It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Am I wrong about Russia?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Listening to everything that has gone on over in Ukraine, is it any different than what the United States has done in the past 30 years or so?

I don't believe so, we would of done the same thing. The only difference between Russia and the US is this so called Crisis is on Russia back door next to one of their largest naval bases.

Russia showed up in force and when was the last time you heard Russia give a group of people a time table to surrender.

Think about it for a minute the Ukraine was almost in the middle of a civil war, Russian troops showed up and all the violence seemed to stop.

Now after the fact the difference are being laid out on the table and people are talking.

So is this not the same thing we (United States) have done in other countries in the pass? Is the media and the White HORSE making a big deal out of something because the United States did not get there first.

Am I wrong or are there others that feel the same way?
edit on 6-3-2014 by 19KTankCommander because: Sorry, hit enter before I was done




posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

19KTankCommander


Am I wrong or are there others that feel the same way?
edit on 6-3-2014 by 19KTankCommander because: Sorry, hit enter before I was done


The main difference is that the US doesn't ever take countries into the us as new states. We just puppetize them. Russia is grabbing Crimea at the very least. Other than that it's exactly the same.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

KnightLight

19KTankCommander


Am I wrong or are there others that feel the same way?
edit on 6-3-2014 by 19KTankCommander because: Sorry, hit enter before I was done


The main difference is that the US doesn't ever take countries into the us as new states. We just puppetize them. Russia is grabbing Crimea at the very least. Other than that it's exactly the same.


Installing puppets is still pretty much taking a country without de facto taking it. There's still even a problem with viewing Russia as being an invasive force within Crimea. They have rented a base in Crimea since 1997 and, likely have a lot of troops and equipment there, plus god knows what else. How comfortable would we be if a possible civil war or revolution were occurring in a country that was harboring one of our military bases? Even if the troops already there were vacated immediately, what of the inventory? There would be the financial loss of military assets that could actually be utilized by whoever takes over to do awful things. In a way, I can see a moral and financial reason why Russia is interested in what happens within Crimea for that reason. If the US was in the same situation, I would hope that our government would defend it for those very same reasons.

Just my thoughts on it, could be wrong though I did confirm the base rental agreement between Ukraine and Russia. I'm kind of throwing my hands up in regards to the Ukraine because there is so much disparate information getting pumped out on it that I really don't know what to think.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


The key difference between puppetizing a country and taking it as your own is that when it officially becomes part of the country, they actually have a say in how it's ran. Or at least they would in this country. As a puppet they are still TECHNICALLY an independent country and have to answer to their puppet leader. And of course the puppet leader just takes orders from the CIA and that way we can squash dissension. If the puppet leader gets uppity, we just overthrown him for a new one. Easy.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Yes. There is a huge difference between being fully taken over and the illusion of freedom. Not really sure which one is better. Personally, lol, I tend to default towards a lack of illusion though but that's primarily because my preference for reality is that it not contain fillers or additives.
edit on 6/3/14 by WhiteAlice because: apparently my sentences grew legs and ran



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Well of course the official version is better, but the people in charge can't be having that. The new colony/state/territory/whathaveyou may actually OBJECT to how they run things, unlike the passive peons we got here.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Eh, I dunno about that. There's been a history of cretins coming into power where people didn't necessarily rise up and oust them out of fear or through watching some try and getting smashed like a bug. Fear is a very big hurdle for people to overcome as it requires an override on instinctual survival. If it's "not that bad" or if they can "stay on their good side", people will go with the flow more often than not because to do otherwise could equate to death. A blatantly monstrous dictator, however, can tilt that balance by going overboard in their actions so that none feel safe. That's when it all really comes undone. Robespierre would be an example of that. So yeah, maybe so.

As far as here goes, accepting illusions is probably a lot more comfortable and less risky of a state and well, it's easier to dismiss those things that generate dissonance about the illusion, itself. Hence the apathy. That's my theory on it at least.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The United states at least waits until after the para-olympics.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join