Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#7341 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 05:34 PM

Russia is, once again, a major world power and a vital source of hydrocarbons. It's star is steadily rising just as America's has begun to wane. This may explain why Putin is despised by the West. Freud might call it "petroleum envy," but it's deeper than that. Putin has charted a course for social change that conflicts with basic tenets of neoliberalism, which are the principles which govern US foreign policy. He is not a member of the corporate-banking brotherhood which believes the wealth of the world should be divided among themselves regardless of the suffering or destruction it may cause. Putin's primary focus is Russia: Russia's welfare, Russia's sovereignty and Russia's place in the world. He is not a globalist.

That is why the Bush administration has encircled Russia with military bases, toppled neighboring regimes with its "color-coded" revolutions (which were organized by US NGOs and intelligence services), intervened in Russian elections, and threatened to deploy an (allegedly defensive) nuclear weapons system in Eastern Europe. Russia is seen as a potential rival to US imperial ambitions and must be contained or subverted.


onlinejournal.com
  • 0

#7342 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 05:52 PM

Analysis Last Updated: Dec 6th, 2007 - 01:30:22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFR used John Edwards & Jack Kemp to trash Putin
By Mike Whitney
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Dec 6, 2007, 01:28


"Putin's real crime is that he serves Russia's national interests rather than the interests of global Capital. He also rejects Washington's
  • 0

#7343 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 19 December 2007 - 09:12 PM

POLAND, RUSSIA TO DISCUSS MISSILE DEFENSE
The new government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently reversed the policy of his predecessor Jaroslaw Kaczynski and decided to hold bilateral talks with Russia on the planned U.S. missile-defense site in Poland, which is scheduled to include 10 interceptors, the "International Herald Tribune" reported on December 19. In Moscow on December 18, Putin's aide Yastrzhembsky announced that the discussions will take place in Warsaw in early 2008. He said he hopes the talks with the Poles will "help them to look at the problem in another way." Yastrzhembsky added that Tusk has been invited to visit Moscow in late January. In Brussels, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said on December 18 that "NATO would certainly welcome the greatest possible bilateral consultations on the issue of the U.S. missile-defense proposal, and not just in the NATO context. We need to lower the temperature on this issue and move to common ground." Russia has repeatedly threatened to aim missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic, which is to host a U.S. radar site under the missile-defense plan Since taking office in November, Tusk has sought to improve relations with Germany, the EU, and Russia. "Tusk's government has done more for Polish-Russian relations than was done in the past two years" under Kaczynski, Tusk withdrew Poland's objections to Moscow's joining the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Russia in turn dropped its two-year ban on Polish meat imports, paving the way for a resumption of talks on a Russia-EU partnership agreement
  • 0

#7344 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 19 December 2007 - 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Bader
[B]Russia is, once again, a major world power and a vital source of hydrocarbons. That is why the Bush administration has encircled Russia with military bases, toppled neighboring regimes with its "color-coded" revolutions (which were organized by US NGOs and intelligence services), intervened in Russian elections, and threatened to deploy an (allegedly defensive) nuclear weapons system in Eastern Europe. Russia is seen as a potential rival to US imperial ambitions and must be contained or subverted.
B]

but President Putin said on December 18 at a press conference with visiting Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis that "Greece is interested in signing new [gas] contracts after 2016 that will last up to 2040,." He was alluding to Gazprom's link under the Black Sea to Bulgaria called South Stream, which is seen as a rival to the EU's Nabucco .
Putin noted that Greece is interested in buying over 400 infantry combat vehicles from Russia. He stressed that Russia is a "very reliable partner," adding that it will not tolerate any "political limitations" to its military cooperation with Greece
  • 0

#7345 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 19 December 2007 - 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Bader
B]"Putin's real crime is that he serves Russia's national interests rather than the interests of global Capital.
B]

Serving global capital would be only to praise criminals. Putin should thank God that criminals refused to compliment him:scrollhah
  • 0

#7346 Raggz

Raggz

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4294 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 01:43 AM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Cuba has UN Legitimacy against USA regarding economic embargo, why it is not respected by USA? :viva:

The US would never ignore a legitimate legal requirement, so first I suspect that there is no such legitimate finding. Perhaps there is, I have not heard of this before. There was a violation found in 1953, I am unaware of any since.

