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.

 

Russian Nuclear Posture superior to the US's?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Retaliating with useless personal attacks against an honest statement? I simply thought you didn't know how to get a point across, though voiced my suspicion.

I didn't attack you, I just said that you are unknowledgeable and therefore should learn about the Med, oil and NG before you reply. I was right.



Further, it was -your- cited evidence, so keep with it.

What are you talking about? Which sentence are you replying to?



And yes, 3,000 is a large number.

Again, which sentence are you replying to?



I've cited four. You can't even keep even with your one -direct- link.

Keep wishing.



all landlocked European countries combined?

Land-locked European countries? Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Germany, Norway and Finland are landlocked?



To how many? If I recall, this happened, individually, to two, three countries?

No. Both times Russia has stopped delivering NG/oil to ALL European countries except Norway. A BBC journalist has written an article about this. I'll provide the link when possible.



All post-Soviet.

So Western Europe is post-Soviet?



If you think Russia can simply turn-off the switch

You are wrong. The Russians ALREADY did twice turn of the switch and didn't suffer any consequences. No European nation retaliated - because no European nation can.




exporting natural gas to what few mainland European countries trade with it, you're wrong.

Wrong. EVERY nation needs NG, and NG resources are limited geographically. If one nation will stop buying NG from the Russians, they will sell it to someone else.



If you think Russia 'turning off the switch' could happen without facing consequences, you're wrong.

You have been disproven by the Russians twice already. No nation attacked the Russians or declared any sanctions against them. No nation retaliated - because no nation can. European leaders are cowards. Read this: news.bbc.co.uk...



And all of this is entirely self-evident.

You always say that you are right because it's self-evident that you are. You cite no sources, whereas I have backed up ALL my claims with evidence. You continue to state ridiculous claims, even though you have been disproven twice by the Russians. But if you want me to embarass you once more, please reply.




posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
INeedHelp, you sound more like a raving lunatic. You have not proven anything you ahve said at all.

So despite backing up all my claims with evidence I have not proven any claim to be true? Keep wishing.



how Russia controls most of the world

I have already said how. Oil resources allow the Russians to blackmail anyone who disagrees with them.



Greece

I wasn't talking only about Greece, but also about other European states. Like Germany. Would anyone call Germany irrelevant?



If anything all the links you post prove the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Name one.



What's even funnier is you claim you a re knowledgabel

Well, I'm certainly more knowledgeable about the English language than you are.



You will never ever be able to back up your claims because you are wrong.

You will not disprove me if you will just keep saying I am wrong, and so far that's all you have written.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Again, going by the paragraphs.

"And don't even try to pretend I speak English badly, because I do so better than you do. I can point out the mistakes YOU have made if I'll want to do so. "

Yes. Attacking my ability to speak English, which is entirely nonsense, and simply childish, is a personal attack. Then you went on for another sentence.
And for, perhaps, the third time, I've all-ready admitted the importance of these three topics.

You're '20,000 troops deployed' statistic. If you cite it, go by it. Don't tack on nearly 20% more.

'Keep wishing' isn't really an argument..

Name one of them that has either: a. A use for a navy, and b. Large enough, viable coastline to field it. Germany, arguably, is the only one there with the capability and logistics, though still entirely impractical, especially considering its stance towards the military.

If you provide the link, I'll apologize. Though thus far, none of my sources referenced this.

All of the countries I responded to, in that paragraph, were post-Soviet Bloc countries. I'm responding paragraph/sentence by paragraph/sentence. This should be pretty clear.

I just went back through my links, and searched others. Russia never stopped feeding gas, or oil, to the UK, France, etc. You know. The relatively important European nations.


I never contested natural gas's importance. And no, Russia would not -- It's contracts exist for too long. To cancel one for nothing more than a political whim would be to invite very harsh penalties. It's fields are all-ready deteriorating by about 6% per year, the super-fields. It was hard-pressed in some venues to complete the China-deal because of this.

Categorzing an entire continent all-ready says something about the quality of your argument.

