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.

 

Impressive Speech Made by Putin to The World...

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: DJW001
Apparently, in the New World Order of Putin's the United States must respect the sovereignty of other nations, but Russia is free to annex its neighbors.


If the people in Crimea did not want to be part of Russia and had not filed officially to that effect, I believe he wouldn't have done it. And you're leaving out A LOT of the events as they proceeded to that point of a general referendum. You must be one of those "revisionist history" dudes.

Can you show me where the people of Crimea filed to be annexed by Russia before the Russians invaded? Pretty sure Russia invaded, had a vote they refused to allow to be monitored, leaked false numbers about the turnout, and then by mistake let the actual numbers get out that showed very few people voted, and only about half voted to leave the Ukraine .. all while Russia soldiers occupied the area.


How sure is pretty sure? Can you show me?

You can't say "gimme proof" then say what you think without.. Proof.


so we have 30 percent of voters in a turn out for the election and of those only half voted to join Russia. By the way conveniently they didnt didnt send information to tartar community like Ukraine always did in there elections. But even if thats not enough the ballots were rigged and even the ballots themselves were not a legitimate choice. See the choices where to either join Russia or be an independent state. Notice something missing?????? Like the option to remain part of Ukraine strangely left off the ballot. Than of course there was voter intimidation big time since the Russians stationed armed troops in the polling offices no reason to be scared to go vote huh??? So is that enought proof for you???

www.forbes.com...

You can also watch this at the 2 min mark tells you at the very least there was no monitors at the polling booths. But worse imagine how many votes were faked.




www.forbes.com...

So how is that for proof the election was a fraud there wasnt even a choice for most Crimeans but in truth even before the elections they were already making plans to join Russia it was just a formality if you will.




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Yes he said that Russia was prepared to go to war...and that she was not afraid to go to war. But made it clear that it did not WANT to go to war. I have no idea whether Putin wants to head his country in a sensible direction or not. But he is in a MUCH better position to bring about such changes in his country then what a US president will EVER be in our's. But it is N Korea IMO that is in the best position to bring about a TOTAL transition within her borders if she so desired. A transition to a shining example of sustainable, efficient and Earth friendly living.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I love how so many are eager to believe a politician...and ex KGB. I'm not saying any side is right but you are all making me lmao with your obviously biased naivete.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
so Russia has no right to arm a population that is being murdered by fascists which is on its own border, and its own citizens are at risk? Frankly if I were Putin, I would have steamrolled over there with my tank fleet flipping the bird to NATO and saying "show me you got a pair you baby killing bastards and try and stop me" . NATO would have had no response. You really think they would have started bombing Russian assets even in that scenario?? Hell no, because the EU knows it is their blood that will spill not Americans. Putin needs to start playing by the same bullying tactics that our empire is playing or else he just going to end up getting bitch slapped and humiliated.

So if Russia does not have the right to send weapons to a population on their border who are being murdered by people who actually locked innocent people inside a building and then set it on fire and burned dozens of people alive, is it ok for the CIA to be arming ISIS to keep them killing innocent people as well? I bet that's ok to most because they deny in their heart the truth.

I may have to accept what my empire does so we can keep getting cheaper and cheaper techno gadgets, but it does not mean I have to like it. Hey whatever keeps the iphones and galaxy tablets rolling off the press right??



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You can start with George Soros who has admitted being in Ukraine for years with his NGO trying to change their government. There are others,but they stay pretty much hidden but if we dig further I'm sure we can get them too. Look at the Bilderberg list and see how all attends. That shows who all is in it as well.And these people are beholden to no one. The meetings are secret and they are setting policies with average people having no say what so ever.Yet we have to live under it.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: fenson76
I love how so many are eager to believe a politician...and ex KGB. I'm not saying any side is right but you are all making me lmao with your obviously biased naivete.


I love how willing everyone is to believe their own corrupt government and media. Everyone on here talks about how they don't trust them as far as they can throw them unless their viewpoint is validated.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DYepes

Funny Putin is the one that sent the fascists into ukraine to fight for the rebels. As for protecting Russians like you claim first they are Ukrainians. I think your confused by all the Russian soldiers dying I can see your confusion. And finally if Putin cared about people dying he would have pulled his people out of there and told the fascists he put in charge to return to Russia.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
What a thread!
I think the speech was very well written& that is a little hard to swallow for some.
Putin maybe a beast, a war monger etc etc, but i think he's heads above the recent 'world leaders' some of the other countries have thrown up in the recent past.
When i hear what he says, it shows there is a heart in there somewhere..



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DYepes




so Russia has no right to arm a population that is being murdered by fascists which is on its own border, and its own citizens are at risk?


And yet nothing was happening in the east until Putin decided he needed Crimea. Then decided that wasn't enough so he headed out east to keep the fun going.



Frankly if I were Putin, I would have steamrolled over there with my tank fleet flipping the bird to NATO and saying "show me you got a pair you baby killing bastards and try and stop me" .


Except the fact that Putin is a baby killer himself so is he doing the shooting a bird to himself in the mirror? Putin knows NATO can stop him so he doesn't want to play in that game, because all he has left is his nukes to save his butt.



So if Russia does not have the right to send weapons to a population on their border who are being murdered by people who actually locked innocent people inside a building and then set it on fire and burned dozens of people alive,


And you have conclusive evidence that Ukraine did that, because if I remember there was no rock solid evidence of who started the fire.



is it ok for the CIA to be arming ISIS to keep them killing innocent people as well? I bet that's ok to most because they deny in their heart the truth.


