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.

 

Russia Sends Warships To The Caribbean

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Nice find BlasteR, I am glad to see you paying attention. Same for you Matrix1111, elderban, and all the others on this thread that are watching the real world and are paying attention.


Thanks for excluding the rest of us.



These people in charge are people, same as you and I, and can just as easily succumb to the very same vices and corruptions that temp each and every one of us. It is therefore our responsibility to carefully watch our governments and politicians and monitor them for integrity and virtue, to keep them honest, or at least honest-er.


Thing is a majority of these people do not as much succumb to such pressure and temptations as offer themselves up to be used for reward. Unlike the rest of us they far more frequently have options and don't have to sell a tiny bit of their souls a daily basis to maintain their jobs and general standards of living.


I am not suggesting that we place them in high reverence, just the opposite, they are on the exact same level as you and I, except they are our employees. And just like it were any other business we would manage or own, we must “check” our employees regularly to make sure they are being honest, are doing their job and are not dipping into company funds.


They are not on our level as the average person is not nearly as pragmatic and immoral. This is a common mistake with those who presume that politics is a sport where average people can participate and maintain themselves in good company.


Since WWII, the major super powers of the world have waged war vicariously through third world countries.


Only a few countries have done this and the one which created the most violence and destruction is most certainly the US national security state. If anything the USSR almost consistently backed elected or more representative governments than the US national security apparatus ever did and it rarely in engaged old fashioned coup attempts in favor of the typically unpopular western backed leader.


Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a thug, er, well, at least that is the impression many of us get.


Only the uninformed.


He is routinely cited as being involved in mafia style drug cartels and linked to copious amounts of nefarious underworld activities.


By who? Aren't one known by your accusers?


He is considered to be another one of those puppet dictators, selling his country out to the highest bidder.


No he isn't which is why the western world can barely stand him and the US national security state staged a coup to replace him? Why did the people of the slums rise up to bring him back to power? You want people power and when it succeeds you call the people's choice a dictator and scum?


While poverty does exist everywhere in the world, there are poverty conditions existing in that country that go well beyond extreme and is far to widespread for modern times.


Something the Chavez regime has done more than most regimes before him to alleviate by massive social spending programs? Which kind of explains why people are voting for him and resisting coup attempts?


There exists also a very extreme wealth and both the wealth and extreme poverty have grown during Hugo’s reign.


It's pretty hard to keep the wealthy from getting richer short of shooting them in the head so frankly we should concentrate on how fast their getting richer and how successfully they are being taxed to uplift the poor by infrastructure investment.


In all fairness, I must point out that my information about Hugo Chavez is for the most part, anecdotal as I have not witnessed any of this myself. I am going by what the news reports, what I find on the internet and some people I’ve met while I lived in Miami that were from that country.


Why don't you just pick BBC and others for once? You realise that they cant and don't always lie about everything and that when they are dealing with socialist experiments in third world countries they always find a way to portray it in the worse possible light?


They were desperately trying get as many relatives and friends out of Venezuela as possible. Some of the photos I was shown were devastatingly horrible and bordered on evil. It is reminiscent of when Fidel took over Cuba, but more savage IMHO.


Rich people were desperately trying to get rich people out because rich people are always worried that their normally ill gotten goods might be taken back by those they originally stole it from. A guilty conscious is not a easy thing and you shouldn't let those who is burdened with one inform you as to the state of the world or 'their country' they for decided to despise because the majority were suddenly gaining control of it.


The question as to whether or not Russia is violating any agreements or laws at this time isn’t really the only question here. It is entirely possible to do the wrong things while remaining legal.


Not something the US national security state managed when it invaded two sovereign nations in less than two years. Russia is within International law both in sending ships where it likes and it protecting it's UN sanctioned peace keeping operations in Georgia. Not that you can trust the UN to decided good and evil but it's not the worse thing that's ever happened to the international order.


I suppose it comes to intent, provable intent and plausible deniability. Does Russia realize they are propping up a puppet dictator, providing him with weapons, providing him with the money to buy those weapons, providing him with the technology to build super weapons?


Hugo Chavez is no dictator and were, unlike Dubya, elected twice by the people of his country. If we want to discuss dictators lets talk about George W Bush. We can also talk about the puppet regimes the US is still installing wherever they can....


I would think so, but why? Just to get more oil, to play the role of broker between China and Venezuela?


The Russians may not trust Chavez any more than they trust Cuba ( Cuba have a long record of exporting democracy ; and i yes i understand the irony) but they know a ally when they see one and know that it can afford to buy arms and create a headache right in the US sphere of dominance. Coupled with Bolivia and Brazil's resurgence as independent state the US national security state is scrambling around desperately trying to preserve the illusion of prosperity to prevent US citizens from taking the desperate actions they know they would not be able to resist.


Hmmmm, they are giving a bully the means in which to be a bigger bully and they are setting up protection for that same bully by sending in Battleships. What do they get in return?


Allies?


I for one, am going to watch this very carefully and I would hope everyone else would do the same.


Watching isn't very useful if one's frame of reference is not accurate; you might just become more misinformed as you 'learn.

Stellar


[edit on 27-9-2008 by StellarX]




posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Emotionally it is easy to say: "Let the Missiles Fly, and Destroy Russia", but logically you must be beyond that. Sure, Russia would lose a Military engagement with the United States,


They would? Any particular reason why your so sure other than the normal drivel about rusting ships and 1970 era weapons?


as the technological gap has done nothing but widen,


What gap and did 'superior' US technology ensure victories against third world nations such as Vietnam and China in the last fifty years? Did superior German technology give them victory? I didn't think so , yes.


and they have done nothing but allow their capabilities to wither.


Which must be why they have deployed many new generations of dual use SAM/ABM weapons as well as ICBM's and SLBM's while maintaining and upgrading their conventional weaponry which were by the late 80's in few ways inferior.


However, there is too much going on in the World right now to enter a Hot War with Russia when we have already played this game before, and we are thus experienced in how to go about it. There are certain rules to the game, and lines which no sane individual will cross.


This is no game and what is going on in the world right now is in no way favorable to US hegemonic power.


Not to mention that there are smarter and much more lethal methods available to take on Russia as opposed to simply launching ICBMs. For the most part, these methods are bloodless as well. Being able to take on an enemy without a direct firefight is the most ideal war that can ever be fought. There is no reason to elevate and thus destroy such an idealistic opportunity.


Sure and all the Thirty thousand seriously wounded and dead American soldiers in Iraq had all the benefit of this wondrous technology. Sure.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Matrix1111
Seventy years of Marxist-Leninism programmed billions of people to perceive through the tainted glasses of Marxism.


Please explain to me how the "Marxists' ( Which neither Lenin or Stalin represented at all) programmed billions when they had no access to billions.


Marx's view of history and man was purely a materialistic view. He believed that man was without spirit and evolved through a “dialectic” struggle of two opposing groups of people which would ultimately end with communism destroying the bourgeoisie and setting itself up as the ideal society. (Social Darwinism) This Marxist model of the “survival of the fittest” theorized that the only value that man has is his ability to produce labor. Other than that he was useless. This is the basis of Lenin and Stalin being able to execute and exterminate their enemies at will. It was the basis for massive labor camps that turned their perceived enemies (the intelligentsia and bourgeoisie) into slaves that were forced to “rehabilitate” themselves or be worked to death – or be simply executed. Pol Pot’s takeover of Cambodia and the Killing Fields is the most obvious example of this Marxist Dialectic being implemented.

Marxist apologists like to distance themselves from Lenin and Stalin for obvious reasons. (70,000,000 were killed through the implementation of their “dialectic” policies.) Marx was the one who set up the theory of Dialectical and Historical Materialism. This is the backbone of Communism coming into existence. Marx’s “negation of the negation” means that it is through force that Communism is established. Wars, revolutions, insurgencies, terrorism, genocide, lies and deceit are all acceptable practices of Marxism as implied through the “laws” of Marxism. This is undeniable.


Originally posted by StellarX\

It's distorted the perceptions of several generations of people. The victims, as demonstrated by Putin's mindset, are incapable of realizing their minds do not see the world in the same way as the generations of people that have lived without being programmed with terror networks and fear.


Such as where? Russians may have been affraid but legitimately so as their country were invaded three times in just the last century. Should we not rather ask why Americans are so desperately affraid and what led to their perceptions of impending doom?


As I mentioned about, the underlying premise of Marxism is that is turns man into a slave of the Marxist State. If you don’t conform, you are terrorized in labor camps until you submit, die or are executed. This is the mechanism that generations of Russians have had to endure since Lenin came into power and turned Russia into one massive gulag of terror. Is this a misperception of the facts? I think not. Solzhenitsyn thoroughly clarified these facts and so did Pol Pot’s Killing Fields.

Why would Americans be afraid of the Marxism-Leninism social model? Do I really need to answer that?


Originally posted by StellarX

People raised with freedom resonate a different spirit relative to the people raised with totalitarianism.


So we can measure spirit resonance? In which year where that specific breaktrough made?


This comment exactly demonstrates the problem of Marxism. Marxism does not believe man has a spirit. Everything is broken down to materialism.


Originally posted by StellarX

The issue is really one of materialism vs. spiritualism.


And how is capitalism more spiritual than socialism or even the facism of the USSR?


Socialism isn’t based on Marxism. But Freedom of Religion is a human right granted by most “capitalist” countries. Marxism attempts to abolish religions. His atheist views were the psychological background for all his writings.


Originally posted by StellarX

The lower-realm-influenced people are spiritually blocked from perceiving the true character of the higher-realm-influenced people. The former breathes in the noxious fumes of negativity while the latter breathes in life-giving oxygen.


Actually we all breath oxygen so i suppose i can rule out a education in physics and biology/common sense.


This comment is an example of your literalist, materialistic worldview in operation. It demonstraes how hard it is for people that are brainwashed with Marxism to see the forest for the trees. Hence, reasoning with a Marxist is futile -- your tainted glasses don’t allow you to see beyond the epistemology of your doctrine.

Which brings back up the issue of Putin...

The only thing a Marxist understands is force. Reasoning or using logic or appealing to the moral conscience of a Marxist is a waste of time. It's why Carter failed so miserably in his dealings with Soviet insurgency and global expansion during his term and why Obama will likewise fail miserably if elected. On the other hand, Reagan understood this clearly and brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union because of his Peace Through Strength policies.

Putin’s mind is wired by Marxism. He automatic reflexes are to use KBG tactics to obtain his goals. This means he will use Marx’s law of Negation of the Negation. He will bully his way back into the former Soviet states and force them back into the Russian fold. He will -- as we already see him doing – also revert back to the Cold War dynamic of geopolitical strategizing to “pinch” the flow of oil so that his competitors will suffer and be put at an economic disadvantage. It’s the old formula that the old USSR was using before its demise. Likewise, he will revert to making partnership with rogue nations like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela and crank up the anti-American rhetoric of Marxism in order to incite anti-American sentiments that are already brewing in the world, such as within the fundamentalist Muslim quarters. Yes, he may not be Communist, but his strategies are still Communist style. (KGB)


[edit on 9/27/2008 by Matrix1111]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix1111
As I mentioned about, the underlying premise of Marxism is that is turns man into a slave of the Marxist State.

No, the underlying premise is that Marxism turns man into a slave of DISCUSSING the Marxist State, as you are doing.

Do you know that the US secretly builds up Russia and maybe even the old powers might have killed Russia's Tzsar? I'm not a fan of Czarist rule, be it Bush-like or Romanov, personally, but you talk too much.

wiki/Anthony_Sutton

To view Russians as different from Americans is foolish, both are tools of greater powers. Both want drugs/vodka/sex, or didn't you notice the billboards everywhere on Earth, both there and here.

What's really behind all these "'isms" if not an application of the Hegelian Dialectic? It is "'isms" which divide the world (and the mind, most importantly) into neatly devourable pieces.

wiki/Hegel_Society_of_America


wiki/Hegelian_dialectic#Marxist_dialectics

"Nevertheless Marx: "openly avowed [himself] the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even "coquetted with modes of expression peculiar to him.""


You people can't even discuss the common conspiracies of the last few decades, on a conspiracy website. Aren't you ashamed of yourselves? Begone ye tired purveyors of tattered rags which no longer hold the attention of today's aware human being --be they Russian or American!

Begon I say!



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix1111
Which brings back up the issue of Putin...


Wow - back on topic after an hour of giving a history lesson on Marxism and Leninism. Maybe now you will be able to tie your rant on Marxism and spirituality to Putin... or maybe not.



Originally posted by Matrix1111
The only thing a Marxist understands is force.


Wait - firstable since when is Putin a Marxist? I can reasonably tell you that today less than 15% of Russians consider themselves Communist or have any remaining belief in Communism. Of these, less than 1/2 can be considered Marxist-Leninsts. And of this 1/2, the vast majority is over the age of 60.

What is your basis for stating that Putin is a Marxistst? And don't state - "because he is Russian and because he worked in KGB" - that is just arrogance and prejudice. Present some real facts, on what it is about him that you find to be Marxists.



Originally posted by Matrix1111
Reasoning or using logic or appealing to the moral conscience of a Marxist is a waste of time.


Same can be said about using logic or appealing to the moral conscience of neo cons.



Originally posted by Matrix1111
It's why Carter failed so miserably in his dealings with Soviet insurgency and global expansion during his term and why Obama will likewise fail miserably if elected.


Obama? Are you saying that there is a Soviet insurgency and global expansion taking place today? Do you live in some sort of alternate reality, or are you just high?



Originally posted by Matrix1111
On the other hand, Reagan understood this clearly and brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union because of his Peace Through Strength policies.


Again - how do the Cold War times tie in to what is happening today? You keep giving history lessons, yet you fail to explain how Putin's policies are either Marxist or Communist.

Communism in Russia is dead and buried. What we have today in Russia is not a true democracy, but it is very far from Communism. It is a centralized capitalist state, with a powerful central government and a closely-regulated capitalist economic sector.



Originally posted by Matrix1111
Putin’s mind is wired by Marxism.


Why? Because you said so? Care to provide any examples?



Originally posted by Matrix1111
He automatic reflexes are to use KBG tactics to obtain his goals.


What are "KGB tactics"? And what are Putin's goals?




Originally posted by Matrix1111
He will bully his way back into the former Soviet states and force them back into the Russian fold.


He will? The same way U.S. bullies its way into sovereign countries around the world, and forces them into the U.S. imperial fold?

So according to your reasoning - U.S. is trying to build a Communist Marxist empire. Brilliant you logic is!!!!

How is Putin bullying his way into former Soviet states, and how is it different from the foreign policy tactics of the U.S.? And provide some facts, not an ambigous history lesson on spirituality.



Originally posted by Matrix1111
He will -- as we already see him doing – also revert back to the Cold War dynamic of geopolitical strategizing to “pinch” the flow of oil so that his competitors will suffer and be put at an economic disadvantage.


U.S. pioneered the strategy or using (or denying access to) economic and capital resources to exert pressure on foreign governments. Russia is using the exact same strategy. And this strategy was not something that Soviet Union ever used. So please explain your reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with selling one's own national resources cheaper to one's friends than to one's enemies. There is nothing at all Communist or Marxist about it. Russian government subsidizes its allies with cheaper energy resources, and sells resources at market prices to everyone else.

Please explain what you find to be "Communist" about this strategy.



Originally posted by Matrix1111
It’s the old formula that the old USSR was using before its demise.


Actually it is not.




Originally posted by Matrix1111
Likewise, he will revert to making partnership with rogue nations like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela and crank up the anti-American rhetoric of Marxism


Neither of three you mention are rogue states. They are all legal national governments. If a nation has a government system different from the U.S. - that does not make it a rogue states. To say that they are "rogue" states, would be utterly arrogant and ignorant.

I can say that U.S. is a rogue state, and those that try to ally or do business with U.S. are damn dirty Marxists bastards. Same logic as yours.

And are you saying that Chavez or the Iranian government are Marxist? That's something new. Care to explain why?




Originally posted by Matrix1111
in order to incite anti-American sentiments that are already brewing in the world


And why do you think anti-American sentiments are brewing in the world? It couldn't possibly be because of the aggressive, arrogant, and militaristic nature of the U.S. foreign policy could it?



Originally posted by Matrix1111
such as within the fundamentalist Muslim quarters.


Are we are going from Marxism to Fundamentalism? Lets see - Darwinism and authoritarianism were already covered. What's next? Narcissism? I feel like I am in a philosophy class.



Originally posted by Matrix1111
Yes, he may not be Communist


Ahhh - progress I see. So why the Marxism history lesson?



Originally posted by Matrix1111
but his strategies are still Communist style. (KGB)


Define "Communist style". Could his strategies be more in line with Neo Cons than Communists?

[edit on 27-9-2008 by maloy]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by Matrix1111
As I mentioned about, the underlying premise of Marxism is that is turns man into a slave of the Marxist State.

No, the underlying premise is that Marxism turns man into a slave of DISCUSSING the Marxist State, as you are doing.

Do you know that the US secretly builds up Russia and maybe even the old powers might have killed Russia's Tzsar? I'm not a fan of Czarist rule, be it Bush-like or Romanov, personally, but you talk too much.



Then on those grounds you should be addressing this to Maloy and StellarX. But you're not. Therefore you have an agenda that supports their view. (Anti-Americanism.)

Should I buy into the "lastest conspiracy" theories just to be "hip?" I don't think there is a criteria that determines who is allowed to post on ATS. I lean more towards the Reverse Conspiracy theory that theorizes that forces are conspiring to portray evil as goodness and goodness as evil in order to undermine the only thing that is holding the world together. (America) So actually, I'm more up-to-date with the lastest hip consiracy theory than you are. ;-)



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by Matrix1111
Which brings back up the issue of Putin...


Wow - back on topic after an hour of giving a history lesson on Marxism and Leninism. Maybe now you will be able to tie your rant on Marxism and spirituality to Putin... or maybe not.


Rant? Why is my answering endless questions and comments considered a rant? Watch your attitude. I've been courteous. I expect the same from you. So does ATS.


Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by Matrix1111
The only thing a Marxist understands is force.


Wait - firstable since when is Putin a Marxist? I can reasonably tell you that today less than 15% of Russians consider themselves Communist or have any remaining belief in Communism. Of these, less than 1/2 can be considered Marxist-Leninsts. And of this 1/2, the vast majority is over the age of 60.

What is your basis for stating that Putin is a Marxistst? And don't state - "because he is Russian and because he worked in KGB" - that is just arrogance and prejudice. Present some real facts, on what it is about him that you find to be Marxists.


As I explained, Putin's mind-think and strategizing is Marxist-based.

There is no longer any reason for me to try to explain, if you are not able to understand what I've already posted on the matter. Sorry you couldn't have a fair discussion without the contemptuous and arrogant attitude.




[edit on 9/27/2008 by Matrix1111]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


First, I must say that I love this post, it has now reached eight pages, fueled by supporters of the KGB and a Venezuelan thug (alleged thug) in the military action of sending Battleship(s) to the Caribbean during a time of peace in that region.

For those of you that have been paying attention, I did not leave any of you out when I issued the kudos, but I do not give much credit to the trolls who wish to use hyperbole and sarcasm as a retort to individuals instead of using facts to debate the topics at hand.

As far as the actions of our (USA) current administration, since that has been called into question, I do not endorse all of the actions of our current administration either. I remain vigilant in monitoring my own government on a much greater level than of any other government, I do participate in the system and I look forward to the administration house cleaning that is about to take place. A right that I enjoy here in the United States and I understand how some people simply cannot grasp the real meaning or value of this freedom or the vast array of primary levels of participation. I do hope that the younger crowds that are coming into the age of political awareness here in the states also participate in the system the very moment they become adults if not sooner. To be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, does require the people to participate.

Back to the topic at hand, Battleships in the Caribbean. There is no justifiable reason for this action other than military support for an aggressor, be they Hugo, Sluggo, Slappo or Ned. Add to this the idea that the Russian government has just given, I repeat, given a billion dollars worth of weapons to Chavez is an act of creating a destabilizing force. True, they sold Chavez the weapons, but only after they gave him a billion dollars credit to use in purchasing those weapons. Exactly how does giving away a billion dollars benefit Mother Russia? Was it old money that they needed to clear out, old weapons that they could pass off to some unsophisticated hack? Now they wish to supply him (Chavez) nuclear technology. This is something that has disaster written all over it, giving a self proclaimed drug addict with a history of emotional outbursts, nuclear technology. Can there be a more destabilizing act?

Don’t be surprised at our military personnel being shuffled around right about now.


[edit on 9/27/2008 by eaganthorn]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Back to the topic at hand, Battleships in the Caribbean. There is no justifiable reason for this action other than military support for an aggressor


How is Chavez an aggressor or a thug? I agree that he is somewhat deranged and I don't like his attitude, but he is in no way an aggressor. He is a legit leader of a sovereign country.

And why does he need Russia's military support? Venezuela is not in any sort of danger, and Chavez hardly needs Russian ships to defend him.



Originally posted by eaganthorn
Add to this the idea that the Russian government has just given, I repeat, given a billion dollars worth of weapons to Chavez is an act of creating a destabilizing force.


This is a response to U.S. giving military aid to Georgia. Same deal - U.S. providing military and political support for a psychotic leader who behaving increasingly aggressively. You can't say that you do not see a parallel between U.S. actions in Georgia and Russia's actions in Venezuela.

And what exactly is this action destabilizing? Are you saying that Chavez is planning some military action?



Originally posted by eaganthorn
True, they sold Chavez the weapons, but only after they gave him a billion dollars credit to use in purchasing those weapons.


Russia sold Venezuela weapons long before this $1 billion deal. Prior to this Venezuela already had very extensive arms contracts with Russia.

What do you find so wrong or disturbing about Venezuela buying weapons from Russia at a discount? Or can the Western Hemisphere buy arms only from the U.S.?



Originally posted by eaganthorn
Exactly how does giving away a billion dollars benefit Mother Russia?


It is a goodwill discount - a sweatener to encourage more business between the two countries. Venezuela already spend well over a billion dollars buying Russian-made weapons in recent years. There are even more contracts in the making - worth billions of dollars. So there is an ultimate benefit to Russia, if this is an incentive for Venezuela to buy even more Russian weapons.



Originally posted by eaganthorn
Now they wish to supply him (Chavez) nuclear technology.


It is very likely civilian nuclear technology - for energy production. Why can't Venezuela possess civil nuclear technology?

Plus, this will certainly be a paid contract - which means Venezuela will pay Russia for this technology. So it's business and capitalism. Russia isn't supply this technology as a favor.



Originally posted by eaganthorn
This is something that has disaster written all over it, giving a self proclaimed drug addict with a history of emotional outbursts, nuclear technology.


Giving Israel, India, and Pakistan nuclear technology had disaster writter all over it. Yet nothing came of it - no nuclear war, no nuclear terrorism. So what makes Venezuela, or North Korea or Iran for that matter, anymore dangerous than Israel or Pakistan?

Plus we are talking about civilian nuclear technology here - not military. There is no reason to believe that Venezuela has the resources or the technological knowledge to make a civilian nuclear energy plant produce weapons-grade material. And even then - if by some remotely-possible chance that weapons-grade nuclear material is produced - it would still need means to deliver the weapon. Venezuela is decades away from producing any ICBM - and there is no evidence that any such program has even been started. So there is nothing to fear on the nuclear front.



Originally posted by eaganthorn
Don’t be surprised at our military personnel being shuffled around right about now.


And what is the U.S. military going to do? Rain on Russia-Venezuela parade? I think not.

There is a reason why socialist leftists like Chavez are being elected to power throughout Latin America. These countries want a change, and they are not satisfied with U.S.-economic domination of the region. They believe that these socialists can change this, and distance themselves from the U.S. and U.S. corporations. This trend is reflective of the somewhat arrogant U.S. policies towards Latin America in the last several decades.

Perhaps if U.S. changes it's foreign policy, these countries can drift back into the U.S. sphere of influence. But U.S. will have to earn their trust and respect first. At this point this is not happening - and the Bush administration is arrogantly further distancing itself from these governments.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
First, I must say that I love this post, it has now reached eight pages, fueled by supporters of the KGB and a Venezuelan thug (alleged thug) in the military action of sending Battleship(s) to the Caribbean during a time of peace in that region.


What peace in the region? The US national security state is actively seeking to assassinate Hugo Chavez which is certainly not the activities of peaceful times.


For those of you that have been paying attention, I did not leave any of you out when I issued the kudos, but I do not give much credit to the trolls who wish to use hyperbole and sarcasm as a retort to individuals instead of using facts to debate the topics at hand.


Then you should employ enough facts to make your posts worth of responding to in different manner.


As far as the actions of our (USA) current administration, since that has been called into question, I do not endorse all of the actions of our current administration either. I remain vigilant in monitoring my own government on a much greater level than of any other government, I do participate in the system and I look forward to the administration house cleaning that is about to take place.


It's not about to be cleaned. Both candidates and their vice presidential nominees are knee deep in the system or plain old fashioned religious fundamentalist; at least if you take anything they say seriously that is.


A right that I enjoy here in the United States and I understand how some people simply cannot grasp the real meaning or value of this freedom or the vast array of primary levels of participation. I do hope that the younger crowds that are coming into the age of political awareness here in the states also participate in the system the very moment they become adults if not sooner. To be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, does require the people to participate.


Ideally yes and i sincerely hope the American citizenry can regain control of their government or at least get the president they largely voted for.


Back to the topic at hand, Battleships in the Caribbean. There is no justifiable reason for this action other than military support for an aggressor, be they Hugo, Sluggo, Slappo or Ned.


US warships sail all over the world without threats to the US or your protestations. Please be consistent in your claims or remain silent.


Add to this the idea that the Russian government has just given, I repeat, given a billion dollars worth of weapons to Chavez is an act of creating a destabilizing force.


It's a loan and compared to what the US GIVES Israel, Egypt and many other middle eastern nations a small loan at that. Either inform yourself, be consistent or remain silent.


True, they sold Chavez the weapons, but only after they gave him a billion dollars credit to use in purchasing those weapons. Exactly how does giving away a billion dollars benefit Mother Russia?


It aids Russia in many ways but not nearly as much as it aids the Venezuelan people in slowly erecting a credible defense to US imperialism.


Was it old money that they needed to clear out, old weapons that they could pass off to some unsophisticated hack?


Knowing the Russians you don't always get what you pay for but at least it doesn't cost you a arm and a leg as well as your countries sovereignty.


Now they wish to supply him (Chavez) nuclear technology. This is something that has disaster written all over it, giving a self proclaimed drug addict with a history of emotional outbursts, nuclear technology.


Yes. In the same way that many others nations have nuclear power generation technologies.... I have not heard the story or seen the sources of Chavez being a drug addict so feel free to inform me. As for emotional outbursts i would rather have that ( it's human) than a man who can't chew his food, cant stay on a bike and speak in public without making a fool of himself.


Can there be a more destabilizing act?


Sure! You spend billions of dollars training religious fundamentalist freedom fighters in Pakistani madrases and then arm them to fight to soviet union knowing that they changed the 'death to America' to 'death to the Soviet union' just because one was temporarily closer at hand.

If you want to talk about destabilization the US national security state has tried almost everything.


Don’t be surprised at our military personnel being shuffled around right about now.


Like there are any serious reserves left to shuffle around without destroying what's left of United States armed forces. Do you know what 5 years of low intensity warfare does to armed force? Do you want details from US military magazines or will you google for it?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
reply to post by StellarX
 




This is something that has disaster written all over it, giving a self proclaimed drug addict with a history of emotional outbursts




[edit on 9/27/2008 by eaganthorn]
In your attempt to make Chavez "look" BAD, you just described G.W.B. Jr:
1. He was on "coc aine" he's a recovered "Ahlcoholic"
2. He STILL has "Emotional-Outbursts" especially when reporters ask important questions when ever something is happening with the U.S.


[edit on 27-9-2008 by wantawanta]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wantawanta
 


I can see what you mean


I would ask if you think there is any difference between someone who admits to having been young and irresponsible in the past and is “recovering” from his vices to someone who admits to a current daily addiction. Bear in mind we are discussing the same substances.

I would say that at the end of the day, I do appreciate the both of them for at least admitting to their vices rather than the common place denial that seems so prevalent amongst the duplicitous politicians who simply abuse and lie about it.

But your point is well taken.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
How is Chavez an aggressor or a thug? I agree that he is somewhat deranged and I don't like his attitude, but he is in no way an aggressor. He is a legit leader of a sovereign country.
And why does he need Russia's military support? Venezuela is not in any sort of danger, and Chavez hardly needs Russian ships to defend him.


Ok, here we can agree that Chavez is deranged and has an offensive attitude, and I do believe you told us in an earlier post that Russia sent their Battleship to the area in response to Hugo Chavez’s request.
I am glad you’ve asked the question, why does Chavez feel the need for military support since there is no current danger or threat against him or his country, at least nothing warranting a battleship. I can only guess that he is either suffering from paranoia or is anticipating some sort of response to an as yet unknown or uncommitted action.


This is a response to U.S. giving military aid to Georgia. Same deal - U.S. providing military and political support for a psychotic leader who behaving increasingly aggressively. You can't say that you do not see a parallel between U.S. actions in Georgia and Russia's actions in Venezuela.


Admittedly, I am not well enough appraised of the Georgia invasion and occupation by Russia to actually draw any conclusions other than this generalization but would welcome your insight on the matter. If you feel it would be off topic of this thread you can u2u me with the info, please be as specific as you can if you chose to u2u.

You’ve asked about the weapons sale and questioned how this becomes a destabilizing factor in that region. There is some minor political conflict in the area, but for the most part there is a balance of power as each of the South American countries has virtually an equal share of resources, census and weaponry and there is some consideration to form a type of union there, not unlike the USA, provided tthey can all reach a mutually beneficial agreement. If they chose to do this, they could effectively become another superpower on the planet. But when you dump an extra billion dollars worth of weapons into a single government of a third world region, you’ve effectively upset the balance of power in the name of fascism. If Russia was concerned with stabilizing the area, or advancing Venezuela, they could offer a billion dollars worth of educational seeding for technology advancements or agriculture advancements, medical advancements and so on. So the act is somewhat self evident of a type of intent.

Nuclear energy is something that is a great power, a great temptation and is extremely dangerous, so much so that there is a global entity empowered to help monitor its use, operation and maintenance. Venezuela has not reached a level of sophistication to handle the responsibility of nuclear power as yet and shouldn’t even be considered until such time. Nuclear power is something that can go wrong in a way that can be a danger to all living things on the planet, not limited to just that area and I agree with the opinion that there are already too many irresponsible people with it. Having witnessed Three Mile Island and Chernobyl should be enough to convince anyone of this. It should also be noted that it does not require any advancement of technology to misuse it in a most dangerous manner.

I hope this helps and I look forward to hearing from you about Georgia.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
This little flight and summer cruise will delight an idiot like Chavez, but the Russians know that every moment, every aircraft and every ship is in the crosshairs and only seconds from destruction.


Sure they do and the Admiral in charge might not like being deployed where he will end up in November.



Let the Russians have their fun. That's pretty much all the fun Russians ever have.


The same type of fun as the guys in the USN, right?


aren't many of those Backfires that can still fly,


Just a few hundred, no problem.


so those boys need a bit of practice. Russian Navy? You need to run these ships sometimes so that some of the accumulated rust on the bottoms will shear off as they pick up speed.


So the Russians make their ships from Iron instead of steel? I didn't know this.....


Russia is not now, and never has been a naval power. There's a difference between having a lot of ships and being a naval power.


Sure there is and there is a difference between being a naval power and being a continental power who does not need to rule the global oceans to affect shutting down traffic across one of them.


Besides. HAARP is for show. Consider Chernobyl. One big standing wave popped right back to the Russians like a big rubber band snapping. The Russians know. And that's all that's important.


Which must be why the Russians were the first to deploy HAARP like weapons against the continental USA? Sure the Russians know what this is all about and they also understand that their ships are mostly untouchable unless the American government decides that a few more hurricanes in the gulf coast could chase up oil prices a few tens of dollars. Maybe the Russians will even oblige the wish and make a few more hundred billion dollar selling their oil/gas.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
reply to post by wantawanta
 


I can see what you mean


I would ask if you think there is any difference between someone who admits to having been young and irresponsible in the past and is “recovering” from his vices to someone who admits to a current daily addiction. Bear in mind we are discussing the same substances.

I would say that at the end of the day, I do appreciate the both of them for at least admitting to their vices rather than the common place denial that seems so prevalent amongst the duplicitous politicians who simply abuse and lie about it.

But your point is well taken.
Scince Chavez has NEVER stated he' has done shuch thing, the question is WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


You really missed the entire meaning of the last paragraph. Like I said, HAARP is for kids. I don't care whether it was first Russian kids or American kids. Later on, when Russia got to playing with some scalar EM energy (thinking we were behind them) and was directing it in our direction, we not only caught and held it with a more powerful standing wave, but popped it right back to the source. Nearby was Chernobyl. Those in the reactor had no idea what their buddies down the road were using this power from their generating plant to do.

Come to think of it, they still don't.

Russia advantages? Plenty. Right now Russian cities, just like American cities won't be hit the hardest by ICBM's or bombers. The pieces are already in place. No one wins.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by wantawanta
Scince Chavez has NEVER stated he' has done shuch thing, the question is WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT


Ok, we are taking the topic into a focused direction that the mods don’t like. So rather than go into anymore detailed discussion here, feel free to Google “Hugo Chavez everyday” www.google.com...
and learn about him and his vices in the many published stories and quotes. There are many Venezuelan publications, authorized by Chavez himself, as well as other credible sources. It isn’t really a secret, my friend and I am surprised that you aren’t aware of it but perhaps by thinking it is common knowledge, I am assuming too much, and if so, I sincerely apologize.

But, by all means, you should continue to voice your questions on these things and research anything and everything that doesn’t add up for your instead of just taking one persons blog as a definitive answer, whether it is mine or someone else’s. The info is out there and in great abundance, verify, verify, verify.

If you need help searching, feel free to u2u me.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
You really missed the entire meaning of the last paragraph. Like I said, HAARP is for kids.


And clearly what you say is god's truth.



I don't care whether it was first Russian kids or American kids. Later on, when Russia got to playing with some scalar EM energy (thinking we were behind them) and was directing it in our direction, we not only caught and held it with a more powerful standing wave, but popped it right back to the source.


Please provide your sources.


Nearby was Chernobyl. Those in the reactor had no idea what their buddies down the road were using this power from their generating plant to do.

Come to think of it, they still don't.


So you don't believe the official version of events then? Any chance your going to inform us as to why you don't and why the Russians would use nuclear power plants for this purpose knowing what could happen? They don't use coal in Russia? What?


Russia advantages? Plenty. Right now Russian cities, just like American cities won't be hit the hardest by ICBM's or bombers. The pieces are already in place. No one wins.


All this 'no one wins' hardly explains why the US economy is falling apart at the speed that it is or why hurricanes are doing damage further inland than they should be. Do you believe that it is the American government that are destroying the gulf coast simply to chase up oil prices for a few months?

Either way i am most interested in your sources as the one you seem to be employing most certainly does not believe that the United States holds many or any advantages in the current world order.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


You ask for sources, and while I would very much love to, I can't due to a number of reasons that you can readily determine if you think about it for a few moments. The only thing that's a bit comforting is that the capability here if the United States is good, and a number of these "counter" measures have been dead-man switched, and must by physically reset to keep them from initiating.

No. I apologize if I gave the impression that the US is at a disadvantage. There are many components available to both sides, and some of these components are already in place in both countries. That's all I can say about that. A successful attack by Russia would not do them any good. Nor would a successful surprise attack by the US do them any good.

No one on our side knew exactly where the Russian probe was originating. All that was known is that this would be sent right back to the place of origin. The Russians were simply using power from Chernobyl. And with the ground already "saturated," when they began a shutdown by lowering their rods, this made it worse. This was counterintuitive, and so they lowered them further, accelerating the reaction.

Keep in mind that after "returning" the Soviet probe, it was not until a couple days later that we figured out the area near the source probe. It quickly became apparent.

Things are not always what they seem. We let the Japanese and Germans successfully do things even though we could have stopped them because we were reading their signals. The same holds true here. We ignore certain things that we may later provide a surprise when it actually becomes important.

This is no hypothetical crap, no theory, no conspiracy or world order crap. It's science. A new form of energy. We have it, and they have it. But we were assumed not to have it. Chernobyl was collateral damage, and by proxy, turned out to be a warning.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
You ask for sources, and while I would very much love to, I can't due to a number of reasons that you can readily determine if you think about it for a few moments.


Thought about it and they aren't at all obvious. For you to believe that i would believe that you have true 'inside' information is tantamount to calling me stupid. Thanks for nothing.


The only thing that's a bit comforting is that the capability here if the United States is good, and a number of these "counter" measures have been dead-man switched, and must by physically reset to keep them from initiating.


Sure, dead man switches, riiiiiight. Like the national security state will allow the machinery of policy to become automated and thus outside of their control. Do you think I'm stupid?


No. I apologize if I gave the impression that the US is at a disadvantage. There are many components available to both sides, and some of these components are already in place in both countries. That's all I can say about that.


Or what? Your access to top secret material will be revoked by the sensors that check your every word? Right...


A successful attack by Russia would not do them any good. Nor would a successful surprise attack by the US do them any good.

No one on our side knew exactly where the Russian probe was originating. All that was known is that this would be sent right back to the place of origin.

Somehow. So you know but you don't really know anything worth being called a detail?


The Russians were simply using power from Chernobyl. And with the ground already "saturated," when they began a shutdown by lowering their rods, this made it worse. This was counterintuitive, and so they lowered them further, accelerating the reaction.


Actually they had nuclear accidents before and some ( you know who) have speculated that those were in fact related to the 'learning process' related to scalar weapon deployment. To suggest that they were still using nuclear power for such purposes in the 80's is in my opinion speculation of the highest order.


Keep in mind that after "returning" the Soviet probe, it was not until a couple days later that we figured out the area near the source probe. It quickly became apparent.
Things are not always what they seem. We let the Japanese and Germans successfully do things even though we could have stopped them because we were reading their signals.


Sure things aren't always as they seem and that's why i don't expect anyone on ATS to be able to 'brief' me on scalar weaponry or their use so far. I mean i had hoped but what your contributing is not what i had hoped for.


The same holds true here. We ignore certain things that we may later provide a surprise when it actually becomes important.


As for letting the Germans and Japanese doing things 'successfully' that's no revelation and neither is the fact that those who funded Hitler didn't actually expect him to take on and or defeat France and continental British forces before going after the country he was originally intended to destroy. If you want to do history lets so i can show you how frequently those in power have gotten it wrong leading to their own destruction.


This is no hypothetical crap, no theory, no conspiracy or world order crap. It's science. A new form of energy. We have it, and they have it.


Well done on knowing what's abundantly obvious to those who have looked at this for just a few years. More interestingly why do you think a new form of energy is involved here?


But we were assumed not to have it. Chernobyl was collateral damage, and by proxy, turned out to be a warning.


Why do you think it's assumed that the US doesn't have it? If so what are they waiting for exactly while the US is being systematically destroyed by 'environmental weapons' as Secretary of defense Cohen called them?


Again, my attitude is, if it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right. If there's problems, we're going to address the problems. And that's what I've come down to assure people of. And again, I want to thank everybody.

And I'm not looking forward to this trip. I got a feel for it when I flew over before. It -- for those who have not -- trying to conceive what we're talking about, it's as if the entire Gulf Coast were obliterated by a -- the worst kind of weapon you can imagine. And now we're going to go try to comfort people in that part of the world.

Thank you. (Applause.)

END 10:39 A.M. CDT
www.whitehouse.gov...


So is this just another inside job or are they just allowing the Russians to do this damage because the US economy is so very dependent on raising commodity prices?

I would like to be convinced that you do in fact know something but so far all i know for sure is that you read a few pages of bearden's various books.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join