KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
historian said:KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
Our current government cares little about the persecution of Christians anywhere. Christian's are routinely murdered in Nigeria & other parts of Africa. India has Hindu fanatics who will persecute & murder Christian's too. China certainly doesn't treat christens well. Heck, in the UK Christians are jailed for praying silently outside an abortion clinic. A Finnish MP was jailed for quoting scripture a few years ago. Our own govt has persecuted Christians & investigated them on fake, baseless charges. The global neo-pagans are more interested in killing babies or pursuing other agendas than caring about innocent people murdered for their religious beliefs.
Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.The_barBEARian said: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.
India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket. But keep justifying and cheerleading for something like BRICs which its primary effort is to undermine the dollar and U.S. economic power, which if successful could remove our currency supremacy, and you'd feel it like nothing you've ever felt economically before.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
ATL Bear said:Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
It was not me, and I have no idea where that's coming from. In fact I literally just argued about how insane it is to cheer on BRICs when its sole purpose is to undermine our currency and economy, and by extension all of our pocketbooks.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Do you always dodge questions that have relevance to what we are discussing.
Have you not attacked people on here for "choosing their pocket" over more important matters?
If you have not I will apologize....
But if it was not you...then other people on here have certainly done just that on this forum when discussing the expensive Ukraine proxy war and the endless taxpayer funding for Israel.
When others on this forum oppose those wars they are attacked for "caring only about saving money"
Yet here you are now talking about your pocket book being the most important thing.
Interesting to say the least.
ATL Bear said:It was not me, and I have no idea where that's coming from. In fact I literally just argued about how insane it is to cheer on BRICs when its sole purpose is to undermine our currency and economy, and by extension all of our pocketbooks.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Do you always dodge questions that have relevance to what we are discussing.
Have you not attacked people on here for "choosing their pocket" over more important matters?
If you have not I will apologize....
But if it was not you...then other people on here have certainly done just that on this forum when discussing the expensive Ukraine proxy war and the endless taxpayer funding for Israel.
When others on this forum oppose those wars they are attacked for "caring only about saving money"
Yet here you are now talking about your pocket book being the most important thing.
Interesting to say the least.
The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:It was not me, and I have no idea where that's coming from. In fact I literally just argued about how insane it is to cheer on BRICs when its sole purpose is to undermine our currency and economy, and by extension all of our pocketbooks.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Do you always dodge questions that have relevance to what we are discussing.
Have you not attacked people on here for "choosing their pocket" over more important matters?
If you have not I will apologize....
But if it was not you...then other people on here have certainly done just that on this forum when discussing the expensive Ukraine proxy war and the endless taxpayer funding for Israel.
When others on this forum oppose those wars they are attacked for "caring only about saving money"
Yet here you are now talking about your pocket book being the most important thing.
Interesting to say the least.
The absolute idiots running our government decided to weaponize the US dollar... without consulting the American people.
ATL Bear said:It was not me, and I have no idea where that's coming from.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Do you always dodge questions that have relevance to what we are discussing.
Have you not attacked people on here for "choosing their pocket" over more important matters?
If you have not I will apologize....
But if it was not you...then other people on here have certainly done just that on this forum when discussing the expensive Ukraine proxy war and the endless taxpayer funding for Israel.
When others on this forum oppose those wars they are attacked for "caring only about saving money"
Yet here you are now talking about your pocket book being the most important thing.
Interesting to say the least.
Are you referring to sanctions and tariffs? As those are the only "weaponizing" instruments of treasury policy.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:It was not me, and I have no idea where that's coming from. In fact I literally just argued about how insane it is to cheer on BRICs when its sole purpose is to undermine our currency and economy, and by extension all of our pocketbooks.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Do you always dodge questions that have relevance to what we are discussing.
Have you not attacked people on here for "choosing their pocket" over more important matters?
If you have not I will apologize....
But if it was not you...then other people on here have certainly done just that on this forum when discussing the expensive Ukraine proxy war and the endless taxpayer funding for Israel.
When others on this forum oppose those wars they are attacked for "caring only about saving money"
Yet here you are now talking about your pocket book being the most important thing.
Interesting to say the least.
The absolute idiots running our government decided to weaponize the US dollar... without consulting the American people.
The natural reaction to that is countries banding together to create a new global reserve currency.
I dont blame these countries for looking out for their own best interests. Their economic stability was attacked, many times completely unprovoked.
I blame the filth running our government for destroying 250 years of blood, sweat, and tears from the American people to create a currency that was worth something and was so valued that the rest of the world coveted it.
