Curiously enough this is the same reason the American right hates Palestinians.Redbrickbear said:The American leftist mostly hates Israel because he thinks Israelis are white and Palestinians are brown.
— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) October 12, 2024
This isn’t true, it’s more complicated, but this is as far as he thinks it out. It’s a reflection of our education system.
Netanyahu said "we are at war,"
400,112 Views |
6389 Replies |
Last: 9 hrs ago by ATL Bear
Usually when Leftists accuse conservatives of being bigoted they are projecting their own bigotry. Generally, Leftists are the most narrow minded & bigoted people in America. There are some exceptions but they are hard to come by.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Sam Lowry said:Curiously enough this is the same reason the American right hates Palestinians.Redbrickbear said:The American leftist mostly hates Israel because he thinks Israelis are white and Palestinians are brown.
— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) October 12, 2024
This isn’t true, it’s more complicated, but this is as far as he thinks it out. It’s a reflection of our education system.
Good point…both sides playing out domestic racial politics on the world stage
It's been this way for a while
Intentional issues seen through the lens of domestic politics….really does seem that way
whiterock said:Realitybites said:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:and Turkey would have left Nato andnow be playihng footsie with Russia......The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:the Serbian genocide in Kosovo accelerated the rise of islamism. Islamic countries simply did not have governmental resources, funding or structures, to help the Kosovars. islamic charities popped up, raised incredible amounts of money from devout Muslims. They quickly became a clandestine conduit for military support for the Kosovars, effectively propagating an islamic insurgency in Europe.The_barBEARian said:
What is your ethnicity and religious orientation?
If you are white Christian or a white agnostic and you believe bombing the Serbs made you and your family's future more safe and prosperous, you are a ****ing idiot.
You can thank the Serbs for that. They caused it by engaging in their own religious holocaust that prompted an islamic backlash.
you can't genocide your way out of a problem the way the Serbs tried to do it. They were quite stupid. Don't be like them.
The Serbs would have won if the US had simply stepped aside!
Christianity would have won!
The white native European population would have won!
The only dummies were the Baby Boomer generation who allowed the filth in our government to proceed with their anti-Christian, anti-white air strikes
and the price of oil from OPEC would have soared......
I understand where you're coming from. I also understand the world is full over very inconvenient realities. A small state that tries to kill its way thru a demographic inconvenience is going to face intervention. If Europe tolerates a genocide against muslims, the islamic world is going to start poking Europe in the eyes.
Stability in the shatterzone is paramount to powers great and small.........
Actually Russia would have been playing footsie with Europe as a majority white, majority Christian country.
Russia has had its own struggles with Islamic extremism and people in Moscow arent exactly thrilled with a bunch of central asian types taking advantage of their hospitality and breeding over the native population.
Between all the energy produced by Russia, North America, and South America - Europe wouldnt need middle eastern energy.
I am always left with the startling realization that "our greatest ally" and its co-religionists are driving us to be dependent on middle eastern energy production so it keeps us in the region and keeps the money flowing from America to the middle east. We get poorer and poorer the middle east gets richer and richer.
With every passing year, I find "who does or does not hate Jesus" to be an increasingly valuable tool in analyzing foreign policy.
history informs us that Euro-Turkish alliance to check Russian expansionism is a centuries-old template. Turkish/Russian alliance against Europe is a 7-yr fling.
To understand that, one must first come to terms with reality that the Turks are a formidable race of 85m people occupying geography of significance which is not "going away." They can facilitate or frustrate US interests. Wise leadership will seek the former rather than the latter.
You dont know your history very well... The Turks were the arch-enemy of the Europeans for centuries
No, I know ALL of the history very well. The Turks were an arch-enemy until their high-water mark at the gates of Vienna in 1683, after which they went into decline....primarily a Balkan problem. And for most of the last 400 years, Turkey has found itself allied with some/all of Europe to counter Russia. The Crimean War is instructive. First sentence of the 2nd paragraph at the Wiki page reads:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Realitybites said:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:and Turkey would have left Nato andnow be playihng footsie with Russia......The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:the Serbian genocide in Kosovo accelerated the rise of islamism. Islamic countries simply did not have governmental resources, funding or structures, to help the Kosovars. islamic charities popped up, raised incredible amounts of money from devout Muslims. They quickly became a clandestine conduit for military support for the Kosovars, effectively propagating an islamic insurgency in Europe.The_barBEARian said:
What is your ethnicity and religious orientation?
