What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:07 PM
If Russia collapses, no "Balkan scenario" will be repeated. Is there a guarantee that the parts of Russia will not apply the principles of the "new policy" introduced by Americans in Iraq? Protecting democracy, ethnic minorities (majorities)? *
Russia never collaps but historical love relations with Germans ; for example Tsarina Kathryn and German Tsars will leads rather to biggest fuse and creation of the biggest white people empire.
So if US looking for moment when Hitler dream will come true it should as soon as possible talk with Russia about the principles of the "new policy" introduced by Americans in Iraq.
Posted 08 June 2004 - 04:29 AM
all culture, races, religion into one is the same old drug of ancient babylon. Sorry DonQ the Lions smell preceeds him.
The NWO is no boundaries, none exclusive which why muslims are being exported to all the christian nations and globalism is
changing the planet, and a composite religion is being designed
for the world.>
Ok, then stick with Che Guevara. He was a warrior who was determined to beat a lion only to replace him with another lion. No love is better than one love?:confused:
Anyways, I just came back from the jungle, I mean the real jungle, I mean the good jungle, no electricity, no nothing. They had a sign that caught my attention: "Do not feed the wildlife, even when they beg you. It only encourages bad behavior..." Are they talking about "socialism" or even American brand of "capitalism"? Are they encouraging the "teach 'em how to fish" philosophy? Who knows, some of the wild animals were really hooked on hand outs and almost got to my provisions...
All in all though, I had a great time...
Posted 08 June 2004 - 09:11 AM
I am not up on the new policy yet Woj.
The Bush regime represents something far greater than the Third Reich, both seeking to fulfill the New Order, might come to its
birth on the third go, maybe even after a third world war.
Welcome back to the real jungle DonQ.
I would expect Che Guevara was going to get in the way of Liberation Theology.
Once the interim Govt is in office, the patriots will become terrorists, just as the palestinians and the propoganda machine that was onesided for many decades in favour of Israel will do the same all over again in the case of Iraq.
US insisted on Brahimi to rep the UN, he chose Allawi to head new govt, whom US wanted. THis is the guy who told Blair that Hussein could deploy and launch WMD inside 45 minutes, which was a lie.
The man deserves a mass brown eye salute as we saw in Braveheart. As in Braveheart they will hunt down the rebels and
dispose of them.
Posted 08 June 2004 - 01:24 PM
I stick with Che Guevara; No love is better than a new love:)
Donq; *Anyways, I just came back from the jungle, I mean the real jungle, I mean the good jungle, no electricity, no nothing.*
Luck of electricity doesn
Posted 08 June 2004 - 02:22 PM
When UN resolution on Iraq will pass I would feel more broken heart than that God is dead.
And I will start think that is very enjoyable that people kill each other, because people n starting point of backward evolution.
What is the most tragic that in *democracy* individual is completely robbed from possibility to influence events in history ,more than in any point of human civilization.
Posted 08 June 2004 - 04:04 PM
I also saw a place where people feed the big tarpon fish (with little fish they buy at the store), and the tarpons look at you, begging for the handouts... Any lessons for the political jungle? Maybe. This is good business for the store (the lion); the fish become helpless on their own (so they grow *dependent* and must be "thankful" to the lion for surviving), and we are feeding the whole thing.
Many claim that the lion is real good in maintaining the fish "happy," but we must be aware we are feeding the jungle...
<US insisted on Brahimi to rep the UN, he chose Allawi to head new govt, whom US wanted. THis is the guy who told Blair that Hussein could deploy and launch WMD inside 45 minutes, which was a lie.>
Guys, you don't get it. You only have to be a hypocrite to survive in the jungle. If I only could...:confused:
The case for hypocrisy
History tells us that limited sovereignty after occupation can be the most progressive solution
Monday June 7, 2004
You are either pregnant or not; there is no such thing as partly pregnant. Does the same apply to sovereignty? The answer is no. It is perfectly possible - and, under certain circumstances, highly desirable - for sovereignty to be limited. Yet the debate over the future of Iraq has been dominated for weeks by the distinctly misleading concept of "full sovereignty".
In his speech two weeks ago at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, President Bush pledged to "transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens" on June 30. In the House of Commons a few days later, Tony Blair assured MPs that "full sovereignty" would soon be restored to Iraq. No sooner had he been proclaimed interim president of Iraq than Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar declared that he "looked forward to being granted full sovereignty".
This phrase is, of course, designed to reassure not only Iraqis, but also Americans and, indeed, the rest of the world that the now deeply unpopular American-led occupation will soon be over. But there is a danger that all this talk of "full sovereignty" will arouse unrealistic expectations. And that may be a more dangerous tactic than candidly spelling out what has to happen in Iraq.
In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, many Europeans have assumed that Iraq's only hope lies with a swift termination of the Anglo-American occupation. They fail to consider how much worse things in Iraq couldget if that wish were granted. Do they not see the risks of a major civil war? Have they forgotten what happened in Lebanon in the late 1970s?
The "organised hypocrisy" of limited sovereignty may sound unsatisfactory to the bien pensant critics of American imperialism. But it is preferable to an over-hasty American exit from Iraq - and a possible descent into chaos. Better that Iraq's sovereignty should be limited than torn apart.
Posted 08 June 2004 - 04:25 PM
Hard line against the Soviet Union 61%
Economic policy and tax cuts 22%
Iran-Contra affair 7%
Rejuvenating Republican Party 10%
Reagan's economic policy was known as "trickle-down economics," which, to put it in jungle language, amounts to, "the more you feed the lion, the more leftovers you are gonna get...":confused:
I bet you this works beautiful for the lion...
Economics of the 21st Century
By the end of the 20th Century, Communist economics had failed in the Soviet Union and most of it's satellite countries. U.S. President Ronald Reagan was credited (mostly by himself and his advisors) with the failure of Communist economic by outspending the USSR on missiles, the fantasy Starwars Program, and (supposedly banned) weapons of mass destruction, thereby crashing the Soviet domestic economy and leading to the bursting of the 50 year bubble of the U.S. economic boom. Guns or butter: a basic theory of economics.
But Reaganomics also led to the disasterous failure of U.S. capitalism (see "trickle-down economics"). Major industries such as power companies, communications, and transportation were deregulated "in the interest of competition". But instead of lower prices for the consumer, prices increased exponentially and entrepreneurialism was completely squashed by large conglomerates. The conglomerates eventually failed due to mismanagement of finances by top, over-paid executives, auditing companies, ignorant or compliant boards of directors, and uninformed stockholders. Management concentrated on stock market prices and their own compensation than on production of a product or service. Stockholders lost their retirement investments while management and stockbrockers lined their pockets before the crash.
Subsequent Republican administrations only aggravated the disaster by subsidizing major corporations and eliminating corporate taxes. Unemployment increased despite frequent alterations in the statistical basis by the Government. Feeble attempts were made to encourage patriotic public spending, but the unemployed public had nothing to spend. Essentials were bought by means of credit, but eventually the consumer was overwhelmed by huge credit payments and usurous interest rates. Bankruptcy filings increased each year by 60% even though Congress amended the Constitution to abolish it.
Government tax revenues dropped as a result of reduced incomes of the general public and non-income of the unemployed masses. Government spending increased as the result of several wars (mostly undeclared). The former remedy of printing more money failed due to the replacement of money by the credit card companies, yet its inflationary effects resulted in even higher prices of goods and services.
Capitalism, based solely on a system of confidence by the investing public, lost that confidence. The stock market crashed, banks cut off access to funds, debtors defaulted. Eventually, the U.S. democratic capitalism was replaced by democratic anarchy.
Posted 09 June 2004 - 10:01 AM
The worlds at a point where it has never been more "democratic"
yet people are more unable to affect what is happening. Does that make us democratic slaves.
Presently we are able think what we like but a chip to come will monitor out thoughts. Then we will be just slaves.
Its our privalege to vote and pay for the lions peace.
Now that the UN security council has done its bit for iraq, they can now start to kill one another and take the pressure off the
Coalition forces protecting the fool sovereignty.
You are right DonQ, we are feeding (paying for) the whole thing.
Where necessary the tax-payer will subsidise the private sector.
The cost of restructuring, privatisation and deregulation was financed by the banks greatly increasing debt. With the
beaurocratic salaries and bonuses came more increased prices on top of the increased financial costs and the consumer base remained the same size. One doesnt need to be an economist
to work it out, but it is a bigger help if you are not.
Bankruptsies increased- money simply moved up the "food chain"
away from the bottem, same as in restructuring the executives sacked people down below and moved the money into their pay.
And they called it a level playing field.
Shareholder lost their retirement funds- were stolen, they changed hands. We tend to think it sort of evapourated.
So not only was the consumer base the same, at best, while the bebt levels increased (inflation) but in fact the consumer strength weakened.
Thus more use of credit cards (buying yesterdays goods with tomorrows money) but they are financed by the banks anyway. Once the credit card is in full use the income is already
spoken for for some time, making the consumer base inflexible
while the banks have to find/create some way of expanding the money supply otherwise there will be not enough to pay the debt
and the system starts to unravel.
One way to create money is to go to war. You dont have to sell
anything, just fire it off or write it off.
Greenspan kept dropping interest rates as well and refinancing creates a lot of false business- merely bying time.
Foreign investment pulls in huge financies from the host country
as well as war and low interest rates.
Failing that just lie to protect the investment rating.
Posted 09 June 2004 - 01:19 PM
Failing that just lie to protect the investment rating.*
Using tax money to buyout the banks and companies in red , whose leaders get millions in earning is right thing, but when the Lepper's Polish leader of Self-Defense party advocates printing money to support the Poor, capitalist world consider it as a scandal. Why?
So in my opinion , Lepper is right when call Polish leaders as thieves of the nation's wealth.
Lepper praises public economic policies and advocates printing money to support the poor. Lepper is a strong advocate of state intervention in the economy and public works projects to put people to work., "
I hope that Andrzej Lepper, a pig farmer-turned-populist opposition leader, will be second of the big winners in elections Sunday for the European Parliament.
Lepper's Self-Defense party
Posted 09 June 2004 - 02:23 PM
OK guys, let's admit it: We are damn right! Now, how do we *make it*? Well, I for one stand in front of a supermarket and shout "Banana Revolution!";) Which wouldn't guarantee us any success, but at least it helps that this stuff gets read. Or we may just choose to vote for a "candidate" like this. What a pity he ain't running. Actually he'll never run under the laws of the jungle because it would be self-defeating...
ALFRED E. NEUMAN FOR PRESIDENT
"He is just as smart as the other candidates, and twice as popular"
On the Issues:
Congress: Cut salaries to what these idiots are worth. Minium wage for entry level.
On the Candidate
He is not a politician and makes no promises, which he wouldn't keep anyway.
I Want Your Vote on Election Day!
Vote Early, and Vote Often
But just remember: If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
see the whole thing...
Posted 09 June 2004 - 02:27 PM
*The idea that the USA can attack Russia, is nonsense. No war produces good outcome.
Believe me, Americans do not intend to fight against anybody. I have been living in the USA not so long, but I encountered no aggressive American who could be compared with Russian skinheads so far. Americans just want a quiet life for themselves. To achieve this, they do crazy things sometimes. The outlook and the deeds of George Bush cannot be applied to the entire American people. Instead of speaking about wars, Russia had better improve its economy. For example, to grow high level computer programmers, to train managers for manufacturing commercial products.
