User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 182

  1. #111
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Here is a good (though not very in-depth) article from Reason on the current conflict. Cathy Young was born in the former Soviet Union and emigrated with her parents at 17. She writes often on Russia, feminism, etc.

    The Triumph of Putinism: Understanding the Russian-Georgian conflict - Reason Magazine
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #112
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    And Russia has the largest stockpile of WMD in the world. They can turn the US into a wasteland as well.
    That is not exactly true. They can devastate both American coasts, but all-out nuclear war would leave possibly 80-150 million Americans dead, and 60-80 million Russians dead. Russia would lose at least half of their population, and all of their major cities would be gone. The interior of the United States (aside from major metropolitan areas) would most likely survive, although no one really wants to consider what life would be like at point.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #113
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    although no one really wants to consider what life would be like at point.
    I think this is the first point you and I agree on.

  4. #114
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by werewolfen1984 View Post
    You won't see anything but propaganda on every major U.S. mainstream media outlet , but watch this clip and at least think about it > YouTube - Washington sanctioned assault on South Ossetia
    You realize that Russia Today is a Kremlin-controlled newspaper, right? Not exactly a good choice if you are trying to avoid propaganda. It speaks volumes that you trust a news network owned by the Kremlin over the competing accounts of independent media networks that would be quick to exploit any mistakes by their competitors. This is what happens when you immerse yourself in anti-American paranoia, though...

    Incidentally, read today's Wall Street Journal; it has an article that mentions a former employee of Russia Today who just quit because that propaganda arm of the Kremlin refused to print his verification that South Ossetia bombed ethnic Georgian villages before Georgia retaliated. Have I mentioned that the South Ossetian government is a puppet of Russia? Implies interesting things, dosn't it? Of course, that would require that so many people abandon assumptions of American perfidity, and consequently blame Georgia because it is an American ally, which means this MUST be happening by design of the evil, hitleresque Bush administration.

  5. #115
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Nato HAS been perverted

    There doesn't exist any kind of war with Russia where the US would triumph (this time not even a cold war I think, Russian economy is growing, and America will soon cease to be the sole financial hub of the world.)
    Protecting member-states from foreign aggression is not a perversion of NATO.

    Relative Russian power will decline faster than relative American power, for reason that I have already indicated.

  6. #116
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I don't know that that is true. A full-on USA + NATO vs. Russian world war could be "won", but would necessitate virtual abandonment of Iraq. We still have enough nukes to turn Russia into a wasteland. The U.S. would be playing global war Whack-A-Mole, though. It would be 1984-esque unending war, with the players and sides changing for decades.
    Ok, I agree that in such a scenario the US would probably lose less than Russia (if China stays out of it). Still, I said triumph, and there wouldn't be anything triumphant about the US after such a showdown. The US knows this, Russia knows this, so if it comes to that it's more likely we'll see a new "cold" war fought by different proxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    It speaks volumes that you trust a news network owned by the Kremlin over the competing accounts of independent media networks that would be quick to exploit any mistakes by their competitors.
    When did the "independent media networks" suddenly become quick to exploit any mistakes by their competitors again? I think I missed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Protecting member-states from foreign aggression is not a perversion of NATO.
    I agree 100%. I'm saying it's perverted because that's no longer NATO's only purpose.

    Edit: And if you doubt my statement about NATO starting to crack, look at NATO member responses to US pleas for more troops for the "war on terror".

    Relative Russian power will decline faster than relative American power, for reason that I have already indicated.
    I hope you're right, but if the US is squeezed out of the non-American parts of the world by China, India, Russia, the EU etc. etc., I'm not convinced you are. The US has much longer to fall, since it's relying on it's hegemony.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  7. #117
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    When did the "independent media networks" suddenly become quick to exploit any mistakes by their competitors again? I think I missed it.
    The Dan Rather incident, for example. Maybe you should check with groups like Reporters Without Borders to familiarize yourself with how the Kremlin controls media networks in their country.

    Btw, if NATO is starting to "crack" due to the war in Afghanistan (a circumstance that would frankly cost our fair-weather European allies more than us-I hope you're not emotionally attached to Svalbard), that would be due to the shameful failure by Europeans to abide by the terms of our common defense treaty, or have you forgotten why we went to war against the Taliban? Thus, NATO would hypothetically crack BECAUSE of NATO's primary purpose, not because that purpose has been perverted.

  8. #118
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The Dan Rather incident, for example.
    Ok, true. The media continues to jump on any mistakes made in the criticism of Bush.

