Why can we afford our extra-Constitutional, wars on abstractions when the Right claims we should be lowering Taxes, like we do whenever it is not a real time of War?
QUOTE=budini;1062050856]to all ::::::::: another similar article ;;; America is a form of concentrated human tragedy 23.11.2012 . Ehem - that sounds about right - resembling a more polish version of Stalinist USSR - wot ? ====== " Yup. Better still - just have a whole population swap. . " Surely not, everyone knows America is the land of the Free and home of the brave , HUH ? Yup - in america they've got a 2nd amendment - Calling Police will take too long - just go get your gun - and if the dispute is not settled - after fair warning - you can shoot the other person- - in " self defence" - right to brear arms etc. etc. . . That's it - get yourselves a 2nd Amendment. ================ I once read of a senior Pravda correspondent with several years US experience - when he was questioned about Kremlin's propaganda , he said something like - Ah ! Of course , Toverich - we have lots of propaganda issued by the Kremlin - but no Russian believes it - Here in america every american believes their governments's propaganda. It would be un-american to doubt it." ==== tata
Whenever you involve yourselves in other peoples - disputes/conflicts - you wont lnow how it'll end - more often as not you'll get blamed/shot at - by all sides. But for american's + its government to keep the nose out of other peoples dispute , would not be the American Way - would it ?
to all ::::::::::: the article about hillary was popular; perhaps this shall also be. ~~~~~~~~~ Russia's friendly ties with neighbors upsets Hillary Clinton 10.12.2012 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States was trying to prevent Russia and its allies from turning into something resembling the Soviet Union under the guise of economic integration. "There is a move to re-Sovietise the region," said the US Secretary of State. "It's not going to be called that. It's going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that. But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it," Hillary Clinton said in Dublin, as reported by the Financial Times. It is noteworthy that the Secretary of State made this statement just a few hours before her meeting with Sergei Lavrov. She said it on the same day when the U.S. Senate voted for the so-called "Magnitsky act." And finally, one more thing - either by accident or not, Clinton made this statement on the eve of the anniversary of the Bialowieza agreement establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States. The agreement was signed by Boris Yeltsin, Stanislav Shushkevich and Leonid Kravchuk on December 8, 1991. The U.S. Secretary of State also added that in Russia the principles of democracy and human rights were increasingly violated, and the same trend was observed in Belarus, Turkmenistan and other former Soviet countries. Clinton said that sadly, it's been 20 years since the collapse of the USSR, and the progress that was expected was not noticeable. A spokesman of Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, commented on Clinton's statements. He said that her conclusions about the attempts to integrate were wrong. "What we are observing in the former Soviet Union is a new type of integration, based only on economic integration. Any other type of close interaction is not possible in today's world," Peskov said. Russian President has repeatedly stated that the integration in the Eurasian space did not assume restoration of the USSR. "All we want to achieve is the interaction on political, economic and other issues," Vladimir Putin said in October. Of course, hardly anyone seriously believes that the restoration of some semblance of the Soviet Union, at least partially, is possible. But the United States, according to the statements of Clinton, generally opposes any attempts of integration of the former Soviet Union. This is the principle of "divide and rule" as is. Is it cynical? Perhaps. Hillary Clinton is finishing her last few days as Secretary of State. Whether such openness is permissible even for a "lame duck" is a question. It is evident that Moscow will have a negative reaction to the statement of the U.S. Department of State. Lately there has been too much negativity from Washington. The Chairman of the Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs Alexei Pushkov noted that "for the first time an official who also holds the position of Secretary of State of the United States opposed the formation of the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union." "Hillary Clinton's statement shows that for the leadership of the United States, the adoption of "Magnitsky Act" is apparently not enough. "They want to cause more tension in the relationship," said head of the Duma committee for international affairs to Pravda.ru. "Creation of the Customs Union, as well as creation of the Eurasian Union, is not in the purview of the U.S. State Department and Mrs. Clinton. We are talking about an economic union that does not threaten anyone and is based on the generally accepted principles of integration. Such unions exist in North America, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Isolation of the Eurasian Union as a phenomenon with which the United States would fight can be seen as foreign policy openly hostile to Russia's," he said. According to Alexei Pushkov, the statement of the American Secretary of State "means, first of all, that there is no resumption of the "reset." "Second, the Obama administration has chosen a confrontational tone for some unknown reason. Third, it is in fact an ultimatum to Russia", said head of the Duma Committee on International Affairs. He believes that if Washington intends to enter into a political confrontation with Russia in the post-Soviet territory, Hillary Clinton's statement will have consequences. "Russia will evaluate the prospects of cooperation with the U.S. In particular, in those areas that are important to the United States," said Alexey Pushkov. At the same time, he noted that the U.S. is "not in a position now to declare a geopolitical war on the Russian Federation." "The fact that the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union will not have anything to do with the Soviet Union is clear to everyone but Hillary Clinton," concluded head of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs. Oleg Artyukov Pravda.Ru ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vlad
In my opinion, we should help the former Soviet Union engage us in an industrial automation race instead of any drug wars.
