Discussion:
Rice lectures to the end
(too old to reply)
wbbrdr
2008-09-19 02:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Peter Lavelle
http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27

Everyone “miscalculated” when it came to the origins of Saakashvili’s
war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
needlessly died. Let’s give it a thought: Russia tricked the Georgians
into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia tricked
Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How did Russia
stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word on the
militarization of the Saakashvili regime – paid for and trained by
Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we know the
answer to the question now.

Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
“provocation”). International law became a dead letter when
Saakashvili ordered the first shot. Rice is right on one point –
Georgia’s sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili’s
regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
not selfishly seeking security on its borders.

Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.

Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev’s claim
that Russia has “privileged” interests in the region of the world
where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
who sees the entire world as Washington’s sphere of influence! I don’t
even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.

Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
think about anybody else’s security – least of all Russia’s. Never
once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
interests. Never once - to my mind – has the US ever sat down with
Russia to cut a deal both can live with.

Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
neighbors - and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn’t
like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
(that is almost always directed against Russia’s influence in the post-
Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
be charged with dereliction of duty.

As for using energy to blackmail its neighbors, Rice obviously does
not know much about Russia’s energy policy. Prior to about 2001,
Russia DID use energy as a political tool. But such a policy did not
produce dividends. Russia provided CHEAP energy to its neighbors in
the HOPE of political deference. What happened? Russia’s neighbors
gladly accepted Russia’s cheap energy, but at the same time
entertained Western approaches. Essentially what Russia tried to do
was to subsidize its neighbors’ foreign policies and it didn’t work.
Going to market prices takes politics out of the equation. But Dick
Cheney doesn’t agree. Energy is his favorite weapon of choice to start
wars.

Rice’s speech was pathetic. It never entered her mind that others have
their own opinion and interests. The U.S. has needlessly created havoc
in the world. It has made potential friends into enemies. It ignores
international law when its suits its purposes. But it condemns others
for not following it. It supports aggression, but never admits its
own. And it can’t even run its own economy based market principles it
claims to hold so dear.

I, for one, will be very happy to see Ms Rice leave the scene. She
insults even average intelligence. Her views on Russia and how the
world should kneel to American interests are Orwellian. The only
upside to all of this is the plain fact that Rice and the rest of the
Bush people have basically bankrupted the U.S. Washington today has
few resources to play the world as its own chessboard. Its
ideologically driven over-reach is ending in the checkmate of itself.

In Russian there is a saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.
And Rice’s bark has no bite.
fasgnadh
2008-09-19 03:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by wbbrdr
Peter Lavelle
http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
Everyone “miscalculated” when it came to the origins of Saakashvili’s
war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
needlessly died. Let’s give it a thought: Russia tricked the Georgians
into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia tricked
Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How did Russia
stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word on the
militarization of the Saakashvili regime – paid for and trained by
Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we know the
answer to the question now.
And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
of the US economy!

This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.

It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
Post by wbbrdr
Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
“provocation”). International law became a dead letter when
Saakashvili ordered the first shot.
The Georgians assert sovereignty over Sth Ossettia, by attacking
them, shelling and killing civilians, they have committed War Crimes
upon those they claim to be their own citizens.

Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds.

And the Republicans including Bush McSame and PMT Palin support
their military agression against their owm civilians

Just like they supported Saddam.


And the Sth Ossettians demand independence and freedom from
tyranny...

Just like the Kurds in Iraq.


The USSA used to at least PRETEND to uphold freedom and
self-determination.. under Bush and the Republican war
criminals they have become known more for torture and the denial of
human rights.

The world wants what America needs, a return to decency in the White House.
Post by wbbrdr
Rice is right on one point –
Georgia’s sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili’s
regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
Well, it might be, but > Saakashvili gave them a legitimate pretext
to protect the rights of Sth Ossettians (AND protect it's security).

Not as dumb as invading Iraq and handing it to shiites and regional
control to the Iranians.. but pretty fuckin stupid nontheless.
Post by wbbrdr
Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
Good point.

Similarly, we should note that the Turks, tired of PKK terrorists
maing bombing attacks across the northern Iraq border have justified
their counter attacks using classic Bush rhetoric "Terrorists threaten
us, Not in our imaginations like Bush's WMD fantasy, but IN REALITY..
The Iraq government, backed by rogue states (that must hurt) either
can't stop them or is willingly supporting their terrorism.. by
Bush's doctrine the Turks have a right to invade and sieze control
of the Kurdis oil fields, occupying the region and installing a new
regime free of the current terrorist elements." Perhaps they will hang
one Kurdish terrorist and claim a Victory for the Free World? B^p

What can Rice say in reply?
Post by wbbrdr
Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev’s claim
that Russia has “privileged” interests in the region of the world
where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
who sees the entire world as Washington’s sphere of influence! I don’t
even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
think about anybody else’s security – least of all Russia’s. Never
once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
interests. Never once - to my mind – has the US ever sat down with
Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
neighbors - and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn’t
like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
(that is almost always directed against Russia’s influence in the post-
Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
be charged with dereliction of duty.
As for using energy to blackmail its neighbors, Rice obviously does
not know much about Russia’s energy policy. Prior to about 2001,
Russia DID use energy as a political tool. But such a policy did not
produce dividends. Russia provided CHEAP energy to its neighbors in
the HOPE of political deference. What happened? Russia’s neighbors
gladly accepted Russia’s cheap energy, but at the same time
entertained Western approaches. Essentially what Russia tried to do
was to subsidize its neighbors’ foreign policies and it didn’t work.
Going to market prices takes politics out of the equation. But Dick
Cheney doesn’t agree. Energy is his favorite weapon of choice to start
wars.
Rice’s speech was pathetic. It never entered her mind that others have
their own opinion and interests. The U.S. has needlessly created havoc
in the world. It has made potential friends into enemies. It ignores
international law when its suits its purposes. But it condemns others
for not following it. It supports aggression, but never admits its
own. And it can’t even run its own economy based market principles it
claims to hold so dear.
I, for one, will be very happy to see Ms Rice leave the scene. She
insults even average intelligence. Her views on Russia and how the
world should kneel to American interests are Orwellian. The only
upside to all of this is the plain fact that Rice and the rest of the
Bush people have basically bankrupted the U.S. Washington today has
few resources to play the world as its own chessboard. Its
ideologically driven over-reach is ending in the checkmate of itself.
In Russian there is a saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.
And Rice’s bark has no bite.
--
----------

US Congressional investigation June 2004:
"What motivated the September 11 Attacks"



---------

"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties."

---------

There is a fundamental distinction between
multicultural and Multiculturalism, which racists
constantly and deliberately confuse.

A society is multicultural if it has more than one
culture being practised within that society.

'Multicultural - A society which embraces a number
of minority cultures' - Macquarie Dictionary

MulticulturalISM is two things, the -ISM indicates that it
is a set of beliefs or ideas about multiculture,
ie a recognition of multicultural REALITY, an acceptance of it,
a celebration of it.
But it is ALSO a set of government policies to
formalize that recognition, acceptance and celebration!
Thus the Howard government has a Department which documents
the positive economic social and foreign policy benefits from
having a successful, open, democratic multicultural society."

Recently Howard has decided to abandon national unity through
freedom and diversity and return to the language of the White
Australia policy.

Australians will have to choose if they want a future,
or a return to the past.


---------



The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
TomTom
2008-09-19 03:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
Peter Lavelle
http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
Everyone ⌠miscalculated■ when it came to the origins of Saakashvili▓s
war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
needlessly died. Let▓s give it a thought: Russia tricked the
Georgians into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia
tricked Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How
did Russia stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word
on the militarization of the Saakashvili regime √ paid for and
trained by Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we
know the answer to the question now.
And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
of the US economy!
This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.
It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
Don't be so stupid! It's silly, empty hyperbole from mindless Americans
posturing on their domestic political stage for the idiot vote. Ultimately,
the USA will do nothing about these two territories, formerly part of
Georgia. There is nothing that the USA can do. Or anyone else for that
matter.