Actually, even your 'twice by the Russians' you never gave sources. Nice finish. In fact you said, 'I don't have sources now, will get later.'
And you tell me I've never cited any, in the same reply where I discussed having four sources? The fact that two, three posters have called you out on your quality of argument and evidence says something. And it's not in your favour.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Yes. Attacking my ability to speak English, which is entirely nonsense, and simply childish, is a personal attack.

You are the one who first claimed you spoke English better.


You're '20,000 troops deployed' statistic. If you cite it, go by it. Don't tack on nearly 20% more.

Again, you should say what sentence are you replying to. If you're talking about the supposedly-mistaken 20000 figure, don't claim you have disproven me. The Globalsecurity website doesn't mention Russian soldiers deployed to Belarus (not that Belarus would be important, I just want to mention it). They are soldiers who have SAMs, so I guess to defend Russia and Belarus they'd need to deploy several thousand soldiers, so I have estimated the sum to be 20000 soldiers.



'Keep wishing' isn't really an argument..

Saying that you are right when you haven't provided any proof isn't an argument either.



Name one of them that has either:

I don't need to do so because you claimed that apart from Britain and France all European countries are landlocked. Now that you have been disproven you want your ass to be kicked once more. But OK.



Large enough, viable coastline to field it.

Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Norway. References:
www.cia.gov...
www.cia.gov...
www.cia.gov...
www.cia.gov...
www.cia.gov...



All of the countries were post-Soviet Bloc countries.

But I'm not talking only about post-Soviet countries. Austria, Greece and Germany are not post-Soviet states, yet they are as important NG importers as Eastern European states. For the entire EU, the figure is 40% and will increase to 70% by 2020 - proof - and you said that Russia can blackmail only post-Soviet states. NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL BEING OWNED.



Russia never stopped feeding gas, or oil, to the UK, France, etc.

You are wrong.



Lower natural gas pressure meant supplies decreased to states like France and Italy, which use Ukraine's pipeline.



Source

Whenever they stop delivering NG altogether or deliver less, it's unacceptable for the French, because they need NG. All nations need it.



And no, Russia would not

Russia already did twice, even though Gazprom signed contracts with the PMs of almost every European state. That's what really happened. You can deny this, but you will only embarass yourself.



To cancel one for nothing more than a political whim
would be to invite very harsh penalties.

Russia did so twice already. How many European PMs punished the Russians? That's right, none.



It's fields are already deteriorating by about 6% per year, the super-fields.

Every NG field is deteriorating. NG is a finite resource, just like oil. There is enough NG for all humans for 100 years, however.



Categorzing an entire continent

Europe is a united continent.



Actually, even your 'twice by the Russians' you never gave sources. Nice finish.

Source #1: news.bbc.co.uk...
Source #2, about the oil shortage - later.



The fact that two, three posters have called you on your quality of argument and evidence

You and Rogue1 (Rogue1 may be your alternative nickname). I apologise however for the CTBT. It is not valid (too few signatories).

[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Russia has violated the First Test Ban Treaty, though:



A total of 26 surface nuclear detonations were also performed at the site 1949-1989.


Source

[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by INeedHelp

Originally posted by rogue1
INeedHelp, you sound more like a raving lunatic. You have not proven anything you ahve said at all.

So despite backing up all my claims with evidence I have not proven any claim to be true? Keep wishing.


You haven't, you have gone on rambling, back-stepping all the way. You have taken a few minute examples of something and claimed this backs up your theory " Russia Controls most of the world ". Everybody here knows it doesn't and you have shown nothing to show that it does.




how Russia controls most of the world

I have already said how. Oil resources allow the Russians to blackmail anyone who disagrees with them.


LMAO, complete and utter BS. kinda funny considering most of the world doesn't get its energy from Russia. But hey you go on and keep confusing yourself.




Greece

I wasn't talking only about Greece, but also about other European states. Like Germany. Would anyone call Germany irrelevant?


LOL, but Greece is the only example you keep on mentioning. What you read some article in a magazine or paper and consequently that is your only source





If anything all the links you post prove the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Name one.