India adopted the state program on hi-tech development, and as a result, half of Microsoft projects are made in India.
This made big revenue for the state budget, and it is better than selling all the country"s oil.
It take about two years to train the computer programmer on a medium level, no equipment is needed except for computers... http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php3*
Ronald Reagan's support for mujaheddin fighters helped oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in 1989..
But should Reagan, , carry the blame for the rise of extremists headed by Osama bin Laden and the current instability in Afghanistan?
Milton Beardon, who ran the CIA's covert aid program in Afghanistan ; "The whole concept of the Arabs and the (Afghan) war has been overblown,"
If mistakes occurred, it was the price of forcing Moscow to withdraw from Afghanistan, , adding: "There is always an unintended consequence of war."
Reagan was so committed to confronting the "evil empire" that he forged an aggressive policy of backing anti-communist insurgents in proxy wars worldwide.
"Against All Enemies," Afghanistan was Reagan's best opportunity to drain the Soviets because they were ill-equipped for such a major deployment.
At first Reagan did not offer much financial aid to the Afghan resistance, but later he provided them with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and boosted funding from $35 million in 1982 to $600 million in 1987.
Some say bin Laden financed and recruited fundamentalists to fight alongside Afghan tribal leaders.
Posted 09 June 2004 - 03:08 PM
Enough is that they elect Reagan, Clinton Bush-.ha, ha ha.
I don-t see future for Kvas economical proposal as well.>
Well said, Woj. They only need to elect a lion or fox to take care of their aggressiveness. Whatever other violent urges may be left are usually channelled through the highest crime rates in the developed world or in daily driving on American chaotic roads. Not much to worry about...:confused:
Posted 09 June 2004 - 03:25 PM
And what else? Officially sanctioned jewelry, coffee mugs, and t-shirts? You bet. Free with a Happy Meal.
Click for your souvenir...
However, Mel Gibson denies making the movie for the money. Maybe the Pope will get him into heaven.
Posted 09 June 2004 - 04:56 PM
OK, let's face it: It's a Jungle out there. Wars, hate, hypocrisy, crime, terrorism...:confused: Anyways, why not declare independence from the rest of the world, and live in a different state of mind?
Note: I'm not part of the Conch Republic in any way, nor do I seek any high post in it, but since their goals and my own Movement--the Banana Revolution:D--seem to be so similar, we may as well be talking of sister republics...
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONCH REPUBLIC
The Conch Republic was established by secession of the Florida Keys from the United States of America, on April 23rd, 1982 in response to a United States Border Patrol Blockade setup on highway U.S.1 at Florida City just to the north of the Florida Keys. This heinous act effectively isolated Keys Citizens from the U.S. mainland since the blockade was on our only land artery to and from the mainland. This roadblock portrayed Keys residents as non-U.S. citizens who had to prove their citizenship in order to drive onto the Florida mainland! Hardly an American thing to do!
Q: Are you serious about being your own country?
A: We are very serious about being funny and we try to be funny when we are being serious.
Q: What about America, are you still Americans?
A: Of course! We are dual citizens, U.S. and Conch Republic. In fact we like to think we represent what is best about America-a people unafraid to stand up to government gone mad with power.
The Banana Revolution...
Posted 09 June 2004 - 05:09 PM
Yes,Donq, they need a movie to understand how US respect human rights and Geneva Convention in Iraq and Afghanistan in 21 century. Tortures are tortures regardless of motivations and time. :confused:
Posted 09 June 2004 - 05:15 PM
Trust me, Woj, most people wouldn't see any connection because while we cry for Jesus, we rather behave like Roman citizens...:confused:
Posted 09 June 2004 - 09:01 PM
Caracalla, officially Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus orig. Septimius Bassianus
born April 4, AD188, Lugdunum [Lyon], Gaul
died April 8, 217, near Carrhae, Mesopotamia
Roman emperor (198
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users