It's all over, now.
fasgnadh
2008-09-19 08:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by TomTom
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
Peter Lavelle
http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
Everyone ⌠miscalculated■ when it came to the origins of Saakashvili▓s
war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
needlessly died. Let▓s give it a thought: Russia tricked the
Georgians into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia
tricked Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How
did Russia stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word
on the militarization of the Saakashvili regime √ paid for and
trained by Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we
know the answer to the question now.
And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
of the US economy!
This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.
It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
Don't be so stupid!
Let's get this clear, Pom Pom does not disagree with my analysis,
doesn't disagree the Republicans have made bellicose threats,
just wants you not to pay any attention because they are writing
prescriptions they can't fill!

According to PomPom it's stupid to advise people not
to risk voting for such dangerous fuckwits, they will
never be a threat because they are hopeless cretins!

Funnily enough, that was the mistake the German Industrialists
made backing the little Austrian housepainter who stole Charlie
Chaplins moustache.

If you had been asked in 2000 if you thought the USSA would invade
a sovereign nation based on a lie fed to them by Iranian Imams,
murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Men Women and Children,
torture others, tear up the Geneva Convention and commit massive
War Crimes (notably the Chemical warfare attack on Civilian Falluja)
create an Al Qaide presence where previously there was none,
waste the lives of more American troops than the victims of Sept 11,
all to hand Iraq to the Shiites, setting back the emancipation of
Iraqi women FORTY YEARS, and making the Iranians the regional hegemon...
how hard would you have laughed? But it all happened.

PomPom is an exercise in pointless hyperbole..
Post by TomTom
It's silly, empty hyperbole from mindless Americans posturing
on their domestic political stage for the idiot vote.
Oh so you think it's stupid to warn people not to vote for
mindless posturing.. which is what many Germans felt about the
ridiculous little Nazi...
Post by TomTom
Ultimately, the USA will do nothing about these two territories,
McSame and Palin say they put Georgia in NATO, increasing the
Russians insecurity and ultimately leading to thermonuclear war.

Palin ahs responded to a question pointing out that as the likely
consequence of her and McSames policies with 'Yes, perhaps'

I warn people of the magnitude of those two lunatics dangerous
delusions, and suggest people should not give them the Launch
Codes for the Greatest Nuclear Arsenal on the Planet and YOU call ME
stupid and suggest "It's OK, they don't really mean it!"

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAAA

Seriously you feeble lightweight.. what sane person would take
a chance with them, or you? B^D
Post by TomTom
formerly part of Georgia. There is nothing that the USA can do.
Or anyone else for that matter.
You haven't read McCain on American Destiny have you?


You can't tell me about McCain's plan for "Rogue State Rollback"
can you.. because you don't know that he is far to the Right
of George Bush, a poster boy for the neocon establishment "Project
for the New American Century" and a believer in the limitless power of
government AND IT'S MILITARY PROJECTION WORLDWIDE!

Here's a taste of what a surprise you, America and the world
have in store if that military Martinet has the launch codes to
the US nuclear arsenal:

Matt Welch, author of the book "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick",
in an interview with Michael Duffy on ABC Counterpoint:

"He named a half a dozen countries--Burma, North Korea, Iran,
Iraq--where US policy should be to topple dictators, to
support insurgents wherever they may be, and if the
insurgents get cracked down upon by the authoritarian
in charge then back them up with the full use of US force.
Any time you even bluff or use any kind of threatening
language, you better be ready to back it up, not just
with force but with ground troops.

Michael Duffy: Where would a president McCain get the people to do this?
What are his views on military service?

Matt Welch: He thinks that we should increase the size of the
military by 150,000 troops. He told me in a direct question
that America should be spending at least half of the world's
total money on defence, he thinks that's proper and normal.
He thinks that defence spending should be fixed at at least 4%
of gross domestic product. Right now it's probably more
like 2.7% or 3%, largely because GDP keeps growing because
in the private sector things actually grow in a way that
they don't in the government sector. And he wants to
launch a new OSS, the Office of Strategic Service,
from WWII which was the precursor to the CIA which,
in case no one has noticed, still exists. He wants to
also put civilians on much more of a war footing and get
involved in the effort. He basically wants to use government
as an engine to have us all put our shoulder to the
wheel for this great collective project of
American national greatness."
Post by TomTom
It's all over, now.
It is for you, (you better swim back down the shallow end,
you are way out of your depth trying to discuss politics!)

It sure will be for everyone if that fucking lunatic is elected! B^p
Post by TomTom
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
"provocation"). International law became a dead letter when
Saakashvili ordered the first shot.
The Georgians assert sovereignty over Sth Ossettia, by attacking
them, shelling and killing civilians, they have committed War Crimes
upon those they claim to be their own citizens.
Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds.
And the Republicans including Bush McSame and PMT Palin support
their military agression against their owm civilians
Just like they supported Saddam.
And the Sth Ossettians demand independence and freedom from
tyranny...
Just like the Kurds in Iraq.
The USSA used to at least PRETEND to uphold freedom and
self-determination.. under Bush and the Republican war
criminals they have become known more for torture and the denial of
human rights.
The world wants what America needs, a return to decency in the White House.
Post by wbbrdr
Rice is right on one point -
Georgia's sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili's
regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
Well, it might be, but Saakashvili gave them a legitimate pretext
to protect the rights of Sth Ossettians (AND protect it's security).
Not as dumb as invading Iraq and handing it to shiites and regional
control to the Iranians.. but pretty fuckin stupid nontheless.
Post by wbbrdr
Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
Good point.
Similarly, we should note that the Turks, tired of PKK terrorists
maing bombing attacks across the northern Iraq border have justified
their counter attacks using classic Bush rhetoric "Terrorists threaten
us, Not in our imaginations like Bush's WMD fantasy, but IN REALITY..
The Iraq government, backed by rogue states (that must hurt) either
can't stop them or is willingly supporting their terrorism.. by
Bush's doctrine the Turks have a right to invade and sieze control
of the Kurdis oil fields, occupying the region and installing a new
regime free of the current terrorist elements." Perhaps they will hang
one Kurdish terrorist and claim a Victory for the Free World? B^p
What can Rice say in reply?
Post by wbbrdr
Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev's claim
that Russia has "privileged" interests in the region of the world
where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
who sees the entire world as Washington's sphere of influence! I don't
even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
think about anybody else's security - least of all Russia's. Never
once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
interests. Never once - to my mind - has the US ever sat down with
Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
neighbors -
What does she call "you are either with us or against us"
which for Pakistan translated threats of bombing back to
the stone age, or being a paid 'friend'. What about the
Cuban Missile crisis, the War on Vietnam, Deposing Allende
in a military coup, and many other Sth American governments
and replacing them with US puppets..? the list is too long..
my hands are tired of typing...
Post by TomTom
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn't
like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
(that is almost always directed against Russia's influence in the post-
Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
be charged with dereliction of duty.
As for using energy to blackmail its neighbors, Rice obviously does
not know much about Russia's energy policy. Prior to about 2001,
Russia DID use energy as a political tool. But such a policy did not
produce dividends. Russia provided CHEAP energy to its neighbors in
the HOPE of political deference. What happened? Russia's neighbors
gladly accepted Russia's cheap energy, but at the same time
entertained Western approaches. Essentially what Russia tried to do
was to subsidize its neighbors' foreign policies and it didn't work.
Going to market prices takes politics out of the equation. But Dick
Cheney doesn't agree. Energy is his favorite weapon of choice to start
wars.
Rice's speech was pathetic. It never entered her mind that others have
their own opinion and interests. The U.S. has needlessly created havoc
in the world. It has made potential friends into enemies. It ignores
international law when its suits its purposes. But it condemns others
for not following it. It supports aggression, but never admits its
own. And it can't even run its own economy based market principles it
claims to hold so dear.
I, for one, will be very happy to see Ms Rice leave the scene. She
insults even average intelligence. Her views on Russia and how the
world should kneel to American interests are Orwellian. The only
upside to all of this is the plain fact that Rice and the rest of the
Bush people have basically bankrupted the U.S. Washington today has
few resources to play the world as its own chessboard. Its
ideologically driven over-reach is ending in the checkmate of itself.
In Russian there is a saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.
And Rice's bark has no bite.
---------