Sure, like your " Russia has 20 000 troops abroad " ( another of your reasons why they somehow control most of the world ". As people have pointed out it is 17 000 first of all and 95% of them are in the ex-Soviet republics. you really don't understand what power projection is, because that isn't.


[quote
What's even funnier is you claim you a re knowledgabel

Well, I'm certainly more knowledgeable about the English language than you are.

It doesn't appear so. And if that's the only thing you can come up with it shows what a dunce you really are. There are kids in kindergarten who's have more understanding of the world than you do.




You will never ever be able to back up your claims because you are wrong.

You will not disprove me if you will just keep saying I am wrong, and so far that's all you have written.


You made the claim you prove, I know it is wrong and so do most people here. You have not shown a single thing which backs up what you say. The only evidence I have found that you have presented is your stupidity. Go and travel and read some books, you know learn
Don't tell me you have because it is evident you haven't.

You just dont understand what you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by INeedHelp
But I'm not talking only about post-Soviet countries. Austria, Greece and Germany are not post-Soviet states, yet they are as important NG importers as Eastern European states. For the entire EU, the figure is 40% and will increase to 70% by 2020 - proof - and you said that Russia can blackmail only post-Soviet states. NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL BEING OWNED.


This is the funny thing about arguing with a kid of limited intelligence, they can never keep track of their argument and poften resort to purile gestures ( as we have seen in his posts ). He just stated to me in a post that Russia can balckmail any country with oil and NG. Yet here he changes it just Europe
Even funnier stil is he sees this as some sort of First Person Shooter Computer Game victory with the chant ' NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL BEING OWNED '. Kinda blows any credibility he had ( which wasn't much ) away. But hey, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time.

PS. His lack on global economies is completely lacking, he obviously has no grasp of economics, which makes me think he either never finished school or is about year 6 or 7.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
You haven't

I have proven myself right, even though you keep denying.



LMAO, BS.

And that's all you are able to write. You are unable to disprove me, yet you claim you are right? You are even unable to prove that 2+2=4.


kinda funny considering most of the world doesn't get its energy from Russia.

No? How about Europe and China? That's 2 billion people - 1/3 of the world's population.



LOL, but Greece is the only example you keep on mentioning.

No, I also mentioned Germany, Austria and post-Soviet states. Would anyone call Germany irrelevant? I also proved that for the entire EU the figure is 40%.



Sure, like your " Russia has 20 000 troops abroad"

You haven't disproven me. The website I cited doesn't mention the soldiers the Russians deployed to Belarus.



what a dunce you really are.

Ah, so now you are only able to offend people. Yet you call me the kid. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.



You made the claim you prove

I did.



You have not shown a single thing which backs up what you say.

You're wrong. I have backed up all my claims with evidence. I'll repeat my claims so that you understand that you are owned.

1) I claimed that the Russians have deployed 20000 soldiers abroad. I have provided a link to prove myself right and then warned that the forementioned page doesn't mention the soldiers the Russians deployed to Belarus because that page hasn't been updated for two years.
2) I claimed that the Russia sells NG not only to post-Soviet states, but to the entire EU (for which the figure is 40%, that's right, 40% from just one supplier). I have provided evidence, namely: europa.eu...
3) I claimed that whenever the Russians stop delivering NG to one nation, other nations suffer too. I have proven myself right with this link: news.bbc.co.uk...
4) I claimed that even though Putin switches NG off whenever he wants to do so, he is never punished by European PMs. I have proven myself right with this link: news.bbc.co.uk...
5) I claimed that the Russians have violated the First Test Ban Treaty, which they signed 1963. I have proven myself right with this link: www.globalsecurity.org...
6) I claimed that Maloy has disproven Iblis. I have proven myself right with this link: www.abovepolitics.com...



your stupidity

Again, you are forced to offend me because you are unable to disprove me. Grow up.