If you are white Christian or a white agnostic and you believe bombing the Serbs made you and your family's future more safe and prosperous, you are a ****ing idiot.
You can thank the Serbs for that. They caused it by engaging in their own religious holocaust that prompted an islamic backlash.
you can't genocide your way out of a problem the way the Serbs tried to do it. They were quite stupid. Don't be like them.
The Serbs would have won if the US had simply stepped aside!
Christianity would have won!
The white native European population would have won!
The only dummies were the Baby Boomer generation who allowed the filth in our government to proceed with their anti-Christian, anti-white air strikes
and the price of oil from OPEC would have soared......
I understand where you're coming from. I also understand the world is full over very inconvenient realities. A small state that tries to kill its way thru a demographic inconvenience is going to face intervention. If Europe tolerates a genocide against muslims, the islamic world is going to start poking Europe in the eyes.
Stability in the shatterzone is paramount to powers great and small.........
Actually Russia would have been playing footsie with Europe as a majority white, majority Christian country.
Russia has had its own struggles with Islamic extremism and people in Moscow arent exactly thrilled with a bunch of central asian types taking advantage of their hospitality and breeding over the native population.
Between all the energy produced by Russia, North America, and South America - Europe wouldnt need middle eastern energy.
I am always left with the startling realization that "our greatest ally" and its co-religionists are driving us to be dependent on middle eastern energy production so it keeps us in the region and keeps the money flowing from America to the middle east. We get poorer and poorer the middle east gets richer and richer.
With every passing year, I find "who does or does not hate Jesus" to be an increasingly valuable tool in analyzing foreign policy.
history informs us that Euro-Turkish alliance to check Russian expansionism is a centuries-old template. Turkish/Russian alliance against Europe is a 7-yr fling.
To understand that, one must first come to terms with reality that the Turks are a formidable race of 85m people occupying geography of significance which is not "going away." They can facilitate or frustrate US interests. Wise leadership will seek the former rather than the latter.
You dont know your history very well... The Turks were the arch-enemy of the Europeans for centuries
"Geopolitical causes of the war included the decline of the Ottoman Empire (the "Eastern Question"), the expansion of Russia in the preceding Russo-Turkish Wars, and the British and French preference to preserve the Ottoman Empire to maintain the balance of power in the "Concert of Europe."
The "concert" is different today. And....STILL....it is Russian aggression which threatens it. Some things never change.
whiterock said:First sentence of the 2nd paragraph at the Wiki page reads:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Realitybites said:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:and Turkey would have left Nato andnow be playihng footsie with Russia......The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:the Serbian genocide in Kosovo accelerated the rise of islamism. Islamic countries simply did not have governmental resources, funding or structures, to help the Kosovars. islamic charities popped up, raised incredible amounts of money from devout Muslims. They quickly became a clandestine conduit for military support for the Kosovars, effectively propagating an islamic insurgency in Europe.The_barBEARian said:
What is your ethnicity and religious orientation?
If you are white Christian or a white agnostic and you believe bombing the Serbs made you and your family's future more safe and prosperous, you are a ****ing idiot.
You can thank the Serbs for that. They caused it by engaging in their own religious holocaust that prompted an islamic backlash.
you can't genocide your way out of a problem the way the Serbs tried to do it. They were quite stupid. Don't be like them.
The Serbs would have won if the US had simply stepped aside!
Christianity would have won!
The white native European population would have won!
The only dummies were the Baby Boomer generation who allowed the filth in our government to proceed with their anti-Christian, anti-white air strikes
and the price of oil from OPEC would have soared......
I understand where you're coming from. I also understand the world is full over very inconvenient realities. A small state that tries to kill its way thru a demographic inconvenience is going to face intervention. If Europe tolerates a genocide against muslims, the islamic world is going to start poking Europe in the eyes.
