Originally posted by INeedHelp
Wrong. The Greens and the SPD ARE financed by Moscow. If you weren't unknowledgeable, you would know that Schroeder was working for the FSB. He has
been appointed chairman of the organisation which is building the Baltic pipeline (increasing the quantity of NG imported by Germany), so now everyone
except yourself knows who he was working for.
I didn´t ask for much, just a somewhat comprehensive explanation of your outrageous theory. But it boils down to your usual dangerous halfknowledge
coupled with your irrational paranoia.
First, Schroeder is working for the Nord Stream AG, owned IN PART by Gazprom only (so even if Schröder was "controlled" by the FSB, that wouldnt
extend to control over Nord StreamAG as well), and Gazprom (which MAY be influenced by the FSB to some extent) is neither controlled nor operated by
the FSB; they are far too important for that as an international political and economic power. Thing about the extreme words you chose. There is no
question that Schröders actions are fishy at best... but there is simply NO valid connection to be made between the political program of ending
nuclear energy (discussed since `98 and set in stone in 2000) and the Nord Stream which came to fruition only weeks before Schröders turn ended in
The SPD campaigned with environmental issues.
Of course - their boss was Schroeder - everyone knows who he was working for. The SPD will now ensure that the pipeline is built, and that the German
military will continue to be decrepit as it has been since 1991. No honest political party would try to make Germany UNSOVEREIGN - only a corrupt
The Greens are financed by the FSB too. They (and the FSB-financed SPD) not only advocate the Baltic pipeline but also oppose the ABM defence system.
No honest political party would try to make Germany UNSOVEREIGN - only a corrupt political party.
Thank you, I did not know that the funding of the German military had anything even remotely in common with the baltic pipeline; now that I heard it,
it becomes apparent that the FSB has 100% control over the German soldiers as well!
Now seriously, while your claim that Schröder has had contacts with the FSB is neither provable nor irrefutable (but it is downright ludicrous) - it
really requires a good stretch of imagination and INVENTION hat the SPD and the Greens are financed and controlled by the FSB as well. Both parties
are, by the way, majorly funded by its members and their donations, plus their lawful funding for the positions they were elected to. I could give you
links to that but you wouldnt care, so what the hell.
And the Baltic Pipeline also does not make Germany "unsovereign". Why? Because it doesnt change a bit about the energy source diversion in Germany.
Germany, as well as the better part of the EU (The Netherlands are Nord Stream participants, too), has been dependent (but not exclusively) on russian
gas for years. The new pipeline is just a means of accessing that gas cheaper and more safe. Yes, more safe! Your implicit claim is that Russia is
unreliant, BUT: Russia, through all its crisises, economic revolution, wars etc. has fulfilled every Gas contract and its quotas with Germany for more
than 30 years and has never once used it as leverage against Germany
. So the Russians pretty much have a confidence bonus. Which leaves us with
the transit states which are actually those which pose a higher risk of national instability, or, to disrupt the gas delivery - In the case of Poland
even a hostile political stance against Germany.
You see, I don´t condone how the gas disputes between the east european transit states were handled, but that involves all sides. BUT I think Russia
was well within its rights to introduce market-based pricing. I pay these fees as well. Nevermind the huge amount of gas that was leeched and stolen
and the unjustifiedly high transit fees, and the undue influence power these transit states had AND (ab-)used - now who was holding western Europe in
its grip exactly?
Nevertheless, Germany is a key member of the pan-EU project to further diversify energy sources - so the reliance on Russian gas will decrease if
anything, and not increase. The proble simply is: You have to buy the gas from who has it and not from those you´d WISH to have it. European sources
alone cannot satisfy the demand, and Russia is the favorable choice over the middle-eastern suppliers. It is close, it has proven reliable to us, they
have a government that is at least acceptable to our ethical standards. So where exactly is the big problem?
They were voted in, the end of nuclear energy in Germany was the will of the people.
Politicians don't represent voters. And opinion polls indicate that the majority of Germans want to maintain nuclear reactors (or to say it
succintly, you don't know what you're talking about).
Sorry Champ, but in a representative democracy politicians DO represent voters. In case you missed it, the keyword is "representative". (And in my
personal opinion, an elected party that does EXACTLY what it promised during the election campaign possibly, just MAYBE might be a good representant
of its voters. But thats just me...)
I presume you´d like to twist and turn that statement again to fit your opinion or to prove your nonexistant point, but there is are little obstacles
called reality or "political theory" to that.
And as usual, you resort to calling others "unknowledgeable" because you ran out of compelling arguments. No wonder since your discussion points are
simply grabbed out of thin air. It took me all of 2 minutes to find several opinion polls from different respected sources that show the contrary of
what you invent to be the german public opinion (1
). In general, the anti-nuclear movement has
been THE strongest coherent environmental peer group in Germany for the past decades. Don´t lection me about whats going on in my OWN society,
Hmm, didnt you also recently called others board rule violators for posting "knowingly false information"? How about your own misinformation? The
pot calling the kettle black, I´d say. And there is another rule that might interest you since you seem to value them so much... its the rule against
multiple accounts on ATS.
[edit on 3/5/2007 by Lonestar24]