he is about year 6 or 7

Actually, I'm 20.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I have backed up all my claims with evidence. You, however, have only repeated 100 times that I'm supposedly wrong, and used insults. That's all you have done. Do you realise you are making me laugh? Source #2 (about the oil shortage - it says that this time the Germans suffered too): news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
As a side-note, I'd recommend that you all, whether it be through purchase or browsing, read the latest issue of 'The Economist'. It has a wonderful article discussing how Russia could never cut Europe off, how dependent Russia is, how Europe is loosening its dependence, and, in case any of you here may've thought of it, why there'd never be a 'Natural-gas OPEC'.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by INeedHelp
1) I claimed that the Russians have deployed 20000 soldiers abroad. I have provided a link to prove myself right and then warned that the forementioned page doesn't mention the soldiers the Russians deployed to Belarus because that page hasn't been updated for two years.


And so what ..... How does this prove your claim that Russia deploying trrops abroad ( although it is only to post-Soviet Republics
) allows them to control most of teh world. They control nothing, lol.


2) I claimed that the Russia sells NG not only to post-Soviet states, but to the entire EU (for which the figure is 40%, that's right, 40% from just one supplier). I have provided evidence, namely: europa.eu...


No you claimed that RUssia controls most of the world
. SO you are saying you are wrong now.


3) I claimed that whenever the Russians stop delivering NG to one nation, other nations suffer too. I have proven myself right with this link: news.bbc.co.uk...


LOL and what, how does this allow Russia to control most of the world ?


4) I claimed that even though Putin switches NG off whenever he wants to do so, he is never punished by European PMs. I have proven myself right with this link: news.bbc.co.uk...


Samer as above. It seems tyou are bonfusing yourslef. You still haven't ecplained how Russia controls most of the world. I'm still waiting.


5) I claimed that the Russians have violated the First Test Ban Treaty, which they signed 1963. I have proven myself right with this link: www.globalsecurity.org...


LOL, so what, what does this have to do with anything ? This ispretty funny, you can't even remotely stick to what you ar trying to argue. If I prove the world is round, that must mean that I have proven Russia controls most of the world. LMAO, that is the logic of your argument.

6) I claimed that Maloy has disproven Iblis. I have proven myself right with this link: www.abovepolitics.com...




your stupidity

Again, you are forced to offend me because you are unable to disprove me. Grow up.


LOL, you haven't proven anythin, all you do is confuse what you are trying to say. And believe me you have thrown around planty of insults.
Maybe is you had some type of logical argument people might have a little respect for you.




he is about year 6 or 7



LOL, well that is an indictment on public eduation in your country.

PS. Kinda interesting how you continually ignore people when they say hey, what about - the rest of ASIA, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA AFRICA. You know the majority of the world, they don't get anything from Russia.

Oh and wait, Russia makes up but a fraction of teh oil China imports.


The top nine countries, which export oil to China, are Saudi Arabia (24.71 million tons), Angola (23.45 million tons), Russia (21.13 million tons), Iran (18.64 million tons), Oman (13.18 million tons), Republic of Korea (11.06 million tons), Venezuela (7.32 million tons), the Congo (5.42 million tons) and Equatorial Guinea (5.27 million tons).
www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca...


[edit on 14-4-2007 by rogue1]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
It has a wonderful article discussing how Russia could never cut Europe off

It only proves that the author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about (or is paid by the Kremlin). Russia has ALREADY cut Europe off twice. So that article is irrelevant, as Russia has ALREADY cut Europe off twice - that is what really happened.



how dependent Russia is

Again, the Russians have already proven not once, but twice, that they are not dependent on anyone.



how Europe is loosening its dependence

Again, he's wrong. Even European politicians admit Europe is NOT loosening its dependence - they just claim that the Russians are credible. As I have already proven, the Russians are building two new pipelines now, one at the bottom of the Baltic Sea and the other at the bottom of the Black Sea. This will increase the amount of NG Europe buys from Russia, and consequently Europe's dependence. If the links I have provided are not enough, I'll provide one more: news.bbc.co.uk...



And so what ..... How does this prove your claim that Russia deploying trrops abroad ( although it is only to post-Soviet Republics ) allows them to control most of teh world.