Well said - On that point - I cant think of any reason to disagree. btw - I'm so glad you did'nt include - Foks News. LOL May I had - curiously a disproportionate number of those Russian Oligarchs appear to be Jews or psuedo/quasi - Jews ,-- I can't help wondering- why so?
Re-Sovietize the region. LMAO... As far as fear-mongering is concerned, Hillary takes the cake. Other countries are trying diplomacy, cooperation, free trade and friendship to make progress. And it WORKS! And they make progress. This scares the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of countries like the USA that have to bully others and coerce and force cooperation down the barrel of the gun, because they go backwards in the counterproductive policy, and other smarter countries are gaining momentum against them. So that's why it's funny when Hillary goes up and wags the finger at that.. Shows how scared SHE is being and how threatened she becomes by progress and cooperation. Like China go to Africa and build infrastructure and take care of the people there, and in turn they get jobs mining and such and China gain resources to fuel and grow their country. It's a mutually beneficial and cooperative arrangement that they all gain from and do so voluntarily. So Hillary, while her country are sending TROOPS to Africa and building military bases there, has to wag her finger at them about how they need to beware of China!!! And they just laugh thinking, China built this whole city for us, so you mean nothing you stupid white (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)! Unbelievable!
It is the way of things especially for a super power country such as the USA every nation, government, rebels, terrorist, dictators, regime, etc. will want the USA to get involve on their side and if the USA will not get involve they'll get attack just to get them involve clear example was 9/11 and Israel is another example during the Iraq invasion Saddam attack Israel to get Israel involve and get every Muslim country to side with him against USA. Russia, China and India are no exemption too even the most isolated regime North Korea have intrusive foreign policies. At the end of the day it is about taking sides for now it is USA-Allies, Russia-Allies, China-Allies or Islamist-Allies.....I choose USA-Allies.
to happy ::::::: you have a certain point of view which needs to be repeated and better developed; please do post more often and post on all subjects. vlad "QUOTE=happy fun dude;1062140864]Re-Sovietize the region. LMAO... As far as fear-mongering is concerned, Hillary takes the cake. Other countries are trying diplomacy, cooperation, free trade and friendship to make progress. And it WORKS! And they make progress. This scares the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of countries like the USA that have to bully others and coerce and force cooperation down the barrel of the gun, because they go backwards in the counterproductive policy, and other smarter countries are gaining momentum against them. So that's why it's funny when Hillary goes up and wags the finger at that.. Shows how scared SHE is being and how threatened she becomes by progress and cooperation. Like China go to Africa and build infrastructure and take care of the people there, and in turn they get jobs mining and such and China gain resources to fuel and grow their country. It's a mutually beneficial and cooperative arrangement that they all gain from and do so voluntarily. So Hillary, while her country are sending TROOPS to Africa and building military bases there, has to wag her finger at them about how they need to beware of China!!! And they just laugh thinking, China built this whole city for us, so you mean nothing you stupid white (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)! Unbelievable![/QUOTE]
to all ::::::::::: this is a very very much relavent article. the opinion of pravda in regard to this topic may not be replaced by any other media. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Will there be World War Three? 08.01.2013 International analysts have launched a debate about the probability of a start of a new world war. The plans to deploy Patriot missile defense systems on the Turkish-Syrian border were another excuse for this discussion. There are allegations that the threat from Syria is only an imaginary cause of the deployment, and in reality it has to do with Iran and its nuclear potential. Many experts have repeatedly expressed their opinions about a probability of a start of another world war. According to them, the third world war would be a doom for humanity, since the nuclear standoff would not leave anyone alive. This statement was recently made by Hasan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces. According to him, the cause of a new world war can be a possible deployment of Patriot missile defense systems on the border between Syria and Turkey. As Hassan Firouzabadi noted in his speech, this measure would lead to serious consequences for Europe and the entire humanity, noting that the new missile system was a "black mark on the