Stability in the shatterzone is paramount to powers great and small.........
Actually Russia would have been playing footsie with Europe as a majority white, majority Christian country.
Russia has had its own struggles with Islamic extremism and people in Moscow arent exactly thrilled with a bunch of central asian types taking advantage of their hospitality and breeding over the native population.
Between all the energy produced by Russia, North America, and South America - Europe wouldnt need middle eastern energy.
I am always left with the startling realization that "our greatest ally" and its co-religionists are driving us to be dependent on middle eastern energy production so it keeps us in the region and keeps the money flowing from America to the middle east. We get poorer and poorer the middle east gets richer and richer.
With every passing year, I find "who does or does not hate Jesus" to be an increasingly valuable tool in analyzing foreign policy.
history informs us that Euro-Turkish alliance to check Russian expansionism is a centuries-old template. Turkish/Russian alliance against Europe is a 7-yr fling.
To understand that, one must first come to terms with reality that the Turks are a formidable race of 85m people occupying geography of significance which is not "going away." They can facilitate or frustrate US interests. Wise leadership will seek the former rather than the latter.
You dont know your history very well... The Turks were the arch-enemy of the Europeans for centuries
"Geopolitical causes of the war included the decline of the Ottoman Empire (the "Eastern Question"), the expansion of Russia in the preceding Russo-Turkish Wars, and the British and French preference to preserve the Ottoman Empire to maintain the balance of power in the "Concert of Europe."
The "concert" is different today. And....STILL....it is Russian aggression which threatens it. Some things never change.
Now you are attacking the Russians for kicking the **** out of the Turkish Muslim menace?
yikes ....
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
True
The Turks were, and remain bad ass.
Was a mistake to bring them into NATO.
The Turks were, and remain bad ass.
Was a mistake to bring them into NATO.
KaiBear said:
The Turks were, and remain bad ass.
Was a mistake to bring them into NATO.
DC was just looking for a place to put missiles closer to Moscow and secure the Bosphorus Strait choke point.
If not for those two geographic items then the Turks would have never been given a invitation to NATO
Understand the reasons.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
The Turks were, and remain bad ass.
Was a mistake to bring them into NATO.
DC was just looking for a place to put missiles closer to Moscow and secure the Bosphorus Strait choke point.
If not for those two geographic items then the Turks would have never been given a invitation to NATO
But the Turks have still proven time and again not to be worth the trouble they cause.
KaiBear said:
True
The Turks were, and remain bad ass.
Was a mistake to bring them into NATO.
Maybe it was a mistake long term but at the time it made perfect sense. The decision must be understood in the context of the beginning of the Cold War.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
The Turks were, and remain bad ass.
Was a mistake to bring them into NATO.
DC was just looking for a place to put missiles closer to Moscow and secure the Bosphorus Strait choke point.
If not for those two geographic items then the Turks would have never been given a invitation to NATO
While both of those are correct, the reality was more complicated in terms of the broader geopolitical issues.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
I was told American boys would not be asked to fight wars for other foreign countries
Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder confirms the Deployment of a THAAD Battery to Israel. 100 US troops will deploy to operate the state of the art anti-ballistic missile shield https://t.co/PSnaBp0sbv
— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) October 13, 2024
Redbrickbear said:
I was told American boys would not be asked to fight wars for other foreign countriesPentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder confirms the Deployment of a THAAD Battery to Israel. 100 US troops will deploy to operate the state of the art anti-ballistic missile shield https://t.co/PSnaBp0sbv
— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) October 13, 2024
They are splitting hairs.
Defensive systems are okay. Offensive systems, not so much, yet.
Meanwhile Israel bombed civilian tents in Gaza killing more innocents. It would appear the ultimate goal of Bibi is to wipe Palestinians off the face of the earth while expanding his territory.