I didn't say that this alone means they control most of the world. I said that this is one of the actions they committed because they want control most of the world.



No you claimed that RUssia controls most of the world

Yes, and the sentence you quoted doesn't contradict that claim. I just disproved your claim that Russia doesn't control Europe. After I have done so, I have proven that they control or will control China too. Read this: news.bbc.co.uk...

And then think why the Chinese President signed a contract with the Russians.



how does this allow Russia to control most of the world ?

They use oil and NG to blackmail other nations. If another nation disagrees with them about anything, they threaten to cut them off. If that nation is disobiedent, they cut them off, and whenever they do so they succeed. Proof: news.bbc.co.uk...



And believe me you have thrown around planty of insults.

I have never insulted anyone. However, you have insulted me three times: you called me a dunce, a stupid person and a kid. It is forbidden even according to ATS rules.



PS. Kinda interesting how you continually ignore people when they say hey, what about - the rest of ASIA

Actually, India may be a customer of Russia too. The Indian demand for oil and NG is increasing, and no nation has more NG reserves than the Russians.



NORTH AMERICA

How many states are there on the North American continent? What is their combined population? Compare NA to Europe, China and India.



SOUTH AMERICA

Again, compare it to Europe.



You know the majority of the world

You know, 2 billion people (1/3 of the world's population) buy NG from the Russians, and 1 more billion people will do so soon. That's half of the world's population. You are owned.

And China buys NG from EVERY state it can import NG from, including Russia.



The Chinese have, we are told, been running around the world signing oil deals with everyone from the Iranians, to the Sudanese to the Angolans. The Chinese are prepared to deal with even the dodgiest regimes

Everyone means everyone. They will be forced to buy most NG from Russia and Iran (Russia's ally) because the Russians have bigger NG reserves than anyone else. Read this: www.cia.gov...

[edit on 15-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   
[Sorry, LS.]

Ah, forgive me. You, who can hardly speak with a damn, somehow have the right to attack the author of an internationally recognized, objective magazine, and the article coming from a foreign author. Further, why would someone from the Kremlin pay a man, if that even worked, to right about Russia's fallibility in Europe?
And repeating some off-'Article-Topic' statement twice doesn't say much.

Saying it three times, again, does little.

Now you're arguing that Europe is not breaking its chains? America has been saying to do so since the 60's and 70's. Do you even recognize how the author stated they were doing so? No, you just blither on with your own opinion.

Controlling ex-republics in some vain attempt to reclaim former glory is not an 'example'.

One: Disproving something requires more than your own acknowledgment that you somehow did it. Second, if you think -anyone- controls China right now, that all-ready states the quality of your argument, in itself. That's like saying some foreign state controls the United States. Or, Hell, the Vatican.

Disobedient? To what? It's not as though Russia throws its weight around internationally much at all, discluding the half-arsed measure of hurting sanctions against Iran and North Korea.

Actually, I did point out your own personal attack on me. I mean, you completely ignored what I said, and the argument, but I did. And calling someone a 'kid' is not an insult, especially considering your level of debate, and maturity during this discussion.
Claiming [Suggesting] that Rogue and I are one in the same?
Heh.
I could only wish!

Now you're going on 'Ifs, ands, and Buts' regarding India. Theoretics makes for a poor argument, especially given your understanding of economics. An Iranian deal would be much more likely, considering the geographic and political issues inherent.

Population does not equal power. If so, China would currently dominate the entire world. For most of human history. And Britain, Japan? Nothing. Hell, Africa would dominate most of Europe.

South America and Europe are incomparable, unless we go by your unworthy 'population equals power' argument.

One billion? More theoretics. population equals power? Unsubstantiated, and reasonably dis-proven argument. Even as Europe plans to liberalize its energy industry.

This is true. However, it is not currently believed that the Russians have the supply to meet China's demand. Most of the world doesn't. As China's energy-per-capita value rises, an increasingly dire strain will be placed on the world. No single country can feed it.