world map." NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen noted that these missile systems would not stay in Turkey longer than necessary. Currently, their deployment on nine hundred kilometers of the Turkish-Syrian border is under discussion. The reason for the deployment of Patriot was an official request by the Turkish authorities sent to NATO on November 21, 2012. On December 4, NATO representatives approved the request of Turkey. According to the Turkish media, the authorities made this decision to protect the country against a possible attack by Syria. So far Patriot missile defense systems would be deployed in the provinces of Malatya, Gaziantep and Diyarbakir, the south-east of the country. In addition, the command center of the system will be located at a NATO base in Germany. At the request of Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the missile complex will be deployed in January of 2013. At a meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Prime Minister of the Netherlands noted that Germany, the USA and the Netherlands were working closely with representatives of the Turkish side to finish the installation of the anti-missile system as quickly as possible. However, the Chief of Staff of Iranian Armed Forces was not the only one who had a very negative reaction to the possibility of deployment of Patriot at the Turkish-Syrian border. As noted by Ali Akbar Salehi, Iranian Foreign Minister, deployment of anti-missile system on the Turkish-Syrian border is more a provocation than a way to protect against a possible attack by the Syrian Air Force. According to him, it would be foolish to hope that the deployment of Patriot would help to improve security and stabilize the situation in the region. Salehi also said that the issue could not be solved without the participation of Syria, therefore, Turkey and NATO should not interfere in the Syrian problems. However, other world powers had a cautious reaction to the situation. According to head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov, the deployment of the missile complex at the Syrian-Turkish border may cause new armed clashes and even a new global war. According to him, the new Turkish Patriot system is a serious threat to many countries, including Iran and Europe. Despite the fact that the missile defense system is designed to reflect a possible attack by Syria, its location in Turkey can be quickly changed, so theoretically, it could be used against Iran that would not be able to do anything to oppose the attackers. Russian experts believe that despite the large distance from the borders of Iran, the main purpose of Patriot is a timely suppression of Iran's nuclear facilities located only 500 kilometers away. As noted by Dmitry Polikanov, Vice President of the PIR Center, a possible threat from Syria is just an excuse. In fact, the U.S. plans to use Turkey as a platform from which they can quickly suppress the threat from Iran. According to him, the Patriot deployment in Turkey cannot be temporary, despite the statements of the Turkish authorities. Now Iran will be closely watched, and any wrong move would be seen as a provocation, and the consequences will be the most disastrous for the country because Tehran will not be able to strike back. Victor Nadein-Rajewski, a research fellow at the RAS, agreed with this opinion. According to him, the final location of Patriot missiles has not yet been approved, which is alarming. According to him, deployment of the missile defense system is a way for NATO to help to strengthen Turkey as a strategic platform for the United States to fight against Iran. Despite the fact that the country is ruled by the Islamic government with Prime Minister Erdogan in charge, NATO was able to draw the Turkish authorities into the conflict against Iran. Especially, by helping in the fight against Syria, where Ankara has its own interest. Not all Russian experts are that pessimistic. According to the director of the Moscow Carnegie Center, Dmitri Trenin, one cannot state with certainty that Patriot missiles would be directed against Iran. According to him, Europe has long formed anti-missile systems that can successfully confront Tehran, and currently there is no need to supplement. Of course, if the situation with Iran gets more complicated, NATO and the U.S. will have to take additional measures to counter it, and Patriot missiles would likely play an important role. Under the current circumstances this is largely caused by a political situation in Syria and Turkey. As General Leonid Ivashov, director of the Institute for Geopolitical Studies, noted in his speech, at this time there can be no question of Syria attacking Turkey. Syrian state is dealing with a critical problem of the civil war, and cannot even think about a centralized attack on another country whose military power significantly surpasses the capabilities of Syria. According to General Ivashov, this is not a question of protecting Turkey from an attack by the Syrians, but the invasion of Turkish troops into Syria, as Ankara has been interested in the country for a long time. Russia's veto is the only factor that prevented the invasion. According to General Leonid Ivashov, the new missile facility is created not for defense, but an attack either on Iran or Syria. Incidentally, the deployed complex may help to fight missiles, combat aircraft and helicopters, but would be useless in the attacks of ground forces, or short-range missiles. However, according to NATO spokesman George Litlla, the Turkish officials have repeatedly made decisions to open fire on the Syrian side in response to the falling shells. In addition, Turkish representatives fear that riots and growing civil war in Syria will "cross" the Turkish border because the political situation in the border areas is unstable. According to Alexander Grushko, Russia's envoy to NATO, deployment of anti-missile systems is a sign that the alliance began to interfere in the Turkish-Syrian conflict. The deployment of missiles once again confirms the interest of NATO and the United States in the Asian region, as well as the fact that the U.S. is going to take an interest in the Syrian conflict. As stated by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, this measure would help to demonstrate to the world that Turkey is under the protection of the world's leading powers. Sergei Vasilenkov Pravda.Ru
Supposedly, our political elites believe regime change in Libya and Syria mean better results for America in business and strategic relations. With Libya, it was probably oil interests, but with Syria, it's more of a strategic thing. Getting rid of Assad might help when dealing with certain elements like Hezbollah, but I don't see his successors as likely allies of Israel.
*shrugs* Current probably wasn't a very viable media format. Al Jazeera's audience has been growing very quickly in large part because of the economic growth spawned by oil revenue in the Middle East. Current was probably a bargain, relatively speaking Jews are good at networking. The same is true for Mormons. To a lesser extent, you see similar things with certain Asian groups. Any group that is insular and loyal as a community tends to raise certain people up as their "leaders of industry." Jews just have a longer history of it than most. Granted, they don't have much choice given how many enemies they have had anyway. In Europe alone, there was always a certain amount of animosity shown toward them by Catholics and Protestants. In parts of the Islamic World, there are still several superstitions about Jews held by Muslims.
Secular and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. Muslim extremists are not at all overthrowing non Islamic countries. Where do you think this occurred? NATO ousts the governments for them, then the extremists merely fill in the void.
How has the USA been standing up for the women and children tortured and killed by the free Syrian terrorists?
to serfin :::::::::: michael savage says that al gore has sold out a part of the USA, perhaps he has sold an equivalent of manhattan island for a bunch of glass beads. http://tunein.com/radio/The-Savage-Nation-p20626/ more later; vlad
to serfin ::::::::: since you have chosen the name serfin; either serf or surf; you are willing to accept a secondary status. perhaps you may explain to me --- from your point of view --- how much of north america may be sold in the modern computerized and global terms --- i do remember how much of america was available for equal news about serbians IT WAS NOTHING - TOTALY NOTHING. but then again, the serbians do not have very many glass beads, not even $23.00 worth of beads. vlad
My name is a parody of a Beach Boys song. Yes, I'm familiar with the Serbian apologists regarding the Bosnian War. We have more than a few of them here at this forum. Let's stick to the Al Jazeera topic though. I'm actually glad Al Jazeera bought Current, because it may help to open up the American news market some. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/01/10/f-rfa-macdonald-al-jazeera.html
to serfin ::::::::::: the beach boys were never with bob dylan and joan baez; i was. the beach boys were never politicaly aware or political activist. so my point is that serfin is not being a part of it. al gores sale of "current" is in no way a new trend, in fact, it increases the same dangerous influences. we are dealing with people who can not make peace among themselves. in syria, there are at least three factions who are ready to exterminate each other. in lybia, perhaps they already have exterminated the old pro ghaddafi pro technology faction. now the pro-clericals are fighting the french in mali. and you want to replace news about all this with talk about how women should or should not drive cars. ??? how about those kids on american band stand, on the dick clark show, remember when they were "current". vlad
Al Jazeera is actually one of the more reliable news sources out there. Qatar is relatively progressive in the Middle East. Granted, I'm not saying Al Jazeera is perfect. Because it's based in Qatar, it has pressure to not cover dirt on the Qatari government.