First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato, those same critics spin on a dime to argue that Russia has indefensible borders and must expand over 2/3rds of the Eurasian landmass in order to have security. Vladivostok to defend Moscow? Russia must be a Pacific power with a Pacific navyto defend its homeland west of the Urals?Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
Most of Europe does not have defensible borders. Yet, they've finally found a template for how to live together in peace - forswear territorial realignments, integrate markets and political systems, etc..... Then, when Russia invades the largest country in Europe for the purposes of doing exactly what your graphics outline, it's Nato's fault?
Remember the concept that has driven British foreign policy toward Europe for centuries - they are not interested in controlling Europe; they are interested in making sure no one else controls Europe. That's what drives Nato alliance with Turkey....as a balance to RUSSIA. As long as Russia remains a major power intent on exerting control if not actual polity over European countries far outside of its borders, Europe and Turkey will remain allied to stop it. If Russia collapses and goes into decline and the Turks start surging in power moving to rebuilt former empires......it is highly likely Russia and Europe will ally to stop them.
That is geopolitics 101.
You often have to ally with people you don't like to defeat/deter people you do not like. It's one of the oldest templates in history. We did it with Stalin. Are the Turks really that bad by comparison (at this point in time)? I mean, how can one NOT see the mutual interest Europe and Turkey have here? If Russia goes campaigning down thru the Caucasus again, Turkey will resist. It will need allies. It will need military supplies. Europe is the logical first call to make. So why not erect that structure proactively? And if Russia goes walkabout toward Warsaw, Europe will appreciate having a dagger point to point at Volgograd. That is how the game is played. Has always been played. Will always be played.
Russia has campaigned armies to the gates of Istanbul, in the Persian land mass, in outer Manchuria, etc.....
Please explain how that is necessary to defend the Russian heartland.
whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
A threat that was illusory then as it is today. The Crimean War marked the beginning of the hysterical Russophobia which has gripped the English-speaking world ever since. Indeed, some things never change.whiterock said:No, I know ALL of the history very well. The Turks were an arch-enemy until their high-water mark at the gates of Vienna in 1683, after which they went into decline....primarily a Balkan problem. And for most of the last 400 years, Turkey has found itself allied with some/all of Europe to counter Russia. The Crimean War is instructive. First sentence of the 2nd paragraph at the Wiki page reads:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Realitybites said:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:and Turkey would have left Nato andnow be playihng footsie with Russia......The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:the Serbian genocide in Kosovo accelerated the rise of islamism. Islamic countries simply did not have governmental resources, funding or structures, to help the Kosovars. islamic charities popped up, raised incredible amounts of money from devout Muslims. They quickly became a clandestine conduit for military support for the Kosovars, effectively propagating an islamic insurgency in Europe.The_barBEARian said:
What is your ethnicity and religious orientation?
If you are white Christian or a white agnostic and you believe bombing the Serbs made you and your family's future more safe and prosperous, you are a ****ing idiot.
You can thank the Serbs for that. They caused it by engaging in their own religious holocaust that prompted an islamic backlash.
you can't genocide your way out of a problem the way the Serbs tried to do it. They were quite stupid. Don't be like them.
The Serbs would have won if the US had simply stepped aside!
Christianity would have won!
The white native European population would have won!
The only dummies were the Baby Boomer generation who allowed the filth in our government to proceed with their anti-Christian, anti-white air strikes
and the price of oil from OPEC would have soared......
I understand where you're coming from. I also understand the world is full over very inconvenient realities. A small state that tries to kill its way thru a demographic inconvenience is going to face intervention. If Europe tolerates a genocide against muslims, the islamic world is going to start poking Europe in the eyes.
Stability in the shatterzone is paramount to powers great and small.........
Actually Russia would have been playing footsie with Europe as a majority white, majority Christian country.
Russia has had its own struggles with Islamic extremism and people in Moscow arent exactly thrilled with a bunch of central asian types taking advantage of their hospitality and breeding over the native population.
Between all the energy produced by Russia, North America, and South America - Europe wouldnt need middle eastern energy.
I am always left with the startling realization that "our greatest ally" and its co-religionists are driving us to be dependent on middle eastern energy production so it keeps us in the region and keeps the money flowing from America to the middle east. We get poorer and poorer the middle east gets richer and richer.
With every passing year, I find "who does or does not hate Jesus" to be an increasingly valuable tool in analyzing foreign policy.
history informs us that Euro-Turkish alliance to check Russian expansionism is a centuries-old template. Turkish/Russian alliance against Europe is a 7-yr fling.
To understand that, one must first come to terms with reality that the Turks are a formidable race of 85m people occupying geography of significance which is not "going away." They can facilitate or frustrate US interests. Wise leadership will seek the former rather than the latter.
You dont know your history very well... The Turks were the arch-enemy of the Europeans for centuries
"Geopolitical causes of the war included the decline of the Ottoman Empire (the "Eastern Question"), the expansion of Russia in the preceding Russo-Turkish Wars, and the British and French preference to preserve the Ottoman Empire to maintain the balance of power in the "Concert of Europe."
The "concert" is different today. And....STILL....it is Russian aggression which threatens it. Some things never change.
NATO's value to Turkey is rapidly diminishing. Turkey has been snubbed by the EU for decades and is now seeking membership in BRICS. They stand to benefit enormously from China's Belt and Road project. They certainly have no intention of sending their troops as cannon fodder for a Western war against Russia. I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave the alliance eventually. They'll take Europe's largest army with them when they go, rendering NATO permanently irrelevant.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato, those same critics spin on a dime to argue that Russia has indefensible borders and must expand over 2/3rds of the Eurasian landmass in order to have security. Vladivostok to defend Moscow? Russia must be a Pacific power with a Pacific navyto defend its homeland west of the Urals?Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
Most of Europe does not have defensible borders. Yet, they've finally found a template for how to live together in peace - forswear territorial realignments, integrate markets and political systems, etc..... Then, when Russia invades the largest country in Europe for the purposes of doing exactly what your graphics outline, it's Nato's fault?
Remember the concept that has driven British foreign policy toward Europe for centuries - they are not interested in controlling Europe; they are interested in making sure no one else controls Europe. That's what drives Nato alliance with Turkey....as a balance to RUSSIA. As long as Russia remains a major power intent on exerting control if not actual polity over European countries far outside of its borders, Europe and Turkey will remain allied to stop it. If Russia collapses and goes into decline and the Turks start surging in power moving to rebuilt former empires......it is highly likely Russia and Europe will ally to stop them.
That is geopolitics 101.
You often have to ally with people you don't like to defeat/deter people you do not like. It's one of the oldest templates in history. We did it with Stalin. Are the Turks really that bad by comparison (at this point in time)? I mean, how can one NOT see the mutual interest Europe and Turkey have here? If Russia goes campaigning down thru the Caucasus again, Turkey will resist. It will need allies. It will need military supplies. Europe is the logical first call to make. So why not erect that structure proactively? And if Russia goes walkabout toward Warsaw, Europe will appreciate having a dagger point to point at Volgograd. That is how the game is played. Has always been played. Will always be played.
Russia has campaigned armies to the gates of Istanbul, in the Persian land mass, in outer Manchuria, etc.....
Please explain how that is necessary to defend the Russian heartland.
This is classic balance of power relations. It's worked for Europe , & the world, for centuries.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
The West has pointedly excluded Russia from that template, so what did you expect?whiterock said:Most of Europe does not have defensible borders. Yet, they've finally found a template for how to live together in peace - forswear territorial realignments, integrate markets and political systems, etc..... Then, when Russia invades the largest country in Europe for the purposes of doing exactly what your graphics outline, it's Nato's fault?Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
Sometimes one wonders if the fascists actually do want to start WWIII.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
BREAKING: The Biden administration warns Israel it must boost humanitarian aid into Gaza within 30 days or risk weapons funding. https://t.co/7UCNSYuHwQ
— The Associated Press (@AP) October 15, 2024
Again, stop and look around. You've got it backasswards. Nato has invaded exactly no one. Nato has not "forced" anyone into its alliance. Russia, on the other hand, has done both.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
Islamism may (repeat may) have peaked; Erdogan will not be around forever. Turkey has jangled chains before and will do so again. They are helpful to have around for the Russia dynamic, but they have ambitions/interests to their east & south which are not entirely Nato interests so there will always be "complications." Nothing we cannot manage at this time.