I don't know why you still tout that Russia has the largest natural gas reserves. This has never been contested. And for the fourth time, I'm going to point out, that we all-ready agreed on this.



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by INeedHelp


And so what ..... How does this prove your claim that Russia deploying trrops abroad ( although it is only to post-Soviet Republics ) allows them to control most of teh world.

I didn't say that this alone means they control most of the world. I said that this is one of the actions they committed because they want control most of the world.


Erm, right so keeping troops in a few former colonies means they are trying to control the world ? DO you underatnd what you are writing ?




No you claimed that RUssia controls most of the world

Yes, and the sentence you quoted doesn't contradict that claim. I just disproved your claim that Russia doesn't control Europe. After I have done so, I have proven that they control or will control China too. Read this: news.bbc.co.uk...


You haven't backed up your claim at all, I'm still waiting - you seem to think Europe is the world. You should get out more
Also I'm curious if Russia controls Europe how is it that they were unable to stop teh Eastern Europena countries joining NATO or for that matter the Ukraine and other former SOviet republics wanting to join as well. Russia has bugg all power against the west. You hvae proven nothing.
Your only claim is Russia contorls the world because they could cut off gas to Europe. That is the most narrow minded and incorrect view I hvae come across. Come on educate yourself, this is getting pretty stupid.


And then think why the Chinese President signed a contract with the Russians.


They want some energy ? What is the point you're trying to make now ? That China signed this contract so they could be controlled by Russia - LMAO. China gets their energy from whoever they can, it should also be noted that the Chinese demanded a lower price than what the Russians were offereing and they got it. SO much for Russia's power.




how does this allow Russia to control most of the world ?

They use oil and NG to blackmail other nations. If another nation disagrees with them about anything, they threaten to cut them off. If that nation is disobiedent, they cut them off, and whenever they do so they succeed. Proof: news.bbc.co.uk...


A few nations in Europe, get out a map someday. This is getting really boring, you have a very poor knowledge of hiw the world works. ALso, if the Russians tried to cut the supply of energy for any long period of time, their economy would be screwed. But you obviously don't understand the basics of economics.



I have never insulted anyone. However, you have insulted me three times: you called me a dunce, a stupid person and a kid. It is forbidden even according to ATS rules.


You don't disagree though, so these are established facts.




PS. Kinda interesting how you continually ignore people when they say hey, what about - the rest of ASIA

Actually, India may be a customer of Russia too. The Indian demand for oil and NG is increasing, and no nation has more NG reserves than the Russians.


LMAO, so what about the rest of the world ? " Oh India amy be a customer as well " GAWD
You know the rest of the planet. And obviously you haven't taken into account how the gas would get there ( how typical ). you do know any pipelines would have to cross the territory of Pakistan or CHina, bith major rivals of India. That would be an unacceptable situation. THINK, or learn or sromething just stop running your mouth.




NORTH AMERICA

How many states are there on the North American continent? What is their combined population? Compare NA to Europe, China and India.



LOL, so you have autmoatically assumed India is controlled by RUssia LMAO, you lovee to make things up. And belive me CHina is not controlled by Russia in the slightest. Stop making things up, wake up sunshine.




You know the majority of the world

You know, 2 billion people (1/3 of the world's population) buy NG from the Russians, and 1 more billion people will do so soon. That's half of the world's population. You are owned.


LOL, I am owned. You are stupid ! China buys a fraction of it's energy from Russia, so you shouldn't even have CHina their. So it's 2 billion - 1.3 billion, oooh wait that amkes 700 million people. And Europe you said only has 40% which comes from Russia
So I think we know who has beened owned. Rather easy to prove you wrong, unfrtunately you aren't very intellectually stimulating or bright.


Everyone means everyone. They will be forced to buy most NG from Russia and Iran (Russia's ally) because the Russians have bigger NG reserves than anyone else. Read this: www.cia.gov...