to serfin ::::::: ??? does your al jezeera ever report on the failure of the arab world to take care of all the orphaned war victims; such as the millions in iraq. does your friend al jezeera ever report on the miles of electric fence which saudi arabia has built to keep the iraqi war refugees inside of iraq ??? vlad
to all ::::::::::::::: i have just found this article; it is very interesting. ~~~~~~~~~~ Ten years without Saddam Hussein 07.01.2013 2013 marks ten years since the beginning of U.S. and Britain's military operations in Iraq that ended with the fall of Hussein's regime. The victory of the allies over the poorly armed Iraqi army was not a surprise to most observers. However, the retention of the foreign military presence in the country would inevitably lead to an increase of popular resistance. Ten years after the start of the American invasion, The Independent columnist John Kampfner called the war in Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy debacles in contemporary history. Today, few believe that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by a foreign intervention that caused chaos and death of civilians was justified. We should analyze the mistakes of Bush and Blair to develop decision-making mechanisms regarding external intervention in emergency situations caused by human rights violations. No one in the United States is interested in starting new wars after the events in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to a recent poll conducted by Washington Post-ABC News, the American public does not want the use of force for political purposes. However, if Assad uses chemical weapons against his own people, the opinion of the Americans may change. At the same time, the UK will not be able to fully participate in the operation due to the reduction of the military budget, and is likely to be limited to the support of the Air Force, if necessary. The U.S. maintains military superiority, but President Obama knows that, at least for now, any military action would involve the risks that would outweigh the frustrations caused by inaction, Kempfner continued. The events in Iraq have caused a reaction in the Middle East and could be repeated in Syria. On May 1, 2003, the U.S. officially announced the completion of military operations in Iraq and victory of the coalition forces. U.S. President George W. Bush delivered a speech aboard the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln," where he announced the victory of the allied forces over the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. In the coming years the military were going to continue the search for unconventional weapons and begin rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure. One way or the other, the coalition forces remained in Iraq indefinitely. In May of 2003, after the completion of the brilliant "Operation Iraqi Freedom," it was difficult to imagine that the U.S. military would stay in the country for many years. In addition, by early 2008, the American contingent was increased to 160 thousand people. At the same time, the losses of the coalition forces have significantly increased. In one year, 952 U.S. military personnel were killed, and over six thousand were injured. At the time it seemed that the Iraq war would never end. However, following the election of U.S. President Barack Obama, a phased reduction of the military presence in Iraq has begun. By August of 2010, all U.S. combat troops have left the country, while the number of military employees still amounted to 50 thousand people. Finally, on December 15 of 2011, the completion of the U.S. Army mission in Iraq that lasted nearly nine years was announced. The U.S. military disclosed the irretrievable losses of the American army that amounted to 4,487 people. If the number of casualties in the ranks of the coalition forces is well documented, the number of casualties among civilian and insurgents is difficult to calculate due to the lack of reliable official sources. All calculations and computations in this regard caused heated debates. According to several sources, by July 2010, the number of civilian deaths ranged between 97, 461 and 106, 348 people. In 2006, Nuri al-Maliki, nominated for the post of prime minister by the "United Iraqi Alliance" (UIA), became head of the Iraqi government. Parliamentary elections held in March of 2010 secured the second place for Maliki's coalition, which allowed him to stay as prime minister. After the war was over, the Shiite al-Maliki government began conducting an independent foreign policy without consulting with the U.S. and its allies. Very soon, Baghdad was outside of Washington's sphere of influence. Iraq had a strong reaction to Ankara's unilateral actions in northern Iraq, demanding an end to cross-border operations against the PKK. In addition, in September of 2012, Iraq proposed its own plan to settle the Syrian conflict and opposed any military options. The Iraqi government is doing everything possible to recover the status of a regional power lost after the fall of the old regime. In the coming years, the role of Baghdad in regional affairs will only increase, experts believe. Yuri Sosinsky-Semikhat Pravda.Ru