    There have been countless conterexamples through the Bush era, though, where only international media ponited out the mistakes and inaccuracies of the entire US press corps when they blindly printed Washington's "inaccuracies" about the war on terror.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Maybe you should check with groups like Reporters Without Borders to familiarize yourself with how the Kremlin controls media networks in their country.
    I have. I don't trust anything that comes out of Russian media. I'm just pointing out that since 9/11 I haven't been able to fully trust the US media either.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Btw, if NATO is starting to "crack" due to the war in Afghanistan (a circumstance that would frankly cost our fair-weather European allies more than us-I hope you're not emotionally attached to Svalbard), that would be due to the shameful failure by Europeans to abide by the terms of our common defense treaty, or have you forgotten why we went to war against the Taliban? Thus, NATO would hypothetically crack BECAUSE of NATO's primary purpose, not because that purpose has been perverted.
    I know it'd cost Europe more than the US. Especially small countries like Norway. Which is why Europe will still be part of NATO as long as nothing better presents itself. Still, NATO is weakening, and popular support for NATO in Europe has been dropping like a rock. Unless the US drops the offensive direction it's taken NATO in, it will dissolve at some point, and perhaps some sort of EUTO present itself.

    I know the US has defined it's war on terror as a war of defense covered by the terms of the common defense treaty, but what good does that do when more and more Europeans start to see it as a perversion of the treaty and don't believe Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with defense? Just saying it's so doesn't make it so, and since the European countries are democracies, what people think will slowly bleed over into foreign politics.

    Is it a good thing? No, I don't think so. Will it still happen? I fear so, unless the Russian scare once again convinces Europeans that they're better off with a perverted NATO than none at all.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  9. #119
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    I know the US has defined it's war on terror as a war of defense covered by the terms of the common defense treaty, but what good does that do when more and more Europeans start to see it as a perversion of the treaty and don't believe Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with defense? Just saying it's so doesn't make it so, and since the European countries are democracies, what people think will slowly bleed over into foreign politics.
    Afghanistan is a separate issue from Iraq in terms of the NATO charter; the Taliban were sheltering Al Queda, there is no disagreement over this. All NATO countries invoked the common defense clause when invading and subsequently occupying Afghanistan. The job is obviously not finished (as should be expected in a country like Afghanistan). Abandoning that fight would be little less than a betrayel under such conditions, regardless of what the people in Europe may erroneously believe. The bases in the Turkestan regions, incidentially, are directly connected to that war, though I don't doubt that they served other purposes. There has been no perversion of NATO's mission anywhere here.

    NATO, as an organization, declined to participate in the Iraq war (which WOULD have been a violation of NATO's charter, much like the bombing of Serbia-though the latter had widespread support within NATO). There has therefore been no peversion of the NATO mandate from that war.

    There HAS been substantial use of NATO procedures, privileges, and resources in the context of the wider war on terrorism, and people may legitimately disagree over the methods used. However, jihadist terrorism IS a common threat for all NATO members (more so in Europe than on the other side of the Atlantic), so using NATO resources against them do not qualify as a perversion of the NATO mandate.

    As for media bias, there is plenty of it to go around. For example, a BBC internal investigation found extensive bias within that network. It is not good to fully trust any of them.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 08-17-2008 at 04:46 PM. Reason: I forgot to type the word "doubt"

  10. #120
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Here is a good (though not very in-depth) article from Reason on the current conflict. Cathy Young was born in the former Soviet Union and emigrated with her parents at 17. She writes often on Russia, feminism, etc.

    The Triumph of Putinism: Understanding the Russian-Georgian conflict - Reason Magazine
    The specialists in the field of disinformation are well paid.
    A talented people.

    The person who is responsibe for the article is not the original writer.
    The responsible person is object of either blackmal or reward. Or both.

    Disinformation is a special branch.
    The security service screens the schools. They look for people who have verbal ability.
    These people are rewarded. They are given security and status.

    The blackmailed person is not the writer of any disinformation.
    She or he is only the signer of it.
    The security organ can not write under its own insignia.

    Georgia sent troops?
    Yes.

    Why?
    Because the peace keepers were under an order.
    What order?

    The order was not to keep the peace any longer.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 370
    Last Post: 02-07-2016, 09:54 PM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. What's the deal with Socionics?
    By alicia91 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 08:56 AM
  4. What is the best country to live in?
    By JAVO in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 05:44 AM
  5. What's the deal with Water Divining?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 01:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO