporting the truth (and it's not the first time this has happened). Sending weapons (aka "security aid") did not work in Syria; with short supply lines; air control and money being no object for Russia, it's extremely unlikely it will work now.
Why is the American government so interested in this Ukrainian crisis? Their NATO never cared about people before (see: Iraq; Afghanistan; Libya...); America doesn't rely on Russian oil and gas; Russia already warned "the West" to keep out of Ukraine (but they don't listen, even to their own people it seems).
The answer might be that: China; Russia; India; Brazil and South Africa (CRIBS) have had enough of "American interests" (and have decided to attend to their own); a new bank and exchange mechanism, plus introduction of the Gold-backed e-Yuan (only available to Chinese citizens) means the CRIBS can return to "free-market-capitalism" (their version) and it seems clear American planners have lost their grip, as there is now an alternative to the "petrodollar" and SWIFT (bank clearance mechanism)... and if that's the real reason, American foreign policy makers are the ones to blame. All this talk of Ukraine defeating a nuclear-superpower (that spans eleven time zones) borders on the ridiculous; the likes of "Bang Showbiz" reporting the Russian leader is near death likewise and all these harrowing pictures of war from the msm (did they forget they were all for war previously having lied us into two?). The Russian government do not like the Western msm (and I'm not too keen on them either); they are not going to give out press releases to the likes of them; so all these ex-military (now weapons salesmen) are speculating and Ukraine is not "winning" (judging by their own "war weather maps"), CNN (and others) are clearly propagandists. I don't see the use in America trying to further provoke Russia and China; they've stopped listening to complaints from Western politicians; this whole crisis could have been avoided, but clearly they don't want that and yes we can watch because they* don't listen to you or I.
*They, being the American military/ industrial complex. Those big military budget hikes (both parties always agree to) has to go somewhere and now we know where; it goes in their pockets because Ukraine is as corrupt as can be and so are they...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidMartin-ym2te I find there are too many "political games"; a lot of msm misinformation and while I'm not up to date on the finer points of the court decision, the main point I was trying to make was that the "political class" (and I include George) seem out of touch, possibly even corrupted by "money interests"; after many tried to slow, or stop, the process of the UK leaving the EU (best of 3?!) that this was insulting to the UK electorate and left the question, who or what does Westminster represent?
(not us by the looks of it). Who tho'?
Those "substantial new powers" (promised by the Tories, presented by New Labour grandees (Brown & Darling)) in the week before the Indy referendum (when there should be Purdue (no campaigning) is yet another example, of "games". It then became substantial new powers for one and all; then delayed by Hague; New Labour walked out in frustration; with nothing to show the electorate Scottish Labour got flattened, all a Tory game. It damaged the Scottish electoral system; the SNP capitalised (using basically old Labour policies) and then Tories and New Labour watered down the Scotland bill until (as you say) Westminster has veto power over Holyrood, the UK treasury keeps corporation tax and personal allowance allocation and so on. If Holyrood wants to spend on 100% renewables, Westminster can cut funding and Holyrood gets the blame. Not a true Parliament, I agree.
I hold the view that "the people" are sovereign (it's "their country"; while Westminster (MP's & Lords) consider themselves to be sovereign; there are also different legal systems; I'm assuming the "supreme court" considers itself the highest court in the land; I'm unsure on this.
The EU referendum did concern the whole UK electorate; so the Scottish remain vote is irrelevant, but the Indy referendum is only decided by Scottish registered voters (so while outside interests may have concerns, they only have an opinion). As I see it...
A lot of the political games seem to be "saying what's convenient at any given time" aka "kicking the can down the road", it's becoming a common sight politicians trying to defend the indefensible (I can tell they know they're lying... it's not a loan, but you have to pay it back... I'm sure it's not just Scots having a problem with this).
I don't agree with the decision, but if Westminster is considered sovereign it's understandable. While I was proud of George taking it to the American senate; I consider Blackford as doing a good job (considering the 59 Scottish seats can be outvoted by either main party; which must be frustrating); I expect he quit because he has even less power after the court decision, being a member of "sovereign" Westminster who don't like referendums (even regard them as conflicting with their view that ultimately they decide). It's a thorny problem; I don't see Indy going away (is what the SNP are for). Thanks for your reply; my contention is that the UK leaving the EU was a "significant change" (re Edinburgh Agreement) but then again I saw no reason for such an agreement, which contains that caveat.
Have a nice day!
1
-
Russia appears to have destroyed the "investments" of the foreign corporations that took control of Ukrainian agriculture and the gas pipeline (through Ukraine); while the regions that Russia occupies (for two years now) all voted to leave Ukraine (in 2014); just after the armed overthrow of government (which some claim was American inspired, like Libya).
A lot of these foreign companies have quite a close association with the American government (like the one awarded the rebuilding contract: that's probably worthless too); the EU and America have both sent billions to Ukraine (and they are not known to be charitable... even to their own people); so I suggest you get off your high horse, it was all "interference".
Since the "EU gas-pipeline" is now closed (alternative routes mysteriously destroyed) some of the best quality farmland in the world is in now in a war-zone; port grain-loading facilities destroyed and the (46, according to the Pentagon) research labs (possibly GM food?) are closed or destroyed; that "investment" is gone. While the EU has lost relatively cheap Russian gas and grain; now has another refugee crisis; plus domestic issues of it's own.
I can only blame the American far-right (Neocons) and the "globalists" for this mess.
"The country has shown a blatant disregard for international law and norms...". It's America: whose troops currently the oil fields in Syria (about 20% of the country); 50,000 kids dead in Iraq/Afghanistan; while 25,000 civilians have died in Gaza in short order and the world saw NATO justice in Libya (it's a lynching). Who are you trying to fool?
The Western media may not want to understand how things work (or don't work, due to corruption) in Eastern Europe; but the deal between Russia and Ukraine was neutrality or war and it doesn't matter what America says or does now (because that was Eastern European business and while the foreign corporations found a way around Ukrainian law; amassing millions of hectares of land); land ownership is viewed differently in the East and sending corrupt countries money (that aren't in the EU or NATO); Russia is simply trashing this.
So: yes, there are dire consequences; to this America "power game" (as China describes it); the Neocons have lost the petrodollar (as reserve currency); trust in our leaders; the media and banks is very low; while America chicken-hawks trying to lecture the likes of Russia, or Germany, about land war in Europe... what windbags they are (no credibility).
So while the sponsors of government and the media play with public money and Ukrainian lives (seemingly at no cost to themselves; Russia gave fair warning and the major powers all knew beforehand, that if they didn't stop interfering in Ukraine that the only alternative was war (it was just the general public that was kept guessing (as NATO and EU personnel left just before the invasion). We have seen some of the consequences, but now nuclear weapons are being moved to forward positions; not for use in Ukraine, that's for the game of global thermonuclear war (want to play?). While if the West is more concerned about corporate profit, than people, it does look like; they already lost!
Continued Ukrainian "investment" by the Senate, is only in nuclear war; but the world population is rather large and they'll be safe in their bunkers (Q. What's in all this for you?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Collin's dictionary defines "fake news" as, "false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting".
That covers things like the Gulf of Tonkin incident (it didn't happen) to adverts posing as news.
English doesn't define itself and it's not just technical exploits that caused "fake news" a lot of it is completely intentional.
What Jimmy said after talking about the Greek fascist and Trump's comment about the 2nd amendment, was "I hope they're not linked" (to the shooting). Well it seems they weren't; Jimmy was wrong ... and so are you because that's exactly what he said. You said Jimmy has a political show, but this isn't about politics, rather it's an example of someone trying to use something to further their agenda. So I agree with the OP, "At the time you put this video up the motive was known and in an odd way you just qualified as fake news Jimmy". I think that's an accurate description.
Some news agencies do create the outrage: they choose what they focus on; try to tell people what to think (although that backfired on the spectacularly last American election (and in the UK EU referendum) and they've already been caught making things up before ... As Randolf Hearst said, get me the pictures I'll get you the war" (and he did).
A year of repeating that Russia lost Clinton the election, with no evidence ... fabrication; fake news and from those who only approve of democracy when they get the answer the want (the enemy).
Just lately some used "lying by ommission" to create outrage with the "children in cages" story. Turns out it wasn't a Trump policy; it's far more complicated once the whole story is known; so it's a hoax; fabrication; fake news.
Now as far as I can see Jimmy has joined this group.
There are a lot of variations of fake news, at least the Collin's dictionary definition recognises that.
1
-
Of course the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fake news (that's because it didn't happen) ... and it wasn't the media of the time simply reporting a quote (hearsay), it was the American government using their media to perpetrate a hoax on the American people in order to go to war. Many in the media weren't innocent in this; they actively led the call for war (and not for the first time), they willingly acted as distributors of propaganda.
A computer "exploit" might also be down to hardware, that's because the internet wasn't designed to do many of the things it's used for today. However that's beside the point; fake news can be spread by: telephone; newspapers (as we have seen) or by 24 hour rolling news (that uses repetition to hammer home the point). What I'm talking about is people (or groups) intentionally trying to hoax the general public and it doesn't have to be political. The general public were assured in the 50's that smoking was good for them; a number of studies were published (by scientists whose funding clearly depended on finding that smoking is somehow beneficial); that's fake news as well. It's a type of distortion, like propaganda and if you (as a scientist or doctor) won't get the information then they'll find some else who will. It comes at a price though: loss of credibility; erosion of trust and that is one of the problems the media has a present; they are not trusted as reliable narrators. This is very corrosive.
Jimmy was wrong ... well then Jimmy need to learn to shut up sometimes and stop trying to use this shooting for political reasons.
I understand the difference between fact based journalism and opinion based journalism; however many in the main stream media like to combine the two in one article (like Jimmy just did). Now I wonder do you understand the difference, or was it something you just heard? You say, "every news organisation makes a clear distinction by using proper language" but that is untrue. Using the term "every" doesn't strengthen your position either, it actually weakens it. If you are going to troll, you need to be better than this. Unfortunately (for us); certain media outlets go to great lengths to find an unnamed government spokesperson; or say the department of so and so say ... it's usually the third paragraph where their hatred is revealed. Currently the trend is fear-mongering ...
It was so stupid of the Clinton campaign to try and claim that President Trump gets left alone with the nuclear trigger (when as former secretary of state she knows the drill). The likes of CNN who ran with that, lost so much credibility with that hoax ... but then nobody said the hoaxers were smart.
Sorry but "Russia-gate" is still a thing: with some five (Republican led) investigations, having found nothing (except some Russian businessmen who live in America and who ran facebooks ads); maybe nobody is reporting it so much now, but this is one hoax that Clinton must be made to pay dearly for as it nearly rekindled McCathyism (and no I'm not a Russian-bot ... America needs to stamp out corruption and the download speed shows the leak was an inside job (it was the truth being leaked) and as we've seen, those telling the truth get jailed or have to leave America ... that's how far the corrosion has gone.
So are you a troll, or just hanging on to 20th century a bit too long?
You are wasting your time trolling me, but I'll address your last three points ....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You would have to reveal who you mean by "they" ... before I could reply to that.
If you mean (by they) .... some in media, or even an entire media outlet; then sure: they are sometimes complicit in hoaxing the public; we have seen smear campaigns (and plenty of fear-mongering); at one point we saw political parties all trying to court Murdoch (who seemed to be viewed as a king-maker, until that myth fell apart). One of the biggest myths today is that there is a viable left wing party in America; when both main parties are clearly right wing and the Green and Liberal parties don't count. That's an attempt to move the political spectrum to the right; it's a distortion; almost laughable really when Clinton's foreign policy appears to be slightly to the right of Hitler.
Actually by "they" I mean those who give millions to politicians and the ones who accept it. I doubt they can see much wrong with it; one is, I'm told, the richest man in the world; who owns a newspaper; gives hundreds of millions to the CIA (?!) and whose company has never (in my understanding) declared a profit. That's the kind of madness that we are supposed to accept, the we have the wealth income gap reaching the point where there is war and if, for example, the speaker of the hose has a personal fortune of over $100,000,000, it's a safe bet that she's not serving the country first.
Now you say there is no fake news (yet you previously provided your definition of it) and I wouldn't trouble yourself about my intellect, reading skills, or comprehension; that's just an attempt at deflection (something, it appears Trump was employed to be).
What I described (in "run an attack piece") was simply a mechanism which can be used to distort social reality, or try to hoax the general public. Sure it's an opinion piece; the government is letting kids down in another country by not intervening ... however it ignores the very plain fact that America is not fit to be the World's policeman; that the source could be non-existent and that type of fake news is also known as a false flag attack. That's how recently a Western coalition (America; the UK and France) fired missiles into Syria, in support of the army of Islam. Later on the biological (or gas) attack was shown to be fake and so the msm dropped the story. Looks like Syria and Russia finally got to stop the overthrow of a legitimate government by Western backed rebels. The media is clearly complicit in this and probably did more damage to the American public after 9/11 than the "terrorists" by hammering home the images for months on end.
"Political parties do not provide news" ... yes they do. The election cycle dominates the news; it goes on for far too long and it's become a hateful thing now. Maybe it's the "win at all costs" attitude that seems so popular in the West, or extremists ... but with the political system polarized; the banks invincible and politicians swimming in money, it is damaging the country.
Yeah sure there are no doubt stupid people ... it's one of these bell shaped curve things so common in the social realm ... so 5% of the group will be really good at something; 5% really bad and the rest are somewhere in between. It's not going to win any arguments claiming that others are stupid. Clinton with her "basket of deplorables" speech displayed incredible ineptitude (imo). She certainly got into the news with that; no counter-fitting required (she said it) and I guess it was because she started to believe her own publicity. It's costs money to conduct a poll; somebody is paying for answers and the answer was, Clinton was a lock for President. What a laugh ... and the same thing happened in the Brexit referendum in the UK.
Anyway it's nothing to do with my being gullible, or not, I'm telling you what happened and some of the reasons why ... Actually Clinton lost because Democrat voters didn't turn out in their usual numbers. In any case it's always a two horse race, both are right-wing, so it was a vote for war or war.
Returning to the nonsense in the above clip ... if you are President it's not really advisable to have a position on guns and gun control; it's a political hot potato; you can't win. Trump said it was an issue for 2nd amendment people and so it is; but the claim it was a call to violence is demonstrably false. Jimmy either doesn't that or doesn't want to try and that doesn't help me trust his judgement.
Still it was interesting watching Clinton with her "we came, we saw, he died" comment, take ownership of NATO justice (it's a lynching) and sign her own political epitaph, but it dragged America's name through the mud and for that she must pay.
It's been fun; but since you can't see the problem(s) I doubt we will get to possible solutions. All these smart people, the self proclaimed "elite" ... well take a look around, they clearly aren't that clever.
The military/ industrial/ banking cabal rolls on ...
1
-
It's quite clear (despite the use of quotation marks) that you are using the term "they" to refer to a different group than I am ... If you have the reading comprehension skills you claim then I would have thought you'd have picked up on that. So just to be clear "they" (in context) refers to a group of greedy individuals who put their wants before the needs of the country (not "they" the media ... although a couple of media barons (now and in the past) may qualify for membership of both groups). What you just did was narrow the context, so while the quote is correct your use of it is not.
No fake news how I define it (?) Well if you care to read back, you'll find it's the Collin's dictionary definition I used; so if you have a problem with that then surely your argument is with them (the dictionary) and not me.
"A mechanism which can be used to distort social reality" Well certainly that description isn't just confined to pedlars of fake news; advertisers have been trying it for decades, but there are certain things they are not allowed to do such as making the claim they are "the best". Another description for advertising is bragging; the advertisers and/or product manufacturers may genuinely believe the product is "the best", but that opinion has to be qualified by empirical evidence or it can't be used. Other groups also attempt to alter social reality: movie makers; stage magicians and writers of fiction for example, but that's not technically fake news, it's fakery for entertainment purposes. However if a magician claims the public can win money at "the shell game" then proceeds to take money from them, that crosses the line into fake news.
The line is not clearly defined and legislators are always playing catch-up; so as the term "fake news" is a recent concept (Trump claims he invented it, I would only agree he used the expression a lot) we are still awaiting legislation and still discovering what it is and what it does. I would also suggest that it's malleable ... so if legislators ban "the shell game", the hucksters now unveil "find the lady".
Let me ask you two questions here, a man down the pub told me I can win money at the shell game, is that fake news?
The other question is how do you write in bold text on youtube if you would (I can use less words then).
On the matter of the fourth estate. I'm well aware (already) of the works of Thomas Carlisle; David Hume and Adam Smith; it's required reading here. "The fourth estate" in my opinion is likely to be an accurate description of what might be called "power bases" at that time in history. Things have moved on from them and I believe what we are looking at today is a group, or groups, who have set out to control all the estates.
I'm not sure about your definition about "news" though (never mind "fake"). I'm amazed the Republicans don't get as much flak as they should for having a party mechanism that produced Trump as their candidate. However if Trump tweets "Mexican wall will be build" then that is reported in the news. Trump doesn't print the newspapers, but he's making news. Actually because he tweets he's bypassing one of the fourth estate. None of this trump will (highlighted) say in a speech on Tuesday business ... Now it's unfiltered. News is just another name for"new information" so certainly politicians make news.
I'll answer the last bit below ...
1
-
.... it's been fun, but ....
You offer your (unsolicited) opinion on me, but there are no people like me; just me. Actually I usually look at the cartoons first, but no I do read the headlines and the full article, sometimes twice; but only on certain subjects. I took to circling the emotive terms as these indicate opinion and as I said (way back) many msm articles followed a pattern (undeniable fact; opinion, dread conclusion); this happened on either side of the debate, so not a partisan issue really. When it comes to scientific papers sources are very important, but if the source is given as: an un-named government spokesman; a spokesperson for the President or the department of (whatever) released a statement, then it might as well be a recipe for fudge. By the way I doubt I can take criticism from someone who starts a sentence ... "you lost or were never taught precise language ... " and to the rest of it, sez you?!
When you say, "a news article is always like a scientific paper." that is an invalid statement. Articles about: fashion; science and politics all exist in different realms so obey their own separate rule structures and have to be written about differently. In other words: in the realm of science the law of gravity isn't open to negotiation; in the social realm it always, those for, those against and those who don't know/ don't care and it's anybodies guess what is next years fashion.
Certainly the matter gets down to what can be considered a fact. In matters of science the empirical method was discovered during the Scottish age of Enlightenment. Independent verification of results and that can be regarded as fact. There are specialist publications for this, but the msm often "freak out" the public with badly written science articles "black hole machine may destroy the universe" (it didn't).
The media is far from blameless in this "fake news" outpouring. Providing misleading information happens from time to time; but many are on-side when it comes to war; do distribute propaganda and avoid covering certain issues at times.
Misquotes or quotes out of context aside, sure it's fine to say person A said "something"; it's even better if person A comes forward to confirm it; but if it's that the world will end next Tuesday, it's worse than nonsense (it causes panic).
The problems today are: why aren't we already on another planet (science); who controls meta-=data (aka who do I belong to) and in the abstract realm, it a faulty understanding of money (some depend on this staying like that by the way). Those are key issues, but hey the royal family are having a baby.
It's nothing to do with intellect; fake news is a diversion; I'm sure intentional and I'd say these days if you want something done you'd better do it yourself as your tax dollars are misappropriated (as I see it).
1
-
I set the context ... you quoted it, therefore "they" refers to individuals or groups that are rich or powerful enough to "lean" on government. If you think they don't exist I would refer you to the "Robber Baron" era where huge state funds were leveraged; they definitely do exist. Would you like a list? If you want to talk about "they" the media, sure carry on; but I don't see media groups as simply relaters of fact. Sometimes they act under instruction as shown by a clip of presenters all including the same phrase; some clearly get behind parties or candidates, it's the political donations bit that is a bridge too far for me. Sure it must be easy to preach to the converted but how clueless do they think the viewer is (?), that's a rhetorical question, if they are paying someone over $33,000 * a day* (thanks for that) all I'm saying is they'll probably say anything you want them to say. I'm looking for reliable narrators and couldn't recommend one at the time.
No fake news how Collin's dictionary defines it
Well if you mean fake news defined as "false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting" then I'd go with that; but if you find another definition that seems better by all means ...
It's a British source, but came top of the google hit parade; so what would you give as an example of fake news?
How about a journalist who created a fictitious character that he quotes (as an authority figure) ... that comes under false I suppose?
Advertisers are distributors of information, but are also a very powerful influence on society. This leads into the area of ratings and polls; censorship and does subliminal advertising work (no). The quote wasn't helpful (trying what?). When the sponsors demand changes to content I get a bit suspicious; pushing product is their main motivation (profit) but changing the ending of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to include a religious theme was, lets call it, a commercial decision. That and the sponsors backing out. I've no problem with public service adverts advising kids not to play with matches, or get a smoke detector ... getting that info out is fine with me; happy to pay for it too.
On the subject of when magic turns into highway robbery. The problem here is more how to come up with meaningful legislation. I doubt we will solve that here. Legislators don't provide news as such, true but their main role is to maintain the structure of tribal law "aka the law of the land". It's not really news that their word is law (it literally is); but a law like an alcohol prohibition has individuals moving to a territorial morality (my rules, my values).
In the man down the pub question, I think it's more about the quality of information rather than the people. "Clueless" is maybe a bit harsh, but "The Post" take ownership here ... instead I'd go for ""Find the Lady" tricksters" and advertise "Harry "the hat" Anderson. I would call it fake news though that you'll ever "find the lady".
Still no nearer deciding who is pulling the strings, tweeting is just direct communication with the masses (just don't tweet coffofe) but that's showbiz. Who actually "makes the news" then would you say?
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's up to you if you want to disagree with the dictionary; I regard Collin's dictionary as a reputable source (mainly because they haven't tried to sell me something).
Do you mean it's not news to you that the building is on fire? Of course it's news and it alters behaviour as people will be inclined to leave the building. Problem here is that the information (on this occasion) is false. The question for society is where to draw the line between freedom of speech and criminal behaviour. Of course it's news that the building is on fire and it's up to you want you do with it.
Again, no; it's idle speculation and it's flat out wrong (based on information available at the time) and using the dead to promote a political agenda seems rather cheap to me. It has little to do with the second amendment as: shot-guns are unlikely to be banned; it seems clear the perpetrator wanted to kill these people (so if it wasn't a shotgun and smoke-bombs, there are a whole range of weapons available) and trying to link this to Trump is a crock.
As I say, what is Jimmy trying to achieve here, because all he is doing is guessing badly.
Maybe Jimmy doesn't fully understand the medium he is working in?
I only recognise the difference between fact based journalism and opinion based journalism; if the two types are mixed in the same article then it can be used maliciously.
Jimmy doesn't seem to realise he's not a "breaking news" media outlet. He hasn't got a live feed, or a reporter on the scene and the time lag created by recording, editing and downloading means he is several hours out of date. That's what he doesn't seem to understand and it's making him and the show look bad.
I'm not saying fake news is everywhere. The start of the clip is fine, but it's the undeniable fact ... then it's followed by opinion (which is wrong) ... then it's doom and gloom ... remember the black guy shot running way.
That is exactly the same template as the msm use for fake news; I wonder if it's catching, because now he's doing it too.
Of course he can say what he wants; he just needs to start with, "In my opinion ...". Trying to blame the Russians, or Trump, or trigger happy police doesn't cut it though.
I don't see the objective so I don't trust him on this
Nothing anti-intellectual about this at all; actually it's the other way around, if individuals, or groups, hide their true objective; I've every reason not to start from a position of trust. I also regard distributors of illogical thought to be my enemy; so I don't accept things like, incentive for the rich = more money/ incentive for the poor = less money; because that's much worse than nonsense.
Everything I don't trust has to be fake news, is something I never said ... based in what ignorance? What are you talking about?
As I say, if there is no declared objective in a belief structure; then it's a strong candidate for fakery of some kind. Belief structures require an objective.
Here is some news from Isao Hamimoto ... I think it's real ... see what you make of it.
v=cjAqR1zICA0
1
-
Again, you are just making things up and you don't seem to understand what the term "news" means.
I regard Collin's dictionary as a reliable source for the definition of English terms and phrases; I see few other reliable sources today (The Financial Times is one perhaps, on money). So what you say is simply untrue!
You should read the Collin's dictionary definition of "news" because you seem to be guessing (badly).
*1. uncountable noun
News is information about a recently changed situation or a recent event.*
So if someone tells you the building is on fire, that's news and if they tell you it's on fire when it isn't, that's fake news. If you wait until the newspapers tell you the news the building is on fire you'll likely be yesterdays news.
Since the public have been repeatedly told the attack on Syria was to protect children, but now it's become fairly clear it's about an oil pipeline; then perhaps you'll see why a hidden objective can be dangerous. The American public might respond to a humanitarian objective, only that turned out to be fake. Had they been told it's really about oil and money I doubt the hawks would have got their war (which they lost by the way). This is how "they" fool the public. Jimmy's clip here stinks of the same thing.
I never claimed anything of the sort (that's revisionism by you). You said The Jimmy Dore Show was a political program; I agreed, so what are you talking about?
I've given you the template a lot of the msm use. A click-bait headline; the article begins with an undeniable fact; then turns to opinion (using emotive terms) and then there is a conclusion that's either doom and gloom or propaganda. It's not that they're out to get me, what they are trying to do is hand out bogus information. The public are therefore being hoaxed and often disseminate half-truths and lies. Are you trying to tell me you haven't spotted this?
One of the big hoaxes is the creation of a fictitious "left" in American politics. Neither main party have any intention of supporting things like the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, because their funding comes from there and there is nothing left wing about either of them. So the Democrats (well most of them) have misappropriated the term "left" (actually they are right wing). No wonder Americans are confused, also the term "progressive" doesn't mean anything at all (not all progress is good, after all).
No-one is hiding their true objective ... are you a Sorros troll?
Of course they are ... The hunt for WMD's wasn't a hunt for WMD's (Hussein had proposed trading Gold for his countries oil); the hunt for Bin Laden, wrong country, they found and killed him (without a court decision) and America is still in Afghanistan (16 years now?) so it wasn't for that; the Federal reserve may not have any Gold, but nobody is allowed to look; the lynching of Gadaffi (after he proposed Gold for oil too); that wasn't anything to do with saving lives, it was regime change.
Do you want more examples? I've got plenty.
No need to be paranoid with these people pulling the strings and where do we fit in; why we are cannon fodder; or numbers or a commodity to be bought and sold. So you just took all the above at face value did you?
Just as I said, "*distributors of illogical thought are the enemy*" That's what I said, your interpretation of that (suggesting paranoia) is incorrect and if you want to turn to name calling be my guest .... The American public has been lied to repeatedly (as I've shown); people aren't responding to fear-mongering like they used to do (worn out worrying I guess), so now it's outrage and sensationalism; meanwhile America exports $2 Trillion in weapons to some rather unsavoury characters (all state subsidised too).
Again you use a clumsily constructed sentence to try and criticise my grammar; would it interest you to know I'm qualified in English; it's my first language and that I've lived in: America; Russia; China; darkest Africa and all over Europe. So I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that there is much more to a county than two political parties.
This Jimmy Dore Show clip, is an example of very poor journalism and show lack of respect for the dead, as he tried to use them to further his agenda (unknown). That's the problem, it's so cheap it looks fake ... and very well might be.
1
-
If you want to argue with the dictionary people, don't let me stop you; but it does make you look a bit idiotic.
People can be called "the news"; it can be published information in newspapers, on TV or radio, but it's primarily new information.
So when someone in a shop told me that one tower of the World Trade Centre collapsed and the other was on fire, that was news to me; however I immediately went home and turned on the TV; mainly for confirmation.
Of course that was news.
Your definition of "news" and "fake news" is far too narrow; Collin's have the correct definitions of both terms, you do not.
I'll refer you to the Jimmy Dore Show and the official line you can find yourself.
v=NjOr2YzrZDY
Oh so now it's a commentary show; political commentary though?
What do you know about my lack of precision; you are just talking rubbish (again); I deal in precision; Ad hominem attacks mean nothing to me, my work speaks for itself. A tip: stop pretending you know me; you don't.
A headline is never presented as a fact ... that's a false statement. "Pound drops 2 cents against Dollar" can be considered factual; it's just when terms like: crash; poorly or fears appear in a headline it's almost certain it's watered down to an opinion piece.
Besides you didn't understand what I said ... I said the headline in, fake news articles, is very often click-bait (sensational) "Gunman Kills 5 Inside Maryland Newsroom" (as above) is sensational enough, but we know (by now) that the title is factual. The first paragraph is where CNN and FOX (and others) give a fact, that is indisputably true (as Jimmy did); then the article moves from fact to opinion. I find it's more obvious when disagreeing with the point of the article; if I agree I tend to give the benefit of the doubt (at least for a while). Then the conclusion is either fatalistic or some sort of personal attack. They (the American msm) been doing this for over two years now, it's getting a bit old now.
"No news claimed that there were wmds and no news claimed that there was a hunt for them"
theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/25/iraq.iraq
No you are mistaken, it was never out of the news for months.
I'm not interested in even trying to prove I'm not paranoid, or that I'm not a dog. I know what paranoia is; I even worked in a psychiatric hospital as a Summer job after I left school.
I just showed you that the government and msm ran a campaign and funded "the rebels" in Syria (that Jimmy Dore article); the pictures of gassed children (like the ones Nikki Haley held up in the UN) were shown to be fake as was the alleged gas attack. Nikki said she wouldn't show the pictures (at that time) so instead went on with a flowery description on the (alleged) content ... and still the UN wouldn't sanction action. Actually it was vetoed (remember Libya is still in turmoil) so America (plus the UK and France) went ahead regardless.
Sure people make mistakes, but it seems clear now: it was dust (not gas); the coalition fired missiles in support of "The army of Islam" and it wasn't for humanitarian reasons at all. Chillingly it was for an oil pipeline to try an undercut Russia.
Now there was fakery in their somewhere; I consider Nikki Haley to be a shameless liar and whoever bet on the oil pipeline lost their investment.
No need to be paranoid with creeps like this around!
That's the problem, it's so cheap it looks fake
In other words it's beneath contempt to use the dead to try and further an unrelated political issue and that's what Jimmy staggered in to (just like CNN and FOX).
1
-
Opinion, no that was fact. The shop assistant conveyed accurately events happening at that time. One tower was down at that time and the other was on fire, so it was accurate news.
Commentary on politics though? That's what I asked.
What lack of precision, what paranoia, what inability with the English language do you perceive in me? You seem to keep wanting to make it a personal issue. The English language is a communication medium, you clearly understand what I'm writing, so what does precision have to do with it? Is this something you've heard somewhere, because I don't know what you're talking about?
A stupid person ... there you go again. If the Financial Times carries the headline "Pound drops 2 cents against Dollar" then you can take that to the bank; with certain conditions: it's the price at a certain time-point (so it's already old news); it may be a price given at a fixed time (eg UK market opens) and once a later edition comes out it supersedes the previous one. The article doesn't need a source (yet) just being in the Financial Times means it has a certain credibility.
Actually correctly written articles start with a premise, first paragraph and end with a conclusion, last paragraph ... there may be arguments for and against in the body of the article ... but the msm don't do that much now, it's usually just a rant.
Also a headline doesn't have to be a conclusion; it can be but it might just as easily be a speculative question. Any headline with a question mark is unlikely to be a conclusion.
We didn't need sources for the opinion expressed on the program; the people speaking are addressing the viewer (and each other) directly. I agree it's not news once it moves to guessing as to the reasons five people were murdered; it's actually rather disrespectful; I don't quite know what to call it.
Re: "The hunt for wmd"
Where have you been?
1
-
continued ...
This was the main excuse for: America; the UK and France (them again) to invade Iraq. Despite Hussein being a former ally; the Western msm started to describe him as a monster ... the gas attack on his own people (see Syria), probably happened but it was the West that sold him the chemicals. Then there was the line that the West could be hit with a wmd (see N. Korea); they gave a time in minutes, but that was all made up as was "the dodgy dossier" that Blair concocted (total fiction; misrepresentation) and eventually the UN agreed to a second Gulf war ... to get these wmd's. Only they never ever found any and they gave up searching two years after they got their war; Hussein hung (see Gadaffi). Another lie then, or were they just mistaken ... the public gave them the benefit of the doubt.
I'm telling you straight; these are not nice people; they are prepared to try and hoax a whole nation and their real objective wasn't a public safety issue; it was that the West can't afford to trade Gold for oil; not only financially, but it would weaken the hold of the $/oil mechanism on the world economy. It seems clear that "they" are prepared to destroy countries and kill leaders to maintain a vast income.
Really all of this is available by using Google; it's no secret what happened and afterwards they all forgave each other (the ones still alive).
Afghanistan has Opium and Lithium (and natural gas); Libya has the best quality oil in the World, but due to the clumsiness of Clinton and her gang; it's now a Muslin state under Sharia law and still in turmoil.
Still "they" rather shot themselves in the foot, by trying to sanction Russia; maybe they started to believe their own publicity?
The CRIBS countries set up their own bank; they won't be using the £/oil mechanism; the Europeans aren't to happy, because sanctions on Russia hit them too and trade tariffs, I'm told they never work out well.
So we've been told a lot of lies (it's not a recent phenomenon, but it is correct to blame the dishonest and corrupt ... or it encourages others). I think this also follows a template: demonise a foreign leader; push for an "intervention", then end up killing more people than the tin-pot dictator to whom you sold the weapons. So now "they" (as I see it) want to kick up a lot of dust; fake news" is one way; throwing abuse to close down debates or getting a 50 cent army to do it for you.
You're not a "sock-puppet" are you?
1
-
No, really it's you that needs to go and learn about logic. You have studied logic and philosophy, haven't you(?); because I have.
The shop assistant conveyed a statement, at that time, which was a fact. Of course this is a developing story as later the second tower collapsed. It's not an opinion like margarine tastes better than butter, which is an opinion with which you can agree, or disagree. If the person offering that opinion is being paid a lot of money by a margarine company, then I might wonder how honest an opinion they are giving; but it seems people are all wired up differently; some individuals even say they dislike both; but I prefer butter to margarine and that is a true statement (as far as I'm concerned). So I've been given news of an attack on the World Trade Centre, it's either true, or false, it's not an opinion; so I went to find corroborating evidence. Had it been a lie it could be one kind of "fake news" (unreliable narrator); or perhaps someone confused a drama with reality like with the war of worlds radio show (lost in translation) or it was wilful distribution of misinformation (malicious gossip). Turns out it wasn't any of these "fake news" types, it was factually correct.
Yes, on politics; that's what Jimmy usually does.
I don't know how you comment on precision relates to me, but Jimmy (and his co-hosts) turned from fact to wild speculation.
Was the gunman influenced by some some "attention-seeking fascist kid" (my words), no Jimmy this is what police would call "a domestic". No need to pause and look at the camera for dramatic effect, your opinion is wrong; viewers on other channels already have other information. The format of the show is too slow to cover breaking news; speculation is unwelcome over tragedy (it could even start a riot) so either Jimmy is unaware of his shows limitations or he's riding over that to sell something.
It should be crystal clear by now that even if a President wanted to amend the second amendment it's a political hot potato and this one doesn't. By the way on the subject of precision: Trump is fond of making ambiguous statements; the matter of control is a perfect matter on which not to take a stand. By leaving the issue to those "2nd amendment people" (he says); he's passing the buck; not singling out groups like the NRA or their opposition; yet some of the msm translated that into some kind of a call to arms (misrepresentation/ lost in translation). The difference between you and me (I think) is that I believe it's intentional and malicious.
I'll translate
Q President Trump what is your position on: guns; gun control and the 2nd amendment?
A I don't want to know, next question ...
No, not every news article requires sources; there are established writers in established news papers and what the reader often gets is the view of the writer of the article. There isn't the room to provide a bibliography; list of sources and it could even be an article written in satirical fashion, where only regular readers understand the symbolism (names are changed to avoid legal action).
Why would it be utter stupidity to not simply accept that the Financial Times knows what they are talking about? Unlike other msm outlet their business model doesn't depend on sensationalism or the "what if?" concept or horoscopes. 2 cents down is all I really need to know; but to me that might just mean a slightly more or less expensive foreign holiday. To others though it could be 2 cents on a million imported items or (these days) a whole bank could be lost after betting on a number being reached on some index (see Barings bank).
Actually I'd say you'd be stupid not to accept the headline at face value, because the Financial Times depends on being as close to the facts as possible. However it should be pointed out that to the majority of individuals in society, that headline actually means nothing at all.
By the way that headline is not a conclusion (if so, then you're statement that all headlines are conclusions is invalid). Reporting a price at market opening is vital information to some; but although 2 cents is a fact the article is only a snap-shot of a dynamic system. By the time the type is set; the papers printed; delivered to shops, bought and read ... of course the market has moved on. So the headline isn't a conclusion it's just a snap-shot.
For those who have built a supercomputer right next to the stock exchange; who can trade a million shares in a fraction of a second ... the Financial Times must look like a historical document, or a record of their handiwork. They can "anticipate" big share orders so buy first; the big order pushes up the price and then they sell. To me that's "insider trading" but it's considered legal?! That's why "they" got really very upset when some individuals started spoofing them....
Some kid in his bedroom would send in a huge buy order (for shares) then immediately cancel it (legal); he had previously bought shares under another account name (legal?) .... so when "they" hop in and put in their order it's actually their money that pushes up the price (that huge buy order never arrives) and the kid sells the shares in the other account. To me that's highly amusing, a kid with a PC turning over a bunch of "skimmers", but "they" were very angry (it seems) and as the American government now made it a federal matter; I think it's clear who owns who.
What annoys me is all this insanity; the sheer effort; the man hours devoted to this sort of crap. Sure it's great to be an insider trader; but it's parasitic behaviours and only serves the interest of a few. The kid got off, of course, once his idea became news people started to think about what was really going on I expect.
I've written a rather wrong reply because there are matters going on the EU parliament about data laws, so I'll be going to them shortly for the day. So I'll skip through your last points.
I don't know anything about bears and their relationship to fruit. With news reporting it's fact; or opinion (and if the two are mixed it's either opinion or something like sludge).
With fact based journalism; like Nature; New Scientist while they may sometimes publish hypothesis (before being peer reviewed to an actual theory); but it's either a fact or it's not. In opinion based journalism a "theory" is more like a hunch (the term is used differently), that's just a feature of the language; some journalist don't seem to recognise the difference. That's their problem though.
Described him as a monster
What I mean is that when a person is described as: evil; brutal or a danger to others; that this is emotive language (about feelings). If you notice, some news agencies slip in these "feelings" that they have. Sure it's in their opinion; the media outlet might even say that the content on this show isn't necessarily their view. However before war; "brutal dictator" is just one of the usual "opinions". Really this reveals a lot about the writer and distributor (their position); as to brutal dictators, they include: Kings Queens; Shahs; Sultans; the Pope ... it doesn't seem to have been a problem before?
I'll give you and example of the msm template later if you are still interested (probably tomorrow tho'). Do the clips and other links I sent play?
I should really try to find two articles (for sake of balance) pre-election, but I really haven't any more time to spend pretending both parties and their candidates are any different. So how about one having a go at Trump, since Clinton is yesterdays news?
So we've been told a lot of lies
Yup! The ones I don't like are the ones where groups or individuals profit from lies; or put money before people ... I see most of the fake news as being a way to hide some unfortunate truths; to kick up dust.
As I see it "they" are playing a game; we aren't part of it, but they're using our money.
I'm sure I'll get to correctly or incorrectly, looking at an msm article; I gtg.
We still haven't decided who "they" are ... oh wait a knock at the door.
1
-
Of course it was a fact ... that was what was happening at that time (attack on world trade centre in progress; one tower down, one on fire) in lower Manhattan. This differs from opinion, like "I think next week there will be an attack on the world trade centre" (which is opinion). Are you denying that the information I received was factual?
Factual information is not an opinion, but saying ... and I think the second one will fall down too ... and that would be opinion (until it happened). If it wasn't a fact then, when then did it become a fact?
Yes, Jimmy is free to talk rubbish and lower the shows credibility; it's his show; no argument there. It's just very poor journalism and that's how you lose viewers.
Do you believe that five people were shot dead in a newsroom, or do you feel you have to be an eyewitness for something to be called a fact? I would call it a fact because so may media outlets are releasing exactly the same info at the same time. If one outlet claims 6 people died then it may be developing news (one of the injured later died) or the incident has been misreported, by accident or design (and a retraction may need to be published). Nevertheless it's still a fact that at least 5 people were killed in a newsroom.
Then Jimmy turns to speculation ... Was it part of a movement to attack journalists; no Jimmy apparently it wasn't. Was it Trump not dealing with second amendment issues ... no absolute rubbish Jimmy; American's like to shoot places up for a variety of reasons; try to touch the 2nd amendment and the weapons manufacturers; NRA and parts of the permanent state and Republican party will undoubtedly go for you . Trying to link Trump to the actions of this man is called "scapegoating"; insisting the President sticks his head in the Lion's mouth (metaphorically) is so much nonsense, that it's worse than nonsense. It's clear Trump want's nothing to do with gun control, so what is Jimmy drumming on about?
It's what the msm have been trying to do with Russia "scapegoating" ... that, for want of a better term is "externalisation" (trying to blame outside entities for internal problems, caused internally). The argument seems to be Russia is quite corrupt (which it is); there is a lot of corruption in and around the America government (which there is); therefore the two must be linked. That would be a fallacious argument (invalid).
The two types of corruption are different; the beneficiaries of American corruption are almost always American citizens and I firmly believe the authors of "Russia-gate" need to be given a punishment that fits the crime, because they have waged a campaign to alter public perception and they have profited greatly from it (at the expense of society and international relations). Only as matters stand, the establishment will simply forgive each other and if a screw-up is particularly bad, you get sent on "gardening leave".
I'm convinced "Russia-gate" is "fake news"; suspect that the federal reserve is very low on physical Gold and that the numerous foreign wars are about: oil and natural resources, not for any humanitarian reason. There are some of the myths the msm are trying to perpetuate.
So sure, Jimmy is free to trash his own show, but trying to revive a dead
duck (gun control); guessing wildly after a tragedy is: unhelpful; potentially misleading and shows a lack of respect for the dead; trying to link this to Trump appears dishonest to me (there I've said it).
* yet some of the msm translated that into some kind of a call to arms*
... but they actually did. What some in the msm were doing was using what are called (in the UK) "weasel words". These days the terms: "might"; "could"; "possibly" ... even "tomorrow", have been degraded by the msm. One type of "weasel words" is when a figure of authority says, "public service workers got more money this year, they got a 1% rise". On the surface that's a true statement, but if the inflation rate is 5% they are actually worse off because they can't buy as much. Weasel words!
Actually Trump said what he said ... something like "I'll leave that to the 2nd amendment folks" (don't quote me on that). Anything further is an interpretation or translation. When did the msm start knowing what other people might, or might not do? Can we accept that the msm is telepathic, of course not, actually what they were doing was suggesting a possible course of action; giving people ideas ... it's another version of weasel words ... it's the "let's you and him fight" game.
Easy enough to stop this, ridicule over a balance sheet error; a "cease and desist" (incitement to riot) for the second.
However I view both as intentional acts of deception; a misreading or mismanagement of fact and those whose employ this (even once) lose a lot of credibility (self inflicted). By the way interpretation isn't factual re-reporting, it's now opinion. Sure people are entitled to their opinion, it's just if it starts a riot they must take responsibility.
There is a reason to accept information from the likes of the Financial Times" at face value, because their livelihood depends on being as accurate as possible; only they are reporting on a dynamic (moving) situation so they are always playing catch-up. A hard copy end of day list of stock prices, is useful enough for those dabbling in the stock market, but as I told you; there are some who are inside the system; they deal in microseconds; they can't lose (unless spoofed) so for them the Times" is just a historical document. I just used the phrase "utter stupidity" because you described an issue of trust in those terms. This may come down to what you are prepared to trust or when you would trust something, but since I consider money to be an abstract concept (just a token used to simplify the exchange of goods and services); therefore money isn't real (it's just an understanding based on trust) so possibly the Financial Times might be better described as an accurate representation of a fantasy world. It's trustworthy in that respect (imo).
I gave you an example of a headline that wasn't a conclusion (anything with a question mark) I'm talking about: content; context and the presentation of a conclusion in the headline; not the matter of how articles are listed or categorised within a data-base.
See, there you go again; having a go. It might be an invitation to study bears and their feeding habits, particularly before venturing into bear country; but between me and you I didn't understand word one of you analogy. I don't mind discussing pure logic, but that's an abstract concept too. Maybe you might give that one another go; but I don't need any advice from you as to what I should and shouldn't do; it's not even very good advice and I suspect you are actually describing yourself. I'll leave you to follow your own advice while I look for an article that is an example of fake news, if that's okay with you?
1
-
I was given factual information; therefore it's fact based news. "France will win the world cup" isn't a fact (yet) therefore it's opinion based.
If I'm told that there's a fire (by fire alarm) then I have to follow a procedure and verify if it is indeed a fire; but if a work colleague tells me there is a fire and it's out of control; then I call the fire brigade. It's a waste of valuable time seeking further evidence, besides I'm inferring my colleague is untrustworthy; if something is on fire it's on fire (and that's a fact regardless of what people say about it). The treatment of fact in the social realm is different from the treatment of fact in empirical science (which needs to be independently verified. The fire is a fire whether I observe it or not.
Jimmy is a journalist; of the five types he's doing two.
At least three different media outlets reported five dead (two of them before Jimmy's show was published); one claimed at least five dead. It's fairly simple to determine if people are dead in matters like this; the authorities will give the numbers, but usually not the names. Of course a newspaper will report 5 dead, it's a fact; not a claim after an official announcement. Check the headline above "Breaking: Gunman Kills 5 Inside Maryland Newsroom" ... it's being presented as established fact.
I'm convinced "Russia-gate" is "fake news"
.... that's because you're not understanding precise language,
Again you are just taking utter rubbish (what do you know about what I understand? Nothing that's what!)
No it's because of lack of evidence; so if you've got hard evidence then present it. What Clinton is trying to convince people about is that America is so weak another country can choose the President and I'm sure she's a liar. CNN even try the "since Russia hacked the election .... " ruse, but repetition won't save them as there needs to be conclusive evidence before a conviction. Has anyone been convicted yet? No.
When did the msm start knowing what other people might, or might not do? " they're asking people, that's what reporters do". Not in this instance, or they would quote someone directly (that's what reporters do); suggesting people might take the law into their own hands is what the media outlet is doing.
I don't know how courts view medical malpractice, but that would be done on a case by case basis. With the Financial Times, it's more than their reputation; if they are found to be fabricating information there is no reason for them to be.
"These days the terms: "might"; "could"; "possibly" ... even "tomorrow", have been degraded by the msm."
Oh yes they have; they are used to predict doom and gloom ... when the expression "I guess" is what they really mean. Along the lines of, if Trump gets elected the sky might fall. Shame you didn't spot their cheap trick.
"A question mark in a news headline means that the conclusion of the source being true is an uncertainty" ... no it may simply mean that the headline is in the form of a question.
You know what you know and I know what I know, so what? (but you don't know what I know ... I can't indulge your fantasy). Besides that your language wasn't precise, it was incomprehensible; which is why I asked you to restated it.
Of course I lack understanding ... but to be precise: it's your use of English that I don't understand from time to time; you don't seem able to distinguish fact from opinion and you apparently don't understand what constitutes a fact in the first place. Do you understand that?
1
-
1
-
If an event takes place in the physical world (or what some around here wish to call reality), like one tower of the WTC collapsing the other on fire, news is conveyed, in various mediums to others ... let's call this second hand news. This "second hand news" is either true or false, because it's about an event that either happened or didn't. If the information (I got) was an accurate description of the event, then it is fact based. I may want to get a second opinion, if I'm not in Lower Manhattan at the time, but again there is no escaping the event happened and it's only a matter of time until the correct information gets to me. There are plenty of ways that the information I was given (at that time) could be false; everything from a candid camera stunt to a genuine mistake; but apart from a genuine mistake; everything else is "fake news".
Now that's a rough interpretation of "fake news" by the Collins dictionary definition and still within it; the concept of a "genuine mistake" might be one of these things that the closer you look the less you see; so I mean an honest mistake as opposed to a dishonest mistake. No need to be too precise about this (it involves people); sometimes mistakes happen but it those with malice aforethought that I think must be rounded up and put in a nice retirement home. If one news source continued to deny the attack, or even refused to cover the story; or the government: federal; state or local order a news blackout that's (in my book) three kinds of "fake news".
In the empirical realm, the buildings eventually collapsed. Those persisting in denying an obvious fact must (and would in this example) be viewed with suspicion; of course it's impossible for the media not to cover this breaking news (one of the main reasons I don't believe various conspiracy theories here) and so it's not a good example of censorship (government or otherwise) either, I've never been comfortable with a marble and a cannon ball falling a the same rate (I guess buildings do too); those expressing suspicion that the towers fell at the speed of gravity. I'd consider that to be an honest mistake. In the fact based empirical realm that's how it works, but in the social ream it doesn't look correct to me either, but that's my problem and I have to deal with it.
So anyone who expresses concern with the way physical reality works has my sympathy but it's not open to negotiation. In the social realm the quality of information isn't held to such high standards, some terms are used differently. Those trying to profit from confusing Energy as in E=mc^2 with the energy bar they are pushing; including a cartoon of a smiling Albert Einstein giving a thumbs up, as a mild (abstract) example (I'm sure there's been worse) but in my opinion horsewhipping is too good for people like that.
In the abstract realm, the realm of imagination; there is another form of reality. I can only speak for myself; but since I'm the master of the universe here I can call anything a fact, build structures and indulge in fantasy. If I speak about any of it, then it's up to the other individual to decided if that is the truth or not. In this realm that problem doesn't even exist (if I'm honest with myself). No peer pressure either, so it's all territorial morality. Since I can have fun in this realm, let's say I just granted you (the reader) the power of telepathy and you can exactly read my thoughts. Don't worry it wears off. I'm not trying to offer blue or red tablets like in the matrix; there is nothing to win (money is elsewhere for the time being) and I can abandon any construction, at no cost to the taxpayer by just wiping the slate clean.
So the lady in the chocolate shop is a truth-teller; she didn't add to what she knew and if I was in Russia and found I was shortchanged it would have made me laugh. I'll cut to the chase; the smartest man in America at that time was the guy who ordered all aircraft grounded on 9/11. He took out all the misinformation at one time and left the answer. All this misinformation was an honest mistake, but it was (for a million reasons) getting in the way.
It's the dishonest mistakes; like trying to blame the wrong person or source but in reality either the American government are out to get it's own people or we all just witnessed psychological warfare. I had ruled out an "act of god" on hearing the news of 9/11; at the time I was thinking okay either she's mad or there are some bad people, who?
Since every channel seemed to be covering it and kept covering it; that was very damaging but I'm not blaming the media this time. It was irresistible.
With groups like this in the world I think we don't even appear on their monopoly board. I don't know how they think, but they do exist.
Jimmy rapping on about Trump; I'll settle for, it's a bit like "fake news" as the OP opined. For some hearing a name being said over and over again is like that 9/11 effect all over again. In my opinion Trump is in on this game, but I've watched a lot of stage magic and I hate bad magic. I don't think Trump has been connected to 9/11 (yet), the health care issue wasn't his making, guns (we've got plenty thx).
I'm more interested in who's pulling the strings, I know their objective.
Trump guns yadda yadda
1
-
Fact based remember? If the event occurred, it doesn't matter if I know about it, or not; it's still a fact (the event occurred). If you look at the stars in the night sky, the information (the light from them) can be millions of years old; some of them will have already gone supernova, but that information hasn't reached Earth yet ... the source of some of these points of light in the sky died out before humanity was living in caves, but I don't consider that fake news, just information that hasn't reached us yet.
Let me move from the empirical realm to the social realm; I'll leave the WTC and events of 9/11 (or 11/9 in Europe) as a binary outcome (perpetrators either came from inside or outside America and they succeeded in their objective of destroying the WTC). I'll tell you a story which contains real people and how they handled information; then we can look for the fake news. If you have a blank page in front of you (to keep any notes you like) here is the story...
England was at war with France; there was going to be a decisive battle (between Napoleon and Wellington) and the London stock exchange was in a state of high anxiety. If France won (Napoleon's army) then there would be: war reparations; French conditions (for surrender) and the London stock market would likely crash. While if England won (Wellington's army, in France) then the opposite would happen: France pays war reparations, have to buy England's manufacturing (for example) and the London stock market would boom. There was a broker in the London stock exchange called Lloyd, who always stood at the same place, by the pillar, from where he bought and sold shares. At that time it took about a week to send a letter from France to England. You needed someone with all the skills of the modern pentathlon, to ride through war-torn France, cross the English channel, pick up a fresh horse at Dover and get this news to London (probably to the government first, who would send a runner to the London exchange).
The day after the battle of Waterloo
On that day Lloyd appears at his usual place and starts selling shares; he's selling for what he can get (even taking a few financial "hits"). Lloyd's reputation is that he's well informed, it looks like he's: "clearing his books"; "consolidating his position"; it looks like he knows something! After he dumped all his share holdings it caused a panic in the market; share prices dropped like a stone, as there was a rush to sell, and it crashed the market ... then a few days later, news arrived; England won; Wellington is a national hero ... and stock prices boomed.
There is definitely "fake news" in there somewhere; can you find it?
I'll move (us) to the abstract realm (no ... lol it's not open to negotiation; but you always have the off switch; you can change the channel). While you are considering the above for fakery; I'll indulge myself in pure fantasy, primarily for my entertainment; I'd describe Lloyd (the real one) as a "rational magician"; I taken some artistic license with this story...
Having travelled back in time and established myself as Lloyd, the broker by the pillar what others don't know is that it's not just me; I work with a team. One of the team keeps carrier pigeons fit and healthy for me; another is currently in France (with three of my pigeons) awaiting the outcome of "The battle of Waterloo" (as it came to be known); one is a banker (I just offered him generous percentages on some short term loans, he's on my team, so of course he agreed and he'll get a bonus for making the bank easy money); the rest of my team are all in place at the London Stock Exchange (LSE). News arrives late in the trading day (I don't actually know; but it's my story); it's too late; I'm standing in the LSE with my pigeon fancier friend and a wax sealed capsule containing what I would call "a logic bomb" (bombshell info). Business is being conducted around me as usual; I could change that by saying joy is us Wellington won(!!!); but with an hour until close I'm not about to do that.
I tell my broker confederates it's 9 a.m sharp tomorrow; take my pigeon fancier friend back to destroy all the messages, take him and friends to dinner and I don't sleep much that night. Luckily no-one else has a carrier pigeon network, i know that because all is normal at start of trade as I start selling my holdings ... I don't want to tell lies, but if I sell to broker that I know doesn't like me, I might say, "just because it's you", as I take a bath on the price. Panic develops I've sold; everybody selling, except my confederates. They won't double cross me because they only know to buy; they are helping me place a huge bet on the result, but it's at my risk. At the end of the full day they bought shares at pennies on the pound (them and that chap with the notes, who followed our every move).
That must have been some night (don't remember it) and the next couple of days too. I have huge stock holdings (others were glad to give me); massive debt to a bank (at 10%) ... but I've enough left over to form a bank once news arrives. I go in the next day, mention I'll be on holiday for a couple of weeks, leaving early must go to the bank. Easy meeting, I ask them, "how much would you like to know the result of the Battle of Waterloo?".
Admittedly info now travels at the speed of light; not by horse. Would I really have done, what Lloyd did; I like to think so (and can!). If we are looking for people to blame; I don't think Lloyd can be blamed, a modern interpretation would be he acted "within the law", but perhaps not in "the spirit of the law" (and you can believe that if you want). I don't know if others had pigeon post capability, yet instead did the obvious thing of simply buying shares knowing they'd go up; if Lloyd's reputation (of somehow being in the know) was rock solid, they'd likely be wiped out before the boom; so it's best I go on holiday ... see!?
I don't think I have time to deal with all the individual points and objections you raise so maybe we discuss this holistically and try to decide what's what in the case of Lloyd and the LSE. I don't know what happened on the day; or care to know that much more about "invisible banking" and I can't claim to know how others think (only see what they did, or do). What individuals say, doesn't have to be the truth but I believe actions speak louder than words. I won't describe my actions (as Lloyd, the time-traveller) as bad or good; or dwell on what could have gone wrong; I don't even know the character of the man, I'm just interested in how reality works. As I've said, I believe there are three forms of reality; I'm not about to choose the one I like the best, I can be the "master of the universe" in the abstract realm; but Lloyd became one in the social realm and it took some work to do that. I'm confident there are individuals like Lloyd walking amongst us; could have been Lloyd any number of times if I had "inside information", but I don't want to own a bank. I'm just looking for those with criminal intent that are trying to distort information to profit at the expense of the country. I don't think of it in terms of groups or individuals out to get me, more like who ended up with the $21.2 Trillion. I'd just like to know who "they" are.
On the subject of gravity; yes it does depend on the model; but it also depends on whether it's been talked about by laymen or theoretical physics majors and I'll settle for 9.8 m/s (per second) near the Earth's surface minus wind resistance). I'll pass on the theory of gravitational waves, or particles; for me it's an accelerating force in the WTC context and terminal velocity to be around 120 mph. The point is it fell down. It's entirely my problem if I like to live in the world of cartoon physics (where everything falls faster than an anvil); maybe it's just bad 60's sci-fi but I've seen articles where "light years" are called a speed rather than a distance, so it seems I'm not the only one that doesn't happily accept some of physical reality. I think the WTC fell straight down is a design feature for demolishing tall buildings in built up areas; but that's a flat out guess.
PS I'll be about until the 12th; then fzzzt I'll be gone.
1
-
I'm talking about things that are a fact whether I know about them or not, when it comes to the WTC scenario. Are you denying the information I received was incorrect?
Asking why I would accept such information at face value, particularly, from a stranger is another matter; maybe it's because I'm one of the 3% of people who can determine if others believe they are speaking the truth. I'm not claiming I am, just saying the information was factual.
The story I told you could be full of "fake news": I may have invented the whole thing; or not the exact story properly; or someone else might have embellished it (for example Dumas's story "The Three musketeers" was based on real people who almost certainly never met. I can get to that later.
The reason I don't lie (as Lloyd) on the day after the battle is I don't need to lie, but I can't deny that I'm trying to create a false impression. I'm not directly telling others what do, or what to think; but I'm trying to alter the perception of others. I'm not compelled to reveal the answer but fortunes will rise or fall on the result. Those party to this information might not get wiped out by simply buying shares and holding onto them through the crash (unless there's a margin call at the end of the day they can't meet ... the fact Wellington won is days away from reaching London, officially nobody knows ... except Lloyd).
I don't know for sure if others knew the result early, or that there are people like Lloyd today who about to exploit a situation at 9am sharp. That doesn't in any way alter what happened. Lloyd didn't lie by omission (he didn't say a word about the result); he simply behaved in a fashion that could be called fraudulent. It's not as simple as saying I took that lie for a fact; Lloyd depended on others misinterpreting his actions. His reputation spoke for itself (at least up until then). Believing in reputation is not "fake news" of it's self, but when a security officer robbed four London casinos on one night, just by walking off with the money, that was because he was viewed as honest until that day. I don't think Lloyd is being honest, rather he's laying a trap.
Everyone can be fooled; but it's not so easy to rip-off an honest man. It's nothing much to do with stupidity although the Nigerian General scam is known to intentionally employ poor grammar to weed out those who will see through it eventually. The point I'm trying to make is that the American public is being fooled and on such a large scale it's perhaps too big to see clearly. Have you an explanation for where $21,200,000,000,000 went or an idea of the interest being charged on it?
It's fine to talk about critical thinking, but if the initial information is incorrect then it's not much use.
"omg, it's not 9.8 m/s, it's 9.8 m/s^2" then why did you bother writing it? I wrote 9.8 m/s (per second) which is the same as 9.8 m/s^2 and as I told you it was acceleration first, you don't need to tell me. It's not my doing that this value is commonly known as the speed of gravity, but ask around and see for yourself.
Did I cover all the points (?), I think so; but no I don't believe Lloyd is completely innocent; he created a panic by encouraging others to believe the opposite of what actually happened. Selling shares, that he knew would soon rise in price was not a honest course of action and he employed a team but pretended to act as an individual. The colluded to affect the market (temporarily); it was an illusion they used and whatever they gained someone else lost.
Critical thinking is not much use when faced with something new for the first time; not enough info and it seems clear to me that the American people are being swindled at this time, all to make a select few richer than Lloyd at the expense of others.
1
-
Are you denying the information I received was incorrect? nope
Then it was fact based.
It's irrelevant when I got corroborating evidence (about 5 minutes later); the fact was and is, one tower had fallen (and that's a fact!)
you do know that if someone believes that something is true it doesn't mean that it's fact, right?
you do know that if someone believes that something is true it doesn't mean that it's fact Yes; that's why I included the term "believe" in that sentence.
you don't know what he based his opinion on It was a she (as I said) and the statement was based on fact. It's not an opinion (opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge). The statement she was based on fact.
Lloyd depended on others misinterpreting his actions there was no reason to misinterpret anything
Oh yes there was. The shares the brokers held will either boom, or bust, once news of the result of the battle arrives. A broker holding a lot of shares will either be a millionaire, or a pauper, once news arrives. This is a volatile situation and now one of the brokers starts dumping shares on the market. Not just any broker: Lloyd is established and has a reputation for being "in the know" and he clearly wants out. What are you (as a broker) going to do?
I've revealed Lloyd's secret (he has a faster information network than surface mail ... so he's often ahead of the game); if Lloyd's trades regularly make good returns, one idea is simply to do what he does and let him do the thinking, but here he is selling everything, even at fire-sale prices.
Of course history records the result of the war (England 1 France 0) ; we know, Lloyd knows, but the other brokers don't know. To them it's a coin flip. Heads you live in a big mansion on Park Lane, Tails it's a cardboard box on Old Kent road ... want to play?
The fakery
If someone knows England won the war; the conventional approach is to buy shares and as many as possible. These shares will undoubtedly go up sharply in price once this fact reaches the market (LSE).
Lloyd doesn't do that and the moment he says sell, he is defying conventional logic and trying to spread misinformation. Had it not been such a crunch moment in English history, cashing in might cause a slight dip in prices; but it turns out Lloyd started the ball rolling....
He engineered a panic in the market; the further it went the more it became clear England must have lost the war (the market has spoken).
Only the market had been hoodwinked, it was wrong and all those penny shares Lloyd's team hoovered up now became worth pounds.
As I see it (opinion): Lloyd is real; England won the war ... both are facts; I've seen the story of Lloyd's dealings that day in a few places, so I believe it happened roughly as recorded. The difference between Lloyd and the brokers (that day) was that Lloyd was dealing in fact and they were dealing in opinion. The information Lloyd had isn't "fake information" (we know that); he probably knows that because he recognises the handwriting on the note.
He could have made a small fortune then and there with this fact; just buy (at any price, buy!); instead he sets out to spread misinformation. Now I usually give people the benefit of the doubt once; but not here, because it's clear he put some effort into this and he's behaving with premeditated malicious intent. Using his public persona; Lloyd who's "always in the know" isn't buying today he's clearing out. Do you want to be the last turkey in the shop?
He was spreading fake news; this was by action more than word; then conclusions were drawn on this false information. I don't regard Lloyd as innocent in this. He faked the others into dropping stock that was now worth a fortune.
Now I think about it; roughly the opposite of this happens in the movie "Trading Places". In that illusion: the fake news is the price will skyrocket, but the fact is the price will remain stable (they clear up on both sides of the deal; like Lloyd and his cronies).
Look, I spent around four years to qualify as an engineer; so you'll excuse me if I skip the gravity and algebra bit. When it comes to structural engineering I don't need to think in terms of what causes gravity: what it is; how it propagates or what makes it; I'm simply dealing in terms of effect. Gravity is inconvenient to me; it gets in the way of leaving the planet because we are stuck at the bottom of a gravity well; if there's a structural failure, in say the WTC, it will seal the fate of the structure. To me; the speed the towers fell at is immaterial. If they both fell at exactly the same speed or rate then I would assume it's from the same cause. Jessie Ventura puts forward the hypothesis it was a controlled demolition; I don't share his opinion. It may well look exactly like one to him (and he should know); but it looks like the central column failed as all of the floors were supported by this, it came down as one thing. I'd say air resistance negligible, it's a huge unsupported mass and once gravity (g) takes a second or two to overcome inertia, it's in free-fall. Maybe we should cut to the chase on this, do you think 9/11 was an inside job or an outside job?
Sure Lloyd obeyed the law; but perhaps not the spirit of the law. It's certainly of historical note, so something noteworthy happened. It's not his fault if others do what he does, but he conducted a sting operation.
Critical thinking is not much use when faced with something new for the first time to the contrary, that's when it shines
No not really; actually a lot of our useful discoveries are made by complete accident. I mean one company made a fortune from Viagra which was supposed to be a trial cure for heart trouble; easy to tell whose on the placebos in the drug trial.
No actually genius is often misunderstood and persecuted; we have a long history of that. I suppose it's because of lack of criteria on which to judge genius. If only half a dozen people in the world can read what Einstein wrote (or rather Maxwell wrote); so much for the wisdom of crowds. Critical thinking is fine with me if you have all the info; a clear objective in mind and some chance of achieving it. I find it helps to visualise a problem from various aspects; but for some problems you need two viewpoints simultaneously, but I'm not getting into trig at the moment.
No I'd say the American people are being swindled. So where is this $21.2 Trillion?
Is it not the case that the distributors of fake news, primarily want to cloud the issue; they insist on calling a right wing political party "the left"; to me that's like the Adam Smith Institute of NYC (a right wing think tank) misappropriating his name and works (he actually was a socialist, who believed the workers and state should profit from the success of a company). Clinton was actually really right wing, but the party has no right to be called "the left". If you don't think parking a supercomputer next to the New York Stock exchange is a bit suspect that's up to you; I was just surprised the government were in on it.
It's clear that people have tried to alter others decisions by: distributing false information; hoaxes and denying facts right up until they are jailed.
Fake news in the UN security council (poor information gathering; does she not know about pigeons?). The illusion only needs hold up until the war starts; luckily this category of illusions don't last long ... if you've the time to wait.
Hope I covered everything ... I'm just interested in who is doing it; with malice aforethought. I'm just hoping they've not got to Jimmy.
1
-
No that's not the point. The point is you can't deny an event happened in physical reality (if it actually happened); you could try but eventually reality will prevail. At that time it's a fact I'm given (one down; one on fire); it's an accurate description of events and it's news to me. So when does it stop becoming a fact? Really it's news that hasn't reached everybody yet, but it's spreading fast.
Are you saying it's my problem that I've been given news that is either true or false? I've already admitted if I'm not prepared to accept reality at face value then that is my problem, nevertheless at that time it was a fact; the information was accurate, it doesn't matter what I think about it.
I would mention people (these days) that jump to early conclusions; some are paid handsomely to jump to early conclusions; I've noticed that bad news travels fast, but maybe that experience is particular to me. Faced with such sensational news; I needed a second perspective (for my own reasons); I still found it hard to believe, but I knew where to find a magic box that received information almost instantly. I vaguely recall reasoning this was unlikely to be an act of god (as insurance companies might describe a natural disaster), but I didn't pass this information to anyone. By the way; I knew she was telling the truth, bet my life on a stranger(?). You'll have to take it from me; it wasn't just the words she said, it was how she said them. Anyway why would someone tell such a tale?
I told you already I don't claim to know what others believe; I can only decide on what they say and do. If their actions don't match their words, or they are already known to willingly lie then I would tend not to trust them. If we scale that up to the billion dollar scale then there are groups who have formed huge machines to: act as cheerleaders; attack competitors; or perhaps more worryingly act as second in a motion to war. This kind of fakery can range from pushing soap powder to something really deadly; millions has already been spent on this.
As for trusting strangers: i can only speak personally. I view people as essentially: good; intelligent and in the main just trying to get on with their lives. That is the base line and if someone: lies cheats or steals from me or other individuals then we part company. Ripping off corporations is another matter, it shouldn't be all one way.
No it's simply because there was no reason to lie. In other words what is an objective (for her); just think it through. it has to be a fact (and we know it's fact based too, since we are in the future).
Well it is and it isn't a good thing to have a reputation; but that's a matter of trust (or lack of). I agree the laws and conduct of people can't really be relied on at times, but without a degree of trust; nothing (big) would be done. Yes it's not reasonable to expect people to behave consistently; some play the rules, or gamble on not being caught (risk reward). One reason pot is so strong these days (same penalty for all strengths, but the strong stuff sells for more). It would have taken years to build a reputation; months to set up and ensure there was a man on the spot. No; he hooked them and he reeled them in. Maybe it's true, that behind every great fortune there is a great crime? I've heard that said a few times.
I asked you a straight question, America has a national debt of around $21 trillion; where did it go? or in other words ... Since the taxpayer is paying for it; what did the tax payer get in return?
I'm guessing if you gave me $21 Trillion I could colonise Mars; or install a mass accelerator on the Moon, plus a telescope on the dark side of the Moon too ... it's a fantastic sum of money.
Still there's money to bump up the military budget by hundred's of billions. That really doesn't add up.
The public have been swindled and as far as I can see "they" won.
The UN clearly weren't impressed with mocked up photos. However trying to show pictures of dead children while actually bombing a country only shows me she lacks self awareness, or she's a monster.
it's only clouded to you, which is why you're calling it fake news
Not so; I've demonstrated where information has been distributed that is not only false; but it is willingly distributed; in some cases with malice aforethought. Clouding issues is just a minor side-effect; there are always breaks in the clouds; no the really serious stuff is providing false values, because that affects people's ability to make accurate value judgements; lack of information (news blackouts); calling the enemy a short fat guy with funny haircut ... Sure people assume the role of speaking out; claiming they represent something they don't and that is one kind of fake news;
Did you really not notice the smear campaigns last election; heavy on insult; light on policy; I believe that was intentional.
$21 Trillion and rising fast ...
The biggest howler Clinton made was claiming Trump got the nuke trigger all to himself when she must know that simply a lie.
Since we are all stuck with Trump, the cleverest question he asked (imo) was when he asked the at his security briefing "Why can't America use nukes?" If you want to know the answer it's classified. I fail to see how you can't see the malicious intent behind intentional distribution of misinformation; the repetition of allegations without proof and obvious chicanery? I don't think I'm particularly special; others have noticed this too and pointed out similarities. In style and content; also there are clips here where you can see what politicians look like when they lie.
Sometimes I think you might be a computer; or don't recognise occult knowledge or running block for the show.
I'd settle for $10 Trillion accounted for; can't say fairer than that.
1
-
As I said (at least twice): facts in the Empirical realm are facts whether humans observe them or not. As the collapse of the WTC tower was a scientific (and engineering) fact and the information given to me was accurate; that's fact based journalism. Had the messenger told me that maybe the second tower will fall too; that's moved it to opinion based. Although the second tower fell later, it's not a fact at that time, it's speculation. It's also irrelevant what I know, or don't know. It's a fact that the WTC tower collapsed. In other words that is reality and if individuals don't or won't accept physical reality then that is entirely their problem.
You clearly don't understand the difference between fact and opinion (and that imo is the easy bit).
I take it as fact that people can believe what they want; it does not follow that what they believe is true or a fact. They may believe something that is factually incorrect, in which case they may draw conclusions that are false or inaccurate. I can't even be sure if what an individual says they believe is the truth; that's how shaky things are in the social realm. Also any law, that isn't a prohibition, will be good for some and not so good for others. So in the social realm what's true for one individual may not be true for another. However if someone travels to NYC to visit the Twin Towers, it doesn't matter what they believe the Twin Towers don't exist any more and that's a fact! I simply included the term "believe" in a sentence with people in it because belief and fact are not always the same thing. No need to make a big thing of it; I can say what people said; or did; but I can't claim I exactly know what people believe.
The statement she was based on fact you didn't know that at the time
I agree the statement she made was news (rather shocking news I felt); it doesn't matter what I think about it; it is still a fact. I chose to find another perspective, for reasons of my own (mainly I don't want to spread misinformation). If I can't find any then at least I'll have an amusing dinner table story ... a person in a shop said the craziest thing to me, today (my words). If it's occupying a dozen channels, then that is corroborating evidence of an established fact. That's how it works.
Lloyd took the LSE for so much money he could have bought Buckingham Palace. Had he behaved conventionally, he could easily live on Park Lane; but he set things up to scoop the pot. This is not only because he has advance information, it's because (for want of a better expression) he's inside the machine. So not only does he have insiders info ... which would net him a tidy profit; now he is going to tamper with the people population the machine (in this case the LSE brokers). We all must know by now he did it intentionally; he was playing on people's fears ... history was being writ; a coin flip on who is rich and who is poor to these brokers waiting for news.
Let me shorten this: I know what Lloyd did; I know how and why he did it; it's clear fake news was his weapon, he was fear-mongering and once that took hold it changed the opinion of the market into one of panic selling. It was an elaborate hoax and had the brokers ignored Lloyd's fire sale, his team would have picked up these shares and more as the market will boom in a day or two; once fact replaces opinion. You may view Lloyd's actions as above board, but if I was Lloyd after I'd collected all the shares from my team; I'd tell them when their bonus arrives; I'd pay back the bank I borrowed money from probably in their own shares once they go up in value, but I'd leave London. Once the news hits London, "Wellington Triumphant!" there will be a boom in the market and some brokers will know they got duped. No there is fake news in that story; you can take my word for that.
I don't need to think that's the impression you seem to give
I can't take your word for that.
Still wondering where all the money went?
I'm keen on marginal utility (what else could $21.2 Trillion be better spent?). Only I'd need to know what it actually got spent on, in order to compare and contrast. A third of it got wasted on things that didn't work; fine what's $7 Trillion to me? Nothing. No use crying over spilled milk either, I think the money resides in offshore tax havens I just wonder how it got there? So $15 Trillion, I feel the people must know (because they'll be paying for it; unless it's war).
Is it not the case that the distributors of fake news, primarily want to cloud the issue it's only clouded to you, which is why you're calling it fake news
Not so; just because you can't see it (even after some examples, want more?) It clearly does exist and who knows what lies behind a smokescreen. That's the point of it.
Trump's type of smokescreen is ambiguity; Clinton's was to lie. Putin's is to back both sides (so nobody knows what the governments position is). This is one of these instances where I can't be argued out of ignoring the evidence of my own eyes (masses falling in a vacuum I'll just have to get used to); so really it's you that can't see the use of camouflage, or find it acceptable things aren't clear; or not even brought up in conversation?
It was "fake news" in the UN (re Syria) and if you don't trust a word the speaker is saying from the start; plus it's the same excuse as last time (who will save all those children we are bombing?!); plus it involves outpourings of emotive language (the tiny cold dead hand still clasping a teddy-bear ... sure Nikki, but why worry now? Albright said "50,000 kids dead is a price we had to pay". I found it disgusting to watch.
To claim you haven't seen any of this; I find that hard to accept.
I'll remind you that the Western msm published pictures of a BuK on a flatbed trailer; this was just after a Malaysian airways flight was shot down (on a route I've been on) over Ukraine. Some used this as evidence of a Russian unit fleeing the scene of the crime; it went viral.
Then some military buffs pointed out this picture was actually from the Georgian war (it was the insignia on the vehicles that decided it; I'm told). Turns out it was a stock photo and people jumped to their own conclusion; it was tough to turn the tide for those who knew the truth; it still pops up ... that Buk crossing the border, didn't you see the picture?
I just happen to be a fan of Victorian stage magic and I know illusion when I see it.
So "they" don't really want the matter of national debt on the news and "they" are not truth-tellers; they will put self interest before the interest of the country (if we knew what that was ... it's a secret); they are also as wealthy as Lloyd by now so should be easier to spot.
1
-
You just don't seem to get it ... I've been given a fact and it's up to me what I do with it; "one down, one on fire" is an accurate description of current events whether I believe that or not. Why I took the statement as fact is another matter entirely and clearly I can't be an idiot believing something that everyone should know is true; so it must be you for using the term idiot. It's not relevant what I think about this fact; if I try to deny it I'd look increasingly foolish, but I can't really pass on this information until I have corroborating evidence (it's against my moral code). Maybe you would like to offer a coherent reason why someone would say one down one on fire if it was a lie.
Perhaps you might like to think of it like this. News of an event is spreading out from the epicentre; it travels by various mediums, news of this kind of event is very hard to avoid. You have to start believing at some point or you are out of step with reality.
No I did not claim I was one of the 3% who can divine truth in others; if you read the wording I was careful not to make that claim, I just claimed that individuals like this do exist (fake news: misrepresentation; the "strawman argument). I already said I didn't directly equate belief with fact as people are free to believe in fantasy if they wish (fake news: persistent denial of a factual statement). Therefore your conclusion is based on two false premises (fake news: misinformation; intentional?). Keep it up; you're doing something right.
No I was just saying other information was being conveyed as well as the information contained in the words being said; also it was a pointless shaggy dog story otherwise and about there I start thinking, who did it?
I told you what Lloyd did; he gave every indication of England losing the war; started a panic in the market; crashed it; then picked up shares for pennies; fact was these shares were worth far more than when he started his sting. He encouraged others to accept fake news as real (judging by their odd action of now selling shares now worth a fortune).
If you don't think there's something a bit criminal about that, wait until it happens to you.
I told you what news was, it's new information. I think it's clear that information can change things; that the market can get things wrong (with a bit of help) and that is what is happening at the moment. With so much money sloshing about in the system; it's ruined the concept of "price discovery" as groups try to legitimise "credit default swaps" by buying anything non perishable; the Gold fix is apparently fixed (rigged); key rates have been manipulated (LIBOR) which undermines the fabric of that structure. It looks like (along with money) nothing is real in the markets at the moment.
Jumping to conclusions, maybe that is what a lot of fake news is designed to do; it's to encourage others to arrive at conclusions based on faulty information?
If I claim that you are distributing poison deserts; the onus of proof is on me; the law is quite clear on this point, there are also penalties by tribal law. I could call this fake news, because it starts with a lie. It may start with a half lie ... "I heard him say he would" (hearsay)". Other methods are: misquoting; reading things into the words spoken or taking things out of context; I've seen them all employed before last election. Lies and abuse, being used to close down debate.
Still wondering where all the money went?
Yes, because you didn't tell me.
i didn't say invisible, i said clouded for you
So you can see it too?
you took it as fact and cried when you found out it was not, eh?
I don't understand what you are saying.
if you don't trust a word the speaker is saying from the start there is no reason to trust anyone
That is not a valid statement. People don't have to tell the truth; some are proven liars; it was a sad and desperate show, that reflected badly on America. I mean other countries would surely know it's really all about an oil pipeline (and they had to sit and watch her lie).
Did I say I believed everything that goes viral? I don't think I did. This kind of fake news, with the BuK picture) is putting something in the wrong place at the right time (so to speak). I don't recall the Western msm saying here is proof, but by choosing that picture (of a BuK on a low-loader under tarpaulin) when there were better pictures of a BuK, not partially covered, it showed "they" wanted to imply Russia had something to hide. You can draw your own conclusions.
A picture speaks a thousand words; haven't you heard that?
Never seen "The Falling Man"?
Yes I'm a huge fan of Victorian magic (and hoaxes). I've said if the objective is hidden, this doesn't inspire trust and I stand by that statement. However I exclude the trickery of stage illusion as it is for entertainment purposes and the audience consents to this when they buy a ticket to the show. I'll skip another mis-quote from you and say that it doesn't matter what you think about how much a true fan knows about a subject; you can never know.
So where did the $21.2 Trillion go?
How do you answer Trumps question, "why can't America use nukes?"
Is this not an accurate comment on Jimmy's show this edition?
" Really you should wait for some facts to come in before coming up with theories on motives . The shooter had an defamation suit against the paper in 2012. This guy had a problem with this paper long before anyone thought a president Trump was even possible." (John o)
1
-
No I was given factual information; a statement about physical reality that was true at that time (whether I believe it or not). By your reasoning a newsreader on the radio is just giving opinions.
I'm not taking "everything" as fact (fake news: misrepresentation; hyperbole); I was presented with a statement that was either true or false; it was true (whether I accept that information was true or not); therefore it's fact based.
Why I took the statement as fact is another matter entirely
Keeping in mind that the information, that I'm now party to, is a fact whether I believe it or not; I'm faced with two main options. It's either true that the WTC is under attack; or it's false. There are many more ways for it to be false than true, but it wasn't just the words; I was picking up other information and the only way I can explain this is you had to be there at the time.
I can't be an idiot believing something that everyone should know is true Well your interpretation is one way of putting it, but what I actually meant was: the twin towers both collapsed; news of that fact is spreading out (or going around the world if you prefer), trying to deny a plain fact means you look more idiotic; than simply taking something into consideration and trying to qualify it. The statement is true or false, there is no room for opinion (yet).... the Who did it? bit came later. What is the motivation to lie, was really what I meant.
Pure logic is never foolish
Here you make a category error. Emotive terms do not feature in the Empirical realm (in paradigms there is no emotional content, or context)
... the Universe not only doesn't care, or need to care; the term "care" doesn't even appear in it's lexicon.
It may be regarded, by some, as foolish if the first premise in an argument is, "if all Lions are square", yet it is still possible to form a valid argument. It's even possible to start with two false premises and reach a true conclusion. Pure logic is simply an analytical method and seems to obey the unwritten rule garbage in/ garbage out (GIGO).
There are indeed lots of reasons, why the statement may be false; but I'd rule out insanity (looks like a shop assistant); medication or temporary insanity (sounds like a shop assistant); it's not April fool's day (it's 9/11) so it's down to misleading (tainted) or false info; somewhere in the communication chain. That's quite a big mistake to make, although human error has caused calamities; if an established media outlet distributed that "fake news" I'm not sure of the law, but it might be called incitement to riot. The last attack didn't demolish one tower, so that's new; it's certainly sensational so could be "fake news"; looking back I can confirm bad news does indeed travel fast; but if I remember correctly I couldn't see how a short information chain could get it that wrong. Anyway that Schrodinger's cat paradox resolved itself in about 5 minutes ... but when do you start believing this news from the shop assistant?
Lloyd and my thinking?
My thinking isn't important, it's what others thought on the day; because I already know what Lloyd is attempting to do and how he came to be in a position to do it. What you describe as my reasoning, is actually the reasoning of others that day; as seen by their subsequent actions. I think it's fair to say they believed Lloyd's reputation. As Lloyd operated his own information network, he was ahead of the game because he was faster. A run of minor successes would soon prove it's not just luck; h he knows something; it's usually foreign affairs (Europe) too. Not only would another broker look foolish if the bottom fell out of the market and he simply watched it happen; but he and his clients would go broke financially. Now the man in the know starts selling, still selling as the prices drop ... it might have been greed that sparked it, or fear; but it was a a result of: misinformation; omitting to mention an established fact and months, maybe even years, of work. The only bit I'm concerned about is was it an honest mistake or was there intent to defraud? I know it's fake news he was dealing in, as he had the truth in his pocket.
So to me, despite his ingenuity; he is an example of the enemy.
I should be clear by the way; I don't distribute fake news to millions of people; some of the msm have done that. So Lloyd was an honest man for years until one day he became a crook ... is he a crook? I guess so; you f*ck one sheep??.
I'm more interest in the mechanisms of illusion. Lloyd's only needed to last a day; but $21.2 Trillion is there a Lloyd in the room?
I'm going to have to call it a day, but I might send you an example of fake news yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is this nonsense?
Find a lunatic definition of socialism; then debunk it (easy) while ignoring that America is $20 Trillion in the hole(?!); trying to disparage Sanders for visiting Russia in the 60's (or his looks) is so much tripe, if you want to see what something is go look at it (I doubt this man has ever been to Russia) and opening with a poll result ... lol ... hardly reassuring, is it? He may be a professor of Economics, but his description of socialism is bonkers and while that's common amongst Americans at this time, there is no excuse for this.
So he wants to sell you a book, but: his definition of socialism seems to be based on Bolshevism; his anecdotal evidence is flimsy and the plight of Venezuela is more down to the tactics used by (mainly) American oil companies; domestic corruption and that was in full swing before the government nationalised their oil; he's attempting to deflect there. I mean, how can a country possibly go bankrupt with large oil and gas reserves ... unless there is jiggery-pokery somewhere? He is seeking to shift blame, it's common in this day and age; but listening to this zealot try to punt his failed economic model feels to me like listening to WW2 propaganda. "English liberalism? What is that?" Well it isn't Adam Smith that's for sure; he's a Scot (you idiot) and you call yourself a Professor of Economics ... Oh! the shame of it!
The socialist models are all based on trying to describe the world in terms of people and society; the capitalist models in terms of money and profit ... neither ideology is perfect by any means. After thirty or so years of (his) market fundamentalism we can state that this version of capitalism doesn't work for the majority of citizens; it seems to have allowed a lot of corruption to the point where America might be described as an oligarchy; similar to the era of the "Robber Barons", but the 1% like it, for obvious reasons.
I won't be buying the book because I think this man is being intellectually dishonest ...
"Ten Things Millennials Should Know About Socialism" ... well where were they? Trying to apply Western values to the East doesn't really work, for a start China and Russia are not going bankrupt; India has a caste system and the national sport of Afghanistan used to be playing polo with the heads of their enemies, so it's safe to say that other countries don't hold American values and I doubt trying to bomb democracy into them or sanctions like the disgraceful "oil for food" program make that any more likely.
One thing Millennials should know, if you fall ill; it's in societies best interest to get you well again, so health will be centrally funded and that equates to higher taxes (mainly for the rich; which is why they don't want it).
Another is that, selling off key state sector infrastructure (usually grids that supply needs) is a huge mistake as: it costs more in the long run; the new private sector owners don't need to care a jot about the country or the people in it (just their profit margin) and it leaves socialist governments with no levers to control the economy (through a labour policy) because, for example, when the government asks the power cartel to stop raising prices; they tell the government to get lost.
The real problems with the socialist ideology are: it's slow to govern by committee (so little use in the fast moving private sector); there's too much "red tape" and (for some) the tax rate will be slightly higher. Not what this joker is saying ....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Russia had wanted to re-establish USSR they'd have deployed more troops. Russia already restored the map of Europe to prewar borders back in the early 90's; along with adopting capitalism (which didn't really work out) also, by demolishing the Berlin wall and dissolving the Warsaw Pact, effectively ended the "Cold War". Since then both the EU and NATO have expanded a lot; assurances were given to Russia that they would not interfere in Ukraine, but they did anyway.
The corporations that moved into Ukraine to take control of Ukrainian agriculture and a gas pipeline have already lost; it's just the rebuilding contract and those loans, plus interest, left to fight for now; while all these billions from the EU and America sent to one of the most corrupt countries in Eastern Europe were not for reasons of charity (it's graft).
It isn't even about Putin, this is Russia and they are not happy, with the fascist neocons of America; so they are holding position and burning their money (actually it's our money).
Looking at the American version of democracy; their huge national debt; student debt; credit card debt; homelessness; no NHS... it's no wonder they're fighting that off.
What unites: China; Russia; India; Brazil and S. Africa is that the deal in real things; not paper debt; three of them are nuclear superpowers and they don't need American "help".
Russia is a socialist democracy; China is a single-party communist country, while America is run by corporations... so they've been asset stripped to the tune of $36 Trillion.
Send more money... system working?! Shame about Ukraine: but the agreement, between Slavs, was; neutrality or war, from Russia with love (they chose poorly!).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tensorfly4508 There are some rather odd things going on, but if China and India are being offered good deals on Russian oil and gas I doubt they would turn them down to please America. They both have secondary industry that can refine oil into other things and I'm told the EU, even Ukraine, are buying Russian energy through intermediaries. In any case China and India can profit, remain neutral in this and that's how free market capitalism works.
At the moment large sums of money are being sent by the G7 countries, while inflation; poverty and national debt are rising; we are seeing civil unrest here and even if America defaults on debt, we are assured money will still be sent?! I suspect that China, Russia, India and other nations want to disconnect their economies from the globalists "new world order". Starting their own bank; exchange mechanism and probably bringing in a Gold backed currency ,it looks like they want to leave "the West" behind.
The billions being sent to Ukraine might just be printed to order, but it's supposed to be paid back at some point (that's where you & I come in). As I see matters the globalists want to exclude Russia economically; it would be ironic if that what Russia wants too (get shot of the West). The globalist rules seem to be making the rich richer and the poor dead; their rules don't benefit the majority and civil unrest is breaking out across Europe. I was really just saying that Russia and China have their own rules and that "loss of face" is something the Western media may not understand. It's odd what other cultures will go to war about, China proposed a peace deal, the globalists can't really afford that, but if the msm try their usual smear tactics on China, it's likely to end in violence. It is the Western taxpayer that is paying for the globalists latest "adventure". It's a waste of our resources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Too many "ifs" and "buts"; idle speculation and a faulty conclusion. Prigozhin was an "insider"; who legitimized a protection racket (charging kiosks 15%) into high-class dining; he was later put in charge of Wagner Group, which received funding and equipment from the Russian government, while describing itself as a private military contractor. In doing so Wagner Group could appear to act independently from the Russian military (America has a similar group; begins with a B.........) and the government could disavow any knowledge (like in "Mission Impossible").
The Russian government (I'm reliably informed) made prisoners with life-sentences an offer: fight for Wagner Group for six months and if you survive six months; you will receive amnesty.
In retrospect: this appears to have been a life or death decision; Prigozhin's mission was to dispose of them; so they wouldn't be released back into society. It's cynical, but also sensible...
No, doubt this is where the "cannon fodder" stories originated, which the Ukraine government (erroneously) claim continued, and still do.
While Prigozhin had a legitimate complaint: six months were up; Wagner Group wasn't being supplied properly and it was time for the Russian military to take over. No answer.
The reason he went to Moscow was to provoke the Russian military command; either way they would now have to take over running the "Special Military Operation" (SMO).
Some agreement was reached. After nine months; Wagner Group was moved from the front line, in Bakhmut, to Belarus and elsewhere.
So I believe Prigozhin's assassination was conducted by someone who found out his actual role was that of executioner (not the Russian government). In military terminology "fragging".
My condolences to the two pilots; in military terminology "collateral damage"... but don't think for one minute Prigozhin was a nice guy, he got a lot of people killed, intentionally!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moraz1111 Not clear on who you are referring to, but: the footage of Dawkins slandering protesters appears to be missing; Russell has already provided one misquote and a dishonest "clickbait" title; while I doubt what he is doing even qualifies as 2nd rate journalism, he's just fishing for a quote. If Russell really wanted to know what motivates the American student protesters, a real journalist would surely ask the protesters (but he didn't, so he doesn't).
On being told the Prof does not give on the spot interviews (on camera, to random people); Russell claims he "ran away"; then goes on to make claims about Epstein Island without any evidence, that I can find to, support this smear. A cheap shot, if you ask me; more "gutter journalism" from Russell really.
While it seems in America: that anyone, or anything, that is critical of Israel and their obscenity is accused of being not anti-Zionist (the other one); which is an old "trick", it's been happening for a while, so Dawkins may well have been indulging in sarcasm. Maybe Russell should ask Joe Biden the same question, since apparently he's making this allegation; while sending funds to Israel; but I guess if Russell tries that Presidential security will deal with him their way.
So I still don't see any connection between American student protests and an English Professor, at all; he doesn't even have a vote and he's not going to play Russell's game.
It's time the American government started taking a bit of responsibility for the mess they create (until god shows up); meanwhile I don't trust them and I don't trust Russell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielgoring1328 Libya does... the foreign secretaries of America and UK (Clinton and Hague) lied to Russia and China (it was about regime change); Gadaffi (like Hussein of Iraq) proposing a Gold backed currency it seems that's bad for ones health and the claim it was an "intervention to save civilian life" is demonstrably untrue... big refugee crisis and now Libya is an Islamic state. There are definitely some similarities; a Gold backed currency will effectively end fiat money printing and that very much concerns "Western interests" (or should).
The American media keep referring to Putin, even tried to claim he got Trump elected; it rather simplifies their usual smear tactics; but if Putin retired tomorrow this military action most likely would not. Ukraine is a personal matter for Russia, not just Putin, but the media need a figure to hate (see Orange man bad).
Ukraine didn't just go independent; it was granted independence by the Soviet authorities (other former states were too; some, like Chechia were not; it was on the understanding it remained neutral. NATO and the EU don't want that; Russia insisted and moved to military action when that was ignored (in 2022). Until then (officially) Russia was not involved in the civil war; but that may or may not be true (as they have a vested interest). Crimea was never going to just be bought out by the EU (and now they know that).
No, Ukraine was bankrupt; it owes Russia a lot of money for gas (despite the high tariffs Ukraine would charge for handling the EU gas supply. Proposals to circumvent the tariffs (Nordstream2) are opposed by both Ukraine and America; it was suspended (not because of American sanctions, although they penalised EU countries and companies); probably because Germany was put in an awkward position (being against the Russian action and for Russian energy; it's tough to do both); but never forget that Ukraine is highly corrupt and being a leader there means you have to be in on that to some degree).
I don't regard Putin as bitter about Ukraine; he strikes me as quite business like and while the media like to claim the Russian public are "easily led" but, in my experience, Russia (with state funded education) has a well educated population and even the Western media propagandists have to concede Putin is extremely popular (if we believe the polls, which generally speaking I don't).
Never enough power (for Putin)... are you joking? Russia is a technologically led society with vast resources and (strangely perhaps) display of wealth is regarded as crass. Putin may be a multi-millionaire (as claimed) but I doubt it (he doesn't need to be); that seems to be another attempted smear, Russians (I found) tend to be more interested in things and concept, not money per se.
Actually Putin isn't a dictator; but it sounds good, nor is Xi of China (President of a single party government). They are nothing like Stalin or Mao, actually it seems more likely that America is a fascist dictatorship, because (regardless of party or President) America keeps to the same foreign policy and companies seem to have rather too much influence over government.
I would imagine Putin is completely ruthless in some respects; but he has been crystal clear on the Russian speaking states of Ukraine: NATO and the EU were told to keep out (they didn't); they were given notice to get their troops and diplomats out (which they did) and Russia has fired the traditional warning shot. If NATO puts a foot into Ukraine, Russia have indicated they will use nuclear weapons (believe that, or not; I believe they are not bluffing). I'm not a fan of Putin; definitely not Zelinsky and I view both Biden and Johnson as practiced liars who will bend over for the oil/arms/ banking lobbies. That's just my view, but normal countries v a super-power lose and if Russia wanted (bankrupt) Ukraine, they could raise it to the ground. Yes, I expect Russia will seek to eliminate any Western move on Ukraine; they lost 860,000 men and 1000 tanks in a single battle (which they won) in WW2; these former military (now weapon-salesmen) "experts" with their "war weather map" don't seem or want to understand that Ukraine is now Russian business.
Anyways, I'll return you to the narrative where Ukraine will defeat Russia if only you send more money, but on a cynical note...what has Ukraine done for us recently? This Ukraine crisis is the West's fault; they were warned, but they don't listen... toppling the Ukrainian government in 2014 was a v bad idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucyhardy-styles-shield2728 If the Russian leader respects the Queen and doesn't respect the UK government (or their sponsors); he's not the only one, by far.
The UK and American governments have allowed corporations far too much influence over politics; they seek profit; they are not known to be charitable and their political donations are corruption.
E.g. Truss gets 2x£50,000K from the wife of a CEO and his (energy) company keeps £6,000,000,000. This is what happens in "banana republics"; it's very corrosive, but you can tell your kids that you are cold and hungry to keep up someone's profits.
Only if this keeps up there is likely to be civil war (here).
As for Ukraine; the escalation of an eight year civil war could have been stopped before it started; the West doesn't want peace negotiations (blocked); Russia told the Western interest to keep out (they don't listen); those giving money (billions) are not charitable (they are "investing") and they are clearly furious, because they've lost. Unfortunately, it's our money and other people's lives they are playing with so we will pay the price and if you're looking for the UK national debt (£2,700,000,000,000) try Panama!?
I understand what Putin is doing (not sure I agree); but the UK has been asset stripped because the UK government is corrupted as the Ukrainian one; it's not about money for Russia (or the monarchy); but for much of the Western media it is; but their sponsors have lost. Now we must hope Truss isn't stupid enough to persist angering Russia (and China) but don't bet on this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We do take a dig at the media" ... seemingly oblivious to the fact that FOX news is part of the main stream media (msm) and there seems very little trust left in the right wing media.
There is no left wing msm in America... both main parties are right wing, one likes to call itself the left; but that is simply to occupy the political space. Have no doubt, neither will support thing like "occupy wall street... the reason being both parties are funded by Wall Street interests and it's all about the money. Some media outlets in America give contributions to political parties then try to claim they are unbiased?! They say they are unbiased, but actions do speak louder than words.
"That's how CNN feels... " ... well CNN is a company and while some companies want to be recognised as people and gain the rights accorded to people, it's an absurd concept (from start to finish). So to be clear here companies don't have feelings; people do and when General Motors (GM) and the motor car ran Blacksmiths out of business it was described as progress and "feelings" had nothing to do with it.
GM has not invented a car engine that can be repaired with a screwdriver and while it's a nice "plug" for GM; it's another piece of fantasy from FOX and I very much doubt GM shareholders would be happy with that invention, as that would largely close down maintenance and spare parts divisions, the company share price would drop and so it would make "economic sense" to block progress because for companies it's all about the money.
A word from someone I don't know @reliable sources... what a laugh! Even the grammar in the bumper sticker isn't reliable; "experts warn"... Oh! Do they? ... but can you take that to the bank?
Without accreditation FOX might as well say a man down the pub told them...
Disinformation? C'mon FOX this is puerile; I don't know exactly what the balding chap is trying to sell but I don't trust a word he says... and when it comes to disinformation Tucker I'm only two minutes into the clip and your flights of imagination (companies that feel bad; engines that don't (and won't) exist; the only information I have is that FOX want's to "throw shade" at a rival company CNN and in my experience that's "the pot calling the kettle black".
That 17th century saying may not have stood the test of time, it describes hypocrisy and seems to me Tucker and FOX are full of it.
"Norms"... Norm's? ... "out of whack" they are, I'm told...
Has anyone noticed that there is a lot more to America than two political parties that do things for money?
American foreign policy hasn't changed much in decades, regardless of party or president; it suggests to me American politics is just for show; but there is no "left" left in America ... some elected Democrats would have been called Republicans in the 1980's; so things are moving to the right and if corporations get to make the rules, then that's the short road to fascism.
All about the money... but FOX news trying to accuse "the media", I wonder, do they really know what that looks like?
It looks like propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let us also reflect on: Iraq; Afghanistan; Libya; Syria; Somalia; Yemen... (and the hypocrisy of the corrupt American media)... It looks like after lying us into two wars; running cover for America's invasions, even falsely claiming that rising fuel prices are because of this crisis in Ukraine (when actually it's just because they can); it looks like the kleptocracy that run things in America are going for the big one... WW3.
Did anyone believe that Russia would allow "The Cossacks" to join a Western military alliance; the EU to buy the Russian naval base they leased in Crimea or that sanctioning a superpower won't be met by sanctions right back.
What similarities between Afghanistan and Ukraine?
One was about opium while the other is about gas supplies to the EU and more NATO missile bases in Europe (those are the "American interests"); the American media don't care about people, M Allbright told us 50,000 kids killed was a price she was prepared to pay and America's wars have killed millions and caused refugee crisis that Europe has to somehow try and deal with... and here we go again... American funded bio-labs; sending money and weapons to corrupt countries and now we must: hate, hate! hate!! Muslim terrorists; former allies; oh, of course, the Russians... the ones that elected the President of America, that hide under your bed; the superpower that actually led the space-race but a bunch of moneygrubbers want to use as an excuse.
Arsonists like Nic Robinson coming back dressed as firemen to lecture us on fire safety?! Leave it out!!
Let me tell you tho': this is not one of America's usual proxy wars; Russia have clearly had enough of Western interests (they have their own... and see the Cuban missile crisis for more).
What are CNN trying to sell? Is it that a superpower is likely to fail in it's attempt to destroy and ordinary country; or that Russia believes the hype... they told the Western interests get out of Ukraine; they didn't so they will put an end to the eight year civil war, largely caused by Western interests toppling the Ukraine government (oh yes you did!).
I'll return you to the corrupt American media now... did you hear Putin's looking a bit peaky; it's them Russians again; imagine moving off $/oil, not even answering the telephone... why aren't they listening, it's our freedoms, our freedom... our freedoms!... and don't forget the children...
As usual civilians pay the price; for the games these ghouls and their media want to play; war pays!! (Cheney).
Did he mean WW3?
1
-
1
-
Really laying it on thick here and the hypocrisy of the American msm is breathtaking, who will save the children? Well not the American military industrial complex that''s for sure (oil; opium and money that's what they love), the evidence is overwhelming. Take a good look at their earnest faces, because they represent the people that: lied us into two wars; have left a trail of destruction behind them and while they try to bend language to assist their "cope-ism" it is quite clear what Russia is doing. Put bluntly, if the Western interests want Ukraine bring a dustpan and brush!
Maybe odd to point out that traditionally Russians like Ukrainians, so just imagine what Russia is going to do to the terrorist group that attacked mainland Europe, blowing up Nordstream2. Get the picture yet? There are no people in the: hospital; kindergarten or orphanage; this is really clumsy propaganda; after Russian forces attacked Kyiv (aka Kiev) half the population (reportedly) left. It's actually an insult when CNN claims they have an ounce of humanity. Looks like their Syrian gas attack story was fraudulent; but let's forget about that and "The War on Terror"; "Shock and Awe; "Oil for Food program"; that sounds like the work of evil people; or perhaps lack of self-awareness; perhaps presenters paid too much to care... but I don't trust CNN; it's because they lie and lie.
Yes indeed, after a terrorist campaign (for Chechen independence) targeting the Moscow Metro and a school massacre; after shelling the Whitehouse (Moscow) after it was occupied, they raised Grozny to the ground. I don't know who Jill Dougherty is trying to fool; some Soviet states like Georgia and Ukraine got independence and some didn't; some of these (now) countries joined: the EU; NATO even both (no trouble); Putin wasn't trying to re-establish the USSR for 14 years, but now some claim he is; but arguably the biggest lie is that Putin or Biden or Trump or whoever make all the decisions. So this is not about Putin it's about Russia; with an estimated 20-25 million troops in reserve; this is not Libya (now a Muslim state, under Sharia law btw); did America perform one of it's "regime changes in Ukraine" (2014) CNN? If they did, then these "Western interests" aren't just interfering types; they are idiots of the first order and "investing" in what looks like nuclear war.
From my experience of Eastern Europe, their "ongoing investments" in Ukraine (with our taxes) are lost; these CNN "chicken-hawks" have got too used to having it their way; Ukraine had it's independence; now it may cease to exist; spin it how you like, but evidence (just in) leaders may lie (to their own populations) but not to each other. So if America wants nuclear war Russia is up for it, don't forget and they don't need to play by CNN rules. Might be time to shut up CNN; lied us into two wars you did; third time lucky? I don't think so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wlyiu4057 The growing "communication gap" isn't much to do with race, or racism, it's far more to do with: language; different cultural/moral codes and the mainly Western fascination with money/extracting financial profit. In other words, things don't work the Western way when a country has: a "soft currency"; the state control (not bank control) of finance and the virtual absence of "materialism" (open displays of wealth usually viewed as "crass"), it's minimalist (like the wage scales).
So, for example, when: Biden called Xi a dictator; hosting a delegation from China (who were not answering the phone, re Ukraine), that might have appealed to certain America voters, but in other cultures (not just the Chinese one), whether that was true or not (it's not, the "commies" do things through committee) it was highly offensive, fighting talk even! Even in America: inviting someone to your house, then abusing them; would reflect badly on you (It's a lack of awareness, why come back for more?).
The gap between the West and East is certainly growing: countries like China; Russia; India and others are moving to do things by their rules (not Western ones; that the West can't seem to follow and disadvantages the non-capitalists); what's more the Western inspired "globalist" economic model doesn't really work for the majority of people here (the rich tend to exploit the poor) or third world nations (the rich exploit the poor). In some ways it's the same communication problem here, not everyone wants to be a millionaire; but being treated as a number; trying to live on minimum wage and seeing people living on the streets (if that's what we are supposed to be fighting for, no way!)
With American elections coming up, there will likely be more communication problems, the media have supporters of two parties at each other's throats; there's the problem.
The simple message is that if the game is rigged so you can't win; people aren't going to play; they'll do something else (like sharpening pitchforks)
While it's very difficult to take my government seriously when they try to lecture others on matters economic; because I wouldn't trust them to run a bath (look at the place).
So (from my experience of living and working in America; Russia and China)... the Chinese view war as bad for their kind of business (manufacturing); Russia doesn't care what America says about Ukraine (it's old USSR business, they will deal with) and while American rules may work in America; they don't work elsewhere. Where i feel the American far-right are running into trouble is that they want others to: share their interests; follow their rules; talk the same language (but they don't and won't).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Biggusdickuss111 There seems to be some confusion here and I'd largely blame "our" media, who seem to be long on opinion, short on fact; while the sponsors of political parties (here) manage to divert huge sums of public money (to themselves, or outside the economy) while rewarding each other and successfully blaming others.
It's surprising to me how many commentators have clearly never been to Russia or China but have decided that they are the enemy, or don't know what they are doing, and also that the ones most keen on war: have never been to war; won't be going, but want others to defend their interests (which are usually money related).
That's not to say that Russia and China are in any way perfect; but this Ukrainian conflict isn't about one man, this is Russia and it's a bit miffed that despite clear warnings not to interfere in their business and receiving assurances; some foreign conglomerates did exactly that.
There may be some disagreement over whether they run government, or government runs them; but there are a few incestuous relationships in this military/industrial/media set up and the problems seems to be lack of accountability and too much money in politics. While it should be mentioned that corporate profits are a poor national objective.
I don't know why anyone would describe a country with over $33 Trillion national debt; large student and credit card debt and a health sector run by insurance companies as anything but corrupt; with social media that sells our data and camera surveillance, even with plans to equip robots with guns (which will not end well).
While if America doesn't want countries to use the dollar then of course they'll find another token through which to exchange goods and services.
There was a huge apocalyptic event in 1991 when USSR (and Warsaw Pact) ended; in my view the Supreme Soviet decided to return Europe to prewar borders; demolish a wall and so end the "Cold War" and try right-wing capitalism (often with comical results). Many of heavily armed groups in Moscow, such as the one using Hotel Ukraine as HQ, returned to power vacuums in their (newly established) countries; oil rich Chechnya (not a prewar country) denied and the oligarchs (with their political and mob connections) were allowed to leave if they didn't get into politics. The one that tried got jailed for 10 years (out in 9) asset stripped and exiled (some people, eh?).
I expect Tucker Carlson got culture shock when he got to Moscow (2nd, or 3rd, biggest city in Europe) to find it's perhaps not that bad and that the economy is nothing like ours.
Russia is not the USSR; it's a social democracy; with an NHS; state funded education; free internet; low cost state-run infrastructure; almost zero homelessness and also has very low wages; it's -20 in Winter and they turn the hot water off a month a year... to clean the pipes. The average Russian (if such a thing exists) is well educated; largely ignores the government and can buy a monthly travel pass for 500Rb ($4).
Maybe stay at Hotel Cosmos (at Russian prices); see VDNK and the Metro (a work of art). I hear the $/Rb rate is pretty good.
You may get lost in the Metro; signage in Russian; but it doubles up as a nuclear fall out shelter.
I still largely blame the media owners here for the idea that America has further business in Eastern Europe, Russia has rather destroyed that now.
These peasants (a term of respect in Russia) are quite good at chess too; I really don't know where people get the idea Russians are slaves. It's pronounced Slavs.
Russia will be fine; it's us I worry about. Those Laurel and Hardy shorts about the great depression... we are staring at an apocalyptic event economically here in the West!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DQWinSAT I haven't seen the clip to which you refer; but the media here seem to like gossip and to make up stories; some outlets even give political donations and try to claim they are unbiased; sensational headlines often don't match the article and while that may attract viewers, things like this erode trust. I'm not trying to claim that I know the truth only that: their narrative can't all be true; a lot of what the publish about Russia isn't true and that our leaders seem to care more about money than their people.
In the 1990's I lived and worked in Russia (and China); some things have no doubt changed; for example Russia moved from Communism to Social Democracy around 1992; but they do things their way and our media trying to judge this by their standards is often comical. Currently they are trying to de-legitimize the Russian elections; cause division between two right-wing parties and either don't understand, or don't want us to understand that it doesn't matter who the President is, the conflict will continue.
There are already several examples of Russia making our media look very silly indeed; for example them supplying pictures of soldiers digging trenches at Chernobyl, which they would know the media will rush to publish; but the land there is "out of commission" for 10,000 years; no need to did trenches; so they know how to "play" the media.
In my opinion; it's looks and sounds (to me) like V Putin got elected President for another six years and that's based on various interviews and discussions that featured him, since "Bang Showbiz" declared Putin unwell. It also seems clear that (alive, or dead) Putin is very popular, only 77% turned out to vote; but only 13% voted against him and despite our media's opinions: Russia has free speech; free internet; it's own social media and a well educated population. Also it doesn't matter what our media think...
I would assume the attempt to cast doubt on Putin's health ran out of steam because he kept doing what he was doing; in Q&A sessions he still gives clear answers, he doesn't rely on a script and continuing with this story starts to raise questions about the health of the American President. So they gave up that and tried to claim that with odds of 1-10 on that the elections were rigged or Navalny (with estimated 2% of the vote) was a serious contender, or was murdered in case he ran for President. While the ones trying to keep the status quo are those that back our leaders; but with towering national debt; a financial crisis due to high inflation; corporate lobbyists getting representation, the majority not... that doesn't seem to be working. Russian medicine is pretty advanced; they pioneered laser eye surgery) so maybe it's a new wonder drug?
As i said; I didn't see that clip; but there is evidence that Russia is quite happy to give the media a shaggy dog story and probably enjoy the hysterical reactions.
If you want an insight into how the USSR viewed itself, type VDNK (maybe have a stroll around); but I do think it's time we subjected our own leaders to the same scrutiny, listening to them trying to lecture others on economic matters is beyond a joke. Or trying to advise Russia or Germany on land war in Europe (same).
So I don't care who is elected President; I don't have a vote; they don't make all the decisions and the media acting as PR for parties, isn't even journalism. All i require are the facts and I can make my own opinion; I don't share many of theirs, because I don't trust them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tough words for some (look at Sir Bill's face; money in the bank actually belongs to the bank; hands off!); Uncle Sam is diverging from Ukraine and just time for a lecture on how authoritarian the EU has become, but credit where credits due; America's new found character only started in January and there's some big holes in the books apparently; world-wide inflation while diverting public money into arms exports didn't get people elected and China certainly has benefited from not getting involved in American power games (their words).
Those in the know, know why America (and EU) have been so keen on Ukraine; it's not about people (their own or those in Ukraine), or democracy, it's about something else.
....Sir Bill, was a hedge-fund manger in Russia, during the breakup of USSR; he was a front-man for (illegally) buying Russian state-sector assets; he cheapens the UK honor system.
The Russian government ejected him and confiscated hundreds of millions (allegedly for avoiding tax); he left his lawyer to sue the government, claiming they're (more) corrupt.
Truth is the government then was corrupt; it was like Chicago 1930's there (as seen in the movies); we've seen what happens to "whistle-blowers" in America (and UK), his Russian lawyer died in prison (and in my "book" that's mainly Bill's fault).
Now Broder is the poster boy for an anti-corruption drive against Russia and China; it turn out he's not much good as a hedge-fund manager here in the West; in his latest business, he's just like an arsonist, coming back dressed as a fire-man to advise us about fire-safety. He gave up his American citizenship; decided to become "British" and Bill wants money.
A bit like JD Vance actually, accusing others of things America orchestrated, then leaving.
I'm not accusing Vance of being as corrupt as Sir Bill (btw) I thought it was quite a "ballsy" speech; the EU isn't a military alliance (NATO is and they want money too); so now we see the American plan to end the conflict, pull funding and walk away. Bill will know what that means, it means no money for Bill. No more engraved hand-grenades for former boss of USAID, John Bolton (who used to keep things from the President, he said); but America's reformed character? Let's wait and see. As for Russia, they'll be fine; Ukraine less so.
If Sir Bill, or the leader of Ukraine, shakes your hand; just check you've still got you wallet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Templar.Knight-Reaper I'm not sure Russia is aiming at recreating the old CCCP (USSR); the Western powers keep toppling regimes, claim it's in the name of democracy or saving civilian life (but it's invariably what America, or rather their oligarchs, can get); the media line that NATO cares about people has been proved untrue; democracy, it's obviously not about that (since the Ukraine government banned political opposition; I suggest it's a game (a very ugly, dirty and cynical game), played by "chicken-hawks" who have no intention of going to war (instead you can).
The Russian speaking regions of Ukraine seem to be the focus of Russian aggression; they voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 (I don't believe regions have the power to do that), but since the media keep claiming the "war" started in 2022, well they are either mad or bad.
It's a terrible tragedy that matters have gone so far; the West were told to keep out of (independent) Ukraine, but the EU offered money (to join) and there were some odd goings on (in 2014); but I really have no insight into Ukrainian politics, I just know the Western "globalists" don't listen; they've been pushing their luck for years... they don't care about you or I and while I would agree that Russia is corrupt, it's a different kind of corruption to Western money-laundering (because that's what they are doing). I wish you the best of luck; but I think Russia is going to keep battering Ukraine until the West gets the message (their expansionism has to stop).
I don't see how the Western oligarchs can keep diverting money in the face of a recession (possibly a depression); it may result in civil war here; civilians keep having to pay for politicians mistakes, some look intentional. As far as Russia and America go; I'm not with them or against them; but it's time they learned to mind their own business. The EU now have gas shortages; they claim America is profiteering, it's a fair point; but starting WW3 in Europe, I doubt Germany will allow America to do that.
Good luck tho'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Starforge1 There are other ways to reduce the amount of money in politics, such as: linking politicians pay to other state sector workers; jailing those who offer bribes or forbidding politicians from having second jobs.; but politicians won't vote for that (presumably because the money's so good the way things are. Actually the left-wing ideologies tend towards larger governments than the right-wing (who generally prefer less regulation). The regulators are often toothless, underfunded and their limited fines are viewed as the cost of doing business by some. The simplest way to keep money out of politics is to do what the Russians did. They allowed the "oligarchs to leave with billions of IMF bailout money, that went straight through the system largely due to weak policing, but told them not to get into politics; the one that tried got dragged off his private jet and put in jail. There are, of course, plenty of other forms of corruption there (and elsewhere) but the oligarchs keep out of politics; being a billionaire won't protect you there.
The founders of America didn't want a theocracy or a monarchy; so they designed a republic. However sometimes the needs of the country trump the needs of individuals; there has been: conscription; prohibition; compulsory purchase and in times of war the government can run all over the rights of individuals. The constitution is fine in theory; a bit archaic in places; but when corporations put themselves above the country, that is potentially very dangerous. When it comes to tax, it's the price an individual pays to be a member of society; I object to companies "avoiding" tax because I have to help make up the shortfall; a two tier legal system, that's dangerous too.
In socialist countries you don't really get to vote where your tax is spent; taxes are generally higher but state sector industries don't have to include: a profit margin; private sector wages or hangers on (price comparison sites ... or gimmicks). Needs cost less but wages are less and the rich do not want that; mainly because tax is levied on a percentage basis. This ideology has drawbacks: rule by committee is too slow for private enterprise; government may under-fund certain sector or be reluctant to make huge investment to upgrade (if it ain't broke don't fix it ) and it can be a bit boring. At least the worth of a socialist government can be judged by seeing if it provides the needs of citizens, or not. The terms "freedom" and "free" have been rather overused; health and education are not free, they are centrally funded and "freedom" is a woolly term that politicians like to use; there have to be laws and regulations; that in many ways defines society. What happened in the financial sector 1999-2007 shows that banks can't be allowed to govern themselves.
Yes the msm has been bought (it gives the rich a voice); certain policies continue regardless of President or party, so yes the (un-elected) permanent state exists and also pull a lot of the strings. They've underestimated the public; the polsters delivered the results they were paid to deliver; the Democrats believed their own publicity ... so much for mind control. Only later we find both parties are the same thing, so it was a vote for war or war ... that makes a mockery of democracy.
I don't think I raised any personal issues; I don't like paying other people's tax; I don't like corporations running the country for their benefit ... these are widespread objections. Universal healthcare, turned into universal health insurance and I know that won't work for people, just for profiteers, but the Republicans held the country to ransom (freezing the budget) ... it's all about the money. At the moment the system is not democracy; it's socialism for a select few; capitalism for the rest. Follow the money ($80 billion hike in military budget) and it's clear it's going to be war. According to Cheney, "war pays" it certainly paid that creep well; but it cost us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Random Thoughts Have you never heard the expression, "there are: lies; damn lies and statistics"?
Part of the reason for this allegation of dishonesty is that those polling can: set context; choose the questions and where they ask them. Another problem is that some of the media (the ones that give political contributions) are clearly biased and so it's an easy bet that the polls they choose to publish support the one they are betting on and do you not recall that the Democrat candidate in the last American Presidential election was not only predicted to win, but to win a landslide; a historic victory. The Tory candidate in the UK due to win a landslide victory turned out to be a hung parliament (no majority); the UK was due to reject leaving the EU by a large margin... instead the UK voted out.
(It still hasn't happened yet because "globalists" have tried just about everything possible to slow down the process of the UK leaving the EU: court action; new polls (claiming demographics have changed); bills and amendments clearly designed to frustrate negotiation; even a shot at claiming 650 MPs are sovereign, so they get the final choice in the matter (and so the UK won't be leaving). That's because the voter was/is either: stupid; ill educated or doesn't have the facts (so, of course, made the wrong decision)... This was beyond "patronising" because in referendums and elections the voter is sovereign; it's not for the media or politicians to tell the voter they are wrong... the voter is never wrong!
Sound familiar tho'?... people and groups with vested interest apparently unconcerned if the whole system is brought into disrepute (to get what they want... it's usually money): obstructing; peddling misinformation and there's those moments where politicians and media pundits say things with such sincerity, only it's clear they are not only lying, but they must know they are... They seem to forget the internet is forever and their lies find them out... like at actual elections.
I'm not having a go at you by the way, but rating the electorate at +6 that's based on a poll isn't it? I don't care who wins... but I don't think America is divided into liberals and conservatives it's more like rich v poor. Actually outside America both parties would be describes as right-wing (capitalist) entities: they talk about money all the time; the both voted through a huge increase in military expenditure; corporate lobbyists allowed far too much power. On a sample of 2000 of UK voters; the error margin is 2.1% (+/-) so in a close race we get comedy when one media outlet predicts both candidates are winning on the same day. 10,500 is a good sample size, 60/40 Biden but if the poll was held: outside a Democrat convention; in the state of California or city of Chicago... these would be dire results. Pretty much all the polls predicted: Clinton landslide victory; Teresa May landslide victory; the UK staying in the EU... all wrong, except the exit polls!
For some reason voters polled just after voting are the ones to ask.
I think the polls are simply to flatter politicians egos; the voter only requires the facts; the opinions of others are just their opinion. Polls are too open to manipulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billroberts7881 Is there not something about, "no taxation without representation" in your tribal law? Have to be a bit careful when discussing American domestic policy as: it doesn't affect me; ours isn't anything to write home about and I can confuse policy with protest signs. Is it not the ones who successfully avoid/evade tax that get the most representation... I think "the robber barons" used to leverage large state contracts from the government when the country needed rail and infrastructure; but today's "oligarchs" seem to exist mainly on paper; while national debt (seems we owe most of it to ourselves) and it seems to annoy the money printers when other countries print money too so foreign debt can't be inflated away.
It's getting a bit like Alice Through the Looking Glass... here's an example that might make you laugh... because it's not happening to you...
The UK chancellor of exchequer (Osbourne) decides to include the untaxed and unregulated "sectors" of recreational substances and prostitution in the GDP figures, sure it bumps up GDP and the EU tax the UK for doing so well... Now that's socialism EU style (£2 billion); Cameron the PM says, I won't pay that, yet... That's called being hoisted by your own petard; really wasn't a good idea to put the (rich; spoiled) Bullingdon club boys in charge of a country... So far they've: rung up a trillion (doubling UK debt); sold the post office; cut social services to the bone... and have infiltrated the Labour party and ran a smear campaign internally... as well as what ever Cambridge Analytica were up to... nothing good I'm sure (psy-ops, your Senate seemed to think).
Still only a month and another expensive campaign ($7.6 billion last one... could flip a coin and save money!?)
All very discouraging; but if the Tories and New Labour keep doing what they always do (representing the rich) Scotland may move to independence.
Maybe a new party? With socialist government, they are supposed to meet the direct needs (not wants) of society; if they don't it's time for a new government. If the right sell off the vast state sector industries; it becomes about money, not people and it's ideological sabotage; no revenue streams to fund NHS and fix holes in roads. When it comes to cuts, managers just won't fire themselves; yeah eliminate the competition; don't make a mistake; it's a recipe for mediocrity. Good luck in the election; it's only a betting opportunity... Seems presidents elected in a year ending in a zero tend to get shot at: Lincoln; Kennedy; Reagan... etc. So just for a laugh I went to a high street bookie and asked for odds on next President getting shot.
Something about being morally and/or ethically questionable, bets like that... they said...
I said I was going to bet against it, of course!!
No I wasn't...
Tough century... by the looks of it; I think if you want anything done maybe best doing it yourself; the powers at be just aren't listening (yet).
Have a nice day!
1
-
@billroberts7881 There do seem to be some uncanny similarities in methods used although, in the UK, all this obstructionism; doing the other side down and "win at all costs" is more about "a thing" rather than a person or political party. The pollsters didn't just get the result of the 2016 American Presidential election completely wrong; but a predicted landslide for T May and the Tory party turned out to be a hung parliament (no working majority) and in the UK EU referendum (in/out?) well they got that wrong too... I still don't understand what polling companies actually do: they don't produce goods; don't seem to provide a reliable service and to whom?
About as reliable as: rating agencies; horoscopes just lies damn lies and statistics.
Anyway if the UK government asks the UK voter a simple question and some four years later the UK has not left the EU (dissolving economic... then it became political; then financial treaties (if all members must now adopt Euro currency)). If instead they try to: patronise the voter (stupid; ill informed; uneducated... basket of deplorables) basically they are sawing though the branch they are sitting on; propose a best of three it will be that for ever more (why stop at three?); or having the courts declare their job isn't to deal in matters of "high politics"... they don't make rules; they enforce rules); then there was a bill tabled by Lord Starmer of Labour, to remove "no deal" from negotiations; 650 MPs claim they have final say... etc etc.
The EU offered only one deal (theirs); the leader of Labour (a socialist) was anti-EU (so agreed with referendum); but socialist Labour don't (on principle... they want better trade; closer links; but don't like cheap unskilled labour flooding in).
That bill by Lord Starmer, pretty much destroyed Labours election chances; along with a number of right wing smear campaigns; the upshot was Corbyn quit after election defeat; Starmer and the Blairites will move Labour back to New Labour (Tory light)... all well orchestrated; quite cynical; Tory spin doctors operating something out of middle America; Cambridge Analytica (whatever they were doing?)... Corbyn was portrayed as an anti-Semite by Hodge; bullying in party (half allegations from one person) ... get the picture? So they won didn't they? Lord Starmer of the workers party, huh?; new New Labour; UK still not left EU (next excuse December 2020) but here's the rub... it's also a source of amusement when American/French media try to explain this or spin it.
The UK is four countries; hundreds of years old, kingdoms if you like... they didn't all vote to leave the EU... but Scotland is obliged to leave because of the large English vote; they have a legitimate reason to call (another) independence). It was 52/48 last time; but the Tories offered substantial new powers that didn't materialise; the EU interference (indi Scotland would be ejected) are chickens coming home to roost.
All I'm trying to say is: if you are the voter a simple question; then don't deliver, it festers; lies will catch up to parties and people; there is lack of trust in UK government; finance (£675 billion QE4... or 5) and this virus, well there's no cure so anyone blaming others is someone selling something.
Sorry to ramble on... I think the corruption in the UK is only measured in millions and billions... whereas in America it's more in the billions and trillions (and some are having trouble hiding it); it was £250,000 to have dinner at #10 with the Prime Ministers (Blair; New Labour or Cameron; Tory); usually CEO's of funds; CEO's of Supermarkets; Banks... and those that just went for the soup?! Abusing the facilities that is... almost quaint though; but don't sit below the salt...
As I see it... with Biden at 5/11; Trump 2-1 and both vice Presidents at 150-1 to be President; I can look at this a cynical capitalist; a market fundamentalist as I bet £1 on both vice President candidates to outlive two people over 70 in a viral pandemic. Just like my proposed bet; Prez gets shot(at) when elected in year ending in zero (traditional, apparently)... it makes perfect sense financially (if you gamble); it's this morally and ethically questionable bit the bookies don't seem to like... the possibility I might buy a gun and shorten the odds? I don't want to win at all costs; or care; it's all about the money! (and me a socialist... the shame!)
It's tough when the media: gives opinion instead of fact; makes up stuff; gives political contributions; but when the start messing with the language: claiming right is left; invent various names for failure and worse... it's time to get on and leave these fools behind to believe their own publicity; the bit that amazes me is that two tribes are at each other throats; politics is being spread thick, but the two parties act like lawyers... they'll fight all day, but look after each other as long as the bucks keep rolling in. If parties can exist of contributions from those they gave state contracts to then they don't need the voter... socialism for rich; capitalism for the rest... so I return to "no taxation without representation"... is that law, or a protest sign?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thrashaero In Britain: "Your Worship" (Your "Worthship") is an archaic way to address someone of higher social rank; it's used to display "reverence"; the modern equivalent is "Your Honour"; but the term "Worship" there is being used as a noun, not a verb (hence the capital letter), but this incident happened in America (where they call a judge "Judge").
The term "worship" is defined as, "to show reverence and adoration for a deity; or as a noun, "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity" and since atheists reject the concept of a deity (God, or Gods), if anyone is being coy it's VerdaderaReligion (who also has the cheek to accuse others of misusing language).
While I don't know what you think you're looking at; but Professor Dawkins made it clear that he does not give interviews to random people, who want to stick a camera in his face.
The reason for that is that "hacks" try to create "memes", or take "quotes out of context"; this encounter did turn into a meme; but I'm curious to know what student protests in American Universities have to do with Dawkins?
He attended this event to take part in a one hour debate "Why you are not a Christian" (and likely promote a book); I already find it very difficult to believe he described himself as a "cultural Christian" in that debate. He did previously, but he was saying at the time that: he liked the pageantry of Christmas, the cards and "chestnuts roasting on an open fire" part; it's well established he is an "anti-theist" (opposed to the concept of a deity) and anyway Christmas was originally a Pagan festival; that "big business" has now misappropriated.
So I would accuse Russell of: using a quote out of context; twisting things into a (negative) "meme"; smear tactics and frankly, blatant dishonesty! (glad you asked).
I would agree, the Professor could have handled the situation differently, "if you want to know what motivates the students to protest, have you thought of perhaps asking the students?" might be one reply; but then he would be drawn into a American political matter, where he has no vote or power to change a thing. Even if he said, "No comment" that could be used out of context (for anything or everything).
Just as a bit of a "reality check"; he's the chap that actually coined the term "meme"; he knows a lot about monkeys and I know what he's looking at, it's called a sh*t stirrer...
As "Darwin's Rottweiler"; he subscribes to the "Theory of Evolution" as proposed by Darwin (and Wallace); so he does offer an alternative belief structure to simply rejecting one (fundamental) component of a form of "mystical thinking"; he also regards religion as a "bad influence", even describing it as evil. I don't think he needs to repeat himself.
So while I regard Darwin's theory of evolution as incomplete; that evolution does rely on memes (also operates on the conscious level), he only devoted a page and a half in his book "The Selfish Gene" and term now refers to something else (an internet sensation, possibly infectious) I would guess that humanity has stopped evolving (as medical science, improves survival rates).
The term worship is not used in science; or performed by atheists; religion is (until God shows up) is an abstract concept and when the church came up with the concept of the Holy Trinity" I believe they were simply appointing gate-keepers of the: empirical; social and abstract realms. If so that makes them very cynical indeed; but that's another matter.
Meanwhile lets just stand back and admire what Russell has created: something out of nothing; a veritable "sh*t show" (judging by the comments section here) and yet another example of American media trying to blame anyone, but themselves, for problems they themselves create. Enjoy the elections, looks like war, or war (vote now), yet again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cruzeoc101 My original statement was mainly aimed at the O.P. and "ideological confusion" (or trolling); also criticism of "our" pro-war media and their attempts to draw other countries (like China and Germany) into a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, by (basically) making a lot of things up and preaching hatred.
So while I do agree with your initial statement "Zelenskyy is there" (instead of Hitler?!); I hope you understand that by saying this (while "flying under the colors" of A3OB) it makes you look like a bit of a fascist sympathizer.
In my view: it's extremely dangerous to even use Germany and Russia in the same sentence, at this time (they've got a long "history"); this event isn't any kind of "peace negotiation" (I would limit that to the two protagonists and a neutral "arbiter", if one could be found that's acceptable to both and eject outside interests; then I'd lock the door); it's no longer amusing (to me) these mistakes "our" media often makes, on unrelated matters I already view some outlets (no names) as: cold; cynical and calculating entities.
I was employed to resolve conflict situations, in USSR, where it seemed everyone had guns except me and my Yugoslav partner; if the talking stops and violence begins, I've lost!
It still makes me laugh thinking of the time I walked into a room to find six guys kicking someone on the floor; I shouted, STOP! ... and to my amazement they all stopped and looked at me... That's when I found out the Russian word for stop is stop (that might come in handy sometime); later, that they were the KGB (moonlighting as security officers).
So I suppose it depends how one looks at things; there's a place in Moscow called VDNK it might be viewed as an ideological advert (propaganda), but I view it as a utopian vision.
Let me leave you with that (to decide), but we should not be distracted; for the Western interests it's about money; for Russia, breaking agreements somebody has to pay (it's war).
My apologies if you got caught in the crossfire; but unless there's a vested interest, it's unwise to tangle with the Russian government (any doubt about that, just ask the Chechen).
Currently I'm very frustrated with my government; their media PR department and in particular their "sponsors", but that's my business; you have a nice day!
I mentioned the war once... but I think I got away with it. (B Faulty) It's up to Ukraine and Russia to sort this out (it's time for the outside interests to play games elsewhere, imo).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Prof, but this is like listening to a young child trying to explain where babies come from... Russia has had numerous uprisings; not just the famous revolutions in 1905 and 1917; even up to 1992 where the communists were protesting in the streets; the government shelled their own White-house and there were internal power struggles (states vying for independence); the Russians are a volatile bunch and while I share the view that there won't be an overthrow of Putin or the government, it's for different reasons than you give.
Sure, Cossack's are a people from Ukraine (and southern Russia); but "peasant" is not a derogatory term in Eastern Europe; your commentator is presenting a category error: it's possible to be Russian and a Cossack; it's possible to be Ukrainian and a peasant. A peasant is an agricultural laborer; a well respected profession; nothing wrong with that, it's where we get bread (and beer).
You seem to have a very poor understanding of European history, but on the matter of Poland: Germany; Russia and Ukraine have all been at war with Poland; it was never part of USSR; it was a member of the Warsaw pact (which dissolved in 1991); joined NATO (in 1999); their "fears" that Russia wants to reestablish the USSR are without substance (it wouldn't involve them and Russia isn't); so I think Poland hopes possibly to get some land; while they aren't about to let Ukraine dump grain on them, they offered America Migs (declined) but not an airbase. Forget Poland.
Where are the NAZI's? I would say amongst those who allow corporations to buy political influence; that's the short road to fascism, because: their profit margins get put above: the national interest and the interests of the majority of citizens while there is no moral component to profit seeking private enterprise. That doesn't happen in Russia (that's what Navalny tried to do, with the billions he got; somehow) so they put him in jail; there are other political parties in Russia, it is a democracy, but they don't want billionaires in politics. While in China there is a form of state subsidized capitalism; that's not really socialism or capitalism, but it's not fascism as "state sponsored" companies don't get into politics. Whereas America looks like a fascist theocracy to me.
Apart from some of the symbolism of the AZOV troops; I believe Russia is accusing the West of having policy driven by corporate interests; in other words American involvement in Ukraine is an "investment" seeking a financial return (just that). We have already seen in American domestic politics the power of the lobbying groups; Washington DC is full of them; from the NRA to big Pharma blocking Universal Health Care; these big military budgets don't just award themselves y'know; while the oil and gas concerns seem to have that state sponsored capitalism look (fuel tax being a big revenue stream); the banking industry regularly gets away with "murder", bailouts, bonuses... no wonder "Wall Street" backs both main parties, it's all about the money. I'm not saying the NAZI's were all bad; but with the arms industry profiting (while all that farmland Western interests bought is lot) it's swings and roundabouts, but it's all about the money for America!
Russian speaking Ukrainians; in regions that voted to leave Ukraine were being shelled for eight years; I thought Russia was quite tolerant. Individuals sanctioned for Russia not intervening; sanctioned after Russia intervened; some say America was behind the armed overthrow of government in Ukraine 2014 (I don't know, but America has "previous"). Now Russia occupies the same regions militarily; the people there don't seem to want to be part of Ukraine (decisive votes to that effect); it looks like they already joined Russia.
Russia lies? Gosh! Governments lie to their people all the time, but it seems they don't lie to each other much at all. It was clear Ukraine joining EU/NATO would be war. Where you not listening?
Have you not heard the term "fake news"; I thought it was in common usage referring mainly to Western corporate media outlets (usually fear-mongering). The post truth era (snarf).
Russia will not stop, finally I agree with something. Not the Borg; more like the Krell machine in Forbidden Planet, with a centrally planned economy and a solid manufacturing base they just dial it up; all the way to nuclear war; that's what's staring us in the face in Europe; while America seems oblivious to what could mushroom if this doesn't stop, while the media try to mushroom us (keep in dark; feed manure) as militarily, superpowers in their own "backyard" don't need "to take it" from interlopers. Since the msm lied us into two wars, keep quiet about Syrian occupation; thrive on discord, even play about with language "whataboutism", I don't get Russian media; at best I get their version (usually the Ukrainian one) and I really don't think Russia is going to do a thing to help the msm. They even play jokes on them; like digging trenches at Chernobyl; the msm swallowed that hook, line and sinker; too easy; they know all about Chernobyl they built it!
No Prof, Russia exports: oil; gas; grain; fertilizer and very popular weapons; their air and satellite defense systems suggest they are not vulnerable; the wage structure is different; so their military budget doesn't compare to America in quite the same way.
You are on a beating to nothing here, Prof (or rather the Western oligarchs are, largely using public money). Your talk of Russia aiming to reestablish USSR seems to be hysteria; the map shows what Russia wants and it wants the Western interests out of Ukraine. The value of your investment may go up or down (it's in the small print somewhere); arms sales up; farmland and GM labs down; EU imports of relatively cheap energy down (it's what America wants); but this is not affecting the Russian economy; they're the CRIBS now. Quite a good fit if you ask me.
Russia will keep on going; trashing the American "investment"; it's a case of actions speaking louder than words Prof.
They said there would be war, over continued Western interest in Ukraine; now there is war; what other truth do you require?
1
-
1
-
"Socialism" refers to a whole range of left wing ideologies, while "Capitalism" refers to a whole range of right-wing ideologies (they are not one thing) and the answer to the question, does it work?
The short answer is likely to be: some of it; sometimes or probably not very well when theoretical models are unleashed on humanity. While the far-left (Bolshevism) and far-right (Fascism) versions on the political spectrum look quite similar, some form of "authoritarianism" that: is oppressive; benefits a select few and not the majority, these models do have different objectives.
Put simply Socialism attempts to describe the World in terms of people and society; Capitalism in terms of money and profit, so the left and right often talk at cross purposes, while the viewer can usually distinguish between left and right by the terms they use and how they use them. If someone first asks...but how much will it cost? They are likely a Capitalist setting a money context.
What the declared "Marxist" (mid-left) is mainly arguing for is a more equitable distribution of resources; there are valid arguments for both left and right regarding this; even from Henry Ford a Capitalist who wanted his workforce to be able to buy the cars they helped make. While the "father of modern economic theory" Adam Smith was more concerned that workers could no longer manufacture a finished product, they were now only a cog in the mechanism of mass-production and that companies needed to return things to the community besides a wage and possibly a pension for their employees. In some ways Adam Smith was more a Socialist and so I would accuse the American "Adam Smith Institute" (a right-wing "think tank") of misappropriating his name.
In the Marxist model the boss would earn a small multiple of the lowest paid workers salary; they could be voted out; but community decisions don't always yield the best results.
If we consider the socialist model for the fire service; it's far superior to the capitalist model: partly because the fire service doesn't "make" money it saves money (property and lives). Lots of small independent insurance companies didn't have the "fire-power" (pun intended) to deal with large fires (like the Tooley Street blaze, that set the river Thames on fire); there were even fights over who would put out your fire and if you weren't a customer of theirs it wasn't their problem. The objective for the insurance companies was profit; the objective for society to not allow fire to take hold; so a centrally funded 24 hour fire service was established (essentially a socialist concept, like an NHS and state pensions). On the other side of the coin there really is not place for profit seeking companies in the state sector (wrong objective). Giving capitalists concerns ready made monopolies supplying needs has not worked well except for a select few.
While I'm not familiar with South American domestic politics it does seem that corruption and American sanctions had a large influence on a country that American oil companies were very interested in; at one point they proposed moving away from trading in dollars (which seems increasingly popular these days). The description of Singapore as being socialist is not correct it has quite an authoritarian government and has strict rules regarding population numbers and vehicles (because it's an island with limited land and virtually no primary industries (raw materials); instead it deals in logistics (cargo transfer) and banking to some extent. Where has social democracy worked? Most of Scandinavia (with their sovereign wealth funds); Canada; Iceland; Scotland, possibly Estonia (although never been there to see). The term socialism is generally regarded as a dirty word by the owners of the media in America who are increasingly far-right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Germany and UK who wanted "their" physical Gold, from America, were told to wait or take cash (the retail banking system had crashed). Germany said they'd wait; the UK took cash. Germany waited around 6 years (for 40% of it, if MacGregor is correct). In the UK, PM Blair and his "New" Labour were out next election, when he let Brown take over; he took cash partly to assist the Global banking system and because he wasn't going to be PM for long (that's politics). The question remains, was there any Gold to start with? As the price of Gold rose, it got more expensive to get Germany their Gold.
History might be kinder to Brown; than the Tory press, but there's over 1000 times more "paper gold" than Gold in the system today, while Senators lack the power to inspect Fort Knox (maybe the President does?).
How can you sell something you don't have? Well it happens all the time in investment banking; or buying, or betting on things with money they don't have). It's a mess!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No Jimmy, if life expectancy was two hundred years people would be more careful crossing the road as there's a lot more to lose. According to Google average life expectancy for Russian males is closer to 73 years, so this German pundit (I've never heard of...) differs.
I would agree that Eastern and Western European countries differ on their perception of money, because if the state doesn't charge for: rent; gas; electricity; council tax; water; telephone or basic medical treatment... then they don't have to pay you very much. The downside of being paid something like $200-300 a month is that it's difficult to start a business; or amass a fortune, casinos are banned in Russia so gambling is out; I'm not sure about the stock market, but Russians (in my experience) just don't live in the same kind of society and displaying wealth is often viewed as crass. Indeed Russia and Ukraine have a lot more in common than with Western European countries; but these days I doubt they are any more corrupt than some Western countries.
The EU does depend on Russian gas supplies through Ukraine (which seem to be running fairly normally; odd that in a war); there is a lot of anti-Russian rhetoric in the Western press, but there was already an eight year civil war in Ukraine and if America wants to complain about invasions it's the pot calling the kettle black, is it not?
Really don't trust this woman; sure she's pretty (imo); but we shouldn't accept fake news, or (as you say) the familiar attempts to stir up hate, the reason for recent fuel price rises isn't to do with the Ukraine crisis (not yet); it's because suppliers can and the Western government(s) do like tax.
Yes, us Europeans have indeed started two World wars; life expectancy in 1943 was just over 70 years; but there's no stopping us (killing each other, sorry). If countries are sending weapons to a war, they don't want peace... unless you believe "war is peace" (see: Orwell's "1984"). I would say that if you can formulate an argument without using money, then you are thinking the way the real "left" do; if you can't find Ukraine on the map, you've better things to do and corruption, of: media; money supply; society etc is like rot, it sets in and it's hard to shift.
I don't view Florence Gaub as a reliable narrator.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelscott466 I thought I already did answer your question; but I'm happy to clarify my answer.
Under the law of England & Wales, when this alleged incident occurred, the age of consent is sixteen, which means they are considered to be an adult in the eyes of the law. (So when you call the individual in question a child, you are wrong and it also looks, to me, like a thin attempt to manipulate the conversation).
As an adult it is legal, with a few exceptions, (such as teachers and those with authority over them) to engage in sexual intercourse (although I'm not recommending it).
Between consenting adults it is entirely their business when it comes to sex, unless it breaks other laws, such as sex in public "offending public decency". So it's none of your business, or mine, what consenting adults do.
Again, under the laws of England and Wales, parents do not have "rights" regarding children, they only have "responsibilities" and after a child reaches adulthood, the "statue of blaming parents" runs out and they must face the responsibility of their own actions.
Now the law in England & Wales changed earlier this year (but not in my country) and the age was raised to eighteen.
This does not entitle anybody to act retrospectively; the law at the time stands.
In the matter of non-consensual sex that breaks the law (then and now) and is an accusation that has now been made. This is a matter for the police and courts, not the media, to act on and decide. Currently there are no police charges (that's not to say there won't be); while those who presume guilt and act on that breach a fundamental point of law (and may themselves have broken the law). "Innocent until proven guilt" or in other words the accused doesn't have to prove innocence, guilt must be proven (and that requires evidence).
If you are referring specifically to me; I find the concerted "rush to pronounce guilt" by the media to be the most disturbing feature of this. It is my responsibility to equip a child with a moral code and the ability to act independently. I have no doubt that sixteen year old girls are often highly manipulative and possibly even sexually active, that I'm not always told the truth. While the teaching of sex education in schools at a young age is double-edged (imo) almost an open invitation.