I was around when Europe thundered with demonstrations against US military presence/weapons. We are nowhere near that now with Turkey. Turkey is no more problematic for Nato than France was for a period of time, or even Germany.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Only if they can. And they can't. We are under no obligation to help them. We have a valid interest in stability in Ukraine, in denying Russian hegemony over Ukraine. Russian invasion of Ukraine is as unacceptable for Nato as Nato invasion of Ukraine would be for Russia.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
You are stretching the meaning of "territorial ambition" to unreasonable proportions. Wanting to deny Russian ambitions to invade and subsume a country adjacent to Nato is not ambitious. It's beyond prudent. It's necessary.
They would be eligible for Nato membership if they had a stable democratic system and no territorial disputes with its neighbors. Sadly, not only are they not making the slightest effort to achieve those things, they are doing the opposite - they have a President-for-life and are invading their neighbors.Sam Lowry said:The West has pointedly excluded Russia from that template, so what did you expect?whiterock said:Most of Europe does not have defensible borders. Yet, they've finally found a template for how to live together in peace - forswear territorial realignments, integrate markets and political systems, etc..... Then, when Russia invades the largest country in Europe for the purposes of doing exactly what your graphics outline, it's Nato's fault?Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
Drawing that line in the sand, eh?boognish_bear said:BREAKING: The Biden administration warns Israel it must boost humanitarian aid into Gaza within 30 days or risk weapons funding. https://t.co/7UCNSYuHwQ
— The Associated Press (@AP) October 15, 2024
And nothing Russia has done provokes this reaction. Russia is a victim.Sam Lowry said:A threat that was illusory then as it is today. The Crimean War marked the beginning of the hysterical Russophobia which has gripped the English-speaking world ever since. Indeed, some things never change.whiterock said:No, I know ALL of the history very well. The Turks were an arch-enemy until their high-water mark at the gates of Vienna in 1683, after which they went into decline....primarily a Balkan problem. And for most of the last 400 years, Turkey has found itself allied with some/all of Europe to counter Russia. The Crimean War is instructive. First sentence of the 2nd paragraph at the Wiki page reads:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Realitybites said:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:and Turkey would have left Nato andnow be playihng footsie with Russia......The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:the Serbian genocide in Kosovo accelerated the rise of islamism. Islamic countries simply did not have governmental resources, funding or structures, to help the Kosovars. islamic charities popped up, raised incredible amounts of money from devout Muslims. They quickly became a clandestine conduit for military support for the Kosovars, effectively propagating an islamic insurgency in Europe.The_barBEARian said:
What is your ethnicity and religious orientation?
If you are white Christian or a white agnostic and you believe bombing the Serbs made you and your family's future more safe and prosperous, you are a ****ing idiot.
You can thank the Serbs for that. They caused it by engaging in their own religious holocaust that prompted an islamic backlash.
you can't genocide your way out of a problem the way the Serbs tried to do it. They were quite stupid. Don't be like them.
The Serbs would have won if the US had simply stepped aside!
Christianity would have won!
The white native European population would have won!
The only dummies were the Baby Boomer generation who allowed the filth in our government to proceed with their anti-Christian, anti-white air strikes
and the price of oil from OPEC would have soared......
I understand where you're coming from. I also understand the world is full over very inconvenient realities. A small state that tries to kill its way thru a demographic inconvenience is going to face intervention. If Europe tolerates a genocide against muslims, the islamic world is going to start poking Europe in the eyes.
Stability in the shatterzone is paramount to powers great and small.........
Actually Russia would have been playing footsie with Europe as a majority white, majority Christian country.
Russia has had its own struggles with Islamic extremism and people in Moscow arent exactly thrilled with a bunch of central asian types taking advantage of their hospitality and breeding over the native population.
Between all the energy produced by Russia, North America, and South America - Europe wouldnt need middle eastern energy.
I am always left with the startling realization that "our greatest ally" and its co-religionists are driving us to be dependent on middle eastern energy production so it keeps us in the region and keeps the money flowing from America to the middle east. We get poorer and poorer the middle east gets richer and richer.
With every passing year, I find "who does or does not hate Jesus" to be an increasingly valuable tool in analyzing foreign policy.
history informs us that Euro-Turkish alliance to check Russian expansionism is a centuries-old template. Turkish/Russian alliance against Europe is a 7-yr fling.
To understand that, one must first come to terms with reality that the Turks are a formidable race of 85m people occupying geography of significance which is not "going away." They can facilitate or frustrate US interests. Wise leadership will seek the former rather than the latter.
You dont know your history very well... The Turks were the arch-enemy of the Europeans for centuries
"Geopolitical causes of the war included the decline of the Ottoman Empire (the "Eastern Question"), the expansion of Russia in the preceding Russo-Turkish Wars, and the British and French preference to preserve the Ottoman Empire to maintain the balance of power in the "Concert of Europe."
The "concert" is different today. And....STILL....it is Russian aggression which threatens it. Some things never change.
boognish_bear said:BREAKING: The Biden administration warns Israel it must boost humanitarian aid into Gaza within 30 days or risk weapons funding. https://t.co/7UCNSYuHwQ
— The Associated Press (@AP) October 15, 2024
This Biden administration must be the most erratic ally in the post WW2 era.
They'll never be eligible because they're too big. The last thing the US wants is a peer ally with opinions of its own. Besides which the goal is to weaken Russia and take its resources, not to help develop its economy.whiterock said:They would be eligible for Nato membership if they had a stable democratic system and no territorial disputes with its neighbors. Sadly, not only are they not making the slightest effort to achieve those things, they are doing the opposite - they have a President-for-life and are invading their neighbors.Sam Lowry said:The West has pointedly excluded Russia from that template, so what did you expect?whiterock said:Most of Europe does not have defensible borders. Yet, they've finally found a template for how to live together in peace - forswear territorial realignments, integrate markets and political systems, etc..... Then, when Russia invades the largest country in Europe for the purposes of doing exactly what your graphics outline, it's Nato's fault?Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
You have cornerstone BRICS members wanting out of BRICS. The addition of Turkey would only drive India further away from it. China and India are the only 2 relevant economies in that fledgling alliance, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE are much more pro West unlike Russia and Iran.Sam Lowry said:NATO's value to Turkey is rapidly diminishing. Turkey has been snubbed by the EU for decades and is now seeking membership in BRICS. They stand to benefit enormously from China's Belt and Road project. They certainly have no intention of sending their troops as cannon fodder for a Western war against Russia. I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave the alliance eventually. They'll take Europe's largest army with them when they go, rendering NATO permanently irrelevant.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
whiterock said:Again, stop and look around. You've got it backasswards. Nato has invaded exactly no one. Nato has not "forced" anyone into its alliance. Russia, on the other hand, has done both.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
Islamism may (repeat may) have peaked; Erdogan will not be around forever. Turkey has jangled chains before and will do so again. They are helpful to have around for the Russia dynamic, but they have ambitions/interests to their east & south which are not entirely Nato interests so there will always be "complications." Nothing we cannot manage at this time.
I was around when Europe thundered with demonstrations against US military presence/weapons. We are nowhere near that now with Turkey. Turkey is no more problematic for Nato than France was for a period of time, or even Germany.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Only if they can. And they can't. We are under no obligation to help them. We have a valid interest in stability in Ukraine, in denying Russian hegemony over Ukraine. Russian invasion of Ukraine is as unacceptable for Nato as Nato invasion of Ukraine would be for Russia.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
You are stretching the meaning of "territorial ambition" to unreasonable proportions. Wanting to deny Russian ambitions to invade and subsume a country adjacent to Nato is not ambitious. It's beyond prudent. It's necessary.