The General Assembly passes many resolutions, and none are binding. Is this the source? I expect that it is.

  • 0

#7347 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 08:01 AM

Putin is going to the Middle East in January prior to Bush.

Bush admin has approved/assisted the Turkish offensive across the border at the Kurds the US/Israel have been supporting, driving oil prices up again.
  • 0

#7348 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Raggz
The US would never ignore a legitimate legal requirement, so first I suspect that there is no such legitimate finding. Perhaps there is, I have not heard of this before. There was a violation found in 1953, I am unaware of any since.

The General Assembly passes many resolutions, and none are binding. Is this the source? I expect that it is.



The US ignored a legal justification to declare war and invade Iraq. Its claim lay deviously in the unclear wording designed for future use. The future having arrived.
The war wasnt approved by the Security Council nor Congress, I think they have only approved funding since the event.
If resolutions of the Security Council arent binding then where is the legitmacy of Israel and why has Arab nations gone to war if it is binding. No Arab nation has been accused of violating UN resolutions re legitimacy of the Zionist State of Israel to my knowledge.
  • 0

#7349 Raggz

Raggz

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4294 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Bader
The US ignored a legal justification to declare war and invade Iraq. Its claim lay deviously in the unclear wording designed for future use. The future having arrived.
The war wasnt approved by the Security Council nor Congress, I think they have only approved funding since the event.
If resolutions of the Security Council arent binding then where is the legitmacy of Israel and why has Arab nations gone to war if it is binding. No Arab nation has been accused of violating UN resolutions re legitimacy of the Zionist State of Israel to my knowledge.


Hello Bader

What about the US and Cuba? What law?

UN SC Resolutions 660 and 678 cover the Iraq invasion. The info is on the US Dept of State site. They cover attacking Iran as well, if it is proven that Iran invades Iraq. The UN Security Council did approve the invasion. If not, it would have acted to order that it cease. The 2003 invasion was authorized by a Joint Resolution of Congress. All of the reasons for it are in it. Wiki has the text.

UN Security Council resolutions are of course binding. Which one are we discussing?

I see no authority in the UN Charter to create Israel or Kosovo.

  • 0

#7350 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 04:29 PM

The Taj Mahal, one of the world's architectural masterpieces, welcomes about 2.5 million visitors each year -- provided they don't try to buy tickets with dollars. India's most popular shrine announced in November that it would stop accepting the U.S. currency and take only rupees, hurling yet another insult at the once mighty greenback.:scrollhah
  • 0

#7351 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Bader
B]Putin is going to the Middle East in January prior to Bush.

Bush admin has approved/assisted the Turkish offensive across the border at the Kurds the US/Israel have been supporting, driving oil prices up again. B]

Kurds helped Americans to attack Iraqis under Hussein and help them to get to Iraq. After Hussein lost and his death now US support Turkish to fight Kurds. :mad: :wonder:
  • 0

#7352 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Bader
B]The US ignored a legal justification to declare war and invade Iraq. Its claim lay deviously in the unclear wording designed for future use. The future having arrived.
The war wasnt approved by the Security Council nor Congress, I think they have only approved funding since the event.
If resolutions of the Security Council arent binding then where is the legitmacy of Israel and why has Arab nations gone to war if it is binding. No Arab nation has been accused of violating UN resolutions re legitimacy of the Zionist State of Israel to my knowledge. B]

Do Cuba "nonbinding" resolutions are giving legality to Israel? :scrollhah
  • 0

#7353 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Raggz
Hello Bader

What about the US and Cuba? What law?

UN SC Resolutions 660 and 678 cover the Iraq invasion. The info is on the US Dept of State site. They cover attacking Iran as well, if it is proven that Iran invades Iraq. The UN Security Council did approve the invasion. If not, it would have acted to order that it cease. The 2003 invasion was authorized by a Joint Resolution of Congress. All of the reasons for it are in it. Wiki has the text.

UN Security Council resolutions are of course binding. Which one are we discussing?

I see no authority in the UN Charter to create Israel or Kosovo.


I said nothing about the US and Cuba. But I have no doubt Castro's Cuba was ( CIA) setup with the approval of the US, as kennedy intended to end it as he did other things like the inevitable war in Viet Nam, Israels intention of becoming an nuclear power. Worse still there would have been no trillions of dollars given to Israel over the years! The current mess in the Middle east would have been avoided.