So just between you and me: I'm not entirely convinced by story by Channel 4 and "The Times". One looks like an enabler and the other has done this sort of thing before and got it wrong. Therefore I believe it is correct to include and subject both to a rigorous inquiry. Until charges are presented this is a "nothing-burger" as the kids say... I hope that answers your question. The media is trying to undermine the legal system of England and Wales by their actions thus far.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dream on... USSR (and Warsaw Pact) ended over 30 years ago: Europe being returned to prewar borders effectively: ended the "Cold War"; reduced the amount of regions (former countries) dependent on Russia and this also allowed the EU/NATO to expand. Despite various assurances, the EU and America's NATO still kept trying to expand; Yugoslavia disintegrated (and it looks like Syria will too); but the (mainly American) corporations that moved into Ukraine (to take control of agriculture and a gas pipeline) they've lost. (gas cut off; farmland in war-zone)
The World Bank (aka "The Institute for the Study of War") who like to lend money to get control of state infrastructure have lost (Ukraine was already bankrupt and Russia has severely damaged the Ukrainian infrastructure). While the Western oligarchs, who fund both (right-wing) political parties in America and the UK are having trouble justifying diverting more public money, to yet another war when there is: world-wide inflation; people living on the streets and the threat of runaway Western national debt (as the interest charges are not being met).
...I don't think you've ever been to the USSR or Russia (Paul Warburg); because you seem to assume that Russian society and the economy works the same way as in the West, when it does not. If we compare the national debts: Russia -$300 Billion; UK -$4,000 Billion; American -$36,000 Billion, which economy looks most likely to collapse? (Your guess is as good as mine).
...You don't seem to understand the difference between a "hard" and a "soft" currency either; while the $/Rb exchange mechanism has largely been abandoned. Hard currencies are considered to be "commodities" (which is a mistake) and a store of value. Soft currencies are not internationally traded and not a store of value (the central bank, not the markets sets the value).
(So while Western currency traders can "make money from money" and even gamble money they don't have; if they play their usual games with a soft currency they'll get "rug pulled").
...Trying to sanction a major exporter, of: gas; coal; oil; grain; iron ore (used to be weapons too) was never going to work: they're very popular; "real commodities"; there are alternative markets in the rising CRIBS (economic partnerships) and so it seems the plan from America all along was to set the EU and Russia against each other (denting two of America's competitors).
...While firing missiles at Russia and trying to claim it's Ukraine is not widely believed; so it seems the Pentagon has had to reign in a few politicians (who will not be going to war) and explain what an open deceleration of war between nuclear superpowers looks like and what it might entail. Not just because Russia has a variety of missiles to which there is no known defense.
... it should also be noted that America and it's NATO has got itself a bad reputation; just calling the massive civilian casualty figures and trail of destruction "whataboutism" might work for the domestic audience, but all this interference in other countries, the numerous regime changes and 800 foreign military bases (more appearing near China) it's leading to a world war...
There are plenty of other anti-Russia copy & paste channels already; I thought the "Icarus Project" was to do with mental health (it used to be) and if you haven't been to Russia (Paul) I strongly suggest it's high time you did. That's because until you understand: the Russian economy and society is nothing like anything you've seen before; that this nation of peasants (a term of respect in Slavic culture; they grow the food) put the first space station in orbit, without the benefit of capitalism, also despite it's many flaws (low disposable income; no land ownership; low level corruption) the socialist system and a centrally planned economy has many advantages. Russia has a national health service (NHS); state funded higher education and free internet (but it's in Russian); subsidized public transport (around $4 for monthly Moscow travel pass); a surplus of grain (vodka $7; bread $1) and low cost utilities... they also have around a million troops in reserve; their own gps (and other things in space) also the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. It's a technologically driven country (see VDNK for the Soviet Utopian vision).
While in the Slavic culture that 2014 Minsk agreement was about Ukrainian neutrality, or war. So tell me Paul, what does America think it's doing in Ukraine?
It should be noted that Russia did deploy enough troops to "take" Ukraine, or march on Paris; when they entered the Ukrainian civil war. Russia has held the "breakaway" Eastern regions for around three years now and (currently) are advancing; they'll likely want Odessa (not Kyiv) and they'll never use nukes on fellow Slavs (America and the UK are not Slavs). Ukraine is now so far in debt I expect the Western interests still hope to own it, that seems less likely all the time but if Ukraine capitulates the "bankers" lose the lot. That's what "the West" is fighting for...
Only there are better uses for public money (here and now) than supporting a select few who have largely asset stripped the Western economies and the G7 leaders who did are getting voted out. In case you haven't noticed, there's a storm coming; it may be another great recession or maybe the world goes to war and it looks (to me) that Russia and China are not going to get the worst of it. You and I are. As for Ukraine, "Why is Ukraine the West's fault?" explained why and what was going to happen... but nobody listened. Just like our government to "the people".
Something about bears, they can run faster than you; climb trees better than you and can even defeat Lions... don't poke the bear!
1
-
1
-
@phillipdavidhaskett7513 Okay; I'll write you a short essay ("Why is Ukraine the Wests Fault" is a better explanation).
Both the EU and America have gifted Ukraine billions, the EU describes this as "aid"; the American government call this "an investment", but neither are known to be charitable, (just ask Greece or the growing numbers of homeless in America) They want(ed) Ukraine to join (EU and/or NATO). While Ukraine being neutral was something of a red line for Russia. By 2014 there was a lot of Western involvement in Ukraine; while Russia leased a port and paid tariffs on a pipeline supplying energy to the EU. Germany and Russia proposed building another pipeline that would bypass these tariffs which was met by strong opposition from Ukraine (obviously) and America. Nevertheless it went ahead, was suspended and later mysteriously destroyed (obviously not by Germany or Russia who already invested billions in the project). Oops!
If I can clear some things up: by "them" I refer to those "globalists" that proposed a "New World Order" (with them at the top); something that China; Russia and others reject. Their previous "interventions to save civilian life" did nothing of the sort: thousands of civilians died; drone attacks on tribal nations with no air defense killed thousands of children (and now they pretend to care); the real reason for attacking Iraq; Libya and Afghanistan was: oil; preventing oil being traded for Gold and (judging by the opiate epidemic in America), Opium and rare earth minerals. It wasn't about people at all, it was for economic reasons. However a Gold backed currency has emerged now (only available to Chinese citizens) that might end fiat money printing.
11 nuclear carrier strike groups won't be much use here: Turkey has restrictions on foreign warships entering the Black Sea; the Russian military naval facilities isn't for sale (or lease) now and don't let the Western media fool you, Russia is a technologically driven superpower; they put the first space station in orbit and have hyper-sonic missile technology. They also have strong air defense systems (widely available); they are geared for land war; have their own global positioning system (and social media); but probably of great concern to the Western interests short supply lines and "home field advantage". Also if the globalists are simply laundering public money, this may work in the short run, until the taxpayer turns on them; but for Russia this conflict has nothing to do with money, but they clearly intend to extract a very heavy price for Ukraine giving up neutrality.
That's how it works there, Droog.
So if we can cross off, border security and saving the children ('cos they don't); what are we left with?
Either oligarchs diverting public money to them or some ideological globalists last stand or (if the Russian nationalists get in, an open invitation to global thermo-nuclear war (they're a bit "antcy").
So in this case I agree with Ritter's conclusion... there are a group of people in the West who are far-right ideological zealots; they want war (but they aren't going) and neither am I. They don't seem to know much about Russia or China; but they're the next enemy.
Problem for me is I stopped believing them after the hunt for WMDs.
Now take a look at America or the UK, is this what we are fighting for? Our leaders can't even look after their own people properly; there is rising public discontent (across Europe) and we have this parasite singing their praises (and selling merchandise).
With NATO bases along the Russian border, it's border security that Russia is fighting over and from my experience of Russia (and China) at last America has found worthy opponents.
(The msm with their tragic human interest stories; that kind of cynical manipulation; it's an insult!). Just follow the money...
Billions and billions... exported. Whatever happened to that "war on terror" anyway?
Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincenthigginbotham8729 It would most likely be a committee decision and the "special military operation" could be viewed as an "intervention" in an eight year civil war; but not as a "full scale invasion" of Europe, or Ukraine (insufficient troop numbers, I'm told). Russia already laid siege to Kyiv for a week (they obviously know where Kyiv is and how to get there, so I doubt that's their objective). The "three day" thing, appears to have originated from Gen Milley (now retired); his job used to be to: tell the Senate what they wanted to hear (or us to hear); secure more public funds for the military, so job done. What: America's NATO; the EU and foreign corporations (buying in to Ukraine) did, was make a nonsense of a neutrality agreement between Ukraine and Russia (the cosignatories had other things on their mind; like financial profit; as usual); this was very provocative.
I believe Russia holds Ukraine entirely responsible for the decisions it made: an armed overthrow of their government; an eight year civil war, while allowing a corporate take-over of valuable farmland (and likely a gas pipeline); open to membership of NATO/EU. The Western interests can try and talk around this; but Russia's agreement with Ukraine was neutrality, or war (it turns out the major powers were all aware of this, but NATO; EU and (semi) private corporations still kept pushing to expand). So Russia went to war.
So in my view: Ukraine is the architect of it's own destruction; Russia has removed the corporations profit margins and China are correct, this is all an American "power game".
Now America wants to fire their missiles at mainland Russia; so Russia has deployed military assets in the Caribbean; so we are all set for a really big war (nobody wins here).
1
-
@vincenthigginbotham8729 It would most likely be a committee decision and the "special military operation" could be viewed as an "intervention" in an eight year civil war; but not as a "full scale invasion" of Europe, or Ukraine (insufficient troop numbers, I'm told). Russia already laid siege to Kyiv for a week (they obviously know where Kyiv is and how to get there, so I doubt that's their objective). The "three day" thing, appears to have originated from Gen Milley (now retired); his job used to be to: tell the Senate what they wanted to hear (or us to hear); secure more public funds for the military, so job done. What: America's NATO; the EU and foreign corporations (buying in to Ukraine) did, was make a nonsense of a neutrality agreement between Ukraine and Russia (the cosignatories had other things on their mind; like financial profit; as usual); this was very provocative.
I believe Russia holds Ukraine entirely responsible for the decisions it made: an armed overthrow of their government; an eight year civil war, while allowing a corporate take-over of valuable farmland (and likely a gas pipeline); open to membership of NATO/EU. The Western interests can try and talk around this; but Russia's agreement with Ukraine was neutrality, or war (it turns out the major powers were all aware of this, but NATO; EU and (semi) private corporations still kept pushing to expand). So Russia went to war.
So in my view: Ukraine is the architect of it's own destruction; Russia has removed the corporations profit margins and China are correct, this is all an American "power game".
Now America wants to fire their missiles at mainland Russia; so Russia has deployed military assets in the Caribbean; so we are all set for a really big war (nobody wins here).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was made clear that cosignatories to an agreement (essentially between Ukraine and Russia); gave assurances and not guarantees (something diplomats know more about than me); while (if I understand correctly): Ukrainian neutrality; the lease of a port and gas tariffs (on a pipeline to EU) were all key issues for Russia.
On division of USSR assets: Ukraine got a navy; military; nuclear power ($200 Million leasing fee) and gas tariffs (which kept going up). Why Germany/Russia built a new pipeline.
As for nuclear weapons, these were Russian (designed; built; maintained... and Russia held the launch codes). The agreement was mainly about conditions of Ukrainian neutrality, not oversight by Western interests (or Russian); the intention (I believe) was to have a neutral "buffer state" between two military powers (Russia and NATO). It held for over 20 years.
Some describe the split between USSR (Russia) and Ukraine as a "divorce", but that's another poor description; these are both Slavic nations; Ukraine (now independent) still had the problems of: organised crime; corruption; ethnic tensions (the gypsies!?) and something of a power vacuum (new government positions available). That was entirely their business, to counter the recent narrative, Ukraine was free (now had the problems of living with oneself).
In blunt terms, they don't need or require an American babysitter; as long as they are neutral (as agreed with Russia) Russia won't attack them; Western interests started buying land.
I'm not going to pin that on Americans; but I am going to blame "globalism"... which doesn't work... this idea that we are one "global village" with Western banks running it. Turns out the rich (nations; companies and individuals) exploit the poor; state sector infrastructure is a ready made monopoly; while (in the game) building a hotel on Park Lane, the people living there aren't even in the game (and the bank, prints money to order). What the Western interests did not understand was the consequences of breaking agreements in USSR. It's fatal.
The Western interests were not trying to protect Ukraine by: buying thousands of square miles of prime farmland; bio-labs (Pentagon say 46) possibly research into GM crops (Africa rejects); protesting about alternate gas routes to the EU (had their foot on that pipe); odd energy deals (H Biden); both America "investing"; the EU "aiding" Ukraine; with millions and billions; advisors... they are not known to be charitable... but another thing the Western interests don't understand is interfering in other people's business is also potentially fatal. It seems that some profit seekers were making the Russian government (not Putin) incandescent with anger.
In the West there are whole industries (that don't make anything) trying to avoid (not evade); get around, over; under legislation (or pay a fine as the cost of doing business); lobbying (put you in jail for that in Russia, even billionaires); certainly it's corrupt in Eastern Europe, but certain agreements are not for sale; non negotiable (or the shooting starts).
I hope that makes sense to you; it's not Americans that should be embarrassed (angry perhaps) and I don't care who the next President is (any), I don't have a vote and it seems to make no difference to foreign policy, war or war? vote now. Other nations don't follow the American media's rules; they make their own, while actions speak louder than words (I find).
In my view: the Western "investment(s)" in Ukraine were rank stupidity; maybe used to overcoming every law; or never taking no for an answer; while NATO knew it would be war.
I don't think "Joe Public*" had much to do with that; these decisions made elsewhere (not sure it's even government; maybe that "deep state" I hear about); but it's our money being used; Slavs dying and if you are suggesting further "investment" or opposing a nuclear superpower, with "righteous indignation" on it's own doorstep; I've a better use for the money.
While my government trying to lecture others on matters economic (they follow a fiver profit off a cliff) is laughable; are we supposed to fight so people can live on the streets. To me that's a shameful lack of self awareness; mair money than sense while the funny thing about charity, it's supposed to begin at home (but nobody wants it).
So until my "lethal aid" arrives; I'm wondering where the money is going; or if money is real; the government interfering in other nations business (when they can't run a country), if it continues, might be time to invest in pitchforks and burning torches... as for Russia and land war (ask Germany) I doubt they need Western advice (they've done enough talking).
Hope you enjoy the elections... Should I bet on Trump? I expect he can "end the war in a day" (if that's what you want); cut funding. Otherwise it's investing in WW3 (if I know Russia).
(Great song by The Ruttles")
1
-
@שושנהבןדור I wasn't intending to apologise for anybody/anything; unfortunately long explanations to glib comments (it's kind of boring to me); but I think we can agree that up to around 2007 Ukraine was neutral and most people would be hard pressed to find it on the map.
It's not enough to simply say things; actions speak louder than words; the Western interests by buying land and giving money (usually with strings attached) clearly did not respect an agreement they cosigned.
While, in case you haven't noticed, that's what Russia is mainly targeting, Western "economic investment", be it weapons; rich farmland (now full of ordinance); energy deals worthless; rebuilding contract worthless... and I don't see them stopping.
So no, there was already talk of Ukraine seeking membership of Ukraine, possibly NATO; some oddities surrounding events in 2014; then a civil war, while it's fairly common knowledge if America says it's here to help, run for the hills.
What's even worse is NATO and the EU knew it would be war; trying to buy Ukraine's affections.
So I don't think it matters what America says; nobody is listening; if Ukraine isn't neutral (which it obviously isn't) it's war; so until that's reestablished it goes on...
It's a Slavic thing; almost Masonic, I'd call it breach of trust (in 2014) by somebody; America's signature not worth the paper it's on; while nobody will win. It's more how much you are prepared to lose, to protect Western investment. Shame the "investors didn't take the numerous hints, or outright warnings; but they don't listen to us either.
A military resolution only goes one way; sorry to tell you; I wouldn't want to be Z.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes I think that's a reasonable description Ms Rutabaga ... the American political system looks a bit like a democracy (from a distance); but it isn't really, as: there are only two parties; they both appear pliable in the face of money and they both allow lobbying from groups (not just American groups) and so the voter, in effect, only get to choose who implements proposals often made outside government.
A "pretend economy" is one way to describe that; another might be "a plutocracy" (which is where profit minded groups bid for favourable legislation or offer payment in kind). Of course when it comes to election time both main parties want to win because there is a lot of money riding on the result and we can see this when professional (career) politicians amass large fortunes (often tens of millions) when supposedly serving their country. Perhaps they have decided the rot is so deep that they should simply "fill their boots" while it's happening but they cannot be considered honest people at the same time.
Yes indeed a lot of nonsense is talked, particularly before elections (whatever they think will work it seems); however it has become clear that the American economy (along with most of the Western economy) is superficial and it is not working for the majority. One example of this is that while productivity has risen since the 1970's, wages (in real terms) have not; another is that currently the price of an average house is many multiples of the average wage (or even two average wages) and while the term "average" hides a multitude of sins (since a millionaire moving into town means we all now have higher wages on average) there is a real problem when housing is affordable. It's also damaging for society when the likes of Jeff Bessos can become the richest man on earth when his company has (allegedly) never made a profit. It's damaging because it's clear something is not correct and that's not jealousy talking, by the way, it goes back to equitable distribution of a countries resources and this isn't equitable (sorry Jeff, but you can't have all the coconuts).
"Abuse of the minority by the majority". No really it is the other way around (J Galt). Using prisoners as slave labour ... or the unemployed as slave labour ... is one thing, but if a select few can buy the political system and siphon off money it is a drag on the economy and probably worse, it sends a message that cheating and bribery or avoiding responsibilities is correct (when it is not and it's very corrosive to the political structure). So it's a minority that often like to term themselves the "elite" that are starting to kill the country largely through their self interest.
Unfortunately it took us many decades to get into this mess, so it is likely to take many decades to get some equilibrium back and restore trust. I do appreciate the observations of Professor Wolff; although I don't regard some types of economics as a hard science (far from it). At least he is forward thinking (and by that I don't mean "a progressive") I mean he strikes me as someone who looks both ways before crossing the road .... I'm still not sure about bitcoin (and the "crypto-currencies". Part of the reason is I don't believe money is real and so "debt-obligation" is really not real; but until we get the junk bond bill off our backs, we can look forward to a life of drudgery, if the "elite" have their way (which they are at present).
I think a lot of your proposals might have some unfortunate side effects Flossie. I mean a lot of ideas look good on paper but fail once humans and their nature get involved. Such as "trickle down" which has failed twice; but certainly Americas foreign policy, which seems to remain the same regardless of party or President is a great concern as it is meeting more resistance and many see America as a decadent bully (and the American people get tarred with the same brush). Closing 800, or so, foreign bases will not get you elected y'know; the military (particularly the contractors) have hundreds of millions to paint you as a coward or "un-American" (whatever that means) for even suggesting they give up a two trillion export trade. That's where money and common sense collide, so perhaps you should suggest the military budget is directed into missile technology and we get ourselves a base on Mars. They won't give up their budget without a fight to the death (lets be clear about that) so we either aim outwards or expect bloody infighting (as the world gets more crowded). I would say net neutrality is a serious concern. How do we stop idiots using the internet as their latest place to conduct a war? Over to you on that; me I'm already ready to fight on this issue. Yes there will be a fight if the corrupt continue, because they are ruining things for the majority.
Have a nice day! ... and please keep up the good work Professor; there are people listening ans stirring their wrath (to keep it warm).
1
-
1
-
I don't believe the answer is clearly no, regarding whether the government is in control of America and its economy. And maybe it is irrelevant to you that groups outside government are making the decisions, but it really does matter; because if they are then the political parties are really just a front for something else.
As we saw before the last Presidential election where Clinton tried unsuccessfully to get a legal injunction to prevent the contents of a speech, to a group of bankers, being released; it is clear that the truth was inconvenient to her; it is also clear that she is a far right candidate and that what she tells the voter, in many cases, is designed to mislead them. This is the kind of thing that is very corrosive; her attempt to rekindle McCarthyism shows that she is happy to damage all sorts of things because she didn't win (even bring down the whole system, for what it's worth) and if you can't see the relevance of a government losing control of a country then I guess you are one of these functional illiterates you keep going on about.
An assault on the Hamptons, it's actually not my idea; but it wouldn't take much to destroy that enclave. It doesn't mean the FBi runs it; in fact that's an absurd suggestion; just that day when the sheep turn on the wolves.
Now we've disposed of your fantasy; it is clear that America was initially designed to avoid some of the problems people faced in Europe: the monarchy behaving as gods; the church behaving as though it all runs on faith (until they needed cathedrals built) and therefor the bill of rights was not an accident; it was intentionally created to exclude: monarchies; plutocracies and religious persecution. In that respect it was largely a success. I am aware of much of the history of the British Empire, but I'm talking about events after the British left and there was the prospect of creating a new country afresh (if we ignore the indigenous people that were there already).
No I'm not confused about the American constitution at all; rather it seems you are; particularly when you describe key documents (fundamentals) as accidents; not recognising the intent behind them. However whether the Bill of Rights and American Constitution actually function as meaningful documents today is another matter. The rules will not be a solution if people will not follow them; one reason why we are at a dangerous crossroads facing possible anarchy and another is the concerted campaign to ridicule and discredit a standing President; which is another form of corrosion. If people want a democracy they have to accept that sometimes it provides a result they don't like; so it is clear that certain media outlets (the ones giving political donations) do not want a democracy and they also lack the self awareness to realise they portray America as "a banana republic". We can't blame the British for this although it has been some time in the making.
Again; the American Constitution was not written from a business standpoint; it is designed to delineate the framework of government. It includes the concept of federalism and one reason it is not about business is it begins "We the people ..." Then it got amended 27 times, ten of them forming "The Bill of Rights". I hate to tell you but nowadays companies have accorded themselves certain rights of the individual and had TTIP passed then these entities could have sued governments for perceived loss of business. Yes that's absurd but multinationals have got a bit big for their boots and will take on whole countries ... and that must be stopped otherwise it's the short road to fascism. Maybe we are there already, but I really don't think the public will tolerate this current mess and confusion for much longer.
So what are you trying to explain? That the foundation documents of America were an accident? I don't buy that. That the current administration is in control of the country and/or economy ... not a chance (they pretend an insolvency crisis is a liquidity crisis and throw money at it; which won't work) and one strong reason to suggest the government has lost control is that the American foreign policy never changes; yet all it promises is an Orwellian dystopia that is likely to turn and kick America right in the teeth.
A successful revolution is simple enough; but what would we replace this mess with?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well it always has been popular to advocate bombing, or taxing, others Robert. Since leaders stopped leading armies into battle, and as Prof Wolff points out, there seems to be a bit of abuse of power creeping in because the politicians decisions often don't affect them at all.
There is a movie called "Colossus: The Forbin Project" (1970) which might be a bit dated now (regarding special effects) but is something of a cautionary tale about letting machines take over and probably the main theme is even more relevant today. There is also "Wargames" (1983) a PG version about that (and hacking into "secure" systems).
One problem I have regards this "net neutrality" issue. The internet wasn't really designed for many of the things we use it for today. Actually it was initially designed as a set of A to B links and if C tried to break into the conversation then it broke the link. In the current model, with sometimes thousands of IP addresses behind one proxy server, there is a degree of anonymity and so we get: trolls; fraudsters and miscellaneous troublemakers infesting the net. There was a proposal to have a separate "net" for professionals. I'm not sure how good an idea that was, or is, because the likes of Wikipedia is fairly factual; there are specialist sites and some groups already have domains that are private use.
I can see why the government doesn't like the information super highway, or people with cameras in their phones, because when they tell a lie there is a record of this and it's forever. However if governments believe they can take on the hackers, they are mistaken; because some of them were the architects of the net and they are way ahead of the game. A movie called "Killswitch" (2014) goes into this in greater depth; it's a very complicated issue, but I view the internet as a public utility and while there are certainly bad people out there, it's not a huge jump to imagine a few got into government, or other positions of power, and the problem isn't the telephone, or the net, or the written word; actually it's them.
There was an American statesman, possibly Benjamin Franklin (again); who said, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" (or words to that effect) and I think there is something in that (although the term "freedom" is rather abused these days). A lot of politicians like (or liked) to use what are called Barnum statements ... like "We will stride together into a brave new world, with freedom, liberty and fraternity ... blah blah". Things it's easy to agree with; but it is empty rhetoric. I like the concept of the federation of planets, but I'm sure there are powerful groups in the world today that don't want things to change (because the money's so good). In the book. "Rendezvous with Rama" the federation of planets largely disagree about what to do about "Rama" (an alien artefact moving through our solar system), no spoilers from me, but it's not helpful if different groups pull in different ways on the important stuff. That's why I think humanity needs a grand objective ... like the federation of planets. "A truly enlightened society based on peace, discovery, and self actualisation" ... well that might take a bit longer ...imo.
1
-
@J Galt.
What are your qualifications to lecture here? You can consider that a rhetorical question, because I don't require an exercise or lecture on syntax; I'm not convinced you are qualified to give one and besides you are incorrect on a number of points.
To recap: I initially asked you a question which was, "Has the American political system lost control of the country?" ... I was soliciting an opinion and you didn't answer. Instead you went off on something of a tangent ....
So I then asked you, "Do you think the American government (or powers at be) have lost control of America?" Now that is sometimes referred to as interpretation and the reason for this was two-fold:
One was that perhaps you didn't understand the initial question and the other was that the discussion had moved on to a slightly broader context where doubt had been raised as to whether the President of America and the political parties were actually in charge or whether they were in some ways figureheads, or a front for something else. That is why I included the expression "powers at be", because it is known that the political structure also includes something that is called "the establishment" who are, generally speaking, un-elected civil servants that are supposed to handle all the paperwork, but have in the past tried to make political decisions (which is not actually in their remit).
Now nobody is saying you have to answer a question, or questions, posed to you on an internet forum; your opinion isn't worth more or less than any other anonymous contributor (myself included); as I've said, there are politicians who try to complicate simple things; avoid answering questions (because they are "inconvenient") and there is a lot of rubbish being talked, which is usually inflammatory in nature and only adds heat to discussions, but little light. Usually these people are trying to sell us something.
We can start again if you like; because I was only really asking two things: is the American government actually in charge and if not are those actually in charge doing a good job (for the majority of citizens).
I think I've given ample evidence that the answer to that is no and No!
If that is your opinion too; then we can move on to some form of solution ... that might even get politicians elected, on the back of it. At the moment all I see is chaos (and that includes your last post; which frankly made no sense to me and I spent several years studying logic).
Maybe it would be clearer if this forum allowed different type to distinguished speakers in a debate, but what you write runs together and ends up as incoherent mush; if you don't mind me sayin'.
So there I've made it as simple as I can for you; any further problems, you have, I think are really of your making.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whasian1487 The guest happens to be a Professor (an authority on a subject); while it doesn't matter how Marx lived his life: he proposed an economic model; he wasn't actually a Marxist himself and you clearly were not listening, as Marxism does not advocate centralized power (you seem to have "Marxism" confused with "authoritarianism"). In theory, "Capitalism" is a useful method of establishing a price point, by comparing supply with demand: however is money is simply printed; economic sanctions block free trade and workers don't benefit from increased productivity; some may wish to call that capitalism, but in practice it's not. In the Marxist economic model: the workers are the shareholders; the boss only gets around seven times the wages of the lowest paid worker and can be voted out. It's considered a more equitable distribution of wealth in some places, as with most theoretical models it works better on paper than in practice, just like: capitalism; globalism and other "isims".
Clearly there are a number of companies and individuals that reject Marxism: billionaires; those living off share dividends and companies that want to pay workers as little as possible or less (so their workers require "state benefits").
Some companies (no names): spend millions on political lobbying; either to obtain state sector contracts, or block legislation; while often regarding fines as the cost of doing business, that's not really capitalism (it's actually the short road to "Fascism"), because "maximizing private sector company profits" (their duty to shareholders), is not a healthy national objective (it's really just a rich person's club the majority of people aren't in).
That's not to say that socialist economic models work for everybody; but things such as: a fire service; a national health service; "free" (it's not free) education, even putting a man on the Moon, are socialist concepts and that's because they don't "make" money; rather, in many examples they "save" money.
While private ownership of public utilities (the needs: water; energy; rail) is a very dubious concept: as these are ready made monopolies; their profit margin is just another tax and if these companies require state subsidy that's not capitalism, or socialism, it has another name. Anyway no need to worry; the "robber barons" of today will use every means at their disposal to reject other economic models. While those talking in terms of millions and billions, might as well be talking a foreign language.
So while I disagree with the O.P. as I believe: the greatest danger to humanity is stoopidity; "student debt" an anathema and firmly believe that education should be based on ability to "learn", not ability to carry "debt obligation"; I don't see what's arrogant about describing an alternative economic system.
While Jimmy doesn't seem to understand "Marxism" either; "seizing the means of production by violence" and shooting the Royal family is (extreme left) "Bolshevism" and that doesn't work, as the government waits for the next armed overthrow.
While Adam Smith was neither pro-capitalist, or pro socialist... he believed companies had a duty to give back to society; was worried that mass-production meant a worker could no longer make a finished product themselves and he didn't think the potato would catch on (can't win them all).
Apart from there being too much money in politics one problem is when those making the rules are not subject to these rules; while privatizing profit and socializing the rest does not work for me; their tax avoidance means we get the bill. If they only employ "yes men" we get unbridled arrogance and people being treated simply as numbers.
Anyway; unless you start your own worker's collective, or work for one; those with political representation do not want Marxism, so can't have it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LetsLearnEconomic In my view: there are no simple solutions to various tensions in the world today and Prof Mearsheimer doesn't really offer any; he does, in my opinion, have the ability to describe what we are all looking at and having first-hand knowledge of Russia and China (and America, of course) offer likely scenarios and identify what various interests hope to achieve. He does quite often view matters from an American perspective; where there are competing interests domestically, doesn't seem to support the more "hawkish" fraternity (that have moved from colonialism to globalism and wish to obtain their objectives through force, or regime change). I have some (limited) experience of USSR and China, they have their own ways of doing things and it's not correct to assume they do, or should, support American interests; or even that they "speak the same language" in economic matters as they view the concept of money quite differently (perhaps because they have "soft" currencies that are not used as international "commodities").
In my understanding the governments of China and Taiwan are, put simply, different branches of the same political ideology; China and Japan don't get on; same with Malaysia and Japan; it's not about rivalry, it stems from Japanese occupation. It may seem outdated, but it's like the Dutch animosity towards the Germans; I can't explain this, but I've seen it. As for Ukraine agreeing neutrality with Russia; I was told never break promises to Russians (so I never made any); I don't know how the conflict there will end, but I found out soon after I arrived in Russia that the Western media description was wrong in so many ways. It's a technologically driven country; with a highly educated population and the hot water gets switched off a month a year (to clean the pipes). For the Soviet utopian vision see VDNK. I found the debate quite interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benjaminmartin7702 Oh come on...!? NATO has missile bases on the Russian border, only their word the cruise missiles there don't have nuclear warheads, but they've lied to Russia (and China) before (it was regime change in Libya they were after). There have been NATO military exercises in countries on the Russia border; in the South China Seas (annoying China) and there were American military advisors in Ukraine since 2014, plus money sent. Are you really trying to tell me you didn't see this, or hear about it?
Then there was the American "beef" with Syria (who offer Russia a refueling base for the Black Sea fleet based in Crimea); the UK parliament voted not to assist America in it's bombing raid, good thing too: Russia were deploying anti-ship and anti-missile defenses; Russia were invited into Syria, while America backed an overthrow of the Assad regime and still American troops occupy the Syrian oil-fields.
I'm not deceiving myself (any more than usual); but the Western corporate media tend to offer a rather one sided account (theirs); they lie (they lied us into two wars); they turn on their former allies: Hussein (hung); Gadaffi (lynched); Assad (had to call in Russia), these American policy makers are not the "good guys"; their wars aren't about "interventions to save civilian life" (they've killed to many for that to be believed); it's about American economic interest: oil, opium; oil; making sure that oil is traded in dollars (not Gold) and gas & oil (again); they are also profiting from weapons sales (the weapons companies even sponsored the last Ukrainian fundraiser in Washington DC (their names were on the invite).
Russia is not not going to allow the Western oligarchs to expand their interests to include Russia speaking (Eastern) Ukraine.
You should realise that 300K troops are not enough to take over Ukraine; so it's not about world domination (Btw Russia lost 860,000 troops in one battle, in WW2, which they happened to win); it'n not about democracy (the Ukrainian government: banned other political parties, jailed the main opposition leader, banned Russian and Russia speaking channels and have been shelling their own citizens for over 8 years, the media claiming the war started in 2022 (that's another lie).
The worst of it (imo) is the (mainly) American media now trying to claim they care about people. They don't; they care about money; their sponsors profits and since Russia already knows they are liars, they aren't listening the the pretty words; Russia warned the Western interests they ignored that, so now Russia is going to destroy Ukraine, also they want NATO missile bases off their borders and sending $45 Billion to another corrupt country, it's a waste of money. They msm have tried to beautify Zelinsky; his designer beard and T is a work of art... but if you don't know what the Ukrainian mafia look like... (I do); or a lost cause; or the oil and arm lobby tilting at WW3.
America has destroyed: Iraq; Libya; spent longer in Afghanistan that WW2 it's always about money; it's us the msm are trying to deceive. It's not about money for Russia; they're furious; they are an energy; food and weapons exporting super-power... sanctions indeed?? From my experience of Russia (& China) you won't believe what the are capable of doing and people are going to die. There's no deception here; Russia warned the West; it fired a traditional warning shot; that wasn't enough. If it turns out the CIA did topple the Ukrainian government; they should receive the bill, as for the $45 Billion "charity" it's money laundering. Russia isn't doing this for the money y'know; they didn't blow up their own pipelines and do not involve China in American power games (now that's a serious warning, Chinese don't usually speak like this); besides they know the score...
1
-
@Kyriosin I tend to agree: there are strong reasons for Russian involvement in Ukraine and not one of them is to do with money. I wish the Ukrainian people all the luck in the world; the government(s), that's another matter. There does seem to have been a rise of the far-right in Western politics; both main American parties; the two main UK parties (supporters of corporations; trickle-down economics and the global "New World Order") they'd follow a fiver profit or a cliff and may well have...
Since I doubt America would like Russia to form a military alliance with (say) Mexico; put a missile base in Cuba; or bad-mouthing the President of Russia (Russia-gate hoax), why would the sponsors of Western government expect Russia not to be furious?
The American military/industrial complex is "coining it in" (EU complaint); energy supplies at risk (EU complaint); another refugee crisis (EU complaint: see Libya).
American policy makers somehow amazed that not everyone is signed up to: "sanctions"; the cancel Russia campaign, all brought to you by msm weapons salesmen with their "war weather map" while the tripe the media come up with... the fake news brigade never saw a war they didn't like!?
So now they send billions to another highly corrupt country; "lethal aid"; tell us Ukraine will win... Just remember the msm don't care about people; they lied us into two wars; 50,000 kids dead in Iraq/ Afghanistan (the price we have to pay: M. Allbright... but she didn't have to pay it)... but what about the children? They don't care, it's cynical pretense; it's money laundering.
So I do agree, Russia, Putin or his successor will not back down; the Western oligarchs are investing out money in WW3 and if there's any doubt what happens with a superpower attacks, we could just ask America (Iraq; Libya; Afghanistan... all trashed). It's up to Ukraine and Russia to sort this out; it looks like it's up to them.
I hear charity begins at home... ends up in Panama... so where's our "lethal aid"?
It's not about "the money" for Russia, the msm are barking up the wrong tree, WW3 will dent profits I expect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasgow9475 People who spread misinformation for material gain are probably best described as evil and while it's not just Johnson that does this (the American corporate media, particularly the ones who give political donations; are not just "unreliable narrators, their "fake news" (it might have been funny for a while) is fraud; manipulation or some form of "con-game". The Tories (and the Republican party, of America) are honest in one respect; they represent the rich; particularly their "sponsors"; however if corporation and money interests get to write the rules then it's the short road to fascism (and it all makes perfect sense, on paper, I'm sure; profit first and last) which isn't good.
Boris lies for money: the rich donors have become (very) rich; the poor are going to food banks while Boris easily finds money for "lethal aid" (where's ours?); it's not good.
Lord Starmer of the worker's party; I think he's in the wrong party and a return to "New" Labour (Tory light) is likely to have (mainly socialist) Scotland left with nothing to vote for; a Labour party that won't support those in strike for a pay rise that at least equals inflation. That's Starmer's choice but from a party founded by the unions to give (blue collar) workers political representation, well it seems the political donors have politics all bought and paid for, but "globalism, like trickle down economics is a failure and since the politicians have sold off most of our infrastructure I doubt we need 650 politicians, what we need is a national objective (through which we can judge the worth of government.
So I agree with the OP, but lets not forget the corporate media who have run smear campaigns against: Corbyn; Trump, even Scotland; long on opinion, short on facts; the whole thing stinks of corruption. I'm not saying Starmer is corrupt; just the wrong man for the job; Johnston is a squatter; I haven't a good word to say about the next; one is a tax "avoider", the other apparently wants the UK to go to war with Russia; meanwhile the UK is increasingly likely to fall apart.
1
-
1
-
CNN still "butt hurt" that here's a war in which America and it's NATO can't afford to stage "an intervention", which judging by their previous attempts is the last thing any country wants or needs, and today's topic is that: people are saying there won't be nuclear war, but let's say there will be (and with that thought in mind, nobody knows what will happen next?!). Is this what passes for journalism these days? The blind leading the blind, more "crocodile tears" from the American msm, who never cared for people before when they lied (and lied) us into at least two wars; still pushing and now seemingly: shocked; surprised and visibly furious that Russia pushed back?
America and the EU were told to keep out of Ukraine, but they don't listen; they don't even listen to their own people. An eight year civil war, since 2014; thousands dead and now America wants to turn up to tell us where we are all going wrong when it looks very much like "Western interests" toppled the Ukrainian government and since then they have been shelling the four Russian speaking regions (who previously voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia, which they may not have the power to do; but in many ways is understandable). The American msm do not have the moral high ground here; again they are promoting war; a proxy war; a dozen or more articles a day; must be a welcome diversion from some of the severe economic problkems right here, right now, and tampering with the English language (lethal aid" indeed?!) just won't cut it anymore.
The truth is that American is losing it's grip on the World economy; this is not about Ukraine, or it's people; as usual it's about money (sending billions to a corrupt Eastern European country; what do you think is going to happen? A. It will go missing). But, the "Western interests interest is not just about arms sales and money laundering; it's not even about the EU gas supply from Russia (the G7 tried to set a price from Russian gas, so they turned it off); it seems with all the problems attached to trading oil in $dollars that two or three superpowers have found an alternative; the emergence of a Gold backed e-currency (only available in China) may spell the end of rampant currency printing and I would say if anyone is to blame for this it's those "Western interests" that seem to have a baleful influence over governments in the Western economy. They pushed things too far; manipulated rates once too often; but lying to both Russia and China in the UN security council (Clinton and Hague, now Lord Hague) was a serious error if you ever want to be believed again (a case in point here). To be clear; I'm not "for" Russia or Ukraine here; what have they done for me, or you, recently; nothing!); but Russia has been quite clear here and so has China (Stop being naive; don't try to involve us in American power games! We have good relations with both, you on the other hand, not so much). Trying to "sanction": energy; food and (of course) weapons exporting super-powers; did anyone really think that would work?
So now we (the viewer) have to endure the impotent rage of the msm: Russia's no good at war (of course they are, they sacked Berlin!!); Putin's not well (gee thx Bang Showbiz, you would know; snarf!); the President of Ukraine and his wife, still in Vogue!? What will happen if...? Well the answer is you will see and for all those civilians we will pay for it all one way or another.
If the policy makers want war so much; send them... enough of these rewards for failure; putting money before people; no penalties for getting it wrong (in high places); we should all know by now what happens when a super-power attacks; Russia isn't providing information to the American msm (they hate you!!) so (folks) they're making it up as they go along and yes war is ugly; destructive and terrible, it either ends in negotiation or abject defeat; this could all have been avoided; but CNN wants war. Russia? Well you've come to the right people; but it's not about money for them; if you watch the lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's fault?" (on here somewhere); it explains why America and it's oligarchs should have minded their own business (or words to that effect).
Anyway; have a nice day; the Western interests lose; eventually. Don't get into direct conflict with a superpower (JFK... and look what happened to him) and I don't believe you CNN, you lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markwalton8644 Ukraine agreed with Russia to remain neutral; the Western interests after acting as co-signatories to "Minsk" then, in effect, tried to buy Ukraine.
I suggest you find out what's actually true before you go marching off to war.
This conflict has been a long time in the making and while a number of ex-Soviet states (now countries) joined the E.U./NATO even both; Russia repeatedly warned the Western interests that their expansionism had to stop as well as the number of NATO missile bases on their border.
If you want more info on this, try "Why Is Ukraine The West's Fault?" and while you may not agree with it; it's clear Ukrainian neutrality was (and is) a "red line" for Russia and if the West kept pushing war would be the result.
So sure, as a sovereign country Ukraine can say they want to apply to join the E.U. and NATO... and then there will be war.
So while the Western media claim this conflict was unprovoked, there is hard evidence that Russia would react violently to Western involvement in Ukraine.
After Libya (it was about regime change); Syria, where America failed in regime change, but still occupies the oil fields (around 20% of the country); I assume the far-right (globalists) expected Russia to again give way, but that was never going to happen. Really in this equation we can forget Ukraine, this is America v Russia and if the globalists want nuclear war, the Russian nationalists are "up for it.
America lied when it signed that agreement, so they won't be able to broker another, but let's be clear, America thrives on war.
1
-
@wishusknight3009 I'm well known, in certain circles, for: my imagination; going where angels fear to tread and that I can't be corrupted, so once I sign a contract I hold up my end of the deal. I wish the American far-right could have done the same. As one of two Moscow casino trouble-shooters, during the break-up of the Soviet Union; I've met the Ukrainian mafia, or rather they met me when I waked into their HQ (a hotel by the same name) and if you don't know who "the West" are sending all this money to, I do.
Most of my problems came from the Chechen mafia (HQ Hotel Intourist; now demolished; hurrah!); they didn't get independence and after a rather viscous terrorist campaign; during which Russia shelled it's own White-house, they raised Grozny to the ground. If you wish to challenge Russia, then these are the kind of people you are dealing with and I would strongly advise against this!
The Western media have spent a lot of time and effort painting a false picture of Russia (and China) and this is likely to come back to bite them. If you want to know how Russians view themselves, type VDNK.
In my line of work; if it comes to armed conflict I'm going to lose; but it's my "house" and it's my rules. (Casinos are now banned there by the way and "hedge-funds"; they don't work). You make an agreement (Ukrainian neutrality under "Minsk"; you break it; you pay. This is nothing personal; this is business and I know (from experience) that if I let you get away with breaking one, you'll be back for more.
The American far-right have broken a number of agreements; torn up treaties, like the ballistic missile one; saying it wasn't about regime change in Libya (it was) and all that money the "invested" in Ukraine was not for reasons of charity. That's not how they work. The evidence for Western duplicity is written in black and white; America co-signed it and cannot be trusted any more.
In my opinion, if Ukraine doesn't negotiate with Russia soon; it will either cease to exist or there will be WW3.
Next election in America will be a vote for war or war? So I agree with Tucker Carlson (for once) we are looking at direct conflict between America and Russia, soon. If you can figure out a solution to that; good luck with it, because I can't. And if you can't find Ukraine or the Taiwan Straits on the map; you have been diverted....
Oh and if the corporate media adopt the same smear tactics (see Russia-gate) with China, there will be war soon enough. (I later turned the Triads down). The msm know virtually nothing about China either.
Still, if the West wants war; they've found worthy opponents, these are technologically driven societies and I never saw homelessness there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm shocked! ... I find that I'm in total agreement with Tucker Carlson here; I believe he has given an accurate assessment of the current situation; that his proposed amendment is worth serious consideration and yes this (gas) story does seem rather familiar.
Previously it was "intervention to save civilian life" that was the reason for war, but there were such high civilian death tolls that this quickly lost credibility; now we are supposed to believe that yet another country has used a banned weapon (like Hussein allegedly did) but in this instance, that is incredibly difficult to believe. As Tucker Carlson points out: we don't know who these, so called, rebels are (I'd say some groups look a lot like ISIS, or paid mercenaries); it seems abundantly clear that after Assad of Syria, called for the assistance of Russia, these "rebels" are losing; if so, why would a side winning a conventional war use banned weapons as it would undoubtedly cause an "international incident"? I agree the narrative make little sense.
So why is the West (America in particular) so keen to overthrow legitimate governments?
The last (or was it the one before last?) turned Libya into a country governed under Sharia law and bombing the irrigation system in a desert country cannot be called "an intervention to save civilian life" so clearly we were not told the truth; hunt for Bin-Laden ... found him (allegedly, in Pakistan); retribution for 9/11 ... invaded the wrong country (still there) and whoever came up the idea for the EU to offer Ukraine money to join was asking for trouble. I stopped believing "the West" (whoever they are; they're certainly not me) before Gadaffi was lynched (showing the world UN "justice"); perhaps around about the time Hussein was hung (another former ally) for proposing the same thing "oil for Gold" which is not be confused with the morally reprehensible "oil for food" program (which I believe may have been one of the reasons the "Twin Towers" was such a popular target).
In short: I don't believe the Western narrative any more; I don't see what those behind it hope to achieve, but whatever it is (even if it's oil) it hasn't worked (quite the reverse)
... and no; I'm not with the terrorists and no I'm not a Russian and no I'm not unpatriotic (once they fix the roads). I'm sure the ones shovelling this shit are "highly likely" to be the true enemy. I mean if even a far-right commentator has spotted this, that the narrative he often supports has broken down on this issue then you can bet your bottom dollar that other have. This has become a serious matter now; as even in the last three days it has escalated with the Russian government issuing clear statements that they will oppose Western military action against Syria, with military action. I won't deal in: speculation; fear-mongering or rumours (because it's what they want?!) ... I'd just point one thing out: the Russians dominated World chess for decades and one thing chess players rarely do is bluff. Opinions vary on President Trump, I hear (I never stop hearing) but I think we should face up to it now ... different guy same warlike American foreign policy and Western claims that they are the victim, are a dud. For once I agree with Tucker Carlson right down the line; I don't have a lot of time for opinion based journalism these days, but he hit the nail on the head (in my opinion). Well done!
(Now how do we stop this?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timeames2509 America is indeed good at targeting civilians and attacking tribal nations with no air defense; all those NATO "interventions to save civilian life" (that don't), the oil for food program and we all saw NATO justice in Libya (it's a lynching). This time the enemy of all the globalist oligarchs hold dear is Russia, with China to follow; problem is with short supply lines; space, nuclear; hyper-sonic missile technology and being geared for land war, the oligarchs will require a lot of public money to send to one of the most corrupt countries in Eastern Europe. Forget the homeless and those addicted to opiates (thx Afghanistan); they have; there are big bucks to be made and we can't have Monsanto losing that Ukrainian land they own or the bio-labs. That GM singing dancing grain just doesn't grow by itself; if the gas supplies to the EU aren't interrupted then who will buy fracked LPG, so you can get a free gun and opportunity to travel. However if America tries to fly warplanes over Ukraine, the S-300; S-400 and the satellite buster, the S-500 will be difficult to avoid. I don't believe many Americans know whats up or can find Ukraine on the map; but it's where the Cossack's come from and Russia won't be allowing them to join the (going bankrupt) West. Any complaints)?) just drop them in the litter bin, because: Russia; China; a lot of African and South American countries; even India, they know what the American far-right does and has done, all those warmongers that won't go, it's a crying shame. But don't ever let them tell you the 0.01% care about people (actually they care about diverting tax-payers money (they haven't paid yet) in their direction. Currently "doubling down" on their "investment" in starting a global nuclear war. A poor investment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you still drinkin' the cool-aid? It's not about Putin, this is a Russian matter; it was all fine as long as Ukraine stayed neutral (as previously agreed), but the EU and America's NATO kept making advances and with American nuclear weapons already deployed in Europe there was going to be a problem sooner or later. NATO and the EU already expanded and kept expanding, but if Ukraine joined it would be war; that was known. Actually the Russian economy is booming; the EU has sanctioned itself off Russian oil and gas so Russia sells to China and India (who can sell refined Russian oil to the EU and others and do; usual commission); Russia isn't a terrorist state (usual media twaddle) they told the Western globalists, if Ukraine gives up neutrality there would be hell to pay (or words to that effect) and that was ignored (they told the "charitable" West, the ones who have destroyed a series of countries for oil or opium, that dumb bunny act really doesn't work now) What civil war in Russia? The G7 leaders who love the approval rate of Putin (okay it's another made up thing, like GDP, but look at the rising: inflation; levels of poverty; I don't recall seeing homelessness in Russia or China, they won't tolerate it, but America and the UK do). Perfect time to send money to some Eastern European country renowned for corruption, billions and billions, got your check book ready?... for all those great things Ukraine has done for us in the past?
Putin certainly does lead a superpower; it's not trying to bomb democracy into tribal people with no air defenses this time; killing 50,000 kids in illegal wars; turning Libya into a Muslim state (well done America) a fascist theocracy we can all support (until they've stolen what they came for; it won't be so easy this time).
Now don't forget to send more money; or weapons to South America (musta put the wrong address on them?! silly America); war pays! (D Cheney). Not this one tho'
Russia v America, at last; but with China starting a Gold backed currency, the far right in America are going to bankrupt the place (oh too late).
So sorry to tell you, the Russian economy is doing far better than the American one. Did you hear the one where some fools tried economic sanctions on an energy and food exporting superpower; lost the EU their gas supplies and don't know the Ukrainian mafia when they see them? It's the joke that just keeps giving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TTR The Ukrainian crisis is nothing to do with freedom or democracy (same with all those NATO "interventions"); it's largely about American oligarch's interests which are: the gas pipeline supplying the EU; selling weapons and money laundering. Don't let their media fool you; they toppled the Ukrainian government in 2013-14; the new right-wing government waged war against the (Russian speaking) Ukrainians in the Donbass, an eight year civil war (13K dead) and when the EU offered bankrupt Ukraine money to join; Crimea was given a choice and Crimea is now Russia.
Still the Western interests persisted; but the possibility of NATO bases in Ukraine has been ruled out and sanctioning an oil producing super-power, well it looks like these American interests have lost the petrodollar and any money they "invested" in Ukraine.
$40 Billion to a corrupt country; that will just disappear; you must at least see by now that American interests do not care about people (even their own); is what they can make... and civilians pay every time.
On to the Baltic states next? What Rubbish!
Ukraine defeating Russia; that's another bad joke from the propagandists; with: short supply lines; air superiority and nuclear capability, Russia is perfectly capable of destroying Ukraine completely. The question you might ask yourself is why have the not? You might also realise that if the Ukrainian government could not defeat the separatists in eight year, a nuclear superpower has now "intervened" on their side... and listening to the Ukrainian government's claims of "winning" as the Donbass turns red can only really impress the gullible or zealots.
With Italy 80% dependent of Russian energy; how do you (or they) propose to implement this ban?
The Russian government are clearly not listening to the American corporate media; it's actually them turning off gas supplies to EU countries that will not pay in Roubles. Paying in Roubles is necessary because those sponsors of American government have, in effect, banned the use of the dollar.
The CRIBS already formed their own bank and exchange mechanism; China and India can pay for their oil in Yuan. Russia has set up a bank to convert any currency to Roubles have stated they aren't giving away gas or oil for free, proposals to link a currency to Gold would mean the Western economy is on a short fuse (if they keep printing money it will become confetti), that's why American interests want to dabble with the prospect of WW3; they fave economic destruction (by their own hand).
The EU could not ban Russian energy in 2008; you simply don't understand the mechanics; Western interests toppling governments (it happens all the time... too often); it didn't work in Syria or Venezuela; in the case of Ukraine either Russia gets what it wants or it will be WW3 (you have option).
But don't try playing the freedom/democracy card; that's gone a long time ago (50,000 kids died in the Iraq/Afghanistan "interventions... allegedly to save human life, another 50,000 in Libya (now an Islamic state, with a refugee work). It's not even simple to define freedom; democracy or trust... but I don't have any trust in the American media; Russia didn't elect Trump; the people of America did; $40,000,000,000 would go a long way, but it's going over the hills and far away.
It's quite clear even from the media weather map hosted by someone working in the arm industry; what Russia wants and what arms salesmen want (and they are quite different).
Maybe the retirement home Americans call the Senate are drunk on power and are used to bullying small countries, but Russia is going to do things their way and China has said keep us out of American power games (so they've called out America too). If the EU waits (as they always do; rule by committee; takes ages) Ukraine crisis should be over. What was America doing in Ukraine in 2013? Ask Biden that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What? Poor broken Russia is poised to attack five countries? Where did you dredge up this garbage?
Really it's quite simple, after USSR broke up, many former states became independent: some joined the EU; some joined NATO; some joined both and there was no trouble. Russia drew a red line regarding Ukraine; the "Western interests" kept pushing, offering Ukraine (both bankrupt and highly corrupt) billions in "aid" (except these are not known to be charitable people). In 2014 something sparked a civil war (it seems likely America performed another regime change); the mainly Russia speaking regions then voted for independence (which nobody "recognized"); Russia forced a major referendum in Crimea (Russia or Ukraine?), it was a racing certainty the result and through this they secured their only warm-water port. After eight years of civil war: Russia "recognized" those 2014 independence referendums. Next they "knocked on the door of Kiev (stayed a week) but that didn't convince anyone; so next they invaded (or "intervened" as the neo-Cons like to say). It's been a year now; it's not wise to trust the casualty figures or that there's anything to "win"; but this is a human tragedy and may yet result in nuclear war. Russia has had enough of you "Business Basics"; the countries the West has ruined and it seems they and some other nations no longer want to play in a "rigged game".
I'm still not clear why public money (billions) is being diverted to arms companies and the Ukrainian mafia; where the Gold went (same with Libya and Iraq), but it's not in the cause of: democracy; the people of Ukraine; freedom... it looks exactly like "money laundering" and profiteering... and whatever happened to "The War on Terror"; WMDs and "half of America" hooked on opium? Did you leave that all behind? At this rate America will run out of ammo before the next "threat" (China). With $32 Trillion national debt it seems America has forgotten the basics (maybe you could help before Adam Smith's "Invisible hand" makes a fist?); but I expect thermonuclear war is likely to dent profits (in the long run).
Years of talking others down; yourself up; interfering with other governments; but this is not Libya or Iraq; this is a nation 11 time zones wide; put the first space-station in space; mass produced the Kalashnikov (reckoned to be the most deadly weapon ever created); they sacked Berlin... so congratulations, they're furious and what did happen in Ukraine, in 2014? Hunter?
Russia's plan to attack 5 nations at once is something you made up; that's not helpful and those who blew up Norstream2, the attack on mainland Europe, why there is the true enemy (of us all), because they (obviously) want WW3. As for those in favour of NATO v Russia, better think twice; I don't think those "Western interests" are as popular as their media would have us believe... Ukraine had independence (blew it) and is it not clear Russia will blow it up before you get it. Onward Christian soldiers marching off ... to what? I doubt half the commentators can find Ukraine on the map. If America wants war, it's going to be a big one; until then we need to find out the rogue faction that wants WW3 and nail their hides to the wall!! Bad for business it is...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thrashaero I'm not a civil engineer: but buildings have a life-span and in a crowded landscape their eventual demolition must be considered; of course you can have both a building and one that can be more easily removed. The "Twin Towers" are an entirely different building design; their mass is supported on a central column and if that shears there is nothing holding the building up. While Building 7 suffered what is called a "progressive collapse"; this happened in three stages and the likely cause is ten floors of the building being on fire for several hours (I accept the official verdict).
The central columns in each of the towers fractured and sheared in roughly the same place, near the bottom; the second failing before the first; likely due to where the plane hit and slight differences in construction; when it comes to blame, I suggest we can start with people flying passenger planes into buildings.
While before discussing the obvious damage caused; perhaps you might reflect on what would make you want to fly a plane into a building? (Any building).
I consider what happened to be a military operation. It may have only been the four pilots that knew it was a "suicide mission"; there may have been a single architect, but from my experience as an "aircraft agent" (aka baggage handler); flying a "heavy" is no simple task; they knew how to switch off the transponders (squawkers); how to navigate to their intended target and the "smartest guy in America" on 9/11 was the chap who grounded all commercial air traffic (otherwise they couldn't be detected).
This was premeditated; well-coordinated and likely required logistical support (and funding); maybe two dozen people?
They used American technology against America; the strength of a support column against the building; in a succesful attack against America's military/ industrial complex.
That's how I see it. New Yorker's might have just viewed the Twin Towers as the boxes the Empire State and Chrysler buildings came in; but it was used as a weapon.
As for what was destroyed: World Trade Centre (Both towers 1 &2); WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel); WTC 4 (South Plaza; including my fav tie shop Century 21); WTC 6 (U.S Customs); WTC 7 (office building); St. Nicholas (Greek Orthodox Church). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street also suffered fires. Then we have to consider the damage from air pollution from things like asbestos (another "wonder material"; now banned).
Molten metal coming from the South Tower; isn't that surprising; I don't think you fully appreciate the forces at work here; it's a sign of structural failure and when WTC 1 & 2 eventually fall; it's not from the top down; it's all at once. As I said; the energy released has to go somewhere; it can tie steel girders in knots; there's half a dozen buildings destroyed; at least three on fire. It's actually you that's focused on one building and ignoring others; WTC 2 fell down when there was nothing holding it up and it overcame inertia; WTC 7 collapsed in stages as it lost structural integrity.
Steel reinforced concrete is a wonder material; but not when the steel expands and fractures the concrete; because it then loses load-bearing capacity.
A study from a Professor of Structural Engineering from the University of Edinburgh, concluded that: fire on just three floors was enough to cause structural collapse; of WTC 7, regardless of the debris damage from the Twin Towers; citing lack of water and the fire on ten floors; as the sole cause. While one problem with steel components losing load bearing properties is that other components have to take up the load and may fail. The first thing to go was the lateral bracing; then components failed between floors 12-14 and then the building collapsed. This is all well documented and seems plausible enough to me. There are certainly other buildings that have caught fire and not collapsed; the Empire State building was even struck by a twin-engined plane, but WTC 7 had a different design and nobody to put out the fire.
As for Bush; Cheney and Blair; I have no doubt they are a nasty bunch; their $3 Trillion war in Iraq/Afghanistan killed over 50,000 kids; over a million died; plus an "opium epidemic" and other side-effects. Have you decided yet what would make you want to fly a plane into a building? It's not 50 virgins or eternal life (that's just the corporate media excuse); the answer is sheer unadulterated hatred; vengeance or retribution (is it not?). While Blair and his kind profited from their illegal wars; the Twin Towers were instrumental in things like "oil for food" and had been targeted before. It's like nobody has heard of the Ottoman Empire and how dangerous it might be to war with a billion Muslims. Somebody calculated applying sufficient force to a central column would destroy a building; it has Al Queda written all over it; fully fueled passenger planes at 982 km/ hour x 500 meters; their calculations were proven correct. I don't believe there is a building designed to withstand that.
I do wish Jimmy would lay off conspiracy theories; that have been debunked. America currently investing in war with Russia is beyond stupidity.
The American globalists destroying buildings in lower Manhattan; what a ridiculous claim (they may be crazy, but they're not that crazy).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phild3936 There was an eight year civil war in Ukraine, after the pro-Russian government was toppled in 2014, the armed overthrow set off a whole chain of events.
Some Western media outlets seem to want to ignore this (so cannot really be considered reliable); but the country then split in two. 2014-2022 an estimated 13K combined losses.
There's certainly no shortage of BS; but Ukraine (and other Western former Soviet states) held independence referendums (in 1991) and became independent countries (again).
Chechnya was denied independence and there are other significant differences; a bunch of oil-rich Muslim goat-herders (HQ Hotel Intourist) were causing mayhem in Moscow.
It may have been: the school massacre, or bombs on the Metro, Russia even shelled their own White-House, to evict campaigners; Chechnya never got independence.
Russians and Ukrainians are fellow Slavs; it was always a key issue for Russia that Ukraine (and Yugoslavia) were neutral "buffer countries" between Russia and NATO.
Other former Soviet states (now countries) went on to join NATO; EU even both; with little or no trouble; NATO "intervened in Yugoslavia and that country subsequently broke up.
From 1994-2014 Ukraine was independent: I thought they got a pretty good deal from USSR: division of military and commercial assets; nuclear power; gas tariffs; annual port leasing fees; Russia and America even collaborated in decommissioning Soviet-era nuclear and chemical stockpiles (which were becoming dangerously unstable).
Ukraine agreed with USSR to be neutral; it agreed again with Russia in 2014; after both NATO and EU already said they'd be happy to offer Ukraine membership (in 2008).
While I agree that some important details seem to have been left out; it was actually the corporations (big-business) that were backing that far-right Germany party, because with all the war-reparations (from WW1) and economic sanctions, they couldn't function properly. As far as I can see that's what's been happening in the West; while in the East government tells their corporations what to do; they often subsidise them and so if you're looking for the far-right here; I think it's us. While the media here keeps trying to tell me the government is doing a great job, which is obviously not true and there is some debate as to whether they're the ones in charge, or just the PR dept for something else.
So I'm watching events in Ukraine (and Syria, where America troops still occupy the oil fields) with some degree of horror; as sending money and weapons just seems to escalate the civilian death toll; it's already clear that Western interventions have killed millions of civilians; so trying to claim they care about people now (even ours), I simply don't believe.
I'm blaming the media here, by the way, as being complicit; while I regard the conflict in Ukraine as not my (our) business at all; if foreign corporations did take control of Ukrainian agriculture and a gas pipeline (from 2014) as seems to be the case (Oakland Institute data), while Western interests send billions, then Ukraine isn't neutral, so it's war.
Why anyone thought this was a good idea I can't explain; it was highly provocative, this even annoyed EU farmers (the introduction of modern farming methods threatening to put them out of business); while gas tariffs increased so much alternative routes were built (that mysteriously blew up). It looks like an economic war, Western interests already lost.
I have no interest in taking sides in conflicts in far-away places; but I do have an interest in not marching off to war for the wrong reasons, same with diverting (our) public money.
If it's actually an economic war; not about: democracy; freedom or even people, it seems to have already split the world economy in two; the EU from cheap Russian gas and grain while, if pushed, I expect China would not support the Western interests interests. I understand that corporations are in business to make profit, their duty to shareholders they claim, but a corporate buy-out of Ukraine and Russia went to war. So I believe Russia is targeting Western investment; not civilians; while actually the Western powers often do target civilians (horrendous death tolls)... latest Gaza 34K already; I don't support sending weapons and funds there either. All I'm saying is I don't believe the American narrative; I don't know what they think they were/are doing funding a proxy war in Eastern Europe; so I view Ukraine as the architect of it's own destruction. Grozny was an act of vengeance; after the conflict in Ukraine ends (or there's a nuclear war); I hate to think what Russia will do (so I won't). There's definitely a lot of BS; our media print a lot of it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheAmericanDreamLives Actually there's not much difference between the two: neither know much about Eastern Europe; they both treat the figures the Ukraine Ministry release as fact and they fail to recognize how provocative the "globalists" attempt at a corporate take-over of Ukraine was to Russia. The American far-right (in both parties) were not objecting to alternative gas supply routes bypassing Ukraine for any other reason than they had a controlling interest in the EU gas supply.
Sanctions; threats; the eventual destruction of alternative routes; the major powers will all know what they were doing, while since Russia closed it down, no money for them.
It seems Russia has also destroyed most, if not all, of the assets of the foreign companies that took control of Ukrainian agriculture: farmland mined; port grain loading facilities destroyed; bio-labs (46 according to Pentagon) likely researching GM food all gone. Do you believe America was so heavily invested in Ukraine for any other reason?
(I don't).
According to a site called "Mediazona", who: are not certainly fans of the Putin regime; do know a lot about Eastern Europe and collate figures from obituaries and Russian social media; the Russian troop losses in the two year conflict are almost 45,000. That figure differs markedly from what these two salesmen claim (400,000+) and the reason I tend to believe "Mediazona" is they are not trying to sell me anything and they aren't at all interested in the party political differences of two right-wing American parties backed by Wall Street and corporate lobbyists. Also I know from personal experience of living and working in Russia and China (and America and Europe); that they are simply repeating the corporate media talking points (which are way off the mark). Some of their claims are laughable (and not in a nice way).
So while there is a lot the public are not being told: it looks very much like Russia has dismantled the foreign corporations assets; that Ukraine has turned into something of a "money-pit" and since the Republican party and Trump (11/10 fav) look like they will govern America next (according to the "bookies"); diverting more public money into weapons exports might not be so appealing (particularly with inflation; poverty and homelessness is rising). It may suit the arms lobby; but the bio-tech companies have lost their investment and it likely so has the company with the re-building contract. They've all got close links to government; but I doubt government will go as far as nuclear war to support their interests (whereas Russia will; I've no doubt about that). Not Putin, Russia will.
So how much money have you got? What has Ukraine done for you recently? Do you actually believe a nuclear superpower (with a million troops in reserve) can be defeated?
History suggests that Russia (and Germany) know a lot about land war in Europe; while warmongers who have never been to war; won't be going and have a nuclear fallout shelter don't. If the "globalists" want to declare Russia and China as the enemy and go to war with them, I don't fancy their chances.
They are currently using public money and Ukrainian lives; but one problem is Russia isn't moving and Ukraine runs out of troops at some point (soon).
If "Mediazona" are correct (and I'm not saying they are); the Ukrainian version of events are dangerous fantasy (but they have to look like there's some "return").
Jake Broe is not honest; he knows virtually nothing about land war; doesn't even understand the difference between hard and soft currencies (but he knows how to sell hate).
I don't see anything to gloat about; it's another war with America the common denominator; time they got out of Europe (the 0.01% are just here to help themselves).
So here's a direct question, why is America and the EU sending billions to the Ukrainian mafia? (You may not know what you are looking at, by I do).
Meanwhile the Western economy has towering national debt; businesses are closing; social unrest is brewing right across Europe. I suggest if the "globalists" don't drop their self-serving ways; it will pitch-forks and burning torches, because we are only a few meals away from civil war (at all times).
Follow Lindsey Graham into battle? (funny, but not in a nice way). Fight for them and one day you can live on the streets (get the picture?).
The only question is whether Ukraine will continue to exist (Poland is rather keen on prime farmland); since Monsanto and Cargill won't be getting it, it seems.
Do you think America is involved in Ukraine to help the Ukrainian people; or Syrian; or Libyan?... the list goes on. It's invariably all about: money, oil; opium... that's America.
1
-
@TheAmericanDreamLives You'll have to do better than that (Buddy); liking your own comment could be considered an act of desperation; while if what I wrote is too long for you, I can only offer you sympathy.
"Mediazona confirms identities of over 44,600 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine" (February 19, 2024: The Kyiv Independent)
The article further claims the casualty figures are higher, which is no doubt true; but these are confirmed and nothing like the ambitious claims Ukraine makes.
(According to Ukraine; they've destroyed over twice the amount of tanks Russia had, according to the American state department estimates)
"Mediazona" (I'm told) work in conjunction with the BBC; neither are known to support Russia's actions and any problem with the figures you should take up with them.
It's not my job to point out the BS coming out of America; I don't like being lied to and I don't require your help, because it seems to me you'll believe anything.
Let's see. It's possible the $5.1 Billion America gave to Ukraine 1994-2014 was not to build democracy in Ukraine (Nuland). Since Ukraine was already a democracy.
NATO has expanded; many former Soviet states joined NATO; the EU even both; if you are American you probably don't know much about European geography; but Ukraine was a red line for Russia (everybody who was anybody knew that).
Was the armed overthrow of the Ukrainian government (2014) American inspired; it's certainly something America has done, repeatedly (time will tell).
Nazis in Ukraine; well some of the symbolism Azov use is familiar to me; but if corporations get to write the rules, that's the short road to fascism (look familiar?).
The Eastern regions of Ukraine: mainly speak Russian; all voted for independence in 2014; were involved in an eight year civil war then voted to (re)join Russia in 2022.
(looks like they're Russia now, to me).
Russians and Ukrainians are Slavs; they use the Cyrillic alphabet; the languages are similar (they can understand each other). Similar style of corruption.
"Ukraine was bombing ethnic Russians in the Donbas" Well they were certainly bombing somebody and they seem to believe they are Russian (now).
Yes, America tried a corporate take-over of Ukraine; they've got their fingers caught in the till; why do you think America threw a hissy fit over Nordstream? It's obvious.
The West likes to blame others, but governments have allowed their corporate sponsors to asset strip it and if you are looking for the national debt, try Panama.
Since Russia has superior missile technology; the largest lift-off platform on the planet; put space-station in orbit; have the largest nuclear arsenal and have troop reserves over a million; I wouldn't bet on Ukraine. While America diverting billions to a non-EU/non NATO country, who are you trying to fool? (Is it yourself?).
China is correct in my opinion; this is another American "power game"...don't try and involve them (they said); it's probably aimed at the EU (since they've lost relatively cheap: gas; oil; grain; fertilizer and have another refugee crisis after America helped turn Libya into an Islamic state.
I rather think the games up for the globalists: since they blew the petrodollar; got nothing but rubble and leve their people living on the streets (not a good look at all).
If it's your job to support that; you should find a better job; because Russia has a few scores to settle (and they actually like the Ukrainians traditionally, but not you globalists).
My job used to be a casino troubleshooter in Moscow during the breakup of USSR; while you obviously haven't a clue what you are dealing with.
Ukraine had a choice, neutrality or war; so... with a little help... I view Ukraine as the architect of it's own destruction. Best avoided!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Freesociety Four media social giants censoring the one individual on the same day certainly qualifies as a conspiracy; either they agreed this between themselves or they were told to do it, it's not a coincidence. So why Alex Jones?
As you say: other commentators object to American foreign policy; are critical of government and there are some really wild conspiracies that are genuine hokum; they even write and post content on these sites, but that isn't censored. There certainly have been people removed from these sites before and for various reasons: hate-speech (on Twitter); multiple copyright infringement (on youtube) and Facebook already gave some woolly concessions it would look into unsuitable conduct (including their own), possibly removing some content and not selling other peoples info.
I don't think Alex Jones (AJ) got censored (a "time out" it's being called) because he's the people's champion; it's because he claims that the Sandy Hook massacre is a hoax and he won't shut up about it. Some might say that a person is entitled to their opinion (and I might be one of them); but if they voice that opinion and are wrong then they are just spreading misinformation. There is plenty of that already going on: polls; experts and other talking heads that get their funding from who knows where. Only most of that is about issues with two sides, in the case of Sandy Hook, or the Moon landings, it either happened or it didn't. The weight of evidence regarding Sandy Hook appears to be against AJ's version of events; yet still he persists.
It is already well known that the media often runs sensational headlines and that click-bait is in vogue (since some clicks are monetized); also that in a polarised political system (the Democrats are not a left wing party) that extremism occurs, it's the only way to get noticed. The German authorities just jailed some old lady because she ran a site denying the "holocaust" (bit extreme perhaps, but she's an extremist. Nobody has jailed AJ; he still has "infowars" but it isn't a free and open discussion about Sandy Hook. The verdict was given; the dead have been buried and America's love affair with the gun continues. My bottom line is the official verdict looks correct to me; so I believe AJ is spreading misinformation and that isn't acceptable. I would guess he was warned, but AJ carried on regardless ... that's my guess.
The corporations are more worried about having to pay the correct tax ...
Normally AJ would be a revenue generator for them, so it's clear (to me) somebody told them to suspend AJ. Any guesses?
1
-
@FreeSociety. If you are talking to me then no: that's not what I'm doing; I'm trying to decide why four major social media outlets (owned by three huge companies) singled out Alex Jones (AJ) on the same day and censored him and my guess is it's because he's a "Sandy Hook" denier (and he won't shut up about it). I come to that conclusion because other commentators on these sites also: talk about conspiracy; say potentially inflammatory things and they rarely, if ever, get kicked off; but AJ did.
Sure the media can try to portray someone as a monster, or reprobate, then later settle for an undisclosed sum and print an apology at the foot of page 13; but that's not quite what happened here; he got banned. I think you'll find that AJ has called "Sandy Hook": a hoax; a "white flag" and that is either the truth or it's made up. This is a serious matter and I'm not here to get offended on behalf of others, but if AJ is wrong, then in this case he would be very very wrong. If he's correct then the government (state or federal) are monsters, who will kill their own for material gain. Personally I don't have a lot of time for AJ: he's pro-gun; doesn't seem to have a problem with civilians owning and operating military grade weapons and while he and Jimmy often bring up the same problems to discuss; he's far more right wing. It's this Sandy Hook matter that got him suspended from four social media platforms. He definitely did call Sandy Hook a "white flag" ... do you believe it was not a massacre?
As for Trump, time will tell if he's any good. I believe the President is simply a front-man as some policies don't change (regardless of President or party); I don't believe a: rich, white, individual from a privileged background that likes corporations will do a thing to help the majority of Americans ... just a different group of rich people. The two parties have proved they are basically different sides of the same coin as they: hiked the military budget; voted the Prez more powers and fast-tracked judges (to get home early, Jimmy says ...). The Prez wants a new tariff model; but at least two economics Professors (Wolff and Blyth) explain clearly why tariffs have major downsides.
Globalists want to impeach Trump for creating jobs? That seems a bit of a stretch. Instead I believe the "Clintonites" (who claim to be "left" but are hard right-wing capitalists) "lost" a lot of money when Trump was elected; they are full of excuses as a select few bet a billion on them and believed their own publicity (so what a shock for them!).
Why did four right wing entities ban a right wing commentator (that gets them clicks) ... I'd say because they were told to do that and they immediately complied. I'd bet AJ was told beforehand, lay off "Sandy Hook" ... it can't become political; he ignored it and he got blacklisted.
None of this is a smear on AJ; if I'm raising a point someone else did previously, I subscribe to that position. Who has the power to make four/ three media giants jump? Whoever it is you don't mess with them.
Time will tell with Trump; my opinion is that the main reason he got elected was he wasn't Hillary Clinton. I also believe the political system in America has been bought out ... that's why it's a vote for war or war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is not correct:" Marxism" is a center left ideology; while "Fascism" is a far right ideology and the only similarity with far left ideology "Bolshevism" (advocating the armed overthrow of government and seizing the means of production) is that they rapidly turn into some form of "Totalitarianism" which is highly undesirable.
The main difference between left and right ideologies, put simply, is how the proponents attempt to describe the world: the left talk in terms of people and society; the right in terms of money and profit; which often results in their subscribers talking at cross purposes, but it's simple enough to tell one from the other by the context set (is it about people, or money?).
Many different left and right wing ideologies; all have their pluses and minuses; but the Communists and Fascists in WW2 had very little in common, diametrically opposed ideologies.
While the National Socialist party of Germany did display some socialist tendencies with "The people's car" and autobahns (a faster road network); their rise was fueled by corporations, who due to sanctions and war reparations from WW1 were hobbled. It was a simple enough argument to claim Germany and German industry was being held back because that was true: the Capitalist owners of German industry couldn't profit and were limited in what they could manufacture; Germany had a lot of debt obligation, but allowing corporations to write the rules is the short road to Fascism because their objective is maximizing profit and if there's a war they won't be going; while the people's car and motorways are also useful to move troops. I don't really have a problem with "Nationalism" (people have every reason to be proud of their country); but the Fascists were and are all about money.
As for the Communists and Fascists having similar ideas, at one point in history they would shoot each other on sight; that's about all they agreed on in the face of German aggression.
Marxism does not advocate State control of everything; they advocate things like worker's collectives, where "the boss" doesn't own the company; may be elected annually and have a wage linked to that of the lowest paid worker (x7, in Spain). "Bolshevism" which does advocate overthrow of government; eliminating the aristocracy and seizing the means of production is obviously faulty as government waits for the next armed overthrow. These left-wing ideologies are more concerned about people and are not at all popular with the private sector, largely because ownership of business is either the state or the workers (not them). Since I believe a mixed economy can yield the best or worst of both ideologies; I see no place for the "private sector" in the "state sector" industries (water; power; rail; education; emergency services) these supply direct needs; are ready made monopolies (that even the capitalists need to break up, as they are the market; charging what they please).
While state control of: utilities; public transport and emergency services is not without its problems (usually higher taxes; decisions made by committee are slow; government and unions disagreements); the state does have the "clout" to undertake large projects (like putting a man on the Moon); the worth of government can be judged (do they meet the needs of their people?) and both left and right can agree on a state-funded fire service as: people; property and money concern them (and the fire service is never going to turn a profit).
Russia with state-funded health and education would indicate a socialist country; banning casinos and hedge funds; no homelessness, likewise; really low cost public transport. There is "private enterprise" in Russia and China, but state-funded Capitalism is not Capitalism or Socialism it's more a form of protectionism, while trying to run a country like a company (UKplc) allow real companies to asset strip it. I digress, there is nothing much Fascist about Russia or China. If corporations try to influence Russian government decisions, the owners go to jail; the Chinese single party state may execute or maroon "lobbyists" on Hainan, it's certainly a different way of doing things than America and the UK where corporations and banks seem to influence both main political parties.
I don't regard Marxism as being anti-state; there are a lot of things that the state aren't interested in like people's "wants", that's what the private sector deals with or a worker's collective and if companies paid their taxes and provided good terms and conditions for workers, there would be less debt all round (but that's another entirely different matter).
The National Socialists may have started as a worker's party but it ended up being heavily backed by Capitalist entities; they needed an enemy and some were the Jewish bankers who lent them money and war was one way to rid Germany of sanctions and reparations, so financially it makes perfect sense.
As for Russia; the Ukraine conflict is not about money, or driven by corporations; Ukraine agreed with Russia it would be neutral, it broke that; there is a price (not expressed in dollars); while the Western corporations that have "invested" so heavily in Ukraine are not here to help anyone but themselves (like The Fake Russian Dude) and they are all about the money.
Since the corporations seem to influence the American government and there is a rise in authoritarianism, if you are looking for Fascists, look there.
1
-
50,000 children were killed in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars (according to W.H.O.)... M Albright informed us "it's the price we have to pay"; D Cheney told us, "War pays!" and Tony Blair was promoted to "Sir".
These warmongers didn't/ don't care about people, it's about oil or opium or whatever they can get.
We don't get coverage of the (five) wars America is in (but it's wall to wall coverage of the Ukraine crisis); the carnage in Yemen and Somalia gets no coverage; let's not forget that "Western interests" triggered an eight year civil war in Ukraine and now we are urged to believe war is a bad thing while we send weapons (sorry, "lethal aid").
What happens to the children and civilians in war is they die... but remember, it's the price "we" have to pay; Blair and Bush weren't war criminals, the NATO interventions were to save civilian life (it was just an accident millions died) and at the moment Western interests appear to be on the cusp of starting WW3. NATO and the EU could have stopped this before it started, but they don't want that, there are weapons to be sold; a gas pipeline (but luckily, war or no war; gas supplies to EU still running); this is geo-politics, hypocrisy and very much about $/oil... it's the price we have to pay... why don't you understand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only really interested in betting on the next American President; I hear it's important to walk and also chew gum, probably rules out Biden... Trump and ending the conflict in one day? Maybe!?
I don't think we can really regard Ukraine as a moral issue: mass civilian casualties never seemed to bother these politicians before; people living on the streets of America; even talk of giving more funding to Israel after "that" (thousands of dead civilians). It might be politics, but there it's a shred of morality about American foreign policy; but a lot of talk about money (as usual). So I don't care who wins the billion dollar Presidential campaign(s), I'm just in it for the money; while America's "investment(s)" in Ukraine, I consider lost.
If we proceed on the understanding that politicians don't need to care what they say to get elected (their #1 priority); that there are millions and billions of public money at their disposal )and being a Professor of leadership); where do you think investing billions in Ukraine is leading us? The term "investment" (that the Senate calls it), by definition: demands a "return"; it's usually financial in nature; otherwise it's a losing or bad investment (I don't make the rules). If you are not a state subsidized private business (which isn't really capitalism, or socialism, more like protectionism), or the fire service (doesn't "make" money; it's there to "save" money and lives); even if companies are considered to have the rights accorded to people, even if they display the morality of sewer rates, it's about profit (success or failure, is judged in money terms). While trying to run a country like a company (UKplc) is a flawed concept; apart from being asset stripped by real companies (who are far more nimble than parliament); it's not about GDP (easily manipulated) or company profits (banks and funds own most shares); it's day to day living that concerns most voter (I assume); not war.
While here in Europe; we don't get to vote in other people's elections; there are domestic issues in various countries (particular to them); but there are serious economic problems; a "cost of living crisis"; housing; inflation pushing up prices and I don't think diverting public money in support of America's fears and interests is going to get these poor people elected. While after selling off infrastructure; UKplc; the Brexit kerfuffle (best of three?) I get the impression many don't trust our leaders to run a bath. Glad I got that off my chest. Anyways...
As I have gone to some effort to explain to you before, Prof. Russia does not have the same kind of: economy; language; alphabet; money (a soft currency); or codes of conduct. I can't tell you how other's think; but I can tell you some of the rules.
I don't make the rules, but in Russia (early 90's) I just knew (from Hollywood gangster movies); that "welching" on agreements; making promises; or throwing insults carry potentially fatal consequences. Likewise I was easily "outgunned in the Hotel Ukraine; but I come in peace (actually I forgot I didn't work for them) but their business is Ukrainian independence or not my business (none of my business!); my business is keeping roulette wheels turning (usually in the House of Unions). Casinos now banned in Russia, thank goodness!
I learned: never toast the host of a party (crass: they get too drunk); never break promises (just don't make them); don't shake hands across a doorway (your on your own with that one).
So when Ukraine signed an agreement with Russia (regarding division of assets): it included lease fees; gas tariffs; return of weapons; plus the promise of Ukrainian neutrality.
Since Western cosignatories, at the time, gave assurances (not guarantees; the diplomats say); they are clearly well aware of all this (and that it was all USSR "stuff", not theirs)
It's up to you (individually) to decide if you want to interfere in other people's business; but as was made clear neutrality was and is not open to negotiation. I don't make the rules.
I think we agree that Russia is not going to stop (up to and including nuclear war); they sit in occupation; all that land the West bought covered in mines and bombs; it's another human tragedy; the real question is how to put a stop to this? Mind your own business (*who said that?); Ukraine and Russia need to sort things out; America won't need to sign anything.
It turns out after all that the world doesn't revolve around American politicians interests; it's not about winning or losing (a promise of neutrality or war) and continued investment does not look like it will offer a return (to either the EU or NATO), but it's not my business, I just want to know should I bet on Trump? (It's all about the money).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tynao2029 That's hilarious, Boris Johnson a socialist?? The Ox-bridge educated; member of the Bullingdon club that pays £900 for a roll of wallpaper is a socialist (are you having a laugh, or wot?) So you don't read; you don't know what socialism is and you come out with howlers like that... clearly giving up reading was a big mistake by you.
Trump was a Democrat, became a Republican; Clinton was a Republican, became a Democrat, easy to explain because both parties are funded by Wall Street; lobbied by: oil; arms and "big Pharma"; American foreign policy has remained the same for decades (regardless of President or party) and about the only difference with Trump is he didn't start any new wars, but never really stopped any either. The individuals you list are all decidedly right-wing; Corbyn (ex-leader of Labour) was and is a socialist; but he didn't last long as he was attacked from outside and inside the party (there's not enough money in socialism to keep the oligarchs happy; they want tax-cuts; to be able to give politicians money to get what they want). It was "only" £250,000 for dinner at #10 with Blair or Cameron; this is a form of corruption and the UK nationalizing bust banks was a serious mistake!!
GWB a socialist? War pays! Don't you remember what they said... and it paid them well; 50,000 kids dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. When are you going to realise that that they don't care about people, just money. Socialists don't love war, quite the opposite and the deep state don't like Trump because they lost a lot of money backing arguably the worst politician in history... Clinton who held all the big cards, blew it big time and like Blair just won't go away.... China and Russia, now they are socialist countries, so at last America has a worthy opponent, while here in the West the fans of "Reagonomics" have led us into ruin. Too much money in politics (all about the money).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tynao2029 Actually the "printing press" is owned by various banks; but they don't control it, in America the Federal reserve does; these banks own shares (but they are not allowed to sell. or trade, them). This is not communism, nor is it any other kind of socialism... Some say (and they're probably correct) that the current system isn't really capitalism as Western governments and financial institutions trade "debt obligation" and use this like money (when really it's "negative money", plus interest). So government sells "gilts"; financial institutions package mortgages together and sell them on, this is all described in the movie "The Big Short". It's a rotten system.
This is not communism, or any other kind of socialism (it's all to do with money) and it's imaginary money that is distorting commodity markets and property markets as people and "funds" try to legitimize it. You don't seem to understand that people are irrelevant to the "chicken-hawks" (those who advocate war, but won't go) and corporations (whose success, or failure, is measured by profit margin); the recent American "interventions" are not to save civilian life (as claimed by the msm); it's to steal oil or opium and auctioning re-building contracts (before the Iraq war) was just another ugly facet of American foreign policy. It's all about the money!
I don't know what you mean about "nothing is privatized" when American health care is governed by private heath insurance companies (that regard anyone over 50 as a liability); Uni education is privatized (if it was state-run in a socialist economy there wouldn't be student debt, you even receive a "grant", it's not much; but this is system based on ability to learn, not ability to pay).
Imagine if the state covered: rent: utilities and there was no tax, but the only way to get a state apartment was to get married. A monthly travel pass for Moscow $1 (these days around $17); healthcare and education effectively free.
Do you start to understand why money isn't important to Russia? There are downsides to this a wage of $200/ month means you are unlikely to start a business or go on foreign holidays; so it's a bit "boring" (imo).
If you want to learn about moderate socialism, Prof Wolff advocates Marxism and collectives. I don't believe most Americans understand socialism, never mind communism.
Communist China has embraced capitalism; but their version, which is to state-fund corporations (so they can undercut their competitors; they kicked out the social-media (big 4) and their belt and road program means they don't give countries money; they build things (as opposed to blowing things up). Russia has a very odd relationship to capitalism; most citizens are used to the state covering the bills (and that's a difficult mind-set to kick).
China is booming (despite the msm trying to claim otherwise); America is heavily in debt to China... and every time they print money so does China (so they can't "inflate the debt away") now China has released the Gold-backed e-Yuan that's the death-knell to rampant money printing. The crisis in Ukraine has nothing to do with China (America is trying to use Taiwan to stir up trouble). Russia has shown it will no longer tolerate Western expansionism, it's going to "dismantle Ukraine" until the West (probably Western citizens) object to money being sent to corrupt countries, as poverty levels (and inflation soar).
So... the bad news is "crony capitalism" is going bust; the $30 Trillion has left for: tax havens; purchasing penthouse; art or space-rockets (and it's not coming back and the CRIBS don't care what America say (because they've been lied to before). As for Boris; he only does things if there's something in it for him; I assume it's kick-backs or a job being paid to do nothing.
If you can try formulating an argument without using the term money; that might be a socialist one, but it might also get you banned from social media as "freedom" is kinda lacking if it dents the corrupt's profits.
All this talk about how rich Putin is comes from Western sources; open displays of wealth in Russia is either viewed as crass, or mafia related.
Bottom line for Russia is the West needs to keep out of Ukraine (money is no object to that). Just a different way of thinking, but Russia is serious and I know how brutal it can get in Russia, I was a casino trouble-shooter in Moscow, I've met the Ukrainian and Chechen mafia, or rather they met me.
Don't mess with these people!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It didn't seem to bother the politicians when NATO killed over 50,000 kids in Iraq/Afghanistan; there's talk of sending more funding to Israel, after thousands more kids died; it's obvious they don't care about people... look at the homelessness in America (and gun crime) they simply don't care... besides it's nobody they know. While the Western corporate media seems to be working overtime, trying to ensure public money goes to (put simply) the political sponsors (the private health care industry must have spent billions lobbying to stop an NHS).
The Senate keep referring to their involvement with Ukraine as an "investment"; which by definition demands a "return (usually financial in nature) and what Russia appears to be doing is trashing it. (When Russia moves kids out of a war zone, the msm call it stealing children, I can only assume they prefer the kids remained there).
Politicians can grandstand, talk about billions here and there (when was the last time we saw a billion, anything?); but all that Ukrainian farmland Western corporations bought is now covered in mines and cluster munitions; the 46 bio-labs (according to the Pentagon) possibly researching GM crops, Russia target them early on; grain shipments blockaded and loading facilities destroyed (claims the ships were bring in Western weapons); the murky energy deals (see H Biden) worthless; the imported weaponry a prime target... the rebuilding contract (already secured) could be worth nothing (if Ukraine declares neutrality). While we hear talk of winning and losing; the Russian military objective appears to be to take a wrecking ball to Western investment (which in my opinion should never have been made in the first place), there are no winners, I think they are starting to understand this.
In Europe, there are elections coming up too; after the EU has lost: oil; gas; grain and other supplies from Russia, through this American led conflict with Russia, people (perhaps selfishly) are asking what's in it for them; the Europeans know a lot about Russia (from two World Wars) and while I can't predict the future; I don't believe Russia is ever going to stop (up to and including nuclear war) until Ukraine (what's left of it) declares neutrality. It's more a Slavic thing; a code of conduct; Ukraine agreed neutrality with Russia (or it's war).
Why or how the Western interests thought they could buy or legislate their way around that defeats me (I think the American far-right is playing Europe) at some cost.
I believe Trump when he says he could end the conflict in Ukraine in a day; just needs to cut funding (which will upset the arms lobby), but what about our kids, our money; that's more the question.
Meanwhile the media have created a lot of hatred; I think there needs to be some accountability (they've even got supporters of two political parties at each others throats, like I care).
Ukraine defeating Russia? Who is trying to kid who here? There are a lot of people still profiting from this disaster, using our money and Ukrainian lives; continued Western investment in a highly corrupt (non-EU/NATO) country, in conflict with a nuclear superpower; more likely to start WW3, than not. It's not going to get one elected (#1 priority for politicians).
That's not to say I support: Russia; or Ukraine, just that I know the rules and why you don't break (or make) promises there (it could be fatal). It's because if you do; then they* must respond (*not Putin, Russia). Between you and me the only parties that can resolve this are Russia and Ukraine (America's signature to agreements, it's worthless).
Now who should I bet on to be next American President? (That's my only interest in American domestic politics). It's time America stopped interfering in Europe. Keep your money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@penguinz0 I don't agree, even with the description of Cook's behavior being a "prank". He and his two associates were willfully engaged in the harassment and intimidation of a delivery driver, just doing his job (it's not the best paid, or safest job) and, of course, they chose a smaller man to victimize (being bullies). The driver told them (twice) to leave him alone; even batted away the device Cook kept putting in his face, which was playing "Are you looking at my twinkle?" (on a loop); but that wasn't good enough. While in "fight, or flight, situations; the subconscious often takes over (and it doesn't always make the best decisions), it's aiming for self preservation (even if it kills you).
As a result; the driver shot Cook once; received a sentence of three months and his concealed carry license was withdrawn (and he likely lost his job).
It seems likely the driver wasn't looking at Cook's twinkle (he missed); but the bullies won; in that they ruined a hard working man's life.
The wrong person(s) got the criminal record, in my opinion.
(Btw The driver followed "the rules", if you have to draw a gun; somebody gets shot... so I don't carry; my subconscious might decide to eliminate the witnesses, it's very tidy-minded. :hourglass-purple-sand-orange:
Edit: The delivery driver spent eight months in prison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ayoungethan You are completely wrong. There are two decommissioned Minuteman 2 on public display in America (this was a three stage ICBM, named after the colonial minutemen of the American Revolutionary War): one is in Wyoming the other is outside the United States Strategic command building in Omaha Nebraska. The OP is talking about missile monuments and trying to change the subject suggests it's you trying to twist the narrative, not me.
It's this money-grubbing fraudster that is wanting money for cynical manipulation; stirring up hatred and treachery (and this needs to stop!).
So no I don't get paid for troll hunting and I'm not the only one "calling out" this liar. He: knows virtually nothing about Russia; spreads misinformation; is some failed crypto trader with a new "money making gig". If I was doing what he's doing (gloating over the deaths of fellow countrymen, it would be considered treachery and I'd no doubt be jailed.
As for dropping nuclear weapons on civilian population centers, only America has done that and of course they won't build monuments to this shameful act, it would look like bragging. However after a string of inhumane actions: Nukes; Napalm; Agent Orange; 105 cruise missiles into Tripoli; polluting Vietnam; Cambodia and Laos with literally millions of un-exploded ordinance (Cluster bombs) still maiming people today; even testing biological weapons on their own population, and so on...
I have to say that their msm now trying to claim they care about people is nothing but an insult!! (cynical manipulation).
We were talking about missile monuments, before you came along, and there are plenty of examples in America and elsewhere. If we ever expect to put a base on Mars we are going to need missiles, but this American fascist theocracy (Zappa was correct); they want to point them at people. The bad news is the Russian nationalists are up for nuclear war (too). This type of insanity is rather contagious, it may even be too late to stop and there is no confusion here.
In similar fashion to the Cuban missile crisis; if the Western interests don't back-off; Russia will move to full deployment and they have excellent missile technology.
Anyways; don't let me distract you from the: sock puppet with the dodgy accent and rug; trying to charge for free clips and willingly peddling misinformation for material gain.
If I was the Canadian government (I'm not); I'd kick him out. They used to pay me to resolve armed conflict; but this one's up to Russia and Ukraine to resolve (not my problem)
The American oligarchs (playing with public money) are begging for WW3. Only Germany and China seem to have some sense, but then Germany knows full well what Russia can do. Is that clear enough for you? We don't know if America was bluffing regarding missiles in Cuba; but maybe you'll get your monument to nuclear apocalypse yet...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia and China (largely) kept their manufacturing base while American (multinational) companies often: exported jobs; imported products and kept their profits offshore. One reason why, in terms of GDP PPP China tops the list with over five times that of second place (America); the American national debt is over twenty trillion and serviced by (put simply) printing money. If anything, that's what can't continue...
China and Russia (for different reasons) run a trade surplus; Russia has a lot of primary industry (raw materials) and it exports: oil; gas; grain; fertilizer; iron ore, etc; India has a lot of secondary industry (refining oil into petroleum and plastic etc; iron ore into steel); while China specializes in tertiary industry (manufacturing) turning steel and plastic into low cost products. Industry wise it's a good "fit" and while Western companies benefit from importing lower price products (without all those: union; tax and working conditions problems) it has eroded the American domestic manufacturing base (who can't compete with low cost products from Asia), with the exception of weapons (largely kept "in-house").