And yet what does ISIS have to do with anything involving Ukraine, because the last time I checked they were two totally different conflicts with totally different reasons for happening. The truth being Putin invaded Ukraine through Crimea and are you going to deny that happened, and do you believe he had a good reason top do so because his reasons were a lie.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae




You can start with George Soros who has admitted being in Ukraine for years with his NGO trying to change their government.


Yes the government of a sovereign nation that had no clue about how democracy worked after living under thee RUssian rule for so long and you see that as bad....what am I saying of course you see that as bad.



There are others,but they stay pretty much hidden but if we dig further I'm sure we can get them too.


Dig away.



Look at the Bilderberg list and see how all attends.


And of course that would be one of Alex Jones made up conspiracies, as they have been doing the meeting for years and the fact that nobody has been able to prove the Bilderbergs are this super secret group that supposedly rules everything is funny. As I said that is an AJ conspiracy that the gullible that believe him run with.



The meetings are secret and they are setting policies with average people having no say what so ever.Yet we have to live under it.


Secret really?

Tell me then how does Alex Jones always know before hand where these meetings will be?

Somebody can't keep a secret real well if AJ knows beforehand.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

People know they meet. What they discuss is secret beyond belief.


A perimeter of about a half-mile has been set up around the Northern Virginia hotel, and all non-Bilderberg guests reportedly were kicked out of their rooms. A photographer for The Washington Times was told by law enforcement Wednesday that any attempt to get close to the building would result in arrest.


www.washingtontimes.com...

Ukraine doesn't know how to be Democratic? That's just an insult. Everyone knows how to be democratic. They merely need lessons in how to follow the US system. America has toppled countless actual democratically elected leaders because it didn't conform to their plan. Panama and Ecuador are just two. I can name more.

Hell, America itself forgot how to do it properly. How can they teach anyone the meaning of democracy? Our democracy has been dead for years. It's been dead for a century by some accounts. The fact that people still think our sham of a nation is still a democracy is just unbelievable to me.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: fenson76

Oh I wouldn't hold that against him. After all the head of our CIA was president here and he lied about where he was when JFK died.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: fenson76

Oh I wouldn't hold that against him. After all the head of our CIA was president here and he lied about where he was when JFK died.


Gorge HW Bush was an administrator; Vladimir V Putin was a field agent.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45


Everyone knows how to be democratic.


This statement is proof you know nothing of democracy. Democracy is not a natural state of affairs. In most societies, the physically strongest rules over everyone else. This is why monarchy and dictatorships are nearly universal. When these autarchies are overthrown, they are usually replaced by mob rule, which then becomes oligarchy and, finally, despotism again. Russia followed this arc during the twentieth century, and has arrived back at despotism under Putin.

For a democratic system to work, people need to understand that minorities have the same rights as the majority, that the law applies equally to all, and that votes should be made based on reason and reality, not emotion and rhetoric. This last requires education in critical thinking. There are very few successful democracies because autarchs do not allow their subjects to be educated properly.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
***ATTENTION***

Please stick to the topic of the thread and avoid commenting upon one another or events outside the scope of the OP.

Thank you so much.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   
All of these leaders talk of democracy as if it is a good thing!!

Didn't we originate as a Republic? What happened to that form of gov't? They secreted it away somewhere and we never noticed


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]


www.1215.org...
edit on 19-11-2014 by TM62 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TM62

Oh dear. You need to be educated on the meaning of "democracy" and "republic." In a democracy, all citizens with the right to vote make decisions collectively. In a republic, a small subset of citizens make decisions collectively. In a democratic republic, which is what most people nowadays really mean when they use the term "democracy," this smaller subset of decision-makers is chosen by the electorate by democratic voting. In theory,those elected to the smaller decision making body represent the views and philosophy of those who elected them. Sovereignty is a quality of governments, not people.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TM62

Oh dear. You need to be educated on the meaning of "democracy" and "republic." In a democracy, all citizens with the right to vote make decisions collectively. In a republic, a small subset of citizens make decisions collectively. In a democratic republic, which is what most people nowadays really mean when they use the term "democracy," this smaller subset of decision-makers is chosen by the electorate by democratic voting. In theory,those elected to the smaller decision making body represent the views and philosophy of those who elected them. Sovereignty is a quality of governments, not people.


Did you not read my post? Democracy is majority rule not individual! Sure you can all vote but majority rules he who has the most votes makes the laws, why do you think they "PAD" the numbers? In a republic ALL are sovereign citizens!!

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]


EXAMPLE

Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.

Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

"Why would you throw your lot in with someone who is exactly what you feel you are enduring now, only his is a more harsh standard...... "

Because Russia isn't trying to impose itself on the world. Russia is not trying to build an empire. America is.

The Russians aren't a danger to me or my family. America (or more accurately its corporate masters) is.


Really? So... Vlad boy stating he has nukes and isn't afraid to use em doesn't affect you how? Russia's not trying to Build an Empire? What do you call the allegations that Vlad (and he doesn't challenge them either) wants to invade Finland, or is chopping off parts of the Ukraine, and has his eyes back on the Baltic states... C'mon now get real..

The United States for all it's faults recently, and we have lots of them, I will not deny that, is not the only issue in the world, Russia has it's eyes on regaining it's empire, and they certainly are a danger to the world if that happens.

Oh and... They've been stockpiling those darn nukes again, to the point they have parity with us again.. Sounds like a really stand up peaceful guy to me...



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TM62

And the United States is neither of those, it is rather a "Representative Republic" in which we elect a few to govern and represent the many.... just for clarity.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join