"The Fundamentals of our Economy remain Strong" - John McSame,
Republican Candidate for the Presidency of the Derivative Ravaged,
Crisis torn, Economic Basket Case, The USSA!

http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html

---------
TomTom
2008-09-19 09:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
It is for you, (you better swim back down the shallow end,
you are way out of your depth trying to discuss politics!)
So, Peewee is claiming to advise Americans on the merits of their
Presidential candiates, based on foreign policy.

When was the last time that Americans voted for their President and took
into account the stated foreign policy of the candidates? And how much
influence did you have at the time?
fasgnadh
2008-09-19 10:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by TomTom
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
Peter Lavelle
http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
Everyone ⌠miscalculated■ when it came to the origins of Saakashvili▓s
war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
needlessly died. Let▓s give it a thought: Russia tricked the
Georgians into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia
tricked Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How
did Russia stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word
on the militarization of the Saakashvili regime √ paid for and
trained by Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we
know the answer to the question now.
And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
of the US economy!
This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.
It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
Don't be so stupid!
Let's get this clear, Pom Pom does not disagree with my analysis,
doesn't disagree the Republicans have made bellicose threats,
just wants you not to pay any attention because they are writing
prescriptions they can't fill!
According to PomPom it's stupid to advise people not
to risk voting for such dangerous fuckwits, they will
never be a threat because they are hopeless cretins!
Funnily enough, that was the mistake the German Industrialists
made backing the little Austrian housepainter who stole Charlie
Chaplins moustache.
If you had been asked in 2000 if you thought the USSA would invade
a sovereign nation based on a lie fed to them by Iranian Imams,
murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Men Women and Children,
torture others, tear up the Geneva Convention and commit massive
War Crimes (notably the Chemical warfare attack on Civilian Falluja)
create an Al Qaide presence where previously there was none,
waste the lives of more American troops than the victims of Sept 11,
all to hand Iraq to the Shiites, setting back the emancipation of
Iraqi women FORTY YEARS, and making the Iranians the regional hegemon...
how hard would you have laughed? But it all happened.
PomPom is an exercise in pointless hyperbole..
Post by TomTom
It's silly, empty hyperbole from mindless Americans posturing
on their domestic political stage for the idiot vote.
Oh so you think it's stupid to warn people not to vote for
mindless posturing.. which is what many Germans felt about the
ridiculous little Nazi...
Post by TomTom
Ultimately, the USA will do nothing about these two territories,
McSame and Palin say they put Georgia in NATO, increasing the
Russians insecurity and ultimately leading to thermonuclear war.
Palin ahs responded to a question pointing out that as the likely
consequence of her and McSames policies with 'Yes, perhaps'
I warn people of the magnitude of those two lunatics dangerous
delusions, and suggest people should not give them the Launch
Codes for the Greatest Nuclear Arsenal on the Planet and YOU call ME
stupid and suggest "It's OK, they don't really mean it!"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAAA
Seriously you feeble lightweight.. what sane person would take
a chance with them, or you? B^D
Post by TomTom
formerly part of Georgia. There is nothing that the USA can do.
Or anyone else for that matter.
You haven't read McCain on American Destiny have you?
Poor Old PomPom, he can't answer the simplest question!

We can safely take that as a 'No', another tacit admission
that he is totally Clueless about the matters at hand,
and so can only manage some 'Cult of the Celebrity' drivel
about irrelevant trivia....
Post by fasgnadh
You can't tell me about McCain's plan for "Rogue State Rollback"
can you.. because you don't know that he is far to the Right
of George Bush, a poster boy for the neocon establishment "Project
for the New American Century" and a believer in the limitless power of
government AND IT'S MILITARY PROJECTION WORLDWIDE!
So, heres the thing, until I asked, and clearly baffled the poor dolt,
I have no way of knowing if he knows what I know.. so I present it
to him, for his consideration.. just as with the wider audience,
they can agree, disagree, do either of those with rational arguement,
ignore it as too hard, become abuseive.. the response is not my
responsibility... I float wisdom out like prayer candles on a
Lotus leaf.. into the stream.. and their impact is not my concern..
I speak.. I listen.. I do not tell others what to hear, only
offer things worth considering.. some can .. PomPom cannot..

But he plays fetch quite well.. ;-)
Post by fasgnadh
Here's a taste of what a surprise you, America and the world
have in store if that military Martinet has the launch codes to
Matt Welch, author of the book "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick",
"He named a half a dozen countries--Burma, North Korea, Iran,
Iraq--where US policy should be to topple dictators, to
support insurgents wherever they may be, and if the
insurgents get cracked down upon by the authoritarian
in charge then back them up with the full use of US force.
Any time you even bluff or use any kind of threatening
language, you better be ready to back it up, not just
with force but with ground troops.
Michael Duffy: Where would a president McCain get the people to do this?
What are his views on military service?
Matt Welch: He thinks that we should increase the size of the
military by 150,000 troops.
See, that is an important fact. Standing armies cost money, and
after Iraq the US forces have trouble attracting new recruits.

Because of thoise difficulties the war in Iraq was conducted AT
TRILLION DOLLAR COST, double the half-trillion the War Criminals
claim, by privatized mercenery and support Carpetbaggers, who profited
from American AND Iraqi blood.. and that's something the taxpayers
need to know.. that McSame plans MORE ruinous wars like Iraq.
Post by fasgnadh
He told me in a direct question
that America should be spending at least half of the world's
total money on defence, he thinks that's proper and normal.
He thinks that defence spending should be fixed at at least 4%
of gross domestic product. Right now it's probably more
like 2.7% or 3%,
I'm pretty sure American taxpayers want to know that their taxes are
going to INCREASE, not just because McSame plans to keep the
unaffordable tax cuts for teh Rich, but because of his plans to
INCREASE the cost of the military so massively, and that means the
taxpayers need to consider more than the size of Palins tits, they need
to ask how, when he doesn't even realise the US economy is fucked,
he plans to pay for his GI Joe fantasies of MORE IRAQs!!!!!! 8^o

Perhaps PomPom.. you could give us the benefit of your ignorance
and silence on the matter again!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!
Post by fasgnadh
largely because GDP keeps growing
Maybe not this year! 8^o
Post by fasgnadh
because
in the private sector things actually grow in a way that
they don't in the government sector.
B^D sure! B^p
Post by fasgnadh
And he wants to
launch a new OSS, the Office of Strategic Service,
from WWII which was the precursor to the CIA which,
in case no one has noticed, still exists. He wants to
also put civilians on much more of a war footing and get
involved in the effort. He basically wants to use government
as an engine to have us all put our shoulder to the
wheel for this great collective project of
American national greatness."
Now that is a direct link to the way the Nazis plugged
into the 1930's German zeitgeist... Hitler wasn't the
brightest light on the christmas tree, eh just gave
bitter, angry frustrated Germans the present they most
desired.. Dreams of Military Greatness, Revenge and
an antidote from the shame of failure.. and instead of
delivering it, he destroyed germany and slaughtered
the flower of Europe...

So perhaps such dangerous dreams, in such challenging times
are worth our interest.. not PomPom's of course.. he is
busy in the sandpit examining the contents of his NAPPY!


In some ways I research these posts for my own increased
understanding.. I never knew about McCain's Napoleonic fantasies,
and the information came from a source, Duffy, for whom I
have little respect.. but still I listen and occasionally,
like today, he has an interesting guest with something worth hearing..
so I share it.. pass it on to others, because that exchange
of ideas is the foundation of our civilization, our
democracy, our culture and our freedom.. I love ideas and information
I feel sad for those who are frightened or intimidated by either,
or like PomPom, simply can't grasp the significance!
Post by fasgnadh
Post by TomTom
It's all over, now.
It is for you, (you better swim back down the shallow end,
you are way out of your depth trying to discuss politics!)
It sure will be for everyone if that fucking lunatic is elected! B^p
So, fasgnadh is claiming to advise Americans
No, I AM advising them, you drivelling dimwit, they
may not heed the advice, but I am honour bound to shout
at a child about to poke a fork into a power outlet "STOP!"
If they do it anyway, I tried my best to do what I thought
right at teh time.. no blame, no cost, no regret..
I would do the same again..

If they had listened last time they would have saved
over 3000 American lives and a trillion dollars in Iraq,
and not handed it over to Shiites allied with Iran, who
duped them into it! B^D

I reckon many of them are about as fucking stupid as YOU! B^D

No wonder you are mocked and derided so cruelly,
and so justifiably! B^D
on the merits of their Presidential candiates,
No, you poor dribbling dickwit, I found no merits
among McSame and Palin..

These are Political discussion groups, people exchange
their ideas.. you have none to present, so you try,
unsuccessfully, to follow mine.. but they are clearly too
complex for you to grasp.

I did advise you to return to the shallow end, becasue you
are out of your depth, but like the Americans, you haven't
listened, and are again sinking and drowning... B^)

I can lead a horses arse to water, but I can't make it THINK!
based on foreign policy.
Impossible, Palin has no foreign policy..
she thinks that talking about Russia BECAUSE
SHE LIVES CLOSE TO IT, is a foreign policy! B^D

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAA

You are the only idiot dumb enough to take her seriously
about that!
When was the last time that Americans voted for their President
About four years ago.. now run along, I don't have time
to give you any more tuition on American politics, and
you are obviously an ignorant neophyte to be asking such
simplistic questions...

Do your own research you useless bludger, and stop wasting the
time of people having a serious discussion!

You seem to lack the basic equipment people in a politics
discussion group require.. like a functioning brain,
something interesting to say, and rational, fact based
discussion skills.. I have modeled these skills for you
to try and copy...
and took into account the stated foreign policy of the candidates?
Well, of course, but no one expects YOU to manage that, when
you are so incoherent and clueless! B^D
And how much influence did you have at the time?
Well, that post is a few minutes old, and already
I have played with my pet, who, while contributing
nothing, follows me about yapping and trying to hump
my leg.. It's cute, for a while, but you really
are a tiresome twat after about 2 exchanges...
I suspect your time in my sunlight is almost up... ;-)

Roll Over and play dead...

...Now ...stop playing! B^D


As to my influence on the Americans, who can say,
but I have the satisfaction of them, after many years,
coming to the conclusions about Bush and Iraq that I
informed them of years ago.. very satisfying to be
in the vanguard and proven right.. but, how tactless of me,
you would never have had that pleasure! B^D

I reached a wider audience in Australia with my
NoNuts Costello Animation on National TV at a time
the Lieberal party was begging him to come and save them,
and he is now a disgarded feather duster... B^)

Who can tell what part my satire plays in exposing hubris,
it was certainly seen and enjoyed by thousands of those
interested in politics and current affairs.

Have you ever had your views played on national TV, PomPom?

Is that why you are obesssed with ME and my influence, rather
than debating the issues.. (which is clearly beyond your
meagre capacities ;-)
Post by fasgnadh
Post by TomTom
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
"provocation"). International law became a dead letter when
Saakashvili ordered the first shot.
The Georgians assert sovereignty over Sth Ossettia, by attacking
them, shelling and killing civilians, they have committed War Crimes
upon those they claim to be their own citizens.
Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds.
And the Republicans including Bush McSame and PMT Palin support
their military agression against their owm civilians
Just like they supported Saddam.
And the Sth Ossettians demand independence and freedom from
tyranny...
Just like the Kurds in Iraq.
The USSA used to at least PRETEND to uphold freedom and
self-determination.. under Bush and the Republican war
criminals they have become known more for torture and the denial of
human rights.
The world wants what America needs, a return to decency in the White House.
Post by wbbrdr
Rice is right on one point -
Georgia's sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili's
regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
Well, it might be, but Saakashvili gave them a legitimate pretext
to protect the rights of Sth Ossettians (AND protect it's security).
Not as dumb as invading Iraq and handing it to shiites and regional
control to the Iranians.. but pretty fuckin stupid nontheless.
Post by wbbrdr
Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
Good point.
Similarly, we should note that the Turks, tired of PKK terrorists
maing bombing attacks across the northern Iraq border have justified
their counter attacks using classic Bush rhetoric "Terrorists
threaten us, Not in our imaginations like Bush's WMD fantasy, but IN
REALITY..
The Iraq government, backed by rogue states (that must hurt) either
can't stop them or is willingly supporting their terrorism.. by
Bush's doctrine the Turks have a right to invade and sieze control
of the Kurdis oil fields, occupying the region and installing a new
regime free of the current terrorist elements." Perhaps they will hang
one Kurdish terrorist and claim a Victory for the Free World? B^p
What can Rice say in reply?
Post by wbbrdr
Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev's claim
that Russia has "privileged" interests in the region of the world
where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
who sees the entire world as Washington's sphere of influence! I don't
even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
think about anybody else's security - least of all Russia's. Never
once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
interests. Never once - to my mind - has the US ever sat down with
Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
neighbors -
What does she call "you are either with us or against us"
which for Pakistan translated threats of bombing back to
the stone age, or being a paid 'friend'. What about the
Cuban Missile crisis, the War on Vietnam, Deposing Allende
in a military coup, and many other Sth American governments
and replacing them with US puppets..? the list is too long..
my hands are tired of typing...
Post by TomTom
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn't
like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
(that is almost always directed against Russia's influence in the post-
Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
be charged with dereliction of duty.
As for using energy to blackmail its neighbors, Rice obviously does
not know much about Russia's energy policy. Prior to about 2001,
Russia DID use energy as a political tool. But such a policy did not
produce dividends. Russia provided CHEAP energy to its neighbors in
the HOPE of political deference. What happened? Russia's neighbors
gladly accepted Russia's cheap energy, but at the same time
entertained Western approaches. Essentially what Russia tried to do
was to subsidize its neighbors' foreign policies and it didn't work.
Going to market prices takes politics out of the equation. But Dick
Cheney doesn't agree. Energy is his favorite weapon of choice to start
wars.
Rice's speech was pathetic. It never entered her mind that others have
their own opinion and interests. The U.S. has needlessly created havoc
in the world. It has made potential friends into enemies. It ignores
international law when its suits its purposes. But it condemns others
for not following it. It supports aggression, but never admits its
own. And it can't even run its own economy based market principles it
claims to hold so dear.
I, for one, will be very happy to see Ms Rice leave the scene. She
insults even average intelligence. Her views on Russia and how the
world should kneel to American interests are Orwellian. The only
upside to all of this is the plain fact that Rice and the rest of the
Bush people have basically bankrupted the U.S. Washington today has
few resources to play the world as its own chessboard. Its
ideologically driven over-reach is ending in the checkmate of itself.
In Russian there is a saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.
And Rice's bark has no bite.
---------

"The Fundamentals of our Economy remain Strong" - John McSame,
Republican Candidate for the Presidency of the Derivative Ravaged,
Crisis torn, Economic Basket Case, The USSA!

http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/endoscope.html

---------
Patriot Games
2008-09-25 21:38:46 UTC
Permalink
As to my influence on the Americans...
None. Americans don't care about Aussie faggots.

From: fasgnadh <***@yahoo.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 122.108.0.227
122.108.0.227 = Melbourne, Australia.
SilentOtto
2008-09-25 22:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patriot Games
As to my influence on the Americans...
None. Americans don't care about Aussie faggots.
We don't care about rightard closet queers from Florida either,
Princess...

Heh heh...

Rightard queers...
Post by Patriot Games
NNTP-Posting-Host: 122.108.0.227
122.108.0.227 = Melbourne, Australia.
fasgnadh
2008-09-19 08:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Michael Duffy interviews Matt Welch, author of the book
"McCain: The Myth of a Maverick". on ABC Counterpoint

Matt Welch: "I went into John McCain as a fan. ....Like most
journalists, I love politicians who talk smack about their own party,
especially if that party is the Republican Party, so I found him sort of
charming. I took his two books and I was just alarmed at the hostility
to the individual that his world view had. I didn't really realise until
reading this what an expansive foreign policy idea that he had, how
rooted it was in the Teddy Roosevelt style, unipower, unipolar, the US
will keep the world safe for democracy. So these two things, just a
close reading of his books, and the gap between the information
contained therein and the way that he was portrayed glowingly in the
media for ever, until very recently, was enough to make me think, hey, I
can add some value about what he thinks about the proper role of
government, which is basically limitless.

Michael Duffy: So on the one hand he's being portrayed as a maverick
who's got serious doubts about the Republican Party but in other areas,
particularly the military, he is, if anything, to the right or certainly
more aggressive than George W Bush.

B^D McCain is to the RIGHT OF GENGHIS KHAN!

Matt Welch: Oh it's not even close. I mean, it's a strange thing to
remind people because they don't really realise it but in 1999 and 2000
when it was basically him against Bush, the Republican nomination,
McCain was the one who ran as a neo-conservative. He was hanging out
with the guys from the Project for the New American Century, he
literarily was trading staff, emails, books and whatever with The Weekly
Standard magazine which is the leading neoconservative journal here.
They, in many ways, supply the ideology of his campaign.

His campaign managers have described it as something like an a-ha moment
when the chief editor of The Weekly Standard wrote this essay in 1997
for The Wall Street Journal about national greatness, conservatism,
which was an explicit repudiation of a kind of Barry Goldwater, Ronald
Reagan limited government idea, which McCain thought was a dogma. And as
part of this, in 1999, back when everyone was loving him and calling him
a maverick and all this kind of stuff, he unveiled a doctrine which he
called Rogue State Rollback. He named a half a dozen countries—Burma,
North Korea, Iran, Iraq—where US policy should be to topple dictators,
to support insurgents wherever they may be, and if the insurgents get
cracked down upon by the authoritarian in charge then back them up with
the full use of US force. Any time you even bluff or use any kind of
threatening language, you better be ready to back it up, not just with
force but with ground troops.

Michael Duffy: Where would a president McCain get the people to do this?
What are his views on military service?

Matt Welch: He thinks that we should increase the size of the military
by 150,000 troops. He told me in a direct question that America should
be spending at least half of the world's total money on defence, he
thinks that's proper and normal. He thinks that defence spending should
be fixed at at least 4% of gross domestic product. Right now it's
probably more like 2.7% or 3%, largely because GDP keeps growing because
in the private sector things actually grow in a way that they don't in
the government sector. And he wants to launch a new OSS, the Office of
Strategic Service, from WWII which was the precursor to the CIA which,
in case no one has noticed, still exists. He wants to also put civilians
on much more of a war footing and get involved in the effort. He
basically wants to use government as an engine to have us all put our
shoulder to the wheel for this great collective project of American
national greatness.

Michael Duffy: The person you've just been describing does sound a bit
like a maverick, although maybe not in the way he would like it.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
Peter Lavelle
http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
Everyone “miscalculated” when it came to the origins of Saakashvili’s
war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
needlessly died. Let’s give it a thought: Russia tricked the Georgians
into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia tricked
Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How did Russia
stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word on the
militarization of the Saakashvili regime – paid for and trained by
Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we know the
answer to the question now.
And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
of the US economy!
This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.
It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
Post by wbbrdr
Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
“provocation”). International law became a dead letter when
Saakashvili ordered the first shot.
The Georgians assert sovereignty over Sth Ossettia, by attacking
them, shelling and killing civilians, they have committed War Crimes
upon those they claim to be their own citizens.
Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds.
And the Republicans including Bush McSame and PMT Palin support
their military agression against their owm civilians
Just like they supported Saddam.
And the Sth Ossettians demand independence and freedom from
tyranny...
Just like the Kurds in Iraq.
The USSA used to at least PRETEND to uphold freedom and
self-determination.. under Bush and the Republican war
criminals they have become known more for torture and the denial of
human rights.
The world wants what America needs, a return to decency in the White House.
Post by wbbrdr
Rice is right on one point –
Georgia’s sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili’s
regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
Well, it might be, but > Saakashvili gave them a legitimate pretext
to protect the rights of Sth Ossettians (AND protect it's security).
Not as dumb as invading Iraq and handing it to shiites and regional
control to the Iranians.. but pretty fuckin stupid nontheless.
Post by wbbrdr
Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
Good point.
Similarly, we should note that the Turks, tired of PKK terrorists
maing bombing attacks across the northern Iraq border have justified
their counter attacks using classic Bush rhetoric "Terrorists threaten
us, Not in our imaginations like Bush's WMD fantasy, but IN REALITY..
The Iraq government, backed by rogue states (that must hurt) either
can't stop them or is willingly supporting their terrorism.. by
Bush's doctrine the Turks have a right to invade and sieze control
of the Kurdis oil fields, occupying the region and installing a new
regime free of the current terrorist elements." Perhaps they will hang
one Kurdish terrorist and claim a Victory for the Free World? B^p
What can Rice say in reply?
Post by wbbrdr
Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev’s claim
that Russia has “privileged” interests in the region of the world
where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
who sees the entire world as Washington’s sphere of influence! I don’t
even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
think about anybody else’s security – least of all Russia’s. Never
once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
interests. Never once - to my mind – has the US ever sat down with
Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
neighbors - and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn’t
like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
(that is almost always directed against Russia’s influence in the post-
Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
be charged with dereliction of duty.
As for using energy to blackmail its neighbors, Rice obviously does
not know much about Russia’s energy policy. Prior to about 2001,
Russia DID use energy as a political tool. But such a policy did not
produce dividends. Russia provided CHEAP energy to its neighbors in
the HOPE of political deference. What happened? Russia’s neighbors
gladly accepted Russia’s cheap energy, but at the same time
entertained Western approaches. Essentially what Russia tried to do
was to subsidize its neighbors’ foreign policies and it didn’t work.
Going to market prices takes politics out of the equation. But Dick
Cheney doesn’t agree. Energy is his favorite weapon of choice to start
wars.
Rice’s speech was pathetic. It never entered her mind that others have
their own opinion and interests. The U.S. has needlessly created havoc
in the world. It has made potential friends into enemies. It ignores
international law when its suits its purposes. But it condemns others
for not following it. It supports aggression, but never admits its
own. And it can’t even run its own economy based market principles it
claims to hold so dear.
I, for one, will be very happy to see Ms Rice leave the scene. She
insults even average intelligence. Her views on Russia and how the
world should kneel to American interests are Orwellian. The only
upside to all of this is the plain fact that Rice and the rest of the
Bush people have basically bankrupted the U.S. Washington today has
few resources to play the world as its own chessboard. Its
ideologically driven over-reach is ending in the checkmate of itself.
In Russian there is a saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.
And Rice’s bark has no bite.
--
----------

US Congressional investigation June 2004:
"What motivated the September 11 Attacks"

http://youtu.be/J1bm2GPoFfg

---------

"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties."

---------

There is a fundamental distinction between
multicultural and Multiculturalism, which racists
constantly and deliberately confuse.

A society is multicultural if it has more than one
culture being practised within that society.

'Multicultural - A society which embraces a number
of minority cultures' - Macquarie Dictionary

MulticulturalISM is two things, the -ISM indicates that it
is a set of beliefs or ideas about multiculture,
ie a recognition of multicultural REALITY, an acceptance of it,
a celebration of it.
But it is ALSO a set of government policies to
formalize that recognition, acceptance and celebration!
Thus the Howard government has a Department which documents
the positive economic social and foreign policy benefits from
having a successful, open, democratic multicultural society."

Recently Howard has decided to abandon national unity through
freedom and diversity and return to the language of the White
Australia policy.

Australians will have to choose if they want a future,
or a return to the past.


---------



The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
fasgnadh
2008-09-19 09:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Michael Duffy interviews Matt Welch, author of the book
"McCain: The Myth of a Maverick". on ABC Counterpoint

Matt Welch: "I went into John McCain as a fan. ....Like most
journalists, I love politicians who talk smack about their own party,
especially if that party is the Republican Party, so I found him sort of
charming. I took his two books and I was just alarmed at the hostility
to the individual that his world view had. I didn't really realise until
reading this what an expansive foreign policy idea that he had, how
rooted it was in the Teddy Roosevelt style, unipower, unipolar, the US
will keep the world safe for democracy. So these two things, just a
close reading of his books, and the gap between the information
contained therein and the way that he was portrayed glowingly in the
media for ever, until very recently, was enough to make me think, hey, I
can add some value about what he thinks about the proper role of
government, which is basically limitless.

Michael Duffy: So on the one hand he's being portrayed as a maverick
who's got serious doubts about the Republican Party but in other areas,
particularly the military, he is, if anything, to the right or certainly
more aggressive than George W Bush.

B^D McCain is to the RIGHT OF GENGHIS KHAN!

Matt Welch: Oh it's not even close. I mean, it's a strange thing to
remind people because they don't really realise it but in 1999 and 2000
when it was basically him against Bush, the Republican nomination,
McCain was the one who ran as a neo-conservative. He was hanging out
with the guys from the Project for the New American Century, he
literarily was trading staff, emails, books and whatever with The Weekly
Standard magazine which is the leading neoconservative journal here.
They, in many ways, supply the ideology of his campaign.

His campaign managers have described it as something like an a-ha moment
when the chief editor of The Weekly Standard wrote this essay in 1997
for The Wall Street Journal about national greatness, conservatism,
which was an explicit repudiation of a kind of Barry Goldwater, Ronald
Reagan limited government idea, which McCain thought was a dogma. And as
part of this, in 1999, back when everyone was loving him and calling him
a maverick and all this kind of stuff, he unveiled a doctrine which he
called Rogue State Rollback. He named a half a dozen countries—Burma,
North Korea, Iran, Iraq—where US policy should be to topple dictators,
to support insurgents wherever they may be, and if the insurgents get
cracked down upon by the authoritarian in charge then back them up with
the full use of US force. Any time you even bluff or use any kind of
threatening language, you better be ready to back it up, not just with
force but with ground troops.

Michael Duffy: Where would a president McCain get the people to do this?
What are his views on military service?

Matt Welch: He thinks that we should increase the size of the military
by 150,000 troops. He told me in a direct question that America should
be spending at least half of the world's total money on defence, he
thinks that's proper and normal. He thinks that defence spending should
be fixed at at least 4% of gross domestic product. Right now it's
probably more like 2.7% or 3%, largely because GDP keeps growing because
in the private sector things actually grow in a way that they don't in
the government sector. And he wants to launch a new OSS, the Office of
Strategic Service, from WWII which was the precursor to the CIA which,
in case no one has noticed, still exists. He wants to also put civilians
on much more of a war footing and get involved in the effort. He
basically wants to use government as an engine to have us all put our
shoulder to the wheel for this great collective project of American
national greatness.

Michael Duffy: The person you've just been describing does sound a bit
like a maverick, although maybe not in the way he would like it.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by wbbrdr
Peter Lavelle
http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
Everyone “miscalculated” when it came to the origins of Saakashvili’s
war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
needlessly died. Let’s give it a thought: Russia tricked the Georgians
into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia tricked
Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How did Russia
stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word on the
militarization of the Saakashvili regime – paid for and trained by
Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we know the
answer to the question now.
And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
of the US economy!
This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.
It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
Post by wbbrdr
Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
“provocation”). International law became a dead letter when
Saakashvili ordered the first shot.
The Georgians assert sovereignty over Sth Ossettia, by attacking
them, shelling and killing civilians, they have committed War Crimes
upon those they claim to be their own citizens.
Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds.
And the Republicans including Bush McSame and PMT Palin support
their military agression against their owm civilians
Just like they supported Saddam.
And the Sth Ossettians demand independence and freedom from
tyranny...
Just like the Kurds in Iraq.
The USSA used to at least PRETEND to uphold freedom and
self-determination.. under Bush and the Republican war
criminals they have become known more for torture and the denial of
human rights.
The world wants what America needs, a return to decency in the White House.
Post by wbbrdr
Rice is right on one point –
Georgia’s sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili’s
regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
Well, it might be, but > Saakashvili gave them a legitimate pretext
to protect the rights of Sth Ossettians (AND protect it's security).
Not as dumb as invading Iraq and handing it to shiites and regional
control to the Iranians.. but pretty fuckin stupid nontheless.
Post by wbbrdr
Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
Good point.
Similarly, we should note that the Turks, tired of PKK terrorists
maing bombing attacks across the northern Iraq border have justified
their counter attacks using classic Bush rhetoric "Terrorists threaten
us, Not in our imaginations like Bush's WMD fantasy, but IN REALITY..
The Iraq government, backed by rogue states (that must hurt) either
can't stop them or is willingly supporting their terrorism.. by
Bush's doctrine the Turks have a right to invade and sieze control
of the Kurdis oil fields, occupying the region and installing a new
regime free of the current terrorist elements." Perhaps they will hang
one Kurdish terrorist and claim a Victory for the Free World? B^p
What can Rice say in reply?
Post by wbbrdr
Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev’s claim
that Russia has “privileged” interests in the region of the world
where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
who sees the entire world as Washington’s sphere of influence! I don’t
even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
think about anybody else’s security – least of all Russia’s. Never
once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
interests. Never once - to my mind – has the US ever sat down with
Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
neighbors - and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn’t
like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
(that is almost always directed against Russia’s influence in the post-
Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
be charged with dereliction of duty.
As for using energy to blackmail its neighbors, Rice obviously does
not know much about Russia’s energy policy. Prior to about 2001,
Russia DID use energy as a political tool. But such a policy did not
produce dividends. Russia provided CHEAP energy to its neighbors in
the HOPE of political deference. What happened? Russia’s neighbors
gladly accepted Russia’s cheap energy, but at the same time
entertained Western approaches. Essentially what Russia tried to do
was to subsidize its neighbors’ foreign policies and it didn’t work.
Going to market prices takes politics out of the equation. But Dick
Cheney doesn’t agree. Energy is his favorite weapon of choice to start
wars.
Rice’s speech was pathetic. It never entered her mind that others have
their own opinion and interests. The U.S. has needlessly created havoc
in the world. It has made potential friends into enemies. It ignores
international law when its suits its purposes. But it condemns others
for not following it. It supports aggression, but never admits its
own. And it can’t even run its own economy based market principles it
claims to hold so dear.
I, for one, will be very happy to see Ms Rice leave the scene. She
insults even average intelligence. Her views on Russia and how the
world should kneel to American interests are Orwellian. The only
upside to all of this is the plain fact that Rice and the rest of the
Bush people have basically bankrupted the U.S. Washington today has
few resources to play the world as its own chessboard. Its
ideologically driven over-reach is ending in the checkmate of itself.
In Russian there is a saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.
And Rice’s bark has no bite.
Dean Jones
2008-09-19 09:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Its all he's got apart from verbal diarrhea.
Post by fasgnadh
Michael Duffy interviews Matt Welch, author of the book
"McCain: The Myth of a Maverick". on ABC Counterpoint
Matt Welch: "I went into John McCain as a fan. ....Like most
journalists, I love politicians who talk smack about their own party,
especially if that party is the Republican Party, so I found him sort of
charming. I took his two books and I was just alarmed at the hostility
to the individual that his world view had. I didn't really realise until
reading this what an expansive foreign policy idea that he had, how
rooted it was in the Teddy Roosevelt style, unipower, unipolar, the US
will keep the world safe for democracy. So these two things, just a
close reading of his books, and the gap between the information
contained therein and the way that he was portrayed glowingly in the
media for ever, until very recently, was enough to make me think, hey, I
can add some value about what he thinks about the proper role of
government, which is basically limitless.
Michael Duffy: So on the one hand he's being portrayed as a maverick
who's got serious doubts about the Republican Party but in other areas,
particularly the military, he is, if anything, to the right or certainly
more aggressive than George W Bush.
      B^D  McCain is to the RIGHT OF GENGHIS KHAN!
Matt Welch: Oh it's not even close. I mean, it's a strange thing to
remind people because they don't really realise it but in 1999 and 2000
when it was basically him against Bush, the Republican nomination,
McCain was the one who ran as a neo-conservative. He was hanging out
with the guys from the Project for the New American Century, he
literarily was trading staff, emails, books and whatever with The Weekly
Standard magazine which is the leading neoconservative journal here.
They, in many ways, supply the ideology of his campaign.
His campaign managers have described it as something like an a-ha moment
when the chief editor of The Weekly Standard wrote this essay in 1997
for The Wall Street Journal about national greatness, conservatism,
which was an explicit repudiation of a kind of Barry Goldwater, Ronald
Reagan limited government idea, which McCain thought was a dogma. And as
part of this, in 1999, back when everyone was loving him and calling him
a maverick and all this kind of stuff, he unveiled a doctrine which he
called Rogue State Rollback. He named a half a dozen countries—Burma,
North Korea, Iran, Iraq—where US policy should be to topple dictators,
to support insurgents wherever they may be, and if the insurgents get
cracked down upon by the authoritarian in charge then back them up with
the full use of US force. Any time you even bluff or use any kind of
threatening language, you better be ready to back it up, not just with
force but with ground troops.
Michael Duffy: Where would a president McCain get the people to do this?
What are his views on military service?
Matt Welch: He thinks that we should increase the size of the military
by 150,000 troops. He told me in a direct question that America should
be spending at least half of the world's total money on defence, he
thinks that's proper and normal. He thinks that defence spending should
be fixed at at least 4% of gross domestic product. Right now it's
probably more like 2.7% or 3%, largely because GDP keeps growing because
in the private sector things actually grow in a way that they don't in
the government sector. And he wants to launch a new OSS, the Office of
Strategic Service, from WWII which was the precursor to the CIA which,
in case no one has noticed, still exists. He wants to also put civilians
on much more of a war footing and get involved in the effort. He
basically wants to use government as an engine to have us all put our
shoulder to the wheel for this great collective project of American
national greatness.
Michael Duffy: The person you've just been describing does sound a bit
like a maverick, although maybe not in the way he would like it.
 >
 >> Peter Lavelle
 >>http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
 >>
 >> Everyone “miscalculated” when it came to the origins of Saakashvili’s
 >> war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
 >> start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
 >> needlessly died. Let’s give it a thought: Russia tricked the Georgians
 >> into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia tricked
 >> Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How did Russia
 >> stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word on the
 >> militarization of the Saakashvili regime – paid for and trained by
 >> Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we know the
 >> answer to the question now.
 >>
 >
 > And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
 > belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
 > as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
 > of the US economy!
 >
 > This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
 > nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.
 >
 > It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
 > moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
 > of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
 > angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
 > Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
 > THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
 >
 >
 >
 >> Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
 >> sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
 >> Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
 >> “provocation”). International law became a dead letter when
 >> Saakashvili ordered the first shot.
 >
 >
 > The Georgians assert sovereignty over Sth Ossettia, by attacking
 > them, shelling and killing civilians, they have committed War Crimes
 > upon those they claim to be their own citizens.
 >
 > Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds.
 >
 > And the Republicans including Bush McSame and PMT Palin support
 > their military agression against their owm civilians
 >
 > Just like they supported Saddam.
 >
 >
 > And the Sth Ossettians demand independence and freedom from
 > tyranny...
 >
 > Just like the Kurds in Iraq.
 >
 >
 > The USSA used to at least PRETEND to uphold freedom and
 > self-determination..  under Bush and the Republican war
 > criminals they have become known more for torture and the denial of
 > human rights.
 >
 > The world wants what America needs, a return to decency in the White
House.
 >
 >
 >  >  Rice is right on one point –
 >
 >> Georgia’s sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili’s
 >> regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
 >> not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
 >>
 >
 > Well, it might be, but > Saakashvili gave them a legitimate pretext
 > to protect the rights of Sth Ossettians (AND protect it's security).
 >
 > Not as dumb as invading Iraq and handing it to shiites and regional
 > control to the Iranians..  but pretty fuckin stupid nontheless.
 >
 >
 >> Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
 >> question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
 >> as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
 >> Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
 >> go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
 >> is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
 >>
 >
 > Good point.
 >
 > Similarly, we should note that the Turks, tired of PKK terrorists
 > maing bombing attacks across the northern Iraq border have justified
 > their counter attacks using classic Bush rhetoric "Terrorists threaten
 > us,  Not in our imaginations like Bush's WMD fantasy, but IN REALITY..
 > The Iraq government, backed by rogue states (that must hurt) either
 > can't stop them or is willingly supporting their terrorism..  by
 > Bush's doctrine the Turks have a right to invade and sieze control
 > of the Kurdis oil fields, occupying the region and installing a new
 > regime free of the current terrorist elements."  Perhaps they will hang
 > one Kurdish terrorist and claim a Victory for the Free World?  B^p
 >
 >   What can Rice say in reply?
 >
 >> Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev’s claim
 >> that Russia has “privileged” interests in the region of the world
 >> where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
 >> who sees the entire world as Washington’s sphere of influence! I don’t
 >> even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
 >>
 >> Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
 >> open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
 >> how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
 >> about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
 >> they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
 >> think about anybody else’s security – least of all Russia’s. Never
 >> once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
 >> interests. Never once - to my mind – has the US ever sat down with
 >> Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
 >>
 >> Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
 >> neighbors - and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
 >> simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
 >> regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
 >> stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn’t
 >> like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
 >> (that is almost always directed against Russia’s influence in the post-
 >> Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
 >> be charged with...
read more »
Sir John Howard
2008-09-19 12:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Jones
Its all he's got apart from verbal diarrhea.
Fag's Nads isn't known for having a clue.
Post by Dean Jones
Post by fasgnadh
Michael Duffy interviews Matt Welch, author of the book
"McCain: The Myth of a Maverick". on ABC Counterpoint
Matt Welch: "I went into John McCain as a fan. ....Like most
journalists, I love politicians who talk smack about their own party,
especially if that party is the Republican Party, so I found him sort of
charming. I took his two books and I was just alarmed at the hostility
to the individual that his world view had. I didn't really realise until
reading this what an expansive foreign policy idea that he had, how
rooted it was in the Teddy Roosevelt style, unipower, unipolar, the US
will keep the world safe for democracy. So these two things, just a
close reading of his books, and the gap between the information
contained therein and the way that he was portrayed glowingly in the
media for ever, until very recently, was enough to make me think, hey, I
can add some value about what he thinks about the proper role of
government, which is basically limitless.
Michael Duffy: So on the one hand he's being portrayed as a maverick
who's got serious doubts about the Republican Party but in other areas,
particularly the military, he is, if anything, to the right or certainly
more aggressive than George W Bush.
� � � B^D �McCain is to the RIGHT OF GENGHIS KHAN!
Matt Welch: Oh it's not even close. I mean, it's a strange thing to
remind people because they don't really realise it but in 1999 and 2000
when it was basically him against Bush, the Republican nomination,
McCain was the one who ran as a neo-conservative. He was hanging out
with the guys from the Project for the New American Century, he
literarily was trading staff, emails, books and whatever with The Weekly
Standard magazine which is the leading neoconservative journal here.
They, in many ways, supply the ideology of his campaign.
His campaign managers have described it as something like an a-ha moment
when the chief editor of The Weekly Standard wrote this essay in 1997
for The Wall Street Journal about national greatness, conservatism,
which was an explicit repudiation of a kind of Barry Goldwater, Ronald
Reagan limited government idea, which McCain thought was a dogma. And as
part of this, in 1999, back when everyone was loving him and calling him
a maverick and all this kind of stuff, he unveiled a doctrine which he
called Rogue State Rollback. He named a half a dozen countries�Burma,
North Korea, Iran, Iraq�where US policy should be to topple dictators,
to support insurgents wherever they may be, and if the insurgents get
cracked down upon by the authoritarian in charge then back them up with
the full use of US force. Any time you even bluff or use any kind of
threatening language, you better be ready to back it up, not just with
force but with ground troops.
Michael Duffy: Where would a president McCain get the people to do this?
What are his views on military service?
Matt Welch: He thinks that we should increase the size of the military
by 150,000 troops. He told me in a direct question that America should
be spending at least half of the world's total money on defence, he
thinks that's proper and normal. He thinks that defence spending should
be fixed at at least 4% of gross domestic product. Right now it's
probably more like 2.7% or 3%, largely because GDP keeps growing because
in the private sector things actually grow in a way that they don't in
the government sector. And he wants to launch a new OSS, the Office of
Strategic Service, from WWII which was the precursor to the CIA which,
in case no one has noticed, still exists. He wants to also put civilians
on much more of a war footing and get involved in the effort. He
basically wants to use government as an engine to have us all put our
shoulder to the wheel for this great collective project of American
national greatness.
Michael Duffy: The person you've just been describing does sound a bit
like a maverick, although maybe not in the way he would like it.
�>
�>> Peter Lavelle
�>>http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27
�>>
�>> Everyone �miscalculated� when it came to the origins of Saakashvili�s
�>> war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to
�>> start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who
�>> needlessly died. Let�s give it a thought: Russia tricked the Georgians
�>> into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia tricked
�>> Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How did Russia
�>> stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word on the
�>> militarization of the Saakashvili regime � paid for and trained by
�>> Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we know the
�>> answer to the question now.
�>>
�>
�> And the American political stage is set for uber-patriotic
�> belligerance, with McSame/Palin touting possible nuclear war
�> as a distraction from their failure in TexIraq, and destruction
�> of the US economy!
�>
�> This is the danger of a rogue state, with WMD's (the only
�> nation to have used them, on civilian targets) in decline.
�>
�> It is ripe for a demagogue, (perhaps without the toothbrush
�> moustache, perhaps she shaved it off), to tell the angry victims
�> of their Empires economic decline (like the 1930's Germans)
�> angry and frustrated by their military defeats (like the 1930's
�> Germans) who want someone to tell them, 'It's not your fault,
�> THEY [..insert target Ennanuel Goldstein character ..] are to blame!".
�>
�>
�>
�>> Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a
�>> sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that
�>> Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a
�>> �provocation�). International law became a dead letter when
�>> Saakashvili ordered the first shot.
�>
�>
�> The Georgians assert sovereignty over Sth Ossettia, by attacking
�> them, shelling and killing civilians, they have committed War Crimes
�> upon those they claim to be their own citizens.
�>
�> Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds.
�>
�> And the Republicans including Bush McSame and PMT Palin support
�> their military agression against their owm civilians
�>
�> Just like they supported Saddam.
�>
�>
�> And the Sth Ossettians demand independence and freedom from
�> tyranny...
�>
�> Just like the Kurds in Iraq.
�>
�>
�> The USSA used to at least PRETEND to uphold freedom and
�> self-determination.. �under Bush and the Republican war
�> criminals they have become known more for torture and the denial of
�> human rights.
�>
�> The world wants what America needs, a return to decency in the White
House.
�>
�>
�> �> �Rice is right on one point �
�>
�>> Georgia�s sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili�s
�>> regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is
�>> not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
�>>
�>
�> Well, it might be, but > Saakashvili gave them a legitimate pretext
�> to protect the rights of Sth Ossettians (AND protect it's security).
�>
�> Not as dumb as invading Iraq and handing it to shiites and regional
�> control to the Iranians.. �but pretty fuckin stupid nontheless.
�>
�>
�>> Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following
�>> question: Americans are deemed as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen
�>> as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious!
�>> Russia troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can
�>> go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news
�>> is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
�>>
�>
�> Good point.
�>
�> Similarly, we should note that the Turks, tired of PKK terrorists
�> maing bombing attacks across the northern Iraq border have justified
�> their counter attacks using classic Bush rhetoric "Terrorists threaten
�> us, �Not in our imaginations like Bush's WMD fantasy, but IN REALITY..
�> The Iraq government, backed by rogue states (that must hurt) either
�> can't stop them or is willingly supporting their terrorism.. �by
�> Bush's doctrine the Turks have a right to invade and sieze control
�> of the Kurdis oil fields, occupying the region and installing a new
�> regime free of the current terrorist elements." �Perhaps they will hang
�> one Kurdish terrorist and claim a Victory for the Free World? �B^p
�>
�> � What can Rice say in reply?
�>
�>> Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev�s claim
�>> that Russia has �privileged� interests in the region of the world
�>> where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State
�>> who sees the entire world as Washington�s sphere of influence! I don�t
�>> even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
�>>
�>> Again Rice went on talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and
�>> open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about
�>> how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think
�>> about this flowerily language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what
�>> they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never
�>> think about anybody else�s security � least of all Russia�s. Never
�>> once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security
�>> interests. Never once - to my mind � has the US ever sat down with
�>> Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
�>>
�>> Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its
�>> neighbors - and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is
�>> simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote
�>> regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to
�>> stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn�t
�>> like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda
�>> (that is almost always directed against Russia�s influence in the post-
�>> Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would
�>> be charged with...
read more �
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...