There are a few noticeable differences between Russia and countries like Spain and Canada; one of them put the first space station in orbit; has it's own global positioning system (gps); a vast array of nuclear (and other) weapons and a "soft" currency. So while the Western media like to talk about GDP; measure things in dollars and look at matters from their perspective, all I can tell you (with some certainty) is that things don't work the same way in Russia and China as America (where money and profit seem to dominate most discussions). If we keep in mind that USSR had nuclear and space programs without the benefits of capitalism it's clear they are doing something else (and it works).
Currently in America, some hedge funds have GDP's bigger than some countries; corporations can lobby (for billions) and Wall Street investors fund both parties; a privately owned media, some of whom give political donations while claiming they are unbiased (and you can believe that if you like) seem to have created "tribalism" where the supporters of the two main parties often display a visceral hatred, but come election time the vote will be war or war? (your choice) while both parties nod through large military budgets (and so Russia and China have also been building up militarily for some time now). They may have comparatively small military budgets compared to America, but don't let that fool you; their scientists and technicians don't have student debt to pay or the high cost of housing or heath-care; it's a completely different system. Russia is self sufficient regarding energy and food, so the form of economic warfare that America often uses ("oil for food/ medicine") doesn't work for them. I believe America is currently playing Europe (as sanctions usually impact them).
You say that this has to end with a negotiated peace; but I don't think that's a valid statement. Other options include thermonuclear war or Russia eliminating Ukraine.
You see, at one point in history, Russia and Ukraine had a deal (there were co-signatories amongst them America and the UK, but it was all Russia's and Ukraine's stuff that was being discussed and divided).
Put simply: Ukraine would return Soviet nuclear weapons and adopt a neutral status (like the UK they didn't have the launch codes) while they kept nuclear power; there was a division of military assets; Russia would lease the military port in Crimea ($200 million a year) and Ukraine could levy tariffs on Russian gas supplies to the EU.
That agreement held for over 30 years; but Ukraine was going bankrupt (aren't we all?) while Eastern Europe was quite corrupt and rather violent (but that's not my business).
Now we discover that the EU has been giving Ukraine billions in "aid" and America was (and still is) "investing" billions.
The EU clearly wants new member states (except Scotland, when it suits them); America: has helped the likes of Monsanto buy a lot of land in Ukraine and set up bio-labs; provided advisors and they don't want any alternative to a gas pipeline through Ukraine; there are also some peculiar oil deals (which H Biden may have to explain).
To me all this "aid" and "investment" (from groups that are not known to be charitable) might be viewed as provocative.
Something happened in 2014; some say the CIA engineered another one of these regime changes (Africa obviously still remembers Libya, so don't want any more American "help"); but now Ukraine has a Western friendly government. A civil war began, I don't remember the exact timeline but the new government banned Russian; there were suggestions Ukraine might apply to join the EU and/ or NATO and between 2014-2022 around 13K lost their lives in the civil war.
There were various referendums held, Russia conducted a major referendum in Crimea; the other regions (currently mainly Russian occupied) held independence referendums.
Nobody recognised the independence referendums (including Russia); while in Crimea the choice was Ukraine or Russia; easy to predict that one but is it legal?
(Well that would depend on who you think is making the rules; but since the UK courts have ruled a country (Scotland) can't hold a major referendum they seem to be made up to suit)
The (mainly American) msm made up a lot of stories, they weren't happy (partly because Russia ejected them), but they speak Russian in Crimea; "the West" was furious.
We should never forget that "the deal" was between Russia and Ukraine; it was highly dependent on Ukraine's neutrality and "outside interests" kept chipping away at that (imo).
As I've said things don't work the same way in Russia (or China); but in the early 90's if you're the Ukrainian mafia and you snap your fingers under the nose of the Russian government (or you're a billionaire oligarch that wants to get into politics, after being told don't do that); or you are Chechen separatists leaving bombs on the Metro and killing children in a school, the government will do something, it may be sudden and it may be very violent.
So they raised Grozny to the ground; jailed a billionaire for ten years (out in nine) asset stripped and exiled him; they "recognised" those indi referendums (in 2022); laid siege to Kiev for a week (destroyed the national broadcaster's mast) and currently occupy those "breakaway" regions. They have not fully deployed, but I don't see who is going to move them even as is.
Now I have to say that those behind the throne in America must be as thick as a whale omelette; we should not confuse: being rich with any kind of intelligence; or a memo with reality or that a nation with: state funded education; it's own social media and BBC world service (who often leave things out) as being uninformed. While I tend to think that our leaders want us to believe their publicity (and sometimes seem to believe it themselves).
America is not investing billions and "doubling down" for humanitarian reasons; they could use some of that to resolve the homeless problem they have, but they obviously don't care about people (just their associates); yesterdays report about poor Nadia (all they found were the legs of her teddy) I made up; but stuff like that is the most base form of cynical manipulation. NATO has killed tens of thousands of civilians, but they cannot intervene here (to save civilian life, snarf!); Russia is a technologically driven country armed to the teeth.
So I would blame "the West" for upsetting the apple-cart; I'm sure they wouldn't tolerate Russia forming a military alliance with (say) Mexico and sending weapons, while they try to do likewise. Why would they do something so stupid? I think because: China; Russia and India are a good fit and they're leaving the West behind; if so it's the end of "globalism" (where the rich exploit the poor, they can't help it) and if a Gold back currency emerges (about now although I may be misinformed) they can't keep printing money.
I hope I haven't bored you; hopefully this conflict between Russian and Ukraine can be resolved by them; America is not here to help and their msm don't make the rules and something I find rather troubling; they have little or no understanding of Russia or China. One wrote the book on war; one is geared for land war and both are nuclear superpowers.
One last thing; the President (any) doesn't make the all the decisions; so this is a Russia thing and if the nationalists get into power like the American neocons they want war.
So a negotiated peace is not a given. The nationalists advocate sacking Kyiv; targeting Western weapons suppliers; likely a nuclear ultimatum (see Cuba).
Shame about Ukraine, but I view their government as the architect of their own destruction and those Western interests as fairweather friends (diverting public funds).
I'd leave this matter for Russia to deal with; they're not going to run out of missiles; have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Messing around with language for political reasons is not a positive thing; Russian and Ukrainian are synthetic (made-up) languages, lacking Latin "roots" of verbs or the French method of assigning gender to inanimate objects (la table: tables are feminine, I don't make the rules); if they don't want to capitalize nouns that's up to them, but it only shows lack of respect for the written word. While, as we have seen, the Western media try to sanitize war using expressions such as "lethal aid" instead of "weapons; "combat fatigue" instead of "shell shock" and "investment" instead of "a bung with kick-backs". So when did we start caring about the Ukrainian or Russian language? While if you can't follow the basic rules of English, why are you writing books?
I find your claim Professor, that Russia is targeting Ukrainian civilians to be unfounded and objectionable; little mistakes soon add up; Russia can't afford to adopt NATO tactics as they have close cultural and ethnic ties; they are targeting that "lethal aid" (which tries to make the far-right in America sound charitable, which they certainly are not); power and rail infrastructure, it's not really Ukraine they are at war with (despite appearances); it's the Western interests and they are trashing their "investment". So the likes of Monsanto have bought land now full of mines and cluster munitions; their bio-labs were about the first to go; so while the Western media talk in terms of winning and losing, I really don't think that's how Russia views this at all.
Not capitalizing nouns, oh yes that'll show them; are you on some form of medication?
Btw A fast food employee taking their time to get your order because they were mean to you, is not an example of tyranny; it may be a reaction to being treated as a number (people clearly don't like that); or demanding customers (often drunk) or the kitchens have backed up... but it is not tyranny! If you are working on weekends for minimum wage for a boss that burns out staff and can fire you on a whim, that's more like tyranny, but since you seem to have some experience in annoying people, here's some friendly advice, never (that's never) annoy the people making your food or receptionists (that's from "Never Confuse A Memo With Reality") and don't make promises to Russians or Ukrainians if you are going to break them (easier not to make any at all).
Now you can buy me a coffee (that's valuable info).
The Russians will get propaganda value, what? Out of Ukrainian propaganda? Well if you say so, but this new Ukrainian law allowed that very thing. I don't put much stock in predictions or these pro-war jockeys many of whom I doubt can find Ukraine on the map and while it's simpler to believe the Presidents of America and Russia make all the decisions, luckily that's not true, because politics is beginning to look like a geriatrics convention and a few are beginning to look very heavily medicated. Yah! boo! Putin; Trump; Biden... the corporate media are having us on.
So sorry to burst your bubble, but it's actually NATO that targets civilians (killed tens of thousands of children in Iraq/Afghanistan); the media here are a basket of deplorables.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've no interest in the American elections (looks like a coin flip between the two main right-wing parties)
According to the American foreign secretary (Blinken) the UK will take the lead in Ukraine now and has America's permission to fire UK long-range weapons at mainland Russia.
While NATO and the EU (previously) gave permission for the UK (and France) to act unilaterally (not in their name)... but I doubt Russia will see it that way.
In my view America has found it's sacrificial "Lammy", because no American President is going to gamble American cities over a country like Ukraine. On the points you raised...
1. Russia does not give foreign aid in the form of weapons or money; they did cross off a lot of African debt ($50 billion), otherwise they and China instead build foreign infrastructure.
2. Russia is not going to sell weapons as there's a war on; both the S-300 & S-400 missile systems have excellent reputations; there is no defense to the Avangard (Mach 27) system.
3. Russia has moved up to #4 economy in the world; their centrally planned economy is similar to a war-time economy (they tell their corporations what to do, not the other way around).
4. Russia is part of a new trading bloc; in terms of seniority CRIBS, but the first three have large: tertiary; primary and secondary industries (respectively) and they don't need "The West".
5. According to some of the American media: Russia chooses the American President; one party is pro-Russia; Ukraine will defeat Russia (...that's all politically motivated garbage).
6. America has cleared out old weapons stocks; diverted more public money into new weapons, while tanks (31) and F-16's (zero) are very much 20th century weapons, vulnerable now.
7. It is either NATO or American technicians operating the advanced Western missile systems; Russia does not accept the claim it's Ukraine, instead they view it as a deceleration of war.
That is the opinion of a Scot, who was a former casino trouble-shooter in Moscow during the breakup of USSR (casinos are now, thankfully, banned viewed as immoral).
As for Russia, they have: state funded health and education; almost zero homelessness; low cost energy and food (being a major exporter); subsidized public transport; free internet and their own social media and gps. Russia has a technologically driven economy (not money, or debt obligation, driven) and a national debt of around $350 billion (America $35,000 billion). (However the state owns the land and state-sector industry; wages are very low (compared to the West) and they switch the hot water off a month a year (to clean the pipes)).
What have you got?
A lot of the Western media, give a misleading portrayal of: Russia; China and our leader's competence; they are pro-war (even between supporters of domestic parties).
It should be clear enough, that the President (any) does not make the key decisions; while what is happening in Ukraine is widely considered a proxy war, between two superpowers.
Ukraine had an agreement with Russia, neutrality or war; but (largely due to corruption) they allowed foreign corporations to take over agriculture and, in effect, the EU gas supply.
This corporate takeover not only angered Russia, but also EU farmers; it also showed the co-signatories to the neutrality agreement were not acting in good faith.
After Yugoslavia and Libya, I very much doubt Russia will back down and further "investment" from the West is likely to result in a world war, or a nuclear exchange.
Now we must wait and see it the UK government will accept the honour of expanding the Ukrainian war; by attacking a nuclear superpower that could wipe the UK off the map.
It's already clear to UK voters that the UK government does not represent them; who or what they represent is an open secret (but they won't be going to war, they just want our money).
I don't see any way to move Russia from the mainly Russian speaking regions of Ukraine currently occupied (these regions don't want to be part of Ukraine, all voted leave). Ukraine is massively in debt to Western interests, that's what "we" are fighting for... and the chilling thing is that all the major powers knew Russia would go to war if Western expansionism continued; while the corporate assets in Ukraine are all destroyed. If Ukraine capitulates it will require a lot of explaining, I'm anti-war and so this post is likely to be censored/deleted.
I expect the Neo-cons/ globalists to move on to their other wars; because behind the scenes it seems the Russian nationalists want to take on America directly (not good).
The reason I've written this "essay" is not because I support Russia or Ukraine; I am opposed to those that have run the UK into the ground (and profited by doing so). In the July 4th UK general election it was basically a vote for war or war; 40% didn't bother voting and a landslide victory on 33.7% of the vote, is not a good advert for UK democracy. Apathy won.
I would rather we didn't go marching off to war for the wrong reason(s); the banks and corporations run the UK, real fair-weather friends them; exporting money out of the economy and I firmly believe, Russia is correct in jailing corporate lobbyists. Maximizing shareholder profit is not a healthy national objective; people get hurt; countries get destroyed. Not in my name!
Anyway I'd better get on; the "great game" is above my pay grade; we might ask ourselves what has Ukraine, or Russia ever done for us? Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
@arthurmiller-vl6sw Yes when the USSR divided assets (early 90's); Ukraine was: neutral; sovereign; independent (all of these things). Actually they were Russian nuclear weapons, Ukraine kept nuclear power; charged Russia (high) gas tariffs and a leasing fee; it was still arguably more corrupt than Russia, but that held.
Talk of joining NATO or EU doesn't sound like neutrality to me; sending "aid" (EU) and "investment" (America); doesn't look like charity; it may just be a Slavic thing, but some agreements are not open to negotiation.
I don't make the rules in Eastern Europe; I see no value in American media opinion; it was a very plain choice for Ukraine, neutrality or war with Russia. It's time for Americans to stop trying to play the innocent party in this disaster.
It looks to me like the America far-rights plan was to damage Europe (which they have done); try to get a return on this "investment" they talk about, while in my experience of Russia (early 90's) if a bunch of heavily armed people tell you it's neutrality or war, that is how it will go.
I don't see Ukraine as being a great asset to the EU, application likely to get vetoed (various reasons: bankrupt; trouble with Russia; conflict expands); but NATO knew it was neutrality or war (still do).
If you want to know who makes the rules in Eastern Europe, well it's not America (and let's leave it at that).
If Russia didn't go to war, they would look weak; America signed that neutrality agreement too; their word is not worth the paper it's written on.
I agree with Mearsheimer (who seems to know about Russia and China; how they do things; angers them).
Russia will never stop, up to and including nuclear war, as previously agreed.
If that's true; it should be a sobering thought; the Prof seems to believe Ukraine is winning, I don't; however winning is defined. I would say (from my experience of the mafia in Moscow) it's more the potentially fatal consequences of interfering in their (USSR) business. So it's not about: oil; money or grain; it's almost "Masonic" (so the Pentagon" should understand this); breach of trust carries fatal consequences.
The short answer to your questions, there shouldn't have been talk of Ukraine joining NATO in 2007; careless talk costs lives (something grandstanding politicians better understand before talking to China); while if America did inspire regime change in Ukraine (2014); it was they who opened Pandora's Box. I quite like the Russians; I don't like war; they did make it clear to the West (but our leaders don't listen; even to us).
Sorry to be so "wordy"; but the West's investment" in Ukraine, was not for charitable reasons and was highly provocative; looks like a very long term investment with no return. I assume Trumps solution is tell Ukraine sort it out, we are cutting funding. Job done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Looking forwards to the follow-up "What The Globalists Are Really Saying When they Speak in Euphemisms".
When the E.U. offered millions in "aid" and America billions in "investment" as co-signatories, it demonstrating that they did not respect the neutrality agreement Ukraine made with Russia.
The Western interests prefer to call their "special military operations" an "intervention" (they usually claim it's to save civilian life, but it never does); these differ from a formal deceleration of war.
While the "3-day operation" is a claim made (up) by the corporate media who are strong supporters of globalism and war; it forms the basis of a number of "straw man fallacies". They are trying to make their argument some more reasonable and since you choose to repeat this; either you are not doing your research properly Prof, or you are willingly distributing misinformation.
Claiming the Russians are "kidnapping" children seems dubious for two reasons (1) Having killed tens of thousands of children in Iraq/Afghanistan it just looks like cynical manipulation trying to claim that the globalists ever cared about people (even their own homeless) and (2) The alternative to removing children from a war zone is to keep them there, the Russians just don't do that.
I believe Lavrov perceives the Western financial contributions not as charity, but as a financial incentive to join them; while it was known breaking the neutrality agreement would lead to conflict.
We now discover Monsanto bought a lot of land; bio-labs; odd oil deals (see H. Biden); so I tend to agree with Lavrov. All this fiddling about; billions sent, I'd say was very provocative indeed.
Russia hasn't made a formal deceleration of war because then different rules apply; just as America has made clear it didn't offer guarantees to Ukraine, just assurances.
These differences diplomats are supposed to understand, but since there's been a complete failure of diplomacy, an assurance means America isn't compelled issue a formal declaration of war.
If you care to notice; the far-right in America are careful not to say America is at war with Russia, it may look like that with all the "lethal aid" (euphemism for "weapons"), but if they do it's WW3.
"Humanitarian evacuations" is not a euphemism; it's not deplorable either, don't be ridiculous. Russia isn't fighting civilians; despite the msm claims; it's soldiers and Western weapon deliveries.
"Russians" = "Russian speaking Ukrainians" might just be how Russia sees this; the "breakaway regions" all voting for independence (2014) all mainly speak Russian; one side in a civil war.
Nobody "recognised" the independence votes, until Russia did in 2022; regions don't really have the power to simply declare independence, but Russia currently occupies them, no coincidence.
The corporate media story-line at the time was people were being marched to the polling booths at gunpoint; it was a ludicrous claim, but some obviously still believe this.
Russia ejected the Western media in Crimea; there was a large turn-out to vote; people tend not to go out with gunmen in the streets, far easier to stuff the ballot boxes innit?
That's when I believe the globalists lost that argument; they resorted to one of their smear campaigns instead of questioning the validity of regions to hold major (independence) referendums.
It doesn't look like the Eastern regions want to be part of Western Ukraine; late 2022 they all vote to rejoin Russia; we don't hear much from them the Western msm is rather selective.
NATO said they wouldn't expand, but look at the map; both they and the EU have done just that; they both tried to recruit Ukraine, is it really not obvious to you Prof what's been going on?
The history of Europe is long; dark and complicated; I doubt Americans understand much in that respect or they wouldn't be so keen on a face-off against Russia on it's own doorstep.
Yes, there's a lot of euphemisms; attempts to sanitize war; but I really do think the Western corporate media are signed up to the concept of war as a business model hence "investment".
Now the globalists want to "double down"; I find this kind of language to be quite revealing. They are looking for a return on the investment made with public money and Ukrainian lives...
Well I think they've lost. What's more I believe they know that. They have the option of going all in, but that equates to nuclear war. Currently that's what the globalists are investing in.
We should know what Russia wants; it's where they've been sitting for almost about 20 months; that and NATO bases gone. It's time for the far-right in America to stop "playing" Europe!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Andrew-rc3vh Yes: born in America; named Boris; dropped off the: Eton, Oxbridge, SPAD, safe seat, "conveyor belt" (highlighted by Andrew Neil, who is usually pro right wing; the "system" is sewn up). Even being an unpaid SPecial ADvisor in London, for a couple of years, is a barrier to entry... the term fees at Eton (with charitable status) are eye-watering; it does look like a rich persons club. The Tories are at least honest in one respect; they represent the rich at every turn; view the world in terms of money and profit, their usual question, how much will it cost? That's used to bring any subject back to money, which is a bit of a shame since we don't seem to have any.
Sir Starmer, leader of the worker's party; that sounds rather odd as well and I think the unions are starting to question what their members are paying for as New Labour takes the "corporate shilling". As Hislop (Private Eye) demonstrated all the MP's on the select committee were being "lobbied" and I have to question the ones who are making more from their "second jobs" as their main interest is elsewhere. Starmer is pro-EU and has repeatedly tried to block "Brexit"; his "block no deal" bill made Labour pretty much unelectable so it's odd he gets promoted while Corbyn (known to be anti-EU) is attacked from inside and outside the party; then ejected from party and even if Labour is traditionally pro-EU; they look anti-democratic and the Tories (somehow) get a large majority?!
I don't like New Labour; it's full of Libdems who are in the wrong party (imo), or worse people like "Tory Blair" who advocate "trickle down" economics; war and selling England by the pound.
Seems to me that the CRIBS (China; Russia; India; Brazil and South Africa) have already begun "divorce proceedings" against America/NATO/UK and "the globalists". They have been buying Gold (there's about 1000 times more "paper Gold" than physical; that's why Brown took $ instead of waiting for America to find physical; it's possible Fort Knox doesn't have any, it's an ugly rumour). When America printed $; China printed more Yuan, which clearly annoyed those around Wall Street. If China has tied the Yuan to Gold, then if America/UK print fiat currency, it would drop against the Yuan and if the CRIBS trade oil in Yuan, then SWIFT (oil/$) can no longer be used as an effective weapon against them; but EU countries and companies will just have to look after themselves.
India signed a few Russian oil contracts; China said, "Don't involve us in American power games, we have a good working relationships with Russian and Ukraine" and the Chinese ambassador described a newscaster (when she demanded he denounce Russian action) as "naive".
(Which in a Chinese context is what American's would call a "slap-down").
Naive from someone Chinese; a diplomat even; I'd have been less shocked if he'd said aw... fuck off!
China and Russia have been building up militarily since that large hike in military expenditure both parties nodded through (during Trump administration). That isn't good at all; this proposed $40 Billion to Ukraine (Rand Paul) objects to is technically larger than the entire Russian military budget. I think GDP is a faulty way of estimating an economy as for a country with a GDP the size of Spain, Russia put the first space-station in orbit. I can't judge how far $40 billion goes in Russia (it's not really about "the money" there and they don't have to buy in material).
I don't want to bore you, but in Moscow I had a professor of economics dealing on one table; a rocket scientist on the other.
Casino's offered better money, what a waste... I guess money changes everything.
Are you a Scot Andrew?
I think Westminster is blocking Scotland's declared intent to move to 100% renewable energy. Of course Scotland won't get 100% until it taps into tidal (works twice a day). Westminster holds veto powers over a lot of Holyrood budget, so they can cancel things and it reflects badly on Holyrood. I don't think people will invade to steal windmills, socialists tend not to like war (so Blair was not a socialist... more an anti-socialist) and he moved the sea-border so far North some parts of Scotland nearly became England. I don't think Starmer is quite as bad; Corbyn should have proposed nationalising raid (Holyrood just did that); no chance to cancel student debt (too large) but 12% interest?? 9K a year, plus beer! That's shameful.
It's a mess: using debt as currency; ideological and economic war with Ukraine as a "chew toy"; it seems to me Russia is no longer listening to America and I found they had the morality of 1950's UK. So they've fired a warning shot; it looks from the media weather maps they've got what they came for; taking out all the bridges leaves a river border. I think that's what they're doing.
Anyway have a nice day.
P.S. I think Guy Fox had the right idea.
1
-
1
-
@Andrew-rc3vh I agree the UK been more than generous towards America: jet engine; hovercraft; Concorde, even split the atom; a more balanced economy (like Germany) would have been helpful, they make cars and phones; I'd suggest power independence is an industry and useful objective (at least we know what we do). When it comes to the service sector; while some of it is no doubt necessary; I'd include power and transport; it seems the banking system is a wreck and an overbearing bureaucracy (that doesn't actually make anything). Like currency trading and the "futures market" it seems like it's fantasy economics; worse still it's in the interest of a few to keep this charade going and if we don't like it they'll make up another rule.
The UK has to have some form of self sufficiency, industry; less R&D in weaponry.
Jack Ma (Alibaba) and Elon Musk were discussing the future of robotics at some conference in Shanghai. There's a clip on youtube, edited like propaganda; basically Ma saw robots as a 4 hour, three day, week for humans (so workers); while Musk imagined a bleak future as they were weaponised. The editor (clearly up to no good) had Musk mugging the camera, same zoom shot repeated (supposedly at what Ma was saying) and it was published during some American trade spat with China.
So I thought the editor was either mad or bad and since Ma was speaking to a home audience and as Alibaba are a global concern, he should be listened to; even if we don't quite understand his concepts. Although both spoke in English; they didn't see the future the same way, I'd file that clip under fake news. Musk sees himself primarily as a manufacturer; Ma is a master of logistics, if robot weapons become a reality, it does not end well; that's obvious.
Where all the billions and trillions are going is beyond me; but I have an idea.
Since Westminster won't listen to the people, or only those that give them things. A hoax.
It would be a combination of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and that "War of the Worlds" radio play hoax; but with a serious point to it all "worker's rights" and that robot (in Czech) means worker. We can't afford to use them as weapons, or police or judges.
It would be cheaper to have these robots manufactured in China (harhar), no doubt; but China said don't involve them and I suppose a drone swarm isolating the borough of Westminster, then threatening to come back with ground troops and level the place, would have a few repercussions.
Robots demand workers rights! (or else)
The Day London Stood Still
... the headlines write themselves...
Making all the little robits disappear afterwards; that's the difficult part; but our leader don't seem to appreciate how vulnerable everyone is to this technology.
All these central London landmarks so close together... it's just an idea; don't want to start WW3, the swarm of angry robits now demand faster internet...
I do think we are lagging behind in the UK, outside interests are getting in the way. Had the UK joined the Euro the UK might well have gone the way of Greece. A Gold backed currency means money printing will show up (maybe that's what concerns the Western powers); the EU seems to have it's own problems, but I think America has become an expensive liability, one way traffic and I don't share their fears. Worse I don't even believe them. Pointing rockets at each other seems a huge and costly waste of time. If student debt is 12% I don't see who would want to gamble that much on maybe stacking shelves in a warehouse. It's not the only questionable legislation, I do like the Victorian's engineering; something went wrong somewhere (just after that era).
So I propose, robots march on Westminster before people do. Interested?
1
-
@Andrew-rc3vh If we consider that robot can work 24/7; don't require holidays or pensions and apart from maintenance never call in sick; also are the best bet for hazardous environments: space exploration; servicing equipment in tidal races; bombs/mines/nuclear meltdown(s) we might ask, what more do people want from such a useful technology. I totally agree robots have to be friendly or at least be perceived as friendly. Some of the stuff coming out of Boston Dynamics (see: Do You Love Me?), well it looks like "Terminator" now has a dog (Spot) and some states want to give it a gun. Also with AI attempts are being made here to police or process people (computer says no). It's a very dangerous mistake and with drone warfare we are walking into a sea of problems. How to stop this is a problem; Musk sees it as unsurmountable, while Ma welcomes a ready supply of cheap labour.
I advocate (non-violent) shock tactics, a demonstration; before robots are allowed to start making (and improving) themselves.
It does seem the Japanese and Chinese (from what you say) are integrating people and robotics; I did find their comic book literature to be very violent and often explicit (Tarantino says he would have made "Kill Bill" more violent but we in the West don't "get it"); I'm not saying I do, just it's an example of cultures that think of things differently. It seems unlikely, or unwise, to try and deal with America within a military context (look at their arms budget) and I think the problem with NATO is that when you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail (so to speak). This proposed $40 billion to Ukraine is being called "money laundering" in some quarters; sending money to corrupt countries really doesn't seem to work; if the "belt and road" scheme provides: hospitals; roads and other infrastructure it minimises corruption. This, of course, does not suit the corrupt; I view those sending money and weapons (not as charitable) as complicit in corruption.
The Scottish government also want less reliance on nuclear energy/weapons, have a moratorium on fracking and our own issues with the oil industry. I'm not convinced the SNP want to join the EU (even were told an independent Scotland would not qualify), the Boss of the EU then, didn't like the idea of parts of Spain trying for independence, confusing a region and country; now working for Goldman Sachs, it was clearly politically motivated as the EU wanted (bankrupt) Ukraine to join later. The SNP want independence; the UK voted to leave the EU, Scotland has honoured that decision (only Westminster seems full of reluctant parties) I wouldn't vote to rejoin the EU; delaying leaving the EU is a insult to the voter (if we aren't insulted enough) so I'm all for a common market (anywhere), but I believe America will have something to say as they seem to have a "with us or against us" attitude and can't seem to see past American "exceptionalism".
I think Malaysia and China are good at making chips; but the infrastructure outside the main population centres (in Malaysia it's jungle) also they produce software for the Chinese market (so written in Chinese), but I recall seeing "Mulan" being lip-synched in two different dialects of Chinese, within days of release and that was on DVD. I would think if we visited Singapore or Hong Kong today we would be amazed at the technology (and the price). China is already quite involved in the rare-earth and minerals industry. They seem to offer a better deal than blowing things up then country pays for America to rebuild it. So I think we in the West are on the wrong side of history. One view of Scottish independence is power independence; but that has to be a state funded project as it's a huge investment with a slow return. Another "electric mountain" (storage); but individuals could take a lot of weight off the grid with solar.
I still do think we have to kill these drones; they are not friendly (it's terrorism); think Westminster needs an attitude adjustment.
(America is beyond saving).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malcolmgibson5088 Are you in Ukraine, or is this what you have read?
Ukraine is split not just militarily, but also ideologically and the dividing line, roughly speaking, is the Dnipro River; culturally and linguistically it's not, the Slavic languages are similar (including the alphabet) and (largely due to state-funded education) many are fluent in a second language; while there have been no elections in Ukraine for years...
The 2014 elections in Ukraine and referendum in Crimea were not internationally monitored and when there's the sound of gunfire, that's often called a "coup"; there were other referendums, in the other regions (Oblasts) largely occupied by Russian forces currently (but these were not recognized, until Russia did in 2022).
In Crimea 2014, there was a "bloodless coup", shortly after the Ukrainian elections, then a referendum held and the choice was Ukraine, or Russia? (no independence option).
The Western journalists were ejected from Crimea; then instead of raising the question of whether regions have the power to conduct independence referendums, or not, they made up a lot of "shaggy dog" stories. There were no doubt some that were upset Crimea was annexed (by referendum); a long list of them, but the result was a foregone conclusion, for a long list of reasons. Some still seem to believe "our" media; that people were marched to the polling booths in Crimea; that there was any doubt over the outcome, it made them look foolish. Some may argue over who ultimately decides if Crimea is Russia (I won't).
In my culture: it's the people (registered voters) that are sovereign; international monitors can mind their own business (not ours); like I will shortly (Crimea would be Russia).
There were two coups; independence referendums (that were ignored); a new government; an annexation; all sorts of upheaval... including a civil war! (none of my business).
From my (limited) experience of Russia and Eastern Europe, it's wise to keep out of other people's business (unless there's something in it for you).
I'd add, don't break promises (it's far simpler not to make any). Some often fail to follow rules they helped write; the Minsk Agreement was neutrality, or war (in Slavic terms).
There is also a Ukrainian constitution problem; the members of the Ukrainian Parliament stay in position until the next election; but the President has a fixed term and that ran out last Spring. I don't make the rules; but according to the Ukrainian constitution the office of President is vacant; so there will be no negotiations with Russia.
There is also a prohibition on negotiations, so the conflict will continue. However if countries; companies or individuals don't follow their own rules, they can't be trusted.
I've given you a long reply to a short question, in short. Ukraine is split along the Dnipro river militarily; there is an ideological split between East and West; those who hoped to recruit Ukraine cannot include Crimea (if the people are sovereign); if the government is sovereign, regions cannot vote for independence. That definitely splits opinion.
While my country is more unified than ever; it seems the majority of the population detest the government and the opposition party, who represent the same thing (not them).
Cutting Winter fuel budgets to pensioners, to send to Ukraine; just isn't going to get people elected. I'd say the current Western economic model is worth fighting to avoid.
I still don't have a clear answer to why America is funding a conflict in Eastern Europe, there's a variety of answers, most seem to involve money; so are the wrong answer.
I just where do you stand on (or in) Crimea? Is it Russia? I think it is.
1
-
1
-
@fivida A civil war is an internal conflict; one started in Ukraine back in 2014; there's some debate as to what started it, but there had been growing dissatisfaction with the Yanukovych regime and as you describe: Kyiv protests turned to violence; protesters and government officials were killed and things kept escalating.
Civil war: a war between citizens of the same country. Me I always get a bit suspicious when the protesters have EU flags.
(Also) After the regime change: three Eastern Oblasts voted for independence (nobody recognised, including Russia; until 2022); an eight year civil war (2014-2022).
When NATO and the EU in separate summits (2008) raised the subject of potential Ukrainian membership; I'd assume somebody in Ukraine asked.
It seems Russia had no objection to former countries holding (1991) independence referendums; or subsequently joining NATO/EU/both; also the Warsaw Pact came to an end; it's up to NATO/EU who they admit as members, but usually a referendum: a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision, would decide if the country applied. Warsaw is in Poland; it was never part of USSR; as countries joined NATO it expanded (got bigger). Same with EU.
Well; it turns out you can just send forces; occupy a region and compel a referendum, Ukraine or Russia? That's what's Russia did do, in Crimea.
You might ask, who decides here; or under who's law; but the mechanism of a referendum is a binary choice "The Wisdom of Crowds" (independence was not on the ballot).
In my culture; the people (registered voters) decide and they are never wrong. If you don't have a vote, you just have an opinion; "our" media weren't there, nor was I.
It should be mentioned that the Crimean referendum result was a foregone conclusion; with little loss of life; usual high turnout; "our" media claimed it was "fixed".
While international law appears to have been written by some who can't seem to follow their own rules; the three major powers don't even "recognize" the ICC laws.
The Russian oligarchs, through political and criminal connections; made billions; by the end of the 1990's; Russia let them leave, warning them not to get into politics.
Most didn't need to be asked twice; they left and have had years to legitimize the money; I doubt want to meet any government or old rivals. The one that tried to set up an opposition party jailed for 10 years, asset stripped and exiled. Russia re-nationalized; kicked out the hedge funds; banned casinos (sniff). It wasn't working.
While in America it seems there's a return to the era of the "robber baron"; with public money being diverted and billions spent on lobbying and (two) election drives.
In Ukraine: Yanukovych was helping his mates back in Donetsk; backed by an oligarch; I don't know where you're from, but the new boss is just as bad as the old boss.
Back in 1992 I used to deal Blackjack in the House of Unions, Moscow. Chechnya wanted independence (but it was not a country, there followed two civil wars). Denied.
I don't know what you mean by bad people; the Russian oligarchs were not exactly nice people and the Western oligarchs don't have to be nice (no accountability).
Those foreign corporations that moved into Ukraine were there to make a profit; same ones that give political donations and avoid tax, some say they run government.
Finland and Sweden did not have a neutrality agreement with Russia; they don't have NATO missile bases; It's not correct to say Russia didn't care, but it's not their business.
While Switzerland hosting a "peace conference" with no Russia; brought their neutrality into doubt; Ukraine could have had the same relationship to EU/NATO.
while your Gyrkin conspiracy theory doesn't impress me much; according to him he started the Chechen and Ukrainian civil war; busy chap; but if you are claiming that Russian troops were in Donetsk, in 2014; that isn't true. Government forces and forces supporting regional independence were Ukrainian. It was the Donetsk gang.
Sanctions on Russian individuals, for not intervening diplomatically had Russia close it's agricultural sector; yet another thing that angered EU farmers, don't mess with them.
Ever wonder why America protested so much about alternative gas supply routes? I'll give you three guesses I've explained enough.
It's been years since I played warhammer, maybe the prisoners Wagner got were Orcs; but I'm not and the Russian military is more like the Eldar (technologically driven).
In my view Crimea is Russia; America should not be playing games in the Russian sphere of influence; the foreign corporations lost in Ukraine. I'm curious if you agree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fivida Your second comment is visible (while a lot of comments do seem to disappear on this site); while on Wiki, someone seems to have written a version of events that seems to include a number of "Ukrainian conspiracy theories" (citation required) with few, if any, "Russian conspiracy theories"; anyways, I'm not Russian (I'm a Scot), back in 1992 when serious trouble occurred in the Moscow casinos (thankfully now banned), they would often request my Yugoslavian partner and I intervene and to answer your question, document in question is not a "treaty"; it's the "Minsk Agreement" (1991) in which article 5 makes reference to "territorial integrity". (That's where the problem lies).
This (1991) agreement (between Russia and Ukraine) was mainly to do with division of USSR assets; it was cosigned by the UK and USA who gave "assurances" not "guarantees" and this occurred after Ukraine (and other former countries, simultaneously) held independence referendums, which USSR "recognised" almost immediately.
USA did later fund decommissioning rotting Soviet stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons; Russia providing the facilities; but the rest was all "Soviet stuff".
This agreement is written in "diplomatic language" so the terminology is precise, ideally there should be no loopholes; later Ukraine did sign a treaty (the "no nukes" one).
In my opinion; Ukraine got a pretty good deal: a navy (military and commercial); a military; nuclear power (including the doomed Chernobyl, out of commission for 10K years); Russia agreed to pay a port leasing fee (on a vital warm-water port in Crimea) and gas tariffs on supplies to the EU. Article 5: Ukraine's "territorial integrity" to be respected.
I'm not a diplomat (previously more of a negotiator between heavily armed groups), so you may need to find a Russian diplomat to confirm exactly what is meant by certain terms. From what I can surmise: it doesn't just mean a border-line on a map; it means no country should interfere in Ukraine: politically; economically or militarily (hands off!).
Others may offer different interpretations (and have) of what is meant by "territorial integrity"; Russia will know (because they drafted the document); otherwise: with USSR assets divided; pipeline tariffs and a port lease agreed, Ukraine was now an independent country and like Switzerland: neutral; not in NATO/EU, with it's own problems.
When Russian troops (in 2022): occupied Chernobyl and laid siege to the Ukrainian capital city Kyiv, for a week, I would consider that a breach of "article 5".
Perhaps a clearer example would be Russia annexing Crimea (In 2014); just after the "regime change"; because if the majority of Crimean voters and Russia are correct it even moves the border; the Oblasts that voted for independence (that nobody "recognised"; including Russia, until 2022) was more of a domestic matter, but even before 2014 some foreign corporations had "walked around a land moratorium" leasing millions of acres of prime farmland; buying industrial land; another apparently taking control of a certain gas pipeline (and hiking tariffs), in my view that's a very serious breach of article 5.
A move from collective farming to high intensity: would change the Ukrainian (Soviet style) economic structure; now you'd work on somebody else's farm; the EU farmers don't want GM food, or certain pesticides used; or cheap grain putting them out of business (and they know how to protest); hiking gas tariffs led to alternative supply routes being constructed (now mostly destroyed); these corporation were not party to the 1991 agreement; some in them have been pardoned (right back to 2014) that date again.
I'll reply directly to your second reply, if this post posts. It will be a shorter reply. Until then what is your definition of "territorial integrity"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidford3115 The real question is, can regions in a sovereign country legitimately vote for independence? (The Crimean referendum, for example, was only go one way)
However: that's not the argument the American corporate media were using; their claim was that people were being marched, at gun-point, to polling booths; but that claim is ridiculous (and Russia had ejected the Western media from Crimea, so they weren't even there), but some people clearly want (or need) to believe that and that America is so weak that Russia can choose the American President.
While in America; with the two main political parties both being: right-wing; backed by "Wall Street" and corporations, the vote is war or war? (and that's not a democracy).
The only opinion I've heard from "Red" China is: that America is playing a "power-game" in Eastern Europe, don't try to involve them in it... and after Biden called Xi "a dictator" (an open insult) if China were to pick sides (now) it won't be the American far-right, I can assure you of that.
As for elections (not referendums) in Iraq and North Korea; Saddam's tribe was by far the largest and North Korea isn't a democracy (it's like a monarchy; a "family business").
In a choice between; bankrupt Ukraine (now considered "Western friendly", from 2014; after the armed overthrow of government) where they speak Ukrainian (and banned Russian)... or solvent Russia, where they speak Russian... that isn't exactly a difficult choice!
Eastern Europe is fairly corrupt (generally speaking); there are also heavily armed groups (from the mafia to the gypsies); while Russia and Ukraine (like China) have a "soft currency" which the Western corporate media either don't understand, or don't want to understand, but it makes some of their economic "opinions" look very foolish indeed.
Nobody considered the other (3) Ukrainian regions/oblast's independence referendums as legitimate, in 2014, Russia did in 2022; then the voted to (re)join Russia...
I would say that's more to do with: who makes the rules and who enforces them. In Eastern Europe is not the American media, or America; or the globalists; it's Russia.
From my (limited) experience of living and working in Russia (early 90's; during the breakup of USSR) and China (mid 90's); things don't work the same way there; as America (and the UK) where the banks and corporations seem to call the shots. In socialist countries (in a system that has it's own problems; the media haven't even got to yet); decisions are usually made by committee. So the conflict in Ukraine isn't about Putin and his "ambitions" at all (it's about Russia) and the American corporate media's usual smear tactics are not going to work (except to stir up hatred); no doubt they'll be trying that again (as elections draw nearer), but it doesn't really matter who is the American President either (it's the same expansive foreign policy). While if you want an insight into how the USSR saw itself type VDNK; but times have moved on. What Russia doesn't want is: hedge fund managers; corporate lobbyists (they jail you for that); casinos; LGBTQ (everyone is officially heterosexual); or the exploitative "globalism"... all rejected.
So I regard the "breakaway regions" referendum results as legitimate enough; the question remains, do regions have the power to hold independence referendums? Well if Russian makes the rules: the people (voters) decide (not central government) and the American media don't have a vote; they only go one way (as far as I can see). It may well be time to stop believing the sponsors of corporate media and governments publicity; because the Western economy is going bankrupt and just keeps printing money.
I don't know about you; but the globalist's "New World Order" only seems to benefit a select few; workers and the majority seem to lack representation and that is causing civil unrest right across Europe. We may not pay a lot of attention to farmers; but that is a key issue in Europe and the foreign corporations taking control of Ukrainian agriculture upsets them. These are the kind of people that will come to town drive tractors slowly towards parliament and spray manure (we don't to upset them, now do we?).
This is the point where you say this is too long to read; or the American chap (who doesn't understand much; can't even point to the correct town) deletes the comment; the corporate media have won the war of words; America is a paragon of virtue (snarf); while Russia and China are very bad people who just don't see things properly and badly need America and NATO's help. Both China and Russia have been in business much longer than America; their methodology is foreign to us; but they know what the Neocons have been and are doing; they have out-maneuvered them and if their military industrial complex did seize control of Ukrainian agriculture and the EU gas pipeline; they don't have that now. The CRIBS are a far better bet than the American crony capitalists; no doubt about it. They are going to trade amongst themselves; leave the West to talk.
Hope I didn't bore you (I did me); but it's 6/5 Trump; 4/11 Putin and I doubt the bookies would give odds on Crimea rejoining Russia... or the other regions (but you could ask)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't have a fundamentalist position on "free speech", or "freedom of expression", because some things are unacceptable: intentionally disseminating misinformation; shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre (as a hoax); trying to incite a riot, or calling for someone to be murdered ... to name a few.
In the case of four big social media platforms excluding an individual (AJ) on the one day; that might look like a concerted attack on free speech, but: they have all excluded individuals (and some groups) before (for a variety of reasons); like some other platforms they claim that the content they publish isn't their responsibility (it's a legal "grey area") and just recently social media has faced cross examination and possible government (more than one government) legislation, for a number of reasons: mishandling of customer information; government access to their metadata (I don't subscribe to that) and allegations that hostile entities are running adverts presumably influencing the simple minded (which I don't "buy" at all).
As I see it somebody told three multinational social media companies to suspend AJ, which they did immediately (from Google; Twitter; Facebook and Youtube); I would expect AJ was first told to modify his behaviour (standard operating procedure ... a warning shot) but AJ being AJ pressed on regardless (that's my guess), so was suspended. My position is that as private companies (with a duty to their shareholders ... yadda yadda) they can choose who they want on their site; don't even have to give a reason for suspending an individual (although they usually do) ... multiple copyright infringement is popular with one, although usually the same material still can be found published on that site; if someone abuses the facilities they can kick you out.
I don't much like AJ ... I'm ideologically opposed to him on many issues; I think the gun law (unless for hunting or clay pigeon shooting) is archaic and since he is still featured on this site his "bulldozing" tactics and trolling. My guess is he was suspended for his denial of Sandy Hook calling it a hoax or white flag. That's why I think he was "canned"; I mean the incident either happened or didn't (somebody should be able to give a qualified decision) but AJ insists the state/ federal authorities are liars. If AJ is correct there is another massive conspiracy going on (apart from two political parties that are clearly the same right-wing thing); but if he is wrong and won't shut up, then should some action not be taken? I'd guess telling someone like AJ to "lay-off" a subject is akin to a red rag to a bull ... clearly they have something to hide. So I'm interested ... did the Sandy Hook school massacre actually occur? The answer to that decides the issue for me. If it occurred then I agree with AJ being warned, then suspended (if he won't stop disseminating misinformation) and reinforces the need to keep military grade weapons in the military.
Did Sandy Hook occur, Jimmy?
1
-
C. Binion I think clearly there have to be exceptions to completely free speech (but I'm not sure Jimmy agrees); although many of these issues are often dealt with under pubic order laws (breach of the peace; incitement to riot, etc), sometimes under libel or slander legislation. Online abuse and/or profanity is often an attempt to close down debate; but there is genuine frustration and anger about at the moment as seemingly the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I don't see much point including a comments section under obituaries as it is an invitation to trolls, or those who want to use the dead to further an agenda. Of course a lot of social issues have to be dealt with on an individual basis; it's difficult, if not impossible, to create legislation for every eventuality, but I suggest if people want to write unflattering obituaries they should be prepared to put their name to it.
I totally agree with you about propaganda and that government and pro-government sites are among the worst culprits; there are those who keep bringing up issues already debunked. Of course people make mistakes (we all do I'm sure); but persisting in repeating misinformation leads me to believe some are paid to do this. One example from the last American general election was when the Clinton campaign claimed (basically) that the President could launch nuclear weapons at will. This is clearly not true: there are various checks and balances (they're called) in case the President is, or goes, mad; it turns out the decision is more a committee matter in any case, then nuclear weapons can be launched. Are we supposed to believe the former foreign secretary does not know this? Yet still they persisted, weeks after the actual procedure was revealed to the voter; I couldn't vote for someone who intentionally misleads the electorate.
On the matter of the AJ suspension; I'm not trying to take sides (as I don't much like any of the protagonists). The four media sites that suspended him are all private concerns (so are in it for the money); they've continued to claim that the content on their sites is not their direct responsibility, so I don't think they've any reason to suspend AJ. They already host a lot of controversial material and authors; often the more sensational the more clicks they get and they insist the opinions of contributors are not necessarily their opinion. So I don't actually think it's them behind the suspension; they have been told to do it and they acted immediately. In my opinion it's to do with "Sandy Hook denial" and AJ calling the state/ federal authorities liars. I feel if somebody is making things up about a tragedy it deserves a direct response, if it's the reason for the suspension it seems the decision came from "higher up" (whatever that means). AJ is still on this site; he still has his own site and it's only these four sites that have suspended him.
In short: I do support freedom of speech and expression; but view peddlers of misinformation basically as the enemy; I suggest Jimmy is a bit more selective in the individuals and causes he supports; this one is debatable as AJ appears to be wrong about an issue; those he is attacking can get him suspended and it's possibly justified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3secvids574 Not really: China and Russia have always been rivals; now they have formed their own bank (so they can trade outside the $/oil mechanism); if the EU "can't" buy Russian oil & gas; no doubt China and India would buy that; it's the "belt and road" program where they seem to be allies. Instead of offering (usually corrupt) countries money; or supporting the armed overthrow of regimes (Iraq/Libya/Syria(didn't work)) or "economic warfare" ("oil for food" program; sanctions on Venezuela, even EU companies banned from Swift for trading oil); they offer infrastructure. Call that a bribe if you want; but it's better than America auctioning rebuilding contracts and them blowing things up. America oligarchs own the media; possibly the government, the media is lying.
NATO intervention are almost always to do with oil; America supported the Iraqi and Libyan administrations until their leaders proposed Gold/oil; then both dictators were declared the enemy and I don't regard firing 100 cruise missiles into a populated capital city as any kind of humanitarian gesture. 50,000 kids killed in American led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("the price we have to pay", says M Allbright) I just want to dispel any notion that NATO cares about people; it's about America's economic interests, usually oil or gas; but in Afghanistan it was opium.
The corrupt American media has spun their yarn long enough; too long, but the Taliban (the students) don't even have an air-force; they are against opium; but since America invade there has been an opium epidemic (oxycodone) in America; sure Afghanistan has shale gas and rare earth minerals, but one problem is Afghanistan (as drawn on Western maps) isn't the local description... besides Bush/Blair decided to invade the wrong country; they found Bin Laden (didn't they), so why still there? Opium. The American media is corrupt (proven liars); no WMD's; was ended in Libya day after Gadaffi lynched; it's now a Muslim state and Clinton and Hague lied to the Russians and Chinese (in the UN security council) so that's broken now. We need to be clear here (this time); for Russia, NATO missile bases in Ukraine is not going to happen (see Cuban missile crisis); American interests should not have been monkeying about with EU energy supplies and while the EU just wanted a new member, the Russian naval base in Crimea was not going to be included.
All these crocodile tears; made up stories about Russia bombing nuclear facilities; absurd, it's propaganda; Russia destroys a hospital? Well I raise you 50,000 dead kids (it's what NATO does best). America has been bombing in countries every day for the last 20 years (in case you want to know where tax dollars go); we don't hear much about Yemen; I doubt many of the media pundits in America could find Ukraine on the map (or they'd realise America can't intervene militarily, for reasons of geography); anyway it's all about missile bases and the globalist interests (oil/$); just watch the media in action; their reports normally focus on money: the cost (by the way the cost of gasoline went up, not because of Russia; America should have enough reserves (after a fortnight) it's just because the oil companies could. All this talk of sanctioning Russian oligarchs; they don't want to talk to Putin (better to be rich, no?); they were told keep the money but keep out of politics. They jailed the one who did). Time America jailed a few Oligarchs, I'd say... theirs!
Btw I don't see which dictators Russia and China support, when it comes to that. Gadaffi? Assad of Syria? America weren't invited into Syria (Russia was); America wanted the regime toppled; that failed. The Koch brothers and Venezuela; that failed; Iraq and Libya, countries are destroyed, big refugee crisis in Europe. The question remains, what were American interests doing in Ukraine? What is being hidden while the media wages their propaganda onslaught (it's had more coverage than Olympics). Did the Russians get Trump elected... no...lol. Lied us into two wars tho; this time let's see if they can double down... get us WW3 'cos "War pays!" (Cheney) and it paid him well; but at what cost? Don't worry about long comments; the government doesn't listen to the likes of us "the people"; don't drink a shot every time the msm mention money or you'll be dead by Tuesday. China said don't involve us in American power games; I'd listen if I was America. The media is lying; urge people to believe their publicity; I view the Ukrainian matter like this v=JrMiSQAGOS4 (Russia protecting it's border).
1
-
1
-
@3secvids574 Why would China want anything to do with a Ukrainian civil war, or Russian invasion? In blunt terms, there's nothing in it for them (except trouble); America owes them a lot of money; the CRIBS countries (just formed their own bank (largely to avoid $/oil sanctions) and they have their own disputes in the South China Seas (which America wants to get involved in too). v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I see the Ukrainian matter the same way this professor does; note this lecture is from seven years ago; I don't think China is mentioned but oil and gas are; the conclusion is (if I remember correctly) that Russia will not permit American (NATO) missile bases in Ukraine.
It will be WW3 first.
The EU wanted another member state, but that wasn't going to include Crimea (Russian naval facility). Since the EU kept pushing, Russia forced a vote (since they pretty much all speak Russian, it was easy to see how that would go, so the Western media (who were ejected from Ukraine) called foul?! Must have really upset them that Russia no longer needs to lease it's Naval facilities, so they turned against democracy, claimed "a fix"; when actually it was a foregone conclusion; none of America's business and they were left looking stupid).
I don't believe Russia ever said they'd steamroller Ukraine. It's obvious they destroy Ukraine rather than letting it join NATO or the EU. The EU gas supply comes through Ukraine (which charges Russia large tariffs); America sanctions the Nordstream2 pipeline (an alternative route (Germany cancels it day before invasion). I'm just saying there's a lot going on behind the scenes (that we aren't being told). The evacuation of NATO and EU troops and personnel; started a week before the invasion (they knew).
Still NATO aka America aka the oligarchs who own the media (probably the government) are pushing. Sending weapons is foolish; the Polish offer of Mig fighters (to America) declined... Poland is not going to be left holding the bag; but here are fighter-jets, no thx says America and so Poland did what they could, they're not playing "patsy".
I'm just saying that the American media are corrupt; they lie and if this is about America's "oil-interests" the media needs to be put on trial.
China are free to change their view if they want; but they're not joining in, already describing that suggestion as American power-games (don't involve us). That seems pretty clear. If the American media try character assassination on the Chinese leader; oddly that might hasten WW3, because they lake loss of face very seriously indeed.
Always interested to read material on: propaganda; illusion and media manipulation; the Western narrative is actually rather poor quality propaganda, too much of it, contradicts itself; NATO has previous (killed millions). If you know they lied; are lying again and its all about money; these are evil people. China coining it in; EU got their fingers burnt, may lose gas supplies and America, why they want war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We do know what has happened in Ukraine (to some extent): the map hasn't moved in over a year; Russia is firmly entrenched in the (mainly Russian speaking) "breakaway" Oblasts; while the funding to Ukraine, through the Western interests, is increasing being questioned as: other conflicts have emerged; more domestic economic problems and government misuse of public money. As for "numbers"; most are complete fiction; the Ukrainian daily updates on Russian casualties arguably the worst of them all (but you keep returning to them as if they are true). The Ukrainian government may have a better understanding of their own losses, but they don't publish them (for obvious reasons) while Russia isn't going to be providing them with numbers and since they describe a number of Western media outlets as warmongering propagandists, any information they give them will be an attempt to make them look foolish (which they have done before).
Over 5,000 tanks destroyed? I simply don't believe that; not just because of the lack of pictorial evidence; it's not that kind of war (and it's not about invading Europe, it's more about neutrality).
So while Western commentators like to talk in terms of winning/ losing; money and "human interest" stories (when NATO have killed millions); Russia is simply using a "wrecking ball".
The Western interests keep talking about an unprovoked invasion (of Ukraine) but they: bought a lot of land; offered Ukraine billions (and it wasn't for charitable reasons); while quite possibly interfering in Ukrainian domestic politics. Very provocative indeed if Ukrainian neutrality was a key issue for Russia (which it was); a sheer lack of respect for an agreement the Western interests co-signed and since there seem to be a lot of children in the comments section, in simple terms the West don't get to play fast and loose with the rules and get away with it, this time.
I believe for Russia it's about making sure all that earlier "aid" (from the E.U.) and "investment" (from America) is trashed; hence all the artillery and wiping towns and villages off the map. If so it's not about winning and losing, it's about attrition and in the R.T. article (we don't get here) there is a description of "active defense" which suggests to me it's about holding position. While the numbers that should concern the West are: available troop numbers; how to explain billions being exported and how many days until they win. Since it's our money, I would like an answer, soon.
How long Russia is going to allow Western weapons manufacturers to profit and use Ukraine as a testing ground is anyone's guess; but the Western media has proved they are a mine of disinformation and my government is widely regarded as a bunch of wasters who cater to money interests and care little or nothing about our people. Not known to be charitable.
In my view there are better uses for public money than handing it to an administration that can't keep agreements; so no I don't support Ukraine, birds of a feather...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know what they put in the coffee at FOX news; but their interviewers often seem to be trying to lecture the interviewees; act like a prosecutor trying to steamroller a witness and they are frequently found to be rather short on facts (even, at times, disputing the facts with professionals in their field of expertise). I believe Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard would have given the answer to the question the interviewer kept interrupting to ask, had the interviewer simply accepted that Saudi Arabia is much the same as it ever was and it's where Wahhabism (a group who take the Koran literally) originated. It should have been simple for Ms Gabbard to answer the question about Syria (and going to Syria to talk with their leader) as she has been asked, and has answered, this question on just about every right wing show she has been on (including "The View") and it does seem peculiar that those shows all seem to have the same view (to keep bombing) while none of the interviewers have any experience of war and are unlikely to be sent to war; but always seem so keen for others to go.
The young interviewer, does come across as foolish and one could get cocky and say, "never bring a knife to a gunfight, sonny!"; but the above three minute FOX interview is just another example of the poor standard of journalism from the Western main stream media (msm). In the "old days": some interviewers had the facts before the interview; some had first hand knowledge of the subject and could compare their experience and even when they profoundly disagreed with their guest; they did not attempt to cast doubt on the loyalty of military men (or women) without very good cause as these men and women literally put their lives on the line for their country and it's values; at this moment in time, it seems more about establishing what are the American values and regarding foreign policy (even for the far right) why America diverts billions into foreign war selectively. It is rather peculiar that some other countries are sanctioned; attacked and invaded by America while Saudi Arabia is treated royally. I'm really not suggesting America should go to war with Saudi Arabia; only that it rather shatters the interviewers argument and there is still the question as to why America is still in Afghanistan or in Syria (after Russia was invited in, by Syria).
From the FOX interview I can only assume that FOX is owned by an oil company; because the common theme to America's foreign adventures seems to be oil; except perhaps Afghanistan (there it's Lithium and Opium and some of the other "ums" ... they found Bin Laden didn't they?). Seems to me that there are fundamentalists in America too; it's not that "war is peace" (as it Orwell's book 1984); it's that war is money (to some). That's a problem bigger than just a President if true; however it's no excuse for FOX to "cast shade" on Major Gabbard when it comes to war and it's consequences. Did Libya send any thanks after America deposed Gadaffi; fired 100 cruise missiles into their capital city and bombed their "man made river"; no instead: they put Libya under Sharia law; Libya descended into tribalism (something Gadaffi had mitigated) and then some group murdered American embassy staff. Just on a cost/ return basis (anyone know the cost of a cruise missile x 100?) there is an argument that money could be better spent. Claiming that Syria (or N Korea) are a clear and present threat to America is at best dishonest and since Gadaffi and Hussein both died after they gave up their "WMD's" (or didn't have them) no country is in a rush to follow suit.
I hope Gabbard's view prevails; or it's on to Venezuela and their oil next; the msm better start looking at their laurels because this kind of journalism is a poor reflection on journalism in general and these private media outlets seem to be a mine of misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bolton saying this conflict was unprovoked is a lie: Monsanto buying land, bio-labs; odd oil deals, possibly even (another) American regime change; while billions from the EU and America have been "invested" by people who are not known to be charitable (and it's public money to start with). The Eastern (mainly Russian speaking) regions do not want to be part of Ukraine that should be clear to even ideological zealots like Bolton; Ukraine deciding to give up neutrality was inflammatory and now we are supposed to send billions more to a rather corrupt country.
With Bolton being regarded as the architect of the Iraq war; advocating pre-emptive strikes against North Korea and Iran; opposing the UN and ICC he's certainly a "company man"; but the likes of Russia and China do not share his globalist vision, same with India; much of Africa and South America. I'm sure they know full well what the Western "elite" are trying to do, but it's not in their interest.
Bolton claiming that Russia is targeting people is most likely another lie; actually that's what he and his cohorts keep doing ("oil for food"; 100+ cruise missiles into Tripoli; "shock and awe"... a long list of sanctions on food and medicine). Who will save the children? Well not John Bolton that's for sure! He's tried this (on) before, but the collateral damage from drones shows his dishonesty and lack of self awareness. There will be civilian casualties in war, but a lot of Ukrainians (millions) already left; Russia destroying: power; rail and Western "aid" seems to be their aim. The (mainly American) media (msm) keep laying it on thick; with their sudden concern for civilians; which I can only view as cynical manipulation. Killing civilians is not the Russian objective (or money); they are demonstrating to Western "investors" what happens if they mess around on their border after clear and repeated warnings.
Imagine if Russia were to arm Mexico, invest billions, put missile bases on the border; I doubt America would accept that, so who on earth thought Russia would accept similar and who thought the usual economic warfare (oil for food; $ ban; rate manipulation) would trouble an: energy; food and weapons exporting superpower and who thinks China will accept the same media portrayal as Russia (Russia-gate hoax); probably Bolton and now he suggests a "wake-up" call to Russia? I firmly believe characters like Bolton need to be housed in some 5 star resort they can never leave (something like China used to do with Hainan)... for the good of society in general!? Or offer to give Bolton (and Blair) a free gun and ticket to war; because what he proposes is rapid escalation?!
Again does he really think a nuclear superpower with space and hyper-sonic missile technology is just going to take this lying down??
After: Iraq; Afghanistan and Libya; a series of larges hikes in military budget and the two party democratic system (war or war? Your choice); these developing countries must know full well that the far-right globalists are going to try and force the issue. After weaning the CRIBS off the petrodollar; leaving the EU without Russian energy supplies and another refugee crisis in Europe; diverting billions while there are rising levels of poverty and homelessness; these billionaire sponsors of government and owners of the msm strike me as a bunch of well educated idiots.
What Bolton is proposing is "let's you and him fight"; well at the risk of sounding cynical, what's in it for me, John? America ramping up WW3 in Europe, what's in it for Europe? Nothing!!
What's in it for Ukraine? It was always going to be trouble; all Ukraine had to say was they are not joining "the West" (but then Bolton and his globalists would lose their investment incidentally made with public money); so they had decided to "invest" more (it's for the children, if anyone asks). Looks more like money-laundering; kick-backs and a total disregard for people; to me.
If he tries acting the blowhard with China, expect an instant response; words have consequences. So we must keep John Bolton talking until the men with the white jackets get him in the net.
Okay?
1
-
I strongly disagree with the title of the clip, particularly the phrase "Corporate Leftist", because: corporations are invariably about money and profit (which is a right wing thing); advertising agencies are employed to push product (another right-wing thing) and while I've only seen lumberjacks portrayed in movies and on TV, with "The Lumberjack Song" probably being one of my main points of reference, it should be clear by now that in order to push product or sell something money comes first and any kind of sense comes after, a long time after, or sometimes not at all. In other words; if you can accept talking cartoon creatures trying to sell you breakfast cereal, then a trio of women with axes trying to sell whatever it was (paper towels? was it?) isn't exactly unusual, is it?
Find three women lumberjacks; we've paper towels to sell!! Okay, find three professional models; dress them in clothes stereo-typically male; check with legal, see if women lumberjacks exist, or check the forest; don't mention bleaching paper kills the river and hurry; stock is building up... and see if the phrase "bearded ballerina" resonates!
I mean does any of that sound remotely left-wing?
Lumberjacks I'm sure are able to speak for themselves; probably have better things to do (like cutting down trees) to get involved in marketing or media companies attempts to create talking points; I don't recall lumberjacks expressing a particular political affiliation to either left or right; maybe in Heller's "Something Happened" I can't remember; but arguably the business of logging is politically neutral. It is hopefully a profitable concern for owners; shareholders and employees which is a right-wing concern/ it also provides necessary building material for constructing houses; I can assure you that who: cuts the trees down; designs or builds the houses is immaterial as long as they are (hopefully) masters of their craft; but that bleach in the river bit is really the main "leftist" concern.
In other words: I've not heard a comment from a lumberjack regarding this advertising campaign (I assume they are too busy and too sensible to get involved); as a socialist I accept that wood and wood-pulp are essential but the method of reward would be different, even idealistic.... in return for your labour you end up with a log cabin to your design with a view over a river; towns downstream get logs; they send planks; paper-towels and pulp back so pioneers can (presumably) build a town, or mill, or farm the land. The socialist model doesn't rely on: share dividends; pushing product, or even knowing where paper towels come from, and suspect this term "Corporate Leftist" may have been invented by the same people who brought us lucky charms; so, like Leprechauns, might not exactly exist... I mean until we find one.
So C'mon Joe! I'm not accusing you of: suddenly somehow receiving paper towels (unsolicited) for life or advertising a product line and trying to call it news, or even of a lack of sensitivity towards (fill in the blank) by finding it hysterically funny... but this ad campaign is a right-wing thing from start to finish; distributing it isn't; cutting down trees isn't and put simply those lefty, (socialist) concerns often go to the wall early-on because: there basically isn't enough money in socialism; individuals and groups often won't behave responsibly (resent being policed) and while the predominately right-wing media tries to sell socialism as some kind of dirty word; if it looks like nonsense and involves goods/services; then somebody is either trying to sell something or are actually just talking nonsesnse and no I'm not a commie. Society more concerned with a virus (rather than catching a viral ad campaign) just at the moment, but I seem to remember the "Rosie the Welder" (Rockwell?) image; the documentary about nudists running a logging operation listing frying sausages as a workplace hazard; adverts for construction workers (must be prepared to work topless). Plenty of campaigns; but I suggest you stop trying to involve socialists and lumberjacks in this one; if you are looking for "corporate leftists" maybe try the bottom of the garden?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gaildavies5390 Yes probably better to put your 11 year old on, they might be able to explain: why banning all opposing parties (and jailing the main opposition party leader) might be called "democracy"; why after charging high tariffs on Russian gas to the EU the country went bankrupt and where all that Gold went? These are all examples of present day corruption.
I met the Ukrainian mafia in the hotel Ukraine when I worked as a casino trouble-shooter in Moscow in the early 90's, by accident (they spotted me); I was even offered a job in Kiev (not by them) and advised not to go (too corrupt). I had a good working relationship even with the KGB and I can tell you for a fact that the American corporate sponsored media haven't a clue about: Russia; the Eastern European mentality, or what Russia is capable of doing.
They don't even speak the language; talk in terms of millions and billions; but the Western oligarch's narrative does not add up! It hasn't for years. Do you think for one minute that America would tolerate Russia forming a military alliance with Mexico, then installing missile bases, not a chance; so don't expect Russia to be any different. (and money is no object to them).
The msm are laying it on a bit too thick (bigger than Christmas it is); never saw a war it didn't like (America), btw the real reason for this interest, is the rise of the CRIBS; the imminent loss of the petro-dollar, a Gold backed currency (ending money printing); it's not about people (that's just emotional manipulation); NATO killed 50,000 kids in Iraq/Afghanistan, it's not about people!! Just follow the money...
For Russia, it's their way or WW3; so there are options... but don't tell me Ukraine isn't corrupt... Zelinsky is either mad or bad (or both). "Why is Ukraine the West's fault" (a lecture worth watching).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronoverby4830 I was just pointing out an unreliable narrator (he's not the only one): preaching hatred and begging for money while impersonating a Russian, I find distasteful.
Facts of the matter are: that "Western interests" have been provocative for years; not just in a series of military actions, but using economic warfare and bending international rules to the point they have lost credibility.
So The Budapest Memorandum (an assurance, not a guarantee) has been broken (by all,now), some still like to point to bits of it; but it was clear that if Ukraine gave up neutrality there would be serious trouble. It was a "red line" for Russia.
No problems for decades; other soviet states joined EU or NATO or both; Ukraine leased out Crimean port facilities to Russia; charged (high) tariffs for Russian gas to EU; it was still one of the most corrupt countries in Eastern Europe and was bankrupt, but then both the EU and America started "investing" in Ukraine. It was far from charity what they were doing; are doing and millions have been diverted to this.
After the regime change (2014) Russia blew it's top; it was clear this was going to happen; enough fiddling about; the Western bankers (who run the show) got called.
It's an odd thing about Russia; technologically driven; highly educated population; but it doesn't work like here. Money isn't important; it has a bizarre "take on capitalism; it's has a lot of low level corruption but if you break a promise (to the mafia) they'll break your face.
That is what is happening in Ukraine; in Russia's backyard and don't think they can't (the msm are way out in their estimations) and this impostor repeats many of their mistakes; his history shows he makes things up; but look at the # of followers?!
Yes, Frank I can hear; but I'm far from gullible and I would ask you, what has: Ukraine; Russia (or our government) ever done for you?
Having worked in Russia and China (and America; Europe; Africa); I have no great love for government; but Russia is going to pound Ukraine until they obtain an understanding; it's nothing personal; far from it (Ukrainians and Russians usually get on); but those blowing up German/Russia pipelines, that is (and merits a response... from NATO, or Russia)
Why the all the Western investment in Ukraine; it's because they stand to lose what they invested already (with out taxes).
Forget "the people" (they did years ago); it's about money (laundering) for Western interests (or land: E.U.); for Russia it's about rules and who makes them. It's about who breaks them, like Bush over Iraq (one strike) H Clinton over Libya (two strikes); hunt for Bin Laden (opium)... it's a series of provocations. One regime change too far; it's the Western interests that caused this, now here they come to save the day?!
Russia can deploy 20 million troops, do you not understand how small scale this conflict is by comparison?
The Western interests can't even follow their own rules; this comment will likely get "ghosted" or "twits" will say "too long"; but in short: the Ukrainian mafia broke a promise to the Russian mafia and there's a price for that.
Enough talking points?
What are you fighting for?
Me I regard the peddlers of misinformation for material gain as evil. That guy is one.
(knows exactly what he is doing and so do I). Have a nice day (best not to get involved, unless there's something in it for you!).
1
-
1
-
1
-
So now you know... it's a Russia matter, not a Putin matter and if he doesn't achieve the desired objective then someone else will take it on (in weeks or months). I've worked for American management and they only wanted to hear: good news; how great they are, how well it's going (always reactive, rarely if ever proactive)... and we are all living in "info bubbles" and when it comes to being recorded, or our personal info being mishandled, or our "likes" (because the dislike button has gone) being used (almost against us)... welcome to the 21st century!
Milov chooses his words carefully; clearly benefits from the excellent education system in Russia (his English is excellent); an NHS system (again, that doesn't charge) and he is free to talk openly, but note: Russia knows it is being "disconnected"; it has been aware this would likely happen for some years; that countries don't want to trade in $/oil and they have an alternative (already set up); Russia are a major producer of oil and gas... and they will never let "The Cossacks" join a Western military alliance (who ever thought they would?).
It's the American plan, it doesn't vary (regardless of administration); it's left a trail of destruction across the middle East; caused refugee crisis that impacts Europe and it's invariably about oil (one time, opium) and I no longer care to hear about "American interests" as I don't share them; a civilians keep dying and the latest flood of info is propaganda I heard before Iraq and Libya (didn't believe it then; don't believe it now). So lets see if the American media can talk us into WW3... bet those "Muslin terrorists" are happy for a few weeks off; did you not see Putin slap Chris Rock, he's clearly nuts, good excuse to put the price of fuel up ('cause we can); Putin man bad; America wants war (that big military budget, just sitting there)... but just remember, before you talk militarily; Russia put the first man in space while American's were living in mud huts; China has had the fastest computers (for last ten years) and in that realm, the fast fish eat the small fish; also Russia and China build things, while America blows things up (not a good look). So back to the war... that American interests started in 2014... but where's my "lethal aid"?
1
-
1
-
There is a lot of fanaticism about, but it should be pointed out that a lot of people/countries don't care about: Trump; America's interests or fears; the NWO (globalism) because it doesn't related to them or just gets in the way.
It should be clear by now that the President (Biden; Putin or Trump) doesn't make the "big decisions" (it's more a committee decision); as evidenced by America's foreign policy staying pretty much the same through various administrations; America gets involved in a lot of foreign conflicts and invariably puts it's economic interests first and last.
The list of American enemies is quite long, but it seems Russia and China currently top the list; now here comes the President and the corporate media to tell you why...
Why hundreds of billions of public money are being exported to a notoriously corrupt country that is not a NATO, or EU member, while poverty and homelessness here rises...
While things work differently in Russia, it's fairly certain it's not Putin, it's Russia that invaded the mainly Russian speaking Eastern regions of Ukraine in 2022.
It was already explained to those who listened that Russia and Ukraine had a deal; it involved division of assets; leases; tariffs; independence, on condition of neutrality.
This deal had Western co-signatories but since it was all USSR assets being divided; it wasn't really their deal and after they started sending billions: buying land; installing bio-labs; making odd oil deals; in the name of "aid" or "investment" they clearly wanted Ukraine to give up neutrality and join EU and or NATO. The 2014 Ukrainian government "sold out".
I only have a limited knowledge of Russia during the breakup of USSR; but if we ignore the msm narrative; it's not about money; this is about a broken agreement.
It is a failed argument, by the way: that sending weapons saves lives; sending money to corrupt countries helps people, or that NATO interventions save lives (to many dead civilians).
We could also remark that tanks are a 20th century weapon; without air cover vulnerable, but these are military matters and in land war I defer to Russia and Germany.
I wouldn't think to question the ability or individual heroism of professional soldiers; or get involved in other people's disputes (particularly if it doesn't relate to me, or this place.
When I was employed to deal with heavily armed groups; it is potentially fatal to break agreements; but they had to know, this is my house; my rules; otherwise start your own casino.
Now casino's are banned in Russia; hedge-funds ejected; the Rouble is soft; monthly wage $200!?); if you hear talk of millions and billion it's not Russia it's rich persons club.
Let's be clear; there was no mistake in Russia reacting; they issued warnings; fired the traditional warning shot and then Russia annex Crimea by referendum (their rules, their house).
So I agree, it's not about one tank; but some weapons manufacturer will need to change their Wiki entry. What's it doing there is more the question?
Again, Russia issued warnings; fired a warning shot (siege of Kyiv/Kiev); negotiations failed (in Turkey); so they withdrew then invaded (regions Ukraine had been shelling for 8 years).
No mistake; while other former USSR states had joined the EU or NATO or both; Russia make it abundantly clear if Ukraine gave up neutrality "there would be hell to pay".
Well this is what it looks like, funded by our taxes and the lives of people in a country some commentators can't even find on the map; they don't speak or think in the language.
Since I firmly believe Russia will not stop; what's in this for you? defending a broken agreement made by others? I know what's in it for this parasite, but what's in it for you?
(It's not the American far-right or their msm making the rules in Eastern Europe; they wanted a war, now they've got a war. Time they and the UK shut up (imo)).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonychin1873 The msm (in America) are largely paid propagandists (didn't you know?) or did you actually think they paid presenters millions just to read an auto-cue? While they lied us into two wars (Iraq and Libya) it seems they are now trying to start WW3 and whoever toppled the Ukraine government (in 2013) started an eight year civil war and a series of events leading to where we are now. It seems the "War on Terror" and all the other wars America is in have been forgotten, good news for the Islamic terrorists; also for a few governments who want to talk about anything other than their domestic failures, as the Western economy is a shambles; governments seem to march to the lobbyists drum and it's the oil and arms industry that clearly hope to benefit from recent wars. If you look at "their news" it's usually about money: $/oil; the rising cost of fuel; $/Rouble and these "NATO interventions" allegedly to save civilian life, simply don't. it's oil or opium and "lethal aid" means weapons.
Now Russia already told the EU and NATO to back off; they won't accept any more NATO missile bases on their borders; they wouldn't allow the EU to simply "buy" Crimea (with their only warm water port and does anyone really believe Russia would allow "The Cossacks" to join a Western military alliance (either one)? We don't know the truth about: American funded bio-labs; why Norstream2 was cancelled or even what destroyed a Russian battleship. Russia says weapons onboard, the msm say Ukrainian missiles (somebody is not telling the truth). Now it is unfortunate when a super-power invades a "normal" country, because it's rather a foregone conclusion and the West isn't sending weapons because it wants peace.
I don't know the complexities of this war in Ukraine, or what's happening behind the scenes; but it does look like the end of the petrodollar; oddly the gas supplies are still running to the EU (in a war); economic sanctions on an oil producing super-power aren't likely to work; Russia will not back down on matters of national security so all the msm can do is talk smack. Fond of character assassination, that doesn't work with Putin because really it's a Russia matter and the next leader will continue, meanwhile the EU stands to lose it's gas supplies and the reason for higher fuel prices is simply because suppliers can do that and government likes the increased tax take. So there's all sorts of funny stuff going on; the reason Russia attacks a missile factory is it makes missiles and at the risk of sounding cynical what has Ukraine, or Russia (or the Romans) done for us recently? Why are we sending money and weapons to a corrupt Eastern European country, with living standards dropping and food-banks here? It's because the msm insist it's correct to do so.
That's what the Western msm are doing, they're saying look... look here! here!!
While there is a huge wealth transfer going on; superpowers gearing up and have no doubt our government does not care about people. Crocodile tears; harrowing pictures, it's time we sent the warmongers to war... Have no doubt tho' Russia hasn't even started and they will reduce Ukraine to a wasteland before they ever allow NATO or the EU to have it. Just so you know.
1
-
1
-
@anthonychin1873 Then there seems to be two versions of events from the Russian state media (or, conceivably, it's not being translated very well), but in both version the ship is destroyed. Do you speak Russian?
I don't speak Russian that well, but I noticed that some terms can't be translated into English (there is no equivalent term); the Western media (some) call the vessel "the Russian flagship" but it's not... it's "only" a "cruiser". Actually the Russian flagship was (and is) one of their Kirov class battle-cruisers (Admiral Kuznetsov) and they have an aircraft carrier, just saying some of the Western media are clearly "spinning" things.
We are supposed to rely on our media for information; but I no longer trust our media and not just because of this. Sure they have papers to sell; journalists may have a degree in journalism then are asked to write about: science; history, economics and other subjects they aren't qualified in; but some media outlets clearly have an agenda. It's fairly simple to work out which media outlet supports the Democrats or Republicans (when they spin an issue both ways) but if you care to notice they all seem to talk about things in terms of money or cost. The cost of fuel went up sharply, about 10 days after the invasion; the war didn't do that, but that's the excuse. Again it's spin... I used to give our media the benefit of the doubt; but I don't do that anymore.
Revenge, месть (mest) Sure I'd be unhappy if a cruiser is lost (either way); if it wasn't for outside interests it wouldn't have been there and I suspect (guess), it's Western interests that the Russian government have in mind when it comes to revenge (a dish best served cold, I'm told). Exacting revenge on Ukraine is unlikely to be noticed (or worth mentioning) in a large invasion. It sounds odd to claim revenge (even if Ukraine hit the ship) as Russia is bombarding cities. No I believe after this Ukrainian crisis is over (or WW3 happens) that Russia has a score to settle and I would think it's with the countries sending weapons and money. Maybe the media is drunk on wars where their opponents had no nukes or air defenses, but this is not the same as that.
So facts are: it's not the Russian flagship; it sunk; Putin has offered the Maripole defenders terms of surrender and by launching "Satan2" that is a warning shot (traditional in war). It looks to me like "the globalists" v rest of the World and what's at stake is: the petrodollar; the West calling the shots and that big military budget both parties nodded though (it's going somewhere). So I don't know what to believe, but if UK or American troops are in Ukraine it's likely to be WW3. Funny though... the gas supplies (from Russia) are still getting to the EU (through a war-zone?!). That strikes me as most peculiar. I know I'm being lied to Anthony... certainly by politicians who want to talk about anything but their ineptness. I trust Putin more than them... lethal aid indeed... where's mine? If they hand that out here...
I mean charity begins at home, doesn't it?
1
-
1
-
@anthonychin1873 So you don't actually have evidence (either way); just prefer one version to another, there is clear evidence the vessel was destroyed; but (according to wiki) reports it was the Russian flagship are clearly wrong. Actually I'm a Scot; but here's an old Soviet joke for you...
Q. What's the tallest building in Moscow?
A. The Lubyanka... because you can see Siberia from the basement.
Just to keep you up to speed, the Rouble dipped against the American dollar (maybe a good time to see Moscow), but either the globalist "bears" lost to the "bulls" or Russia had sufficient Gold and foreign currency reserves to shrug off the currency speculators... again I don't know; but the Rouble is about the same (not worth much).
Still it makes me laugh, the concept of trying to sanction an oil producing nuclear superpower (Gallow's humour).
Much like these "short-squeeze" scandals (Game Stop; Porsche; the entire Western banking system etc), that sort of chaos actually amuses me. At least I run an honest casino; like the retail banking sector I have a percentage until the end of time, but these people gambling using the lives of people, to make profit; they disgust me. They want to use debt as a currency; talk about negative interest and lie. It's served them well; but globalism (with so much poverty in the World was not going to work; it's just powerful nations ripping off others.
I agree with "Fergusson of Raith" when he said, "commercialisation of society makes men: weak; ultimately dishonest and gives no reason for them to give anything back to society" (or words to that effect). I also agree with David Hume, "Reason is the servant of passion"; but I don't agree the CIA should keep knocking over governments or that my tax should be used to send "lethal aid" (is it?). I also agree with JFK, "don't get into direct conflict with a nuclear superpower". My guess is (and it's just a guess); if America keeps sending weapons this will go nuclear. Anyway I thought you weren't talking to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Instead I would say that: China knows what it does (manufacturing); that China and Taiwan (put simply) are different branches of the same political group and while China is happy to import relatively low cost Russian: oil; gas and grain it's highly unlikely that it's in exchange for weapons (or rice), although some may argue that: shovels; washing machines and chips may "aid the war effort; China has already said, "Don't try to involve us in American power games... we have good trading relationships with Russia and Ukraine" (that's fightin' talk btw).
It's difficult to even talk about the Russian and Chinese economies, since Western interests do most of the talking and may (mistakenly) assume they operate by their rules or in their interests; China is fond of state-sector subsidized private companies (which isn't really capitalism or socialism; it might be called protectionism or unfair competition); the state owns the land (while ownership of land and property is a key feature of capitalism); they have a soft currency (like Russia) which is not a store of value (or considered a "commodity"). It also seems that "the East" totally rejects "the West's" version of capitalism, or globalism... and who can blame them? (Well those talking about millions and billions of public money do).
I've heard many predictions of doom and gloom about the Chinese and Russian economies; but it's a bit difficult to take seriously when it comes from Western countries riddled with debt and leadership that appears to be "a rich person's club we aren't in" (as George Carlin described); all these millions and billions don't seem to be showing up here, while inflation pushes up the prices of energy and food, all these "charitable" contributions (from those not known to be charitable) to foreign wars, is actually public money being diverted.
So while our leaders search for ulterior motives; in my view China has no reason to get drawn into a "proxy war"; instead they are building 27 more nuclear reactors; probably because coal is occupying a lot of rail capacity and burning it causes a lot of air pollution; they've banned exporting rice (1.4 billion people to feed); combine with Russia to build infrastructure, in Africa etc, Russia crossing off billions in African debt (that likely would never have been paid off; a form of "soft power"); while with a centrally planned economy if China or Russia tell their corporations to jump, they answer, how high?
Russia and China don't seem to share the Western fascination with money/profit, nor do I; with raw materials and labour great things can be built and one of these I expect will be a gas pipeline from Russia to China (and if that mysteriously exploded, a world war would result). With China running a balance of payments surplus; top of GDP PPP (whatever that is); like Russia technologically driven, now forming their own banking system, looks like they intend to leave "The West" behind.
Now if anyone has a solution to resolving massive debt (plus interest); I'm sure a lot of countries and students would like to know; I would advise minding one's own business very carefully is the place to start; I don't have the trillions or billions; it seems that "tax havens" do (cough); I do think games are being played, but there's nothing in that for me (but it's with public money and Slavic lives, so I must object); it's nobody I know, but I've better uses for public money than exporting it.
I'd like to think there was a plan; but all I can see is chaos; if the West has built an empire on debt; I take no responsibility for that; like China and Russia I won't be playing games where the rules say, "you lose". Since the UK in holding the general election on July 4th; I wonder if there's some symbolism I'm missing; but it's 1-9 for the right-wing government; so all change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now it's not all about you, Jimmy: Ana is making a good point, several actually and it must be getting pretty bad when TYT who (like a few other media commentators) accepted that "corporate sponsorship" so have a financial incentive to see it the sponsors way.
I'm sure it's fascinating to watch a political pundit: get enraged; claim lack of representation and agree with the view you hold, but the question still stands who or what do our, so called, leaders actually represent (seems clear it's not the citizens); what is to be done when politicians won't do what they promised and continually try to confuse memos with reality? Too much money in politics, I'd say, lobbying seems to be a form of corruption.
So Ana is fed up with it; I'm tempted to say, "join the queue", it is incredibly frustrating watching the: hypocrisy; lies and political games (every election cycle) I've no trust left in: government; the financial system or the partisan media as they: run as a blocker; say, don't look at that "look at this" and the one's giving political donations have already sold out.
What is to be done, short of violence as this growing frustration needs some outlet? That is a good question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It certainly is a political game: Truss and the Tories need something to stand on (apart from the growing number of poor people), tax cuts for millionaires and corporate sponsors increasingly look out of place; so it's to be "growth" (but that's a rather woolly concept) and GDP (gross domestic product) can be manipulated, so the game is likely to be called "fudging the GDP figures".
There are already many omissions from GDP calculations: barter (and other non-money transactions); wealth distribution; external influences (import/export) the changing value of money (see 10% inflation), even environmental damage.
When Osborne decided to include the (untaxed and unregulated) "sectors" of "recreational substances" and prostitution; it no doubt made the GDP figures look better, but then the European Union (E.U.), playing the same game, levied a higher tax (for doing so well...). Another way of making the GDP figure look good is to cut maintenance of roads and other infrastructure; this has already happened to some extent, but with a £2.7 Trillion national debt and an economic recession; 2.5% growth is fanciful and cutting front line maintenance staff from the rail network has the unions (rightfully) up in arms.
Besides that, not all growth is a good thing... many people simply want peace of mind; the ability to get on with their lives and talk of millions and billions does not relate to that; the lack of a national objective (eg Power independence) allows the government to throw money (away) on: quangos; think-tanks; overseas "charity" (although these are not known to be charitable people). With more food-banks than McDonald's, they do have an odd set of priorities and no, "trickle-down" does not work; it's failed twice; tax cuts don't help the poor; low or no savings interest, that doesn't help savers... In twelve years what has the Tory government actually grown? Discontent (I would say); a lack of trust; even disbelief at blatant corruption... not all growth is a good thing, but remember that Liz and her party aren't addressing us, it's her side in what appears to be a continuing "class war"; those that might and did vote her leader.
So yes it's a game; fiddling while people burn; arguably the legitimate face of organised crime at times; GDP is not widely viewed as something on which to base "projections" (it's more a historical record), all rather subjective and there is a distinct difference between quality and quantity of growth.
"American politician Robert F. Kennedy criticized the GDP as a measure of “everything except that which makes life worthwhile”. He said that it "does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play" (according to Wiki).
The growth in weapons exports is not one I support; corporate influence over government policy, or the waste by Westminster. It's unhealthy, corrosive; cancerous (imo).
I suggest: return currency to Gold standard; legalise weed and move Westminster to somewhere near Sheffield... cancel interest on junk debt; own our own infrastructure (put something into R&D); get a national objective and hold politicians accountable in delivering that. Yes, I know; political fantasy; why would they stop doing what they are doing?... the money's so good!!
Pass the Tipp-ex...
1
-
No. The protesters are upset that they are losing a medical dispensary; there is also evidence that retail theft in Boston is up (12%); but unless you are accusing the sick and elderly of theft these are two entirely different matters.
I believe "Bath, Bed and Beyond" recently closed over 400 stores; the reason given wasn't theft, it was: recession; inflation pushing up the cost of borrowing up; covid... other reasons.
It doesn't excuse theft, but there are problems with the supermarket chain model. They've moved into other professions; now they are chemists; opticians; tobacconists; off license; even selling insurance and local businesses find it difficult to compete (even with the ones that don't give political contributions) and one closing down leaves a hole. If it's a recession they'll close down their foreign operations; lay-off staff; keep only the most profitable stores... yes it's all about profit and staying in business... and this store didn't say it was closing down because of theft (that's your claim). While the root cause of people stealing food is most likely poverty (which is rising, right across the Western economy).
The father of economics, Adam Smith, did not like: mass production and big companies entirely focused on profit; he believed companies must put something back into the community besides just wages for their employees; otherwise you get things like Detroit in a recession; where after a boom in car manufacture, companies made their money then left: a lot of brown field sites; a 16% unemployment rate and a lot of people left with them. This focus on profit can cause a lot of damage to local communities.
There are other ways supermarkets could sell food, but it would undoubtedly cost them more (and these costs usually get passed on to the customer) while here in the 21st century: companies like Amazon are doing to supermarkets what they did to local retailers; supermarkets are also major contributors to plastic waste and they throw a lot of food away.
So while the private sector companies mission statement is to maximize profit for their shareholders, I doubt (m)any live in that community; companies want the rights accorded to people, some of the employees in these multinationals require "welfare" (so the taxpayer is, in effect, subsidizing their profits).
Another odd thing is that if you give the rich money, they often don't need to spend it; while poor people do. It's up to Wallgreens what they pay people; as long as it's above minimum wage; but the CEO's annual wage (in 2021) was a basic wage of $695,652 and in total (including other forms of compensation) $28,333,498. The job may be highly dangerous; they may give a lot to charity, but that's a lot of produce to sell just to make $700K. That's their business, but removing a medical dispensary; that's the communities business.
So I don't regard your headline "Black Leaders DEMAND Walgreens Let Them STEAL" as an honest portrayal of events.
You seem to want to blame the wrong people; want to call others stupid when the community should have basic medicine available for reasons of common sense and we don't have a statement from the company as to the reason(s) the store intends to close. I'm not trying to talk Wallgreens down, but a lot of companies (some household names) have gone bankrupt recently; banks are closing branches; profitable outlets are being closed (not profitable enough).
If you have a solution to that, or why the area is so poverty stricken; that would be of some interest; but thieves don't usually ask, or demand, permission to steal. It doesn't work that way.
If you want to be a serious investigative journalist, you'll need to stop blaming the wrong people; recessions kill a lot of poor people, shareholders not so much; while theft is a police matter.
1
-
1
-
@truthwizard You asked for evidence; I gave you evidence and you choose to ignore it... don't forget about that... or that your channel has no content. Instead you talk a lot of nonsense, I assume to please your employer.
$20 Billion of Ukrainian Gold went missing (Guardian, Daily Mail etc).
$2.3 Trillion unaccounted for in American military budget (Rumsfeld).
America currently running a $30 Trillion national debt (Forbes)
Don't try to ignore that... but you do try... so you should change your handle.
(because you can't handle the truth).
The IMF already gave Ukraine $2.3 Billion (in 2014) with the usual (sell us your infrastructure) strings attached (Wiki)
Blackrock (not Haliburton, this time) already has the rebuilding contract.
Can't you see it's all about "the money", it happens to be our money, it's not being given for charitable reasons (these "investors" are not known to be charitable.
Yes, the government of Ukraine were pro-Russian; rumor has it American and it's CIA didn't like that (time will tell).
Jailing political opponents and you support that?? Claiming it's all about democracy (a lie) when Ukraine banned political opposition. The corporate media (here) is corrupt. As for Ukraine and corruption it's well known, so just you keep sending that money, the corrupt do like "the money".
Meantime it's not about "the money" for Russia, who it seems (after repeated warning, are going to use Ukraine as an example of what happens when the money-grubbers won't back off. All those weapons salesmen telling us: Ukraine is winning; America is here to save the day (see what it can get more like); at the risk of WW3.
Too used to bullying tribal nations, I guess, probably explains your wittering about mosquitoes. They've got an angry bear by the tail, the other end has teeth, but don't forget to send more money...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't believe that is what he is saying "bluewater454"
What he is describing is to do with objectives; it's whether money (and profit) or people (and society) are viewed as most important. For private companies it's almost always money and profit that is their objective, they describe it as a "duty to maximise profits for their shareholders"; but that mantra has no moral or ethical component, so sometime people and society can be damaged.
Again, I don't believe he is saying government can come in and fix anything (now, or in the past); you seem to hearing what you want to hear, but not what he is saying. How long should Monarch Airlines be allowed to continue to sell tickets when they know they have gone bust? Should banks be allowed to release share issues when they know they are going to go bust? Should those seeking profit be allowed to asset strip companies, keep the profits, then let the state pick up the bill for the unemployment checks? You call this corruption; it probably is, but without adequate penalties we keep seeing this sort of behaviour.
I'm sure there is plenty of corruption in government; such as accepting "political donations" in order to get large government contracts; or choosing substandard building materials to save money, that ultimately cost more to remove and replace; also there are media organisations giving political donations, yet trying to claim they are unbiased. All technically legal, but if it isn't corruption, it certainly looks like it.
You don't fix corruption with corruption; I really don't know from where you got that idea. No system works well when it is corrupted (socialist or capitalist); but what are the poor politicians supposed to do when someone offers them millions to see it there way, or not see anything wrong at all?
The private sector has no business being in the state sector industries; I think that is the point Wolf and many socialists make. The capitalist method isn't equipped to supply the needs of society: they want profit, but their profit is a tax on a need; when the power cartel put the price up (usually all at once just before Winter) they can tell the government to get lost if they complain; it's no way to run a country and privatisation doesn't lead to cheaper prices on, for example, the railways; but it does yield a lot of state subsidies; so in effect the taxpayer is paying shareholder dividends.
The way society fixes corruption is to jail and asset strip the perpetrators; because it only takes a couple of bad apples to start the rot. This sends a message to the rest of the sector. Only that's not going to happen because the money's so good and paying fines is viewed by some as simply the cost of doing business.
I don't think you understand Marxism or socialism in general; socialism isn't very good at running true capitalist organisations: decision by committee is too slow; state sponsored companies are a form of unfair competition and something like universal healthcare is never going to realise a profit, but it adds value to a society having a healthy workforce ... so for many capitalists they see no value in it (just sack the sick and employ healthy ones).
The point Wolf is making is a lot to do with priorities and which context you choose to think in. Monarch Airlines deserve to be bashed; they took money when they had no intention of returning goods or services; they clearly knew exactly what they were doing; you don't work for Monarch do you? I find their position indefensible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BoogerlyPlops Are you sure you "get" all this? It's not a party political issue, there were former president from Republican and Democrat parties at the funeral and they said a lot of nice things, most of which was not true. I'm not celebrating his death, actually I'm as cold to him as he was to young Americans sent to their death in wars to benefit the oil and weapons manufacturing companies (not any country). To do that he deceived the American public by employing an actress; there was never any doubt that NATO would defeat Iraq he just required an excuse; so he made one up.
Bush jnr did the same: concocted a story; invaded (at least two) countries on a lie and the chief beneficiary was the oil companies; weapons manufacturers and any company that bid for a rebuilding contract (before the war began?!).
It's any better with the Democrats: Bill Clinton abolished legislation designed to mitigate another crash of 29'; there were just as many wars (they didn't try to stop) and Obama never did close the offshore torture facility. The reason a some of the msm are quiet about impropriety from the Democrats is (basically) because they give political donations to that party ... you see how this is going?
I suspect all the presidents turned up to show he is one of them. I don't know who "them" is, but they depend on war and apparently don't care how they get it. Only none of these wars has helped the world, or America. £3 trillion on war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Bush jnr); increased cost of domestic security and an excuse to spy on everybody. Now we are supposed to gloss over the actions of war criminals? No thanks. Bush snr was a very dangerous individual; he behaved like a criminal to help himself.
Missing that out in the narrative, just looks like another hoax; but if Bush snr was acting under orders there is a group who know how to handle monsters and in many ways they would be a scarier prospect as they poison all they touch. In other words when JFK decided to stop a war he had to go as he was messing up their "winning" business model.
The Democrats cover is currently Russia-gate; but there is another hoax, because what was revealed was actually the truth. Clinton was double-dealing; telling the voter one thing, Wall St another. So even if it was the Russians (it wasn't), that is supposed to be the excuse for a candidate even less popular than Trump ... but she won the popular vote (she said), like that meant anything at all. We are existing on lies at the moment; the Bush; Clinton and Trump dynasties all represent(ed) the rich and they will fight us down to the ground to maintain their false narrative (as I see it); this is just the latest attempt of the rewriting of history.
1
-
@BoogerlyPlops Well there might be a few "good guys" in these parties, but if the system is corrupt they'll get sidelined or there might be a day where someone offers a million ... okay 5 million ... to see it their way. As it stands with hundreds of millions required to run a presidential campaign; I'm sure the "sponsors" expect something in return (since most aren't known for their charity). I see it as a huge problem if career politicians suddenly become millionaires; it strongly suggests they aren't putting the country first (if their outside interests pay more).
Happy to hear your tax bill has gone down; millionaires will be even happier (if money buys happiness) as it's done on a percentage basis. Funny thing though when it comes to single payer health care, the very rich don't like things levied on a percentage basis ... they claim not to understand; or claim others are spending their money; but really they don't want it because it will cost them more and they already have health insurance. So they'll pay millions, along with private health care providers; big pharma and health insurance companies, to keep things just the way they are.
I believe the middle class were being split into the rich and poor; that's the way "Reaganomics" (which has failed twice) plays out. Maybe things will change under Trump; I can't see the future; but the way it was going always leads to conflict (if history is any guide).
For me Bush snr did for America militarily, what Reagan did economically ... took the wrong path; mainly because the money was so good (for them).
Those that backed Clinton must have lost their shirts; that's probably why there are all these excuses; the blame game and the pro Democrat media keep repeating untruths; while Clinton's book (I'm told) paints her as the victim. I'm no fan of Trump either, because he also represents the rich, at least we can see the vested interests more clearly as they come out to block any kind of reform (that hits their bottom line).
I think Bush snr and Clinton have a lot in common; they seem to believe the end justifies the means; but he was never so stupid as to be caught saying, "We came, we saw, he died" and laughing over the death of someone. Seems to me she wrote her own political epitaph there ... she's another one I won't miss. I suggest we find a nice luxurious gated community for these types of people; one they can never leave; but they are very hard to spot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timbauer399 I don't believe Russia wants all of Ukraine, they wanted Ukraine to be neutral (that seemed to have been agreed, by all); but NATO and the EU (in 2008) raised the possibility Ukraine might join and after the revolution/coup (in 2014); there was a civil war between the new government and those (mainly Russian speaking) regions currently occupied by Russia.
The port in Crimea is of vital strategic importance to Russia; if they want a navy all year round; so they compelled a referendum; the other regions voted for independence.
So I don't think the claims that Russia intends to reestablish the USSR, or dispute the independence referendums of countries that became Soviet states for a while; instead Russia is violently opposed to further EU and NATO expansion (that's hardly a secret).
However the EU; America and it's corporations have sunk a lot of money into Ukraine; while all these strong American objections to alternative gas supply routes between Russia and the EU, through Ukraine, strongly suggest they have a vested interest.
Before the "SMO" (invasion in 2022); Russian troops laid siege to Kyiv for a week (and occupied the doomed Chernobyl); while they fed our media bogus stories about digging trenches (Russia knows all about Chernobyl they built it); this was a demonstration of intent. The peace talks in Turkey were blocked by UK and America, so Russia withdrew; gave notice; then went to war.
Since then there have been all sorts of stories; but it's highly unlikely Ukraine will join the EU (it takes around ten years and at least two member countries will veto this); it's highly unlikely Ukraine will join NATO, because that will likely start a world war. If you want to talk about idiots; America and the UK firing missiles at Russia and trying to claim it's Ukraine; whoever came up with that idea, is a dunce.
Of course NATO isn't going to intervene; if they march into a non-EU country they have to have a better reason than "an intervention to save civilian life" because none of their previous intervention did anything of the sort. The assets of the Western corporations are largely destroyed; the EU gas supply is turned off; so all that's left to fight for are the loans (plus interest) and that rebuilding contract (probably worthless).
Russia has over a million troops in reserve; missile technology the West doesn't have and they have alternative customers for their: gas; oil; grain iron ore; coal etc
I think it's time to stop thinking in terms of winning and losing; nobody wins here; it's just how much you can afford to lose.
It's nearly three years now; Russia still sits and America has other wars and like many countries in the West, is experiencing severe economic problems.
Declaring war on Russia as America and the UK have just done, is generating a lot of anger here. So I suggest Ukraine sorts outs it's differences with Russia (and soon).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's unlikely Ukraine is fighting for "democracy" since the government banned opposing political parties and jailed the main opposition party leader; it may not be clear "what it's all about" to this Luke Harding, but Russia did state that Western expansion has to stop and more NATO missile bases on their border is unacceptable to them. We might ask why America is diverting billions to a country that is known to be corrupt; it's not about the people of Ukraine (they never cared about people before 500 children dead, try 50,000 children in the $3 Trillion wars in Iraq and Afghanistan); it's more likely than not it's about money for those Western interests, or more precisely money laundering but (as mentioned) it's not about money for Russia, it's more about national security.
Would America like a Russian nuclear missile base in Cuba? No; it would signal WW3 they said.
Would America like China to form a military alliance with, for example, Mexico? Very doubtful about that.
So who do the sponsors of American government think they are fooling here? There are some suspicions about: how a pro-Western government came to power in 2014; where all that Gold went and why the EU energy supplies are being tampered with (and Russia blowing up its own pipelines, pull the other one).
So Luke Harding claims Ukraine is bi-lingual, but Russian was banned; he says "we" when talking about Ukraine; says they are fighting for democracy (but they're not).
It looks like the short road to WW3 as matters stand; we should know what happens when super-powers attack and no I doubt Russia will back down and why the West is committing billions in the face of a recession really does require some explanation. 13K dead in the civil war (2014-2022) At least America is on the side of the government for a change, must be a regime they like for a change; but this is not about democracy, or freedom (Ukraine was independent) and it's not about people, we can rule all these out... so what is the truth CNN?
Another American "power-game" according to China, who won't take sides, if so it's stirred up a hornets nest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@A.Martin Russia was not pretending to be the rebels/separatists; the "Western interests" told Putin to tell the rebels to stop fighting, they wouldn't listen to him... the civil war continued.
So those Western interests" decided to sanction Russian individuals (because the separatists, 1000's of whom had already died, wanted free of the government that America installed).
Russia's response was to close its entire agriculture sector, the moral of that story is don't try and sanction an oil and food exporting superpower (or they'll cut you off!).
Crimea is now part of Russia; that was decided by the people of Crimea (who speak Russian, 85% turnout; it was really a foregone conclusion; they voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia). With that and Trump and Brexit, we now know those "Western interests" don't like democracy when it doesn't give the answer they want (that's's obvious, isn't it?). Russia no longer has to lease their naval facilities in Crimea; that backfired on the "Western interests" spectacularly. America and the EU are not giving Ukraine billions for reasons of democracy... it's for other reasons.
Ukraine has no say over Crimea now (it's gone); the (mainly) arms salesmen posing as military experts with their "war weather map" keep trying to claim they know what's going on; but Russia already told them. They told the EU and NATO to get their troops and diplomats out of Ukraine (which they did); they had already told them that the two regions in the Donbass were independent (in their eyes) and they have also it will be their way or WW3. They have already fired the (traditional) warning shot; Turkey will not allow foreign warships into the Black Sea; China will not allow "confiscated" aircraft in it's air space; Hungary say they will block Sweden and Finland. The Western interests (oil and arms lobby stand to lose their shirts), so they'll throw another $40 billion down the toilet.
Why is America so interested in Ukraine?
It's because they are going to lose the petrodollar! All these crocodile tears, it's touching; but they don't care about people; the suffering of the next country they want to use as a chew toy.... Iraq; Libya; Afghanistan; Somalia; Haiti; Syria; Yemen... they don't care about people; they care about money. Their money, not the taxpayers money and $40 billion is now going to disappear. Now do you understand what's really happening? The one world government, is not happening; but WW3 might.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Ukraine Corrupt? Now you ask....? Even just based on the evidence shown here, it's clear that Ukraine was and is corrupt.
It should be mentioned that "Transparency International" was founded by former employees of "The World Bank" (an American organisation) and their "Corruption Perceptions Index" is largely related to their potential customer base and the concept of one global bank (to rule us all).
Denmark (#1) It's a major exporter of renewable technology (windmills), has: very low unemployment; state funded health and higher-education; while they have Professors teaching school-children "holistically" (eg learning geography in Chinese). With an ordered society and balance of payments surplus, they are ideal customers... because they don't actually need the World Bank.
America (#24) It has around $33 Trillion in national debt; is currently sending billions to (another) corrupt country with people living on the streets, so it's obvious there is corruption somewhere and the perpetrators do need the World bank (if only to get a good write-up) so they can keep printing money and exporting it.
I suggest there are: lies, damn lies, statistics and whatever they are doing...
Since the fall of the Berlin wall was in 1989, before many of these former Soviet states became countries; the German figure (#8) would include East Germany.
I walked from West to East Berlin and back in 89'; the subway tunnels were still bricked up; left the neon lights and loud music, found a simpler lifestyle; a bit like leaving a fair-ground.
It's clear that: not everybody wants what "Transparency International" wants; every country has some corruption, but if their figures were to be believed; countries would fall apart.
In the early 90's Kiev was regarded as more violent and corrupt than Moscow; hard to believe maybe; but there were powerful armed groups with territorial disputes; the gypsies (a law unto themselves) and those that wanted power (or wanted to stay in power) in a new country. The movie "From Russia With Love" might been set in Ukraine, instead of Czechoslovakia (which broke up into "the Czech Republic" and "the Slovak Republic", in 1992. Yugoslavia also broke up in 1992 (quite violently, into five pieces; known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia); all these countries operated under the Soviet system. If these countries were as corrupt as "Transparency International" claims they wouldn't exist and while things like a "soft currency" and a morality something like UK in the 1950's ("gay pride" parades; casinos; homelessness... unacceptable!) Their rules won't allow the World Bank and IMF to do what they normally do (try and own the infrastructure).
The "downside" of the Soviet system is excessive: "red-tape"; low wages, or high tax (same thing) and while the worth of government can be judged by whether they meet the needs of the people, there are the usual problems such as determining what are the needs (from public transport to grain quotas and internet access). The private sector may be correct that lack of competition creates apathy and the government running public services is not ideal (rule by committee being rather slow and politicians without first hand knowledge rather useless), but I don't need or want five different companies trying to sell me a rail ticket; or the advertising or government subsidies used to, in effect, pay shareholders dividends or private sector wages to the owners of competing franchises. I'd go as far as saying state funded capitalism is a dud; it's either protectionism, or a cartel with a ready made monopoly (water; power; rail) and they don't, in the main, seem to value the workers. In Western terms wages have not kept up with increased productivity and profits; paying off student debt requires a high wage and interest on debt obligation may actually be un-payable. So in Soviet times, you didn't get a high wage; or bonuses; but you could be made a hero of the Soviet Union for keeping the trains running on time; but you did not have to worry about the gas or water bill; or rent; or council tax or healthcare or getting a good education.
One type of corruption you do not get in Russia or China is "lobbying"; the oligarchs in Russia left with billions, just don't get into politics they were told; the one that tried the jailed; asset stripped and ejected. Corporations interfering with the running of government is not acceptable; while I believe the Chinese beheaded corrupt individuals; it's a different way of doing things...
The reason I would say that Ukraine is still very corrupt is exemplified by the mess they are in at the moment. One reason there's a shortage of judges is probably because certain armed groups won't be judged and interfering in their business could be bad for one's health. Despite your attempts to beautify Ukrainian corruption let's just say with all the billions flowing in it's not going to get better and despite all the heartwarming stories about the "London blitz" it was prime time for black marketeers; looting and making things disappear.
So another American ratings agency want to call others corrupt; after ratings agencies gave junk bonds AAA+ ratings, destroying the retail banking sector, they're back to tell us they're right (actually quite far-right) and those that won't play their game are wrong.
Of course Ukraine is corrupt; it went bankrupt despite charging high tariffs on Russian gas; leasing a port and being independent; since it gave up neutrality it has become very dependent; will require substantial investment and I don't consider it a good investment. With reference to the proverb "tell me who your friends are... " the American establishment appear just as corrupt as Ukraine to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US General Keene works for the arms industry, he's here to sell us weapons; he's been in wars in: Vietnam; Iraq and Afghanistan (so he's a bit of a hypocrite) these American invasions (see The Three Trillion Dollar War: Stiglitz) were costly failures and please don't interrupt him as he tries to convince himself that Russia has a terrible military that will take over the world... This man is a zealot; a refugee from the Cold War and $40,000,000,000 (to a corrupt country like Ukraine) is simply going to disappear. As for countries attacked by a super-power, just ask America what happens, they get trashed. If this chap doesn't understand that with: short supply lines; air superiority and the resources of a country that covers eleven time zones what the result will be, he's either a fool or he's trying to fool us. It's a matter of public record that American interests were "fiddling about in Ukraine (2013-14); the Ukrainian government was toppled, sparking an eight year civil war (13K dead) and while we listen to Zelinsky claiming victories (Ukraine did win Eurovision song contest, how I don't know?) the map is slowly, but surely, turning red in the Donbass. Something Keene fails to understand; Russia is not like Libya, or Syria, it obviously doesn't care what America wants (this time) and while it's doubtful Germany will allow America to start WW3 in Europe, just follow the money and "American interests" are not about people, they are about a gas pipeline, or two; NATO doesn't save people, it kills people and the petrodollar it's gone (messed about with it too much)... but buy his weapons!!
This crisis in Ukraine is the West's fault; Russia drew a line and both America and the EU crossed it, now over to the corrupt American media who are trying to start WW3... system working send more money!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rezadaneshi ... because things get lost in translation; there is also ample evidence that the (mainly American) main stream media (msm) know very little about Eastern Europe or China (by the "dumb" things they publish and their constant talk of money).
Maybe it's just pretense, or they believe their own publicity; but these little mistakes quickly add up.
It's highly unlikely that China would invade Taiwan. Put simply the two governments are different sides of the same political party; it's quite a distance for American warships to get to the Taiwan straights; this is highly provocative (can you find it on the map?); it's a long way to swim back...
Russia and Ukraine had an agreement; it involved division of USSR assets; included leases and tariffs Russia would pay; it was on condition of neutrality and while America, UK and France were co-signatories, it wasn't their stuff being divided and they clearly had no intention of respecting the neutrality clause.
Both America and the EU sent billions; Monsanto bought a lot of land; bio-labs; odd oil deals; it's clear they were not interested in Ukrainian neutrality (they wanted to buy it).
Do you think Russia was ever going to allow the Cossack's to join a Western military alliance? No chance!
Maybe you would like to explain why tens of billions are being sent to a non-EU/non-NATO country; one that is notoriously corrupt and has far more in common with Russia, than America (even Western Europe)? That seems to have got lost in translation, to me, it rather looks like money laundering as the American homelessness problem is quite visible for all to see.
(you just don't get that in Russia or China).
What is this "cause", it's certainly not about "the children".
(NATO has killed far too many for that to be believed; it's not about democracy; could it be oil or money? It usually is....)
China and Taiwan don't need anything from America; they are technologically sophisticated countries; solvent and have a working relationship).
Russia are rather accomplished at land war; they're another technologically driven society and I doubt America has much to teach them.
If you have managed to locate the Taiwan Straits well done (a lot of Western commentators obviously can't). While the msm continue to talk themselves up and others down; I can declare I have no interest in American interests (nothing in it for me or a whole range of countries either).
Maybe you might imagine Russia; get a picture in your mind; then type VDNK; Hotel Ukraine; Moscow Metro, these are the same people that put the first space station in orbit; the have an NHS and state funded education (they have a superior economic model to America) and like China they reject globalism). Might be time for America to mind it's own business; war against two nuclear superpowers, everybody loses.
Yeah, send more money, system working...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@notroll1279 Perhaps living in Canada has affected his accent and vocabulary, but I share the skepticism (of a couple of commentators who claim to be Russian); also the OP as he seems to repeat the CNN talking points. Since neither he or Broe are in Eastern Europe one might wonder where the daily report info is coming from; but in the interview, it seems this "Russian Dude": doesn't know much about Moscow; never traveled in Russia much (busy studying/ playing computer games); his folks have a dacha (a second home; usually only awarded to high ranking government officials) and while I have no objection to studying hard; games or "avoiding the draft" I have met quite a few individuals in my travels who moved to avoid "national service" but not one ever preached sedition.
I understand that he and Broe share the same narrative (on Ukraine and finance), but since they talk about winning and losing or millions and billions; this is just the Western perspective and it seems to me that like P Zeidan and a host of ex-military (most now in weapons sales) what they know about Russia they got from a book, an old one. His quip about being sent to Siberia (the Gulag system was abolished around 1960 he's playing to the audience).
So I consider him, like Zeidan, to be phony.
I know that Russia isn't giving out information; I'm really only hearing one side, that side tends to pursue a "win at all costs" strategy and by my understanding this will inevitably lead to nuclear war. This "Russian Dude" has been passing out a lot of misinformation; unlike my former acquaintances who only had nice things to say about their home country (he couldn't think of one); they kept a low profile.
I've no idea what two "money-men" would know about military strategy; but I know this conflict isn't about money, or winning/losing from a Russian perspective and that the msm don't care a jot about people (they are just numbers to them). I believe the problem is to do with an agreement; Ukraine became: independent of USSR; sovereign; neutral (an amicable divorce); giving up neutrality and you get this. It's not like this was any kind of secret; like the Cuban missile crisis, somebody had to draw the line. That new government in 2014 that really kicked things off, joining a Western military alliance? Russia (not just Putin) are understandably angry; so (speaking as an ex-casino troubleshooter, Moscow 1992) they must respond; it's not about winning or losing, it's not about money; it's about a direct insult and there is a price for doing things like that.
As for the Chinese and insults/ false accusations; the msm best be very careful; don't want to wake sleeping dragons (now do we?). Loss of face, it's a serious matter (I turned the Triads down, in Hong Kong; with my accent Cantonese is impossible)
So I did practice my fake Russian accent; was told I speak Russian like an English spy; the KGB accused me of not taking life seriously and I knew most of the mafia top brass in Moscow (or rather they knew me). The Western msm don't know what they are up against, or pretend so. I would ask why America is so heavily invested (in a war so far from their borders)? It's not for humanitarian reasons; the msm crocodile tears are a similar type of insult (it requires a response); as is the destruction of undersea pipelines in Europe. However when it comes down to numbers; Ukraine runs out of troops and those Western interests lose their investment (made with our money); the only alternative is nuclear war. Until then (and I've seen it happen before) I'm witnessing a brutal beating, it's not a good idea to get involved in other people's business (it could easily be fatal).
I still think Artem is a "blagger"; interested to know who sponsors his podcast; he seems to be recycling CNN/SKY stuff (but they're not serious news channels).
I agree with China; Ukraine needs to negotiate with Russia (and soon).
The Western interests interests are irrelevant (bunch of double-dealing; bankrupt "chicken-hawks" anyway); all they touch seems to turn to dust.
Have a nice day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YouTubemessedupmyhandle I can tell that you have never visited Russia, that's because you seem to be trying to judge Russia by Western standards; I don't recall Italy leading the "space race" and it's not a "oil bonanza", by any means as Russia has vast resources and supplies around 80% of Italy's energy requirements (not the other way around). With a lot of the coverage coming from "Business Insider" and the Democrat party media (CNN and MSNBC) they seem to view this Ukraine crisis in terms of money... but their constant claims of "winning" seem entirely bogus as: the Donbass turns red; they do not recognise a Crimean referendum and a lot of the American media's "experts" turn out to be ex-military that now work for the arms industry or a globalist "think-tank" and sending (or lending) $40 Billion to one of the most corrupt countries in Eastern Europe, how do you think that's going to go? ... or rather, what else could $40,000,000,000 be spent on (rather than the Ukrainian mafia... trust me here, if they've got a million dollars they're mafia).
Trying to "sanction" on oil and food exporting "super-power"; utterly ridiculous, the Ukrainian crisis might have attracted the likes of "Business Insider" because a group of countries (the CRIBS) have set up their own bank; they trade oil outside the $/oil exchange mechanism, either known as SWIFT or as the "petrodollar" and have either proposed, or introduced, a currency backed by the Gold standard. I would say all of that means "Western interests" have shot themselves in the foot (again) as simply printing money will show up against the old Gold standard. The Rouble is not like the dollar or pound or Euro; it's a soft currency, if those massive bear hedge fund currency speculators try to "short" it; good luck with that... with American national debt running at over $20 Trillion, it begs the question, do they even understand the concept of money?
The corporate media seem fixated by the stuff; 14% inflation in Russia (I'm told); about 9% here... it was under 1 cent for a loaf of bread, 50 cents for a monthly travel pass; with state funded education, they invest in their children's future; they have an NHS (about 30 years behind ours, but one of my colleagues (with pink eyes) told me it was laser surgery). Casino's are banned now in Russia (they don't work there); quite puritanical in some ways; Russia is a technologically driven culture. I firmly believe Russia does not care what the West thinks; they have the military capacity, plus short supply lines and air superiority, plus a nuclear arsenal that could move the planet off it's axis. Don't break a promise with a Russian (easier not to make one); but H Clinton did; Zelynsky did and for "Western interests" read: "the oil and arms lobbies; the globalist bankers and the question remains, what was America doing in/with Ukraine in 2013-14? Up to no good I'd say.
You can call me a bot now if you like; but I'm not (but that's what a bot would say...); all this talk of victory (it's propaganda); the daily war weather map likewise; for America it seems to be all about a gas pipeline or two; selling weapons; more missile bases on Russia's borders. Russia told the NATO and the EU not to cross a line; no telling them tho'; American media seem to have forgotten the carnage they caused in Iraq; Libya; Afghanistan... the list goes on. I'm no diplomat; I was a casino trouble-shooter (that ironically never carried a gun; I've met the Ukrainian mafia, don't have a bad word to say about them); those sending weapons want war. This is not about money for Russia; money is no object there; the lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" nails the issue to the mast.
If the globalist oil and arms lobby and their media (who lied us into a least two wars) don't watch out they will start WW3. It's not about Putin either, how bitchy they are; this is a Russian matter!
1
-
1
-
@Gwaredd86 The Russian objective appears to be Donetsk and Luhansk; these are two regions that previously declared themselves to be independent from Ukraine, after both held referendums (around 2014), the new Ukrainian government (at that time) did not "recognise" the result of these referendums (although both about 90% in favour of independence) and a civil war broke out.
In 2022 (after eight years of civil war) Russia said it recognised these two regions (that make up the "Donbass") as independent; there are various definitions of the borders of the Donbass; but that announcement did not please a number of groups, amongst them: NATO; the EU and the current Ukrainian government (of course).
These two regions (and Crimea) are largely Russian speaking; while it's debatable whether regions can legitimately hold referendums (that's usually the way a country decides its direction); but whatever the American media likes to say, if these referendums are legitimate, the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion (they want to part company with Ukraine).
My guess is that Russia's solution to an eight year civil war and Western interference is to (like Crimea) annex them.
It seems highly unlikely (to me) that Russia has any interest in annexing Ukraine: it owes Russia a lot of money; it's doubtful it would vote to (re)join Russia and it's no secret that if "Western interests" continue to mess around in (or with) Ukraine, that Russia will go to war with them. In some ways of understanding Russia is already at war with them. It looks like the end of the "petrodollar"; if the CRIBS have a Gold backed currency it's nearly the end of money-printing and sanctioning an oil and food exporting super-power (well they'll sanction right back). However Ukraine and America are "winning" the propaganda war, but even the most biased corporate media outlets (that claim Crimea is disputed territory) report Russia is slowly taking over these two regions (Crimea has gone).
I can't rely on the Western media; but I'm told Putin's "approval rating" (whatever that might be) is 91%. That might very well be propaganda (the other way), I view polling companies as responsible for getting their sponsors the answers they want; but it seems the American media's usual smear tactics (Orange man bad; Hussein; Gaddafi; Assad... Corbyn) isn't working in Russia. I view Putin and Xi as two leaders that talk a lot of sense; while my government tend to say what's convenient to them at any given time and based on their previous statements they're at best a bunch of hypocrites, at worst just a "front" for the: banking; oil and weapons industry. They've contrived to bomb and brutalise a whole string of countries (usually for reasons of oil, or opium or lending money to buy their weapons). I expect Russia wants the Donbass; NATO and the EU out of Ukraine and NATO missile bases off it's borders. I view all that as a Russian matter; that America should not have been tampering with EU energy supplies and Russia is not going to explain itself to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes it is a complicated matter, both the current court case and the matter of a possible Scottish independence referendum. There already was court case where Alex Salmond was accused of sexual harassment by ten women; if I remember correctly the verdict was nine not guilty; one not proven (a verdict available in Scottish law roughly equivalent to insufficient evidence) this latest legal case is largely how the Scottish and party executive handled this matter... should it have gone to court? were the allegations politically motivated? These are the type of questions facing the court and since the media circus surrounding the first court case and it's nature led to Salmond resigning; then he received compensation; Alex Salmond has a point to prove.
I don't know what the eventual verdict will be; but it does seem to be quite common in politics (particularly in America) to find the wronged woman, just before elections. This is hardly a "Stormy Daniels" matters, but on that; I'd bet we never hear any more about that simply because Trump is no longer in office.
However the London press, particularly The Daily Telegraph's Simon Johnson and Dan Sanderson have done nothing but publish articles that are distinctly negative towards: Scotland; the SNP and it's usually the Scottish Tories (a minor party) doing the complaining. The Scottish press as Andrew Neil points out; haven't been so vociferous in their coverage of this court case; but i don't think the view in Scotland is that Salmond is trying to take down Sturgeon, rather his "beef" seems to be with a group of people who allowed the first case to go to court where nine out of ten charges were thrown out. I don't know why or how the court came to their conclusions; but the accusers have anonymity while the accused faces the glare of publicity and one might ask who profits from this? Well we may find out; but it seems the London press view this latest court case as a way in to help provide a distraction as the Scottish elections near and a large majority for the independence parties (mainly SNP) would likely result in a Scottish independence referendum.
On that point of a referendum; it seems clear to me that all the commentators on this program are unionists. Of course people are entitled to vote as they see fit and to their opinions, but on the matter of a referendum; it was to be once in a generation unless there were significant changes. Unionists regularly quote the first bit and not the last, but Scotland having to leave the EU because of a referendum that took years to deliver... is that a significant change or not? Also despite what the UK PM and Gove say, a country can decide it's own direction by referendum of its people basically at any time; to suggest otherwise is rather beyond the remit of Tory party and all suggestions of new powers or ways Westminster can "add" to countries outside London, that might cause snorts of derision in some quarters as Scots watch the Tories and New Labour play games and water them down to the point of veto powers and controlling key rates from Westminster. Substantial new powers, then for one and all then delayed, the Scottish Labour got wiped out (nothing to show the electorate) while Hague got a mansion in Wales (somehow... on his salary).
To a unionist that may all seem quite reasonable; to those with a "win at all costs" approach another battle won, but trust in Westminster; the media; the financial sector, even the colour of money is not high; to some political manipulators (no names) they may not understand that some of their antics look like bad stage magic, that occasion where you just know it's not true but the speaker looks so sincere.
I'm not accusing the contributors to this program of this; I'm not accusing them at all; if things are going well as they currently stand there is no real reason to change a thing. If things are not going well you would invite change, but in saying that I believe an indy referendum would be two bad options on the one ballot paper.
Not only is the whole Western economy in tatters; cuts to council services results in managers cutting everything but their own jobs; bit like throwing more QE at banks; hundreds of billion going somewhere probably the wrong place.
So sure, there's a political spat; government tending to avoid blame may have exacerbated it; but ten accusations, nine thrown out; accusers unknown... does that not look in least odd?
The problem the governing Tory party seems to have is that you can't trust them further than you can throw them... just in reply to Johnson of the Telegraph...
Discredited coalition partners LibDems exchanging direct support for referendums you voted against; let the rich pay student debt off in lump sum avoiding 6.5% interest after tripling them to £9K/year; so had to later pay a billion to a religious fundamentalist Irish party because you (like Clinton) seemed to believe your own publicity; led both campaigns in the EU referendum; took four years to honour a referendum of the people (like it or not; a disgrace!); brought in a "snoopers charter" either a land grab of meta-data (don't ask) or a clear indication of technological illiteracy; vetoed EU bank reform; threatened another over banker's bonuses then went to ask for a deal?? Included drugs and prostitution (untaxed/unregulated) in GDP then got taxed by EU for "doing so well"... negative interest rates... it's like a story from the brothers Grimm; only their narrative is believable.
Another aspect to this case is about women putting people out of politics, or having long memories back to when moral standards were different, it's not related to independence but the Telegraph sometimes seems to think it is; so they are trying to sell something.
1
-
1
-
Russia has been occupying roughly the same area(s) since early 2022. It's the mainly Russian speaking Eastern regions that all voted for independence in 2014 (denied) who were then in a civil war with the government (2014-22). Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 (by referendum) because they aren't about to lose the port facilities (that they used to lease from Ukraine).
I don't agree with you that Russia is throwing everything at Ukraine (far from it). I do agree that this conflict isn't just about Ukraine; but I think the citizens of Paris and Berlin can sleep easy in their beds (because Russia isn't moving) and it "recognised" the 2014 independence referendums in 2022 too.
I'm not pro-Ukrainian and I'm not pro-Russian; if you want to talk about a new world order (NWO); it seems Russia (and China and others) reject the "globalists" NWO
In the globalist NWO: the G7 get to write rules greatly in the favour, that they keep bending or breaking; they're at the top of a global banking system that is by its very nature exploitative and as a result a select few get to asset strip countries; transfer public money offshore and looking at the rising: prices; poverty and homelessness in America it's a rotten system.
So I don't believe this conflict is about: Ukraine, or people, for the Western interests, it's about money and trying to protect the globalists NWO (gone now).
Both the EU and America have poured billions into Ukraine; Monsanto has bought lots of land; bio-labs; odd oil deals (see H. Biden); provided advisors... it really doesn't look like the co-signatories hearts were in the deal between Russia and Ukraine dividing assets as Ukrainian neutrality was (and is) a "red line" for Russia.
As for America and it's NATO caring about civilian lives; they don't (even their own people); it's the economic interests of a select few (currently exporting public money).
Before we march off to war, why is America "investing" billions in a non-EU/NATO country on Russia's doorstep? They don't even speak the language; some of the msm don't seem to know much about Eastern Europe (or China); but we are told here are more enemies of America... forget the war on terror; it's Russia and China now. The enemy I think it's the msm!
I can't see the future, but I've seen the America and their main stream media do this all before (several times); currently American troops occupy around 20% of Syria (the oil fields) and I believe Trump when he said that's why they are there (the oil). This is now called "whataboutism"; guns are called "lethal aid"; so I expect nuclear fall out will be called something like "magic Moon-beams"). This American interest has been very destructive to the EU losing: oil; gas; fertilizer and grain supplies and having another refugee crisis to deal with, but since their "elites" are signed up to the globalist NWO that's not my problem (it's theirs). The East turning it's back on the West seems to be what is happening as there are more and more deals being made excluding the G7 and petrodollar. It does look like a NWO is forming, a multi-polar world and those mainly responsible are the globalists and their rotten NWO.
It seems to me the far-right in America are going to lose their "investment" in Eastern Europe; playing games with public money and Ukrainian lives is going to have long term repercussions and that the only ones who can resolve the conflict in Ukraine is them and Russia. America is not here to help; the msm human interest approach is cynical manipulation; stirring up hatred between supporters of two main parties (a domestic issue; not my problem); but the msm have called "Wolf! far too often, got us into two illegal wars; left a trail of destruction behind them. I believe the owners of the msm are likely the "enemy within". As for the Ukrainian government; they should know even the most powerful mafia groups don't cross the Russian government. The violent Chechen independence campaign was resulted in Grozny being raised to the ground and was denied. Ukraine had independence, on condition of neutrality; the Western interests had different ideas; but they can't even run their own countries properly. If this Western "investment" continues fully I expect nuclear war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@info781 No: there was a referendum; the people of Crimea voted to join Russia (hardly surprising since they speak Russian, it's a popular holiday destination and the newly installed Ukrainian government, in 2013, was at war with the pro-Russian separatists). They are fascists.
The Western media were ejected from Crimea, before the referendum, yet they continued to cover it and what became obvious is they don't like democracy when it doesn't give the answer they want. The American oligarchs have been using war as a type of business model (see Stiglitz: 3 Trillion dollar war). America has been boming in countries every day for last 20 years (did you miss it?).
Kiev was renamed Kyiv (by America); it was (and is) the capital city of Ukraine (a former soviet socialist state); it was granted independence, but there were conditions attached.
One was that "the West" would not keep expanding, but it did. NATO missile bases in: Poland; Romania, Turkey...just the ones we know about... could be use to house Tomahawk missiles; NATO & EU troops in Ukraine, then the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government. A rather vicious civil war erupted shortly after and just like in Syria, America sent weapons and "advisors".
After the EU offered (bankrupt) Ukraine money to join; Russia forced a referendum (they clearly knew they would win... my complaint would be no independence option... but the result was in no doubt). It's a peculiar trick of geography, that Russia (covering 11 time zones) only has one warm water port (it used to be leased from Ukraine; it's in Crimea and now Russia doesn't have to lease it). This is all geo-politics and in that "game" civilians pay for it all, but the globalists were furious.
So an eight year civil war which was sparked by "Western interests" (let's call them the globalists) and their interests are a gas pipe-line; making sure Nordstream2 doesn't bypass Ukraine (who charge large tariffs on Russia gas supplies to the EU) and selling weapons. They were clearly furious when Russia secured it's naval facilities; then Russia gave NATO and the EU about a fortnights notice to get out (troops; diplomats; ex-pats... the American media predicted the very day of the invasion... when they can't even get horoscopes correct). Russia views two regions of Ukraine as independent; the Western interests don't. Not much the West can do about it; Russia is a superpower (they were putting people in space while Americans were checking for "Reds under their beds"). The rising fuel prices are simply because the oil companies can; any direct conflict with NATO will start WW3; sanctions (on an oil producer, what a joke!); so it's propaganda time...
Now if you believe Putin elected Trump; you must also concede America is too weak to govern it's own elections; when H Clinton lied to the UN security council about regime change in Libya (to both Russia and China) NATO interventions (that have killed millions) get vetoed. It's now back to Cold war days; while American wars are ignored. The options at the moment are Russia gets what it wants (a totally independent Ukraine minus two independent) regions or they'll go nuclear. Trying to smear Putin (see Orange man bad) won't work; because this isn't about Putin, it's a Russian matter.
Just thought I'd let you know what's going on... I don't have any reason to like Putin, but I hate Zelinsky because he's a puppet; Russia was never going to allow the Cossacks to join NATO.
So that's the game that's being played, civilians will pay for weapons used to kill other civilians and after: Iraq; Afghanistan; failed invasion of Syria; Libya destroyed; America bombing in Somalia and Yemen... who do America think they are to try and take the moral high-ground?? Practiced liars!
The American oligarchs in oil and arms; with their corrupt media seem to want WW3.
I doubt you'll get to read this; censorship is rife; but it's the end of the petro-dollar f'sure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is not capitalism, John; it's simply misappropriation of foreign investment(s) and as the Prof points out, there will be serious consequences (both in the long term and short term). Under the rules of capitalism: deposits made in a bank no longer belong to the depositor (legally they belongs to the bank); this simplifies matters if the bank gets robbed (it's their loss) The government can instruct a bank to freeze these assets (if they are owed back taxes etc) but they can't just take the "banks" money. Changing the rules, so they can, affects both foreign and domestic depositors which, in effect, compromises the whole American banking system (deposits not safe). In the short term; it invites retaliation.
In Russia: the state owns land and leases buildings to foreign companies (who must be in 50/50 partnership with a Russian company); it's their version of capitalism, so all these Western Hotel chains (charging Western prices) are only lease holders; Russia did confiscate commercial airliners previously, but that was retaliation; they just eject companies like (Sir) Bill Broder's hedge fund; which was trying to buy state sector assets illegally and (they allege) avoided $200 million in back taxes; but clearly he was doing something pretty illegal.
Russia does not need, or want: Western banks and hedge funds; casinos (now banned); LGBT (officially everyone is "straight"; unofficially mind your own business) or companies trying to buy state sector infrastructure or lobbying companies (they already have their own type of corruption anyway).
I doubt Western companies can demand compensation from their home governments when it comes to their foreign investments (the value of investments may go up or down; it's in the small print); some do have rather close associations to government, but their investments are entirely their responsibility (that's capitalism). However simply dipping into depositors accounts, in American banks; isn't technically legal (one for the legal profession that).
After the American government instructed America banks to freeze Russian deposits; China sold back roughly the same amount of American debt; I doubt that had much to do with Russia, more likely China were simply reducing exposure to those trying to bend or change the rules; something domestic depositors might need to consider if this goes through.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well done?! In 45 seconds you've manged to incorrectly describe the man (Mr Bean doesn't speak) and claim he's talking about "the rich", when actually he's talking about "fame" and how that allows him a voice, that is denied to others. So you really have embraced Rowan Atkinson's campaign slogan "Feel Free To Insult Me", Mr. Asmongold.
This speech is from over ten years ago; is about the "nanny state": where government tries to tell people how to live their lives and by being claiming to be "offended on behalf of others" introduced legislation and changed laws in the UK, which resulted in some peculiar side-effects. Trying to treat people as children as the establishment (and you) are doing, isn't helpful.
So let's start again... This is Rowan Atkinson CBE: an Oxford educated man; Master of Science (Electrical Engineering); Master of his craft (alternative comedy); who drives very fast cars and is probably better known to the UK audience as "Toby" (the Devil) or "Blackadder" (the anti-hero of a series of period sitcoms, that took a poke at Monarchy and "the Establishment").
While his character "Mr. Bean" was originally from a series about comedy, the episode concerned "Mime" (silent comedy) and how it overcame the "language barrier", which it does.
Currently "the Establishment" (perhaps through insecurity about this newfangled social media) have decided to try and ban, or redefine language, stifle debate while trying to claim they are the moral arbiter. This has not worked out well, with: some even in government "hoisted by their own petard" (caught in their own net); a move to bland inoffensive content (see: Children's TV) and without a voice, or means of expression, frustration and anger tends to flare up). His argument is that another law is not going to resolve this "powder-keg" (see: Nov 5th, Guy Fawkes).
"Why do people in the UK put up with this?"... we don't. With 40% not voting on July 4th (a vote for war, or war btw); if the rules say you can't win, people aren't going to play (nice).
Unfortunately the Establishment did not listen, or didn't care, so there is no longer much trust in government or their competence. We Brits are generally tolerant (but only up to a point); while the constant rewards for failure get right up people's nose, the mishandling of the economy has and is causing many damage and trying to talk down to "Joe Public" or lock people up has lit a fuse. I don't think you need to trying to explain what he's saying, badly; don't you know who we are, or something? "Lions led by Donkeys" (according to "Blackadder Goes Forth") Maybe...
Atkinson doesn't court "fame", normally shuns publicity; he highlighted a problem, it's the message, not the messenger we need to address (openly). And no; there will not be jam tomorrow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisflach5911 I'm not saying it's wrong (or right) just pointing out that officially it's one thing; unofficially another. Blaming the rich makes perfect sense, because they are (somehow) allowed to influence legislation.
A prohibition doesn't work, but it's big business trying and ultimately failing.
Temporary work visas as an alternative to permanent residence does work; many countries do this; skilled professional have been given green cards before (rocket scientists from Germany, is one example) but countries have found it easier to buy in skills rather than invest in education... on a large scale that doesn't help anyone, if skilled workers move to countries for higher paid unskilled work. It's a "brain drain" but America has done that for years, most notably in sport, but also in science and also if you have money, come right in.
When it gets to the millions, yes it is a problem; some cultures don't want to integrate; some individuals, come to see the sights; learn another language; make some money and then go home. I'm not saying that helps Americans per se, it helps America. If the intention is to lower labour costs, that impacts the domestic economy (undercuts wages); a double edged sword.
Me, it usually cost a lot to employ me, but once my employer can train their own they don't need me. As a Moscow casino troubleshooter from the 90's; they don't need me at all (casinos banned now). It was rather exciting; I turned the Triads down in Hong Kong; but in America I was just helping a small company complete a project. I was never going to stay.
I'm just suggesting that you don't have an illegal immigration problem; America just hasn't found a way to make it legal and temporary visas (1-2 years) is how other countries keep control to some extent. Politicians chewing the fat makes them seem useful (a lot of money in prohibition). I hope you have a nice day too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewthornber7783 You're the one with 5 subscribers and no content on your channel; again you refuse to deal in specifics ("nonsense"...? Well sez you!... hahaha) and you didn't even understand what I wrote (the Russians called me "The Scottish Guy"). C'mon, shape up! (as matters stand you're in danger of giving trolling a bad name...snarf!). I'm happy to hear an opposing argument; only you haven't managed to make one yet.
The point I'm making is; that American interference in the domestic politics and economies of other countries has caused no end of trouble; their oligarchs, backed by their NATO, have left a trail of destruction; diverted a lot of public funds and the civilian death toll is obscene (and there is hard evidence to back this up). Do you wish to dispute that?
In my view, what motivates the Western political lobbyists is maximizing corporate profit margins; what motivates the two right-wing political parties (in America & UK) is sponsorship from corporations and the financial sector; while the majority of people (foreign & domestic) are just numbers on some balance sheet. Ukraine is just another "chew-toy" to them.
If you have lived and worked in Russia, you will know: that the economy is technologically driven (not debt-obligation driven); they have a highly educated population (since education is state funded); an NHS, almost zero homelessness and that one should never break promises to Russians (better not to make any). Do you wish to dispute any of that?
I'm not a geopolitical expert (nobody is); I happen to agree with points raised by Prof J Mearsheimer in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's fault?" and I regard him as more of an authority on Russian and Chinese matter than Anne Applebaum (not just because he has first-hand experience). War against Russia is not winnable; AA can't even define what a win would look like, she's just a globalist "fan-girl" (but globalism doesn't work, except for a very select few; have you not noticed that?). So I tend to agree with Prof Jeffrey Sachs, that Russia will match Western military escalation right up to nuclear war; in that eventuality everybody loses and that's where this is heading (or words to that effect). He doesn't see a way to prevent this, I hope he is wrong on that point; but it does look that way.
Btw What is your chosen profession? I assume you hold a Russian passport (if you worked there for twenty years); care to tell me why you should never attempt to shake hands across the portal of a door, or toast the host of a party, in Russia? As a professional in the gaming industry; I've worked in various economies (UK; Russia; China; even darkest Africa and America); things have no doubt moved on since I worked in these places; but a lot of commentators haven't a clue about these places; some make up absurd stories and their military experience is likely from "Call of Duty". AA appears to be just another busybody, who wakes up every morning to check, if there's a red under the bed. It may sell books but her story is full of holes; America isn't heavily invested in Ukraine for reasons of liberal democracy, at all... and there is no return on their investment, now.
I'll put it to you simply: Russia is violently opposed to further NATO and EU expansion; Ukraine agreed with Russia it would be neutral; the alternative is what we are witnessing. ,
The real question is how to resolve this conflict in Ukraine before it becomes a world war; but diplomacy has failed and it's not about Putin, it's about Russia and it's interests.
As I said, let's wait a month and see where the Ukrainian invasion of Russia goes; some say it's going forwards; some say it's going backwards; time will tell.
1
-
1
-
@andrewthornber7783 I asked you a question (or three) first; I was interested in your line of work, or what you thought I got wrong... but frankly that interest is starting to wane.
My view of casinos is that they have their uses, but they don't work in Russia; because the proletariat don't have "disposable income" and they are a magnet for organised crime.
Alexanders (in The House of Unions") probably the best casino in Moscow; with oil paintings; chandeliers and the Hall of Columns (that's where Stalin; Lenin and me were all laid out flat in the same room); I maybe saw three tourists in a year (the bar had to ask me how to mix a Black Russian, they don't do cocktails); but unfortunately it's out of place and so while I agree with the ban on casinos; I don't regard 2.56% on Roulette as immoral. Hotel Ukraine is a striking building, was the HQ of another group; now part of the Raddison collection (it seems Western corporations can and still do business in Russia despite the media claims); but nobody got shot in "Alexanders", it would have started a gang war.
The Central Chess Club of the Soviet Socialist Republics is another fine building; it only took me ten moves to become a member; there I chose an aggressive tactical opening.
In China casinos seem to be more addictive than cheese puffs; the only reason I turned the Triads down was we couldn't agree terms and conditions; they are legal there.
USSR was certainly technologically driven; that's how they managed to put the first space station in orbit, without the benefits of capitalism.
Since USSR couldn't build as small a nuclear warhead as America, they built a big delivery system; with about a 1 kilo payload available they put the first satellite in low Earth orbit and all Sputnik could really do was go bleep bleep. To me that's an example delicious irony (the arms race led to the space race) and Russian humour. Sputnik orbited the Earth every 96 minutes; lasted for 22 days (until the batteries ran out) and must have irritated the American establishment no end.
There's a documentary, by Adam Curtis, called "The Engineers Plot"; his style might not appeal to everyone; but I consider it a more accurate portrayal of USSR than most and it highlights some of the problems with socialist governments and with technologically driven societies (inventing cures for which there is no disease etc).
The Space race seems to be over (maybe China and India have one, to the Moon); these days Russia is more focused on primary industry (extracting raw materials) and trading these commodities for Chinese goods. Their economy is still driven by real things; not interest payments on paper debt; while with a centrally planned economy the Russia (and Chinese) government tells corporations what to do (not the other way around); while I don't believe claims that China supplies weapons to Russia; both still have their own heavy industry and their: nuclear; space and weapons technologies are separate and besides there's nothing in it for China to get involved in a Ukrainian proxy war; instead China is building 27 heavy-water nuclear reactors and by the looks of it leaving the West behind.
Russia with: a centrally planned economy; self sufficient in oil gas and iron ore; will likely outproduce the Western privately owned arms manufacturers; while being technologically driven they appear to have superior missile technology and superiority in troop reserves. Russia is technologically driven and you are wrong.
Nothing Ann the zealot can do about it; besides she seems to be a dinosaur still stuck in the 1940's; time has moved on but she hasn't; but the EU and NATO certainly have since the Berlin wall came down.
I have a rather jaundiced view of Western media and the political parties they support or donate to; it seems beyond dispute that the American and UK establishment do not represent the majority of people while those in government only need think as far as the next election, while rewarding themselves for failure sets a bad example and with no national objective, or accountability, public money seems to end up in Panama (somehow).
There is certainly corruption in other countries; it's the corruption here that directly affects me; all this focus on other countries: economies; corruption or society is really just a distraction from that (which I consider intentional). The government can't afford to look in the mirror; or audit the treasury; if they were a company call in the receivers.
So like you: they try to avoid the issue; they've nothing of any substance to say and also try to provoke a response with playground insults. It's not really working now.
If I called someone in "The City" a peasant it would likely start a fight; while in Russia it's a mark of respect; they grow the crops and get them to market; the EU bankers are unwise to treat EU farmers with the contempt they have; EU farmers know how to protest and people have to eat; when foreign multinational corporations moved into Ukraine to amass land and research GM food and increased crop-yields; it didn't just upset Russia; many of these corporations are a bit to close to government (imo) and it's their actions that likely started this war. That and all the American interest in a gas-pipeline that shouldn't have been their business; but somehow was. It seems war is the American business model.
Russia drew a red line (the globalists crossed it); my red line is if you've nothing constructive to say in your next post; be seein' you (maybe on 15/08/2024), talk about Kursk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1