UN SC Resolution 660 relates to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and has nothing to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Resolution 678 was to give Iraq its final warning to withdraw from Kuait which it did. Its forces were destroyed anyway by the US, the second part was if they didnt then members of the UN were authorised to remove them.

Once again this has nothing to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Also several journalists reported Congress never authorised it prior to it happening.

Colin Powell lied through his teeth in his speach to the UN and obviously one or more of the Permanent members of the Security Councill must have vetoed it. Probably Russia and China.

The authority for a Zionist state will probably be in the resolution to form two states, one Arab and One 'Jewish'. The later moved in by force and the Arab Palestinians objected to the definition of what they should accept from the foreigners which was their right. Their 'state' is only now in sight and promises to be another Masonic state like Israel.
The Palestinian state has to be formed now, by any means, in order for the city of Jerusalem to then become what the global planners have always intended when they set the zionists into action there.
Therefore some state of some kind and its phoney leader like Abbas will authorise with Israel what the City of Jerusalem will become. Note the principle I have already made- that the indigenous peoples had to be able to able to determine, through some political entity, what they want and not a bunch of wrecked countries like Europe and Russia in 1947 ( plus Nth America and british Empire) making decisions over other peoples lands ( which included abandonning Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union and bogus elections that put communist parties into power everywhere). Check out the membership of the UN which was only just formed before Israel, it didnt represent the world, it represented the international bankers and the world revolutionary movement who formed it, mostly in the shadow of Roosevelt controlled by the Zionists.
Communists in the State dept were key players.
Today the key players ( revolutionaries ) are the Neo-cons in the other main party now. As I have said previously you have a long long way to go Raggz.

Had the 2003 invasion been approved it would have become null and void since all the 'evidence' upon which it was justified has proven to be lies.

Its your favourite game to hide crimes against humanity by claims of 'legality' as if it makes it all right. Bare in mind Raggz your state can arrest you and torchure you to death, even in front of your family, no charge, no rights, no one responsible or accountable, your property siezed and if they take you away in hidding your family wont be informed because you have no rights from the point of arrest.

Now since you are a legalist with no morals this would be good and right to happen to you or any US citizen, whether, justified or for just training purposes because its 'legal', Constitution or no Constitution.

You waste peoples time with your phoney international law pitch.
Pity you werent interested in saving just one country, like your own.
  • 0

#7354 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 06:31 PM

Ex-President ( Italy) Francisco Cossiga ( 1985 -92)has disclosed to Zitaly's largest circulating paper thatSept 11 ( Twin Towers) was run by the CIA and Mossad with th aid of the Zionist world to induce Western Powers to take part in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cossiga was forced from office after disclosing Operation Gladio, false flag operations of bombing across Europe in the 60s,70s and 80s, overseen by US intelligence.

perhaps someome might reply and show how it was all legal.
  • 0

#7355 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 09:24 PM

This is too shocking too believed :s&l: :silence: :scared:
  • 0

#7356 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 09:43 PM

"Chocolate Pricing fixing "
I know that is for population not to see an inflation
Hershey Co., Mars Inc. and Nestl? SA are fixed prices and 99%
products.as well Will Americans peoples will buy it? :scrollhah
  • 0

#7357 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 05:35 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
"Chocolate Pricing fixing "
I know that is for population not to see an inflation
Hershey Co., Mars Inc. and Nestl? SA are fixed prices and 99%
products.as well Will Americans peoples will buy it? :scrollhah



Like the dollar it melts in your hands.
  • 0

#7358 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 25 December 2007 - 04:22 PM

because UN doesn
  • 0

#7359 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 26 December 2007 - 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Bader
B]Like the dollar it melts in your hands. B]

Dollars falls, it makes Bush happy, because he sells military products where American society is forced to buy import pro ducts to sustain a living.
  • 0

#7360 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 27 December 2007 - 07:29 AM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Dollars falls, it makes Bush happy, because he sells military products where American society is forced to buy import pro ducts to sustain a living.



Tha Arabs are manning the safty net of the dollar so the US can assord to keep funding Israel, and his wars keep the dollar in demand to pay the high price of oil and at the same time make Russia and Iran able to develop into rivals of interest in the Middle East, so Israel will need more dollars. Its exciting!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru