 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> On 3/6/22 13:54, Leroy wrote:
> >
> > When this all started a few weeks ago. When The US said we know what your doing
> > pretending that your protecting Russian people that are trapped in a hostel
> > country. I thought they agree on something!?
> > When Russia went ahead and attacked, My first thought was 'does the west have
> > the will to stand against this?' Well Do WE?
>
> When the USSR dissolved in 1991, the USA declared victory over communism
> and celebrated the end of the Cold War. My thought--and I seemed to be
> alone in this--was, wait a minute, not so fast!
>
> The dissolution of the USSR, along with the fall of most other communist
> governments around the same time, showed one thing: that the Leninist
> model of socialist governance is unsustainable. What it did *not* do was:
> - Eliminate nuclear weapons. This was foremost on my mind. They were
> now less likely to be used, but as long as they remained, I could
> not agree that the Cold War was truly over.
> - Insure that Leninist governments would be replaced by democratic
> governments.
> Since then we have seen, in Russia and around the world, including the
> USA, that the presence of a democratic government today is no guarantee
> that said government will be democratic tomorrow. While I did not
> foresee Russia's backslide into dictatorship, I did see that we should
> not have dropped our guard.
>
> During the MAD of the Cold War, the USSR pledged no first use of nuclear
> weapons, a pledge that the USA never made. Now, with Putin, we cannot
> be sure.
>
> I haven't seen world solidarity on this level since 9/11. But President
> Biden and the rest of the world are in a tight spot: how do we contain
> Russia without starting World War III? This is why, as dire as the
> pleas are from Ukraine, NATO will not establish a no-fly zone. It is
> plain to see that this war is bad for Russia. But Putin is a madman and
> a kleptocrat who doesn't care for Russian lives, let alone Ukrainian,
> Syrian, or American lives, and we cannot appeal to his rationality or
> sense of decency.
>
> Another bind is our dependence on fossil fuels. If we shut down
> Russia's pipelines, our fuel prices go up. Even progressives are in a
> bind on this one, as this would hurt the poor the hardest.
>
> But why are we still dependent on fossil fuels, even after decades of
> warnings about climate change? This speaks to Bald Eagle's point.
> Though his terse wording sounds like a conspiracy theory, the fact is
> that if American politicians cross American oligarchs (yes, let's start
> calling them that), they will lose their campaign funding--and quite
> often, media access, because the major media in the USA are owned by
> oligarchs--not to mention, that they milk the revenues from campaign
> ads. Pay attention to how much the mainstream media focus on
> candidates' fund raising, and how little they pay attention to issues
> that affect ordinary Americans.
>
> Remember this the next time you see some TV ad from an oil company
> talking about energy independence. Oil pumped in the USA goes straight
> to the international market. They say the Keystone XL pipeline would
> help American energy independence. But follow the oil: drilled in
> Canada, piped through the USA (with a temporary stop in Oklahoma), and
> offloaded onto tankers in Texas. When a bill was introduced into
> Congress to keep that oil in the USA, it was voted down--by Republicans.
> Remember, when an oil company says "energy independence," they are lying.
>
> After the fall of the Berlin Wall, I remember Europe got super nervous
> about the prospect of German reunification. But Germany has done an
> exemplary job of facing its horrid past, certainly better than the USA,
> which cannot face its own present, let alone its past. It was not
> Germany we had to worry about; it was post-communist Russia.
Sorry I didn't read the whole topic, just this last one, and meant to also
ponder the debate with a point, just in case no one already made it:
The worry is not russia alone, it's russia AND china, as the aledged goal of P.
is to pipeline fuel and sell it to china... Now if the current popular movement
was led by all the mandarin speaking individuals of the planet alone,
threatening to boycot that bloodstained energy, THIS could be the game changer.
(sorry for any grammar or typo from non native speaker, and sorry for any
misinformation from some naive human)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:59 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Another bind is our dependence on fossil fuels. If we shut down
> Russia's pipelines, our fuel prices go up. Even progressives are in a
> bind on this one, as this would hurt the poor the hardest.
I don't think this is actually the case. Shutting down Russia's
pipelines would be effective, if the petrochemical industry would not use
that as an excuse to raise prices.
They've posted record profits in the last year. It's not the cost (or
availability) of oil that's causing gas prices to go up. It's corporate
greed.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3022-03-12 14:55 (-4), Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:59 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> Another bind is our dependence on fossil fuels. If we shut down
>> Russia's pipelines, our fuel prices go up. Even progressives are in a
>> bind on this one, as this would hurt the poor the hardest.
>
> I don't think this is actually the case. Shutting down Russia's
> pipelines would be effective, if the petrochemical industry would not use
> that as an excuse to raise prices.
>
> They've posted record profits in the last year. It's not the cost (or
> availability) of oil that's causing gas prices to go up. It's corporate
> greed.
Yeah, you're right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2022 08:44, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 3022-03-12 14:55 (-4), Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:59 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>>> Another bind is our dependence on fossil fuels. If we shut down
>>> Russia's pipelines, our fuel prices go up. Even progressives are in a
>>> bind on this one, as this would hurt the poor the hardest.
>>
>> I don't think this is actually the case. Shutting down Russia's
>> pipelines would be effective, if the petrochemical industry would not use
>> that as an excuse to raise prices.
>>
>> They've posted record profits in the last year. It's not the cost (or
>> availability) of oil that's causing gas prices to go up. It's corporate
>> greed.
>
> Yeah, you're right.
XOM made so much freakin money last quarter they authorized a $10B stock
buyback. You only do this when you have so much money you can't bury it
somewhere else.
Also, people forget the futures market. The gas you're buying now was
priced and paid for a year ago.
The MAGAs also like to complain that Biden's "Green initiative" has
slaughtered domestic oil production. This is not true. Production is up
18% from May 2021 to Dec 2021.
There is a big dropoff from Jan-Jun 2020, but The Orange Grifter was
still president then.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> When this all started a few weeks ago. When The US said we know what your doing
> pretending that your protecting Russian people that are trapped in a hostel
> country. I thought they agree on something!?
> When Russia went ahead and attacked, My first thought was 'does the west have
> the will to stand against this?' Well Do WE?
I started this tread because I didn't see any thing about it here.
I was surprised!
I thought more people would have an opinion on the matter. Maybe most people
were shocked and couldn't get their head around what was gong on.
After a couple of weeks, this is how I see things.
Putin has to be stopped.
Not Russia, Russia is a tool the Putin uses to get what He wants.
Everyone is a afraid of world world III. I'm afraid that it has already started
and Putin started it. Not the nuclear yet. Putin statement That he would NOT
use nuclear weapons unless Russia very survival was threaten. Can do it.
If enough economic pressure is put on him. He'll have his excuse.
It look like the old MAD(mutual assured destruction) doesn't work with a mad
man.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 24/03/2022 om 23:08 schreef Leroy:
> "Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> When this all started a few weeks ago. When The US said we know what your doing
>> pretending that your protecting Russian people that are trapped in a hostel
>> country. I thought they agree on something!?
>> When Russia went ahead and attacked, My first thought was 'does the west have
>> the will to stand against this?' Well Do WE?
>
> I started this tread because I didn't see any thing about it here.
> I was surprised!
> I thought more people would have an opinion on the matter. Maybe most people
> were shocked and couldn't get their head around what was gong on.
> After a couple of weeks, this is how I see things.
> Putin has to be stopped.
> Not Russia, Russia is a tool the Putin uses to get what He wants.
> Everyone is a afraid of world world III. I'm afraid that it has already started
> and Putin started it. Not the nuclear yet. Putin statement That he would NOT
> use nuclear weapons unless Russia very survival was threaten. Can do it.
> If enough economic pressure is put on him. He'll have his excuse.
> It look like the old MAD(mutual assured destruction) doesn't work with a mad
> man.
>
>
>
No. Not mad. Reasons are geopolitical going back a very long way, at
least to 1991 (demise of the Soviet empire) but certainly to WW2, the
start of the Cold War, if not earlier (the end of WW1 and the demise of
the large European empires).
Ponder on this for instance:
Excerpt from George F. Kennan, “A Fateful Error,” New York Times, 05 Feb
1997
“Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the
Cold War, should East-West relations become centered on the question of
who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some
fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military
conflict?”
“[B]luntly stated…expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of
American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be
expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic
tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the
development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold
war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in
directions decidedly not to our liking … ”
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html
we too, the West, are co-responsible for what is happening now in Ukraine.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 24/03/2022 om 23:08 schreef Leroy:
> > ...
> > It look like the old MAD(mutual assured destruction) doesn't work with a
> > mad man.
> >
> No. Not mad.
not that it would matter if either side considered itself "sane", engaging in
assured destruction. :-)
and perhaps, given US "culture" is at the centre so often, and thinking about
The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy's ('Television, the Drug of the Nation')
lyrics, perhaps it's time someone actually leaned on the "red button", get over
and done with, so to speak.
(excerpt)
T.V. is the reason why less than ten percent of our
Nation reads books daily
Why most people think Central America
means Kansas
Socialism means unamerican
and Apartheid is a new headache remedy
> Reasons are geopolitical going back a very long way, ...
> Ponder on this for instance:
> 1997
>
> Cold War, should East-West relations become centered on the question of
> who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some
> fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military
yes, found this graphic on the BBC early this year. .. striking.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nato_members_from_1997.png' (283 KB)
Preview of image 'nato_members_from_1997.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice, Gentlemen.
Now make the next step and consider the possibility that the "sides" in this may
only be two tentacles of the same octopus.
Qui bono?
No one likes you digging for those answers, and people often don't like the
answers that they start to come up with. But it's a start, when you realize
that The Great and Powerful Oz is an illusion, and you start to pull back the
curtain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 28-3-2022 om 12:35 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Very nice, Gentlemen.
>
> Now make the next step and consider the possibility that the "sides" in this may
> only be two tentacles of the same octopus.
>
> Qui bono?
>
> No one likes you digging for those answers, and people often don't like the
> answers that they start to come up with. But it's a start, when you realize
> that The Great and Powerful Oz is an illusion, and you start to pull back the
> curtain.
>
Obviously. The octopus has many names and many avatars. "Magic Wands" in
action are called macro-economy, supra- or multinational-economic (and
military) powers/industries, geopolitics through economic pressure, and
more. The Marshall Plan was nothing more than a way to block URSS to
take over Europe after WW2 (and we gladly got thirty years of economic
growth, including this time, it should be especially mentioned,
vanquished Germany, while the US secured its own economic and military
supremacy). We generally forget however, to take care of (and include)
the /losers/ from major conflicts, like Germany from WW1, like Russia
from the Cold War, with the ultimate unavoidable consequence of a new
conflict like WW2 with the former, and Ukraine from the later.
A lot of shortcuts here, I am afraid, and very global generalised views,
but we should pay better attention to the lessons of history.
[and now I shut up. I have said what I had to say]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/28/2022 06:35, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Very nice, Gentlemen.
>
> Now make the next step and consider the possibility that the "sides" in this may
> only be two tentacles of the same octopus.
>
I think Zelensky was wicked smart in understanding this and not asking
for direct intervention.
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