During the Cold War the soviets invaded their own allies repeatedly. Most notably were Hungary in 1956 & Czechoslovakia in 1968. They also supported the extremely repressive policies of local communist dictatorships such as East Germany in 1953, Poland multiple times, etc. The main reason the 1989 revolutions resulted in the collapse of European communism is that Gorbachev decided not to intervene or support repression. He actually encouraged those commies to reform their systems as he had done but they did little and the rest, as they say, is history.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
ATL Bear said:You have cornerstone BRICS members wanting out of BRICS. The addition of Turkey would only drive India further away from it. China and India are the only 2 relevant economies in that fledgling alliance, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE are much more pro West unlike Russia and Iran.Sam Lowry said:NATO's value to Turkey is rapidly diminishing. Turkey has been snubbed by the EU for decades and is now seeking membership in BRICS. They stand to benefit enormously from China's Belt and Road project. They certainly have no intention of sending their troops as cannon fodder for a Western war against Russia. I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave the alliance eventually. They'll take Europe's largest army with them when they go, rendering NATO permanently irrelevant.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
Saudi Arabia and UAE are NOT pro-west.
But they are more than happy to accept free money from weak, pathetic, idiots.
Our ZOG government bribes those countries with money that is sorely needed in America to play nice with Israel. The American tax payer is having his soul sucked out on behalf of foreign interests that offer ZERO benefit in return.
BRICS has a higher combined population and GDP than the G7. In a few short years it will have its own payment system. Even if you ignore the oil-producing countries of the Middle East (which is frankly odd), we're going to great lengths to antagonize China and Russia (which are both relevant, despite the juvenile trash talk from US officials).ATL Bear said:You have cornerstone BRICS members wanting out of BRICS. The addition of Turkey would only drive India further away from it. China and India are the only 2 relevant economies in that fledgling alliance, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE are much more pro West unlike Russia and Iran.Sam Lowry said:NATO's value to Turkey is rapidly diminishing. Turkey has been snubbed by the EU for decades and is now seeking membership in BRICS. They stand to benefit enormously from China's Belt and Road project. They certainly have no intention of sending their troops as cannon fodder for a Western war against Russia. I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave the alliance eventually. They'll take Europe's largest army with them when they go, rendering NATO permanently irrelevant.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
It's not just that Turkey is unhappy with an issue here and there, either, like EU rejection or the genocide in Gaza. NATO policy wonks are actively floating ideas to curtail their influence within the alliance and ultimately drive them out. And contrary to Western propaganda, fear of "expansionist" Russia isn't the overwhelming motivator in East European and West Asian countries that we're led to believe.
Questions, Outrage After Israel Attacks Northern Lebanese Christian Stronghold
"On Monday, Israeli warplanes carried out an attack on a small apartment building in the northern Lebanese village of Aitou, in the Christian-majority Zgharta District. At least 22 people have been killed in the attack, according to the Lebanese Red Cross, which also wounded at least eight.
There has been no official comment from the Israeli military on why they attacked the Christian-majority village. That's not unusual when the Israeli strike doesn't appear to have had any military target or purpose.
This northern part of Lebanon has not been considered militarily significant throughout the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and there hadn't been an Israeli attack anywhere near this area since the 2006 war.
Israeli attacks on explicitly Christian targets are not unheard of, at any rate. Just last week, Israel launched a missile strike against a Catholic Church in the southern area of Tyre.
They destroyed the church, killing eight people, and have still offered no military justification for doing so."
"On Monday, Israeli warplanes carried out an attack on a small apartment building in the northern Lebanese village of Aitou, in the Christian-majority Zgharta District. At least 22 people have been killed in the attack, according to the Lebanese Red Cross, which also wounded at least eight.
There has been no official comment from the Israeli military on why they attacked the Christian-majority village. That's not unusual when the Israeli strike doesn't appear to have had any military target or purpose.
This northern part of Lebanon has not been considered militarily significant throughout the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and there hadn't been an Israeli attack anywhere near this area since the 2006 war.
Israeli attacks on explicitly Christian targets are not unheard of, at any rate. Just last week, Israel launched a missile strike against a Catholic Church in the southern area of Tyre.
They destroyed the church, killing eight people, and have still offered no military justification for doing so."