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?

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"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?

who's this "we" you're talking about?!

(speaking for myself) the presidents of Russia and the US of A, along with many
career politicians, have one thing in common -- they're the kind of person I
would not buy a second hand auto from ;-).


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> (speaking for myself) the presidents of Russia and the US of A, along with many
> career politicians, have one thing in common --

They're controlled from behind the scenes by ultra-wealthy people who are
unelected and unaccountable, and profit by funding both sides of every conflict.


If Russia is a hostile country - then why did Obama and Hillary sell them
uranium?

There's a lot more going on than is presented in the press to the previously
uninterested people sitting on their couches, perpetually in fear of ...
everything.   Whatever they're told to be afraid of.

Be careful before picking A side, or indeed any side.

"He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs - pairs of opposites
- he relies on you extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite
one." - C. S. Lewis

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/129/Media/Unintended_Consequences.pdf

Read the Author's Note.

https://goldenageofgaia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/EX-RUSSIAN-INTEL-OFFICER_-Depopulation-agenda-is-real.mp4?_=1

In what seems to be a paradox, you should _stop_ looking for answers, and
_start_ asking the right questions.

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> 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