LMAO and " Russia is Iran's " Ally. Gotta love you, you read a few headlines in the paper. yOu do of course know that Iran makes far more money from China than they do with Russia, so does that mkae China Iran's ally.
You know Putin is fairly anti-Islamic ( RE: Chechnya ) and only uses Iran as a pawn against the AMericans. If teh Americans bombed Iran, the Russian's wouldn't do #. They just want to make money form teh Iranians nothing more.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Rogue1, you are allowed to be naive, but I'm a history student and I must study for an exam. If you want to naively believe that Russia is not dangerous, do so. I have disproven you already, anyway, so I won't debate with you any longer.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Naively? Without argument -- Giving up does not constitute you winning.
And saying 'I'm a history student' fails to have much merit.
I've taken European History classes, advanced preperation, and college-course, does that make me better?
Can I verify that?
No.

That's why we must base our argument on stated evidence, and the ability to make POCs.

Let us return to discussion.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by INeedHelp
Rogue1, you are allowed to be naive, but I'm a history student and I must study for an exam. If you want to naively believe that Russia is not dangerous, do so. I have disproven you already, anyway, so I won't debate with you any longer.


LOL, the ponly thing ou hvae proven is that you cannot make an argument. You have been rpoved conistently wrong, but chose to ignore the facts. You go so far as to make things up.
You cannot back up what you say and seem to change your agument all the time. As Iblis said so what if your a history student, LOL, this only proes that you obviously need to learn about history. But please keep studdying, you might eventually inform yourself and learn how to make an argument based on fact


PS. The fact that you won't debate me any longer shows, that you know you are wrong adn that I am right. Thanks but I already knew that. Oh and it wasn't a debate it was thrashing that I and Iblis handed out to you. Cheers.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Wow.. HAHA This thread is laughable.. Russia controls the world? HAHA good one. Just because terrorist along with other third world organizations have access to Kalashnikov's doesnt count as world domination...

In another thread Ive got this stellar guy claiming outlandish claims (because russia has nothing in its conventional military worth a damn so he must make up ones) that russia has geophysical weapons that they have used on the US before (katrina) and will continue to use on the US which gives them some unknown supremacy over all of our hitech inventory, and now we got some guy here who thinks just because russia has 17,000 troops in former soviet blocs, Russia 'must' control the whole damn planet... And this isnt even accounting for his overstatements that Russia has a 'the world by the balls' because of its abundant yet dwindling natural resources.. Hey pal.. Europe does not equal the entire world. Remember that next time.
That is all.


[edit on 103030p://5104pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
The fact that you won't debate me any longer shows, that you know you are wrong adn that I am right.

I am not wrong, as I have proven myself right. Anyone who doesn't believe me can simply read my posts. Any intelligent person who will do so will know you are wrong. I do not wish to debate with you any longer, having already disproven you, because I must simply study. Unlike you, I'm not a kid who enjoys 8 hours of free time everyday.

I have disproven you, replying to every ridiculous statement you have written. The evidence I used to disprove you were websites whose webmasters have honestly written what Russia is like, and how important pipelines are. They have written about disruptions, which happened because Russian pipelines are used by the Ukrainians, the Czechs, the Austrians, and the Germans alike, so if, for example, the Ukrainians argue with the Russians, then the Ukrainians aren't the only nation that suffers. You, however, have written nothing more than insults. Insults don't prove you right.

I've read all of your replies and I must inform you that you've failed to write a post that would disprove me. Proof is only proof if it proves you write. Insults and sentences like "You are wrong!" don't.

The sentences you have written are all either offensive or illogical, and none of them proves you right. No honest person would call you a knowledgeable person.



Giving up

I didn't surrender. I have disproven you and Rogue1. I don't care whether you will learn or will continue to naively think that the Russians aren't dangerous. I have disproven you, and afterwards I said I won't be debating with you until at least the exams are over.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

[edit on 17-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
actually, I_need_help has provided everyone with all the evidence. who ever is saying he is wrong, has proven nothing, therefore, your statements are worthless
, I have to say, I_need_Help is pretty knowledgeable about what's going on outside America. Ilbis, Rogue, you live in the box, you are the one who needs to get out.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join