No problem. And if you need further validation of the pocketbook angle, I've said before and still believe the most valid argument against supporting Ukraine is the one that says we can't afford to. That's not wrong.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It was not me, and I have no idea where that's coming from.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Do you always create your own realities from statements unrelated to anything you just worked so hard to spin?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Do you always dodge questions that have relevance to what we are discussing.
Have you not attacked people on here for "choosing their pocket" over more important matters?
If you have not I will apologize....
But if it was not you...then other people on here have certainly done just that on this forum when discussing the expensive Ukraine proxy war and the endless taxpayer funding for Israel.
When others on this forum oppose those wars they are attacked for "caring only about saving money"
Yet here you are now talking about your pocket book being the most important thing.
Interesting to say the least.
Fair enough
I will take you at your word that is was not you making those statements.
I apologize for the accusation
They'll never be admitted because.....they are the problem. Given the last thousand years or so of Russian history, it is entirely appropriate that Europe follow a policy of weakening Russia, given the Russian penchant for domination of its neighbors, to include invading them for the purpose of annexation of territory.Sam Lowry said: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....
Seriously contrived take, reminiscent of how Democrats just make stuff up to suit their needs.Redbrickbear said: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 ....
We are fighting Russia because they have a history of domination since Catherine. Russia was as bad as Hitler and Germany, do a little of your Russian research on Stalin (Putin's hero). The KGB caused suffering of millions. I have friends that were stationed in Berlin in the 80's (Berlin Brigade). Russia and its propensity for domination was brutal. You may give the CIA crap for funding groups to fight. You may give them crap for funding Democracy. The CIA and the US gave choices. Russia doesn't. It invades. See Czech (My maternal Grandfather family which he lost contact in 68). Don't give me that Russia is a victim to the big, bad US. Some of us have been there or know people that actually patrolled the frontier, in 10th SF, Berlin, or worse have family that no one knows what happened. My Ukrainian friend, was literally on the phone telling her Grandmother not to get into a Russian bus in Ukraine (helped her get her green card). Talk to Finland how benevolent Russia and Putin are. China is the same thing. Communism, Socialism, whatever mask they want to wear now is a sickness no different than a disease the Lenin unleashed on the world. Postion clear enough?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
whiterock said:You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 17, 2024
The Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, might have been killed moments ago.
3 Hamas terrorists were killed in an IDF raid in Gaza. A picture of one of the bodies looks a lot like Yahya Sinwar.
Israel is in possession of the body and has just started testing its DNA. pic.twitter.com/ZsRRQfSLdM
An American B-2 has struck a number of underground weapons storages in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 17, 2024
It’s the first time the B-2 is used to hit a target in more than 7 years.
Looks like a warning to the Islamic Regime in Iran pic.twitter.com/2YU4iM67SO
Eliminated pic.twitter.com/ZizLr9BkCR
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 17, 2024
Picture of the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and Israeli soldiers pic.twitter.com/RUsF13IxlS
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 17, 2024
KaiBear said:whiterock said:You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
Don't recall Hizballah slaughtering Christian Lebanese, but it's very possible they have, and our media didn't report it.
ATL Bear said:Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.The_barBEARian said: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.
FLBear5630 said:We are fighting Russia because they have a history of domination since Catherine. Russia was as bad as Hitler and Germany, do a little of your Russian research on Stalin (Putin's hero).Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
FLBear5630 said:We are fighting Russia because they have a history of domination since Catherine. Russia was as bad as Hitler and Germany, do a little of your Russian research on Stalin (Putin's hero). The KGB caused suffering of millions. I have friends that were stationed in Berlin in the 80's (Berlin Brigade). Russia and its propensity for domination was brutal. You may give the CIA crap for funding groups to fight. You may give them crap for funding Democracy. The CIA and the US gave choices. Russia doesn't. It invades. See Czech (My maternal Grandfather family which he lost contact in 68). Don't give me that Russia is a victim to the big, bad US. Some of us have been there or know people that actually patrolled the frontier, in 10th SF, Berlin, or worse have family that no one knows what happened. My Ukrainian friend, was literally on the phone telling her Grandmother not to get into a Russian bus in Ukraine (helped her get her green card). Talk to Finland how benevolent Russia and Putin are. China is the same thing. Communism, Socialism, whatever mask they want to wear now is a sickness no different than a disease the Lenin unleashed on the world. Postion clear enough?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
boognish_bear said:An American B-2 has struck a number of underground weapons storages in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 17, 2024
It’s the first time the B-2 is used to hit a target in more than 7 years.
Looks like a warning to the Islamic Regime in Iran pic.twitter.com/2YU4iM67SO
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:We are fighting Russia because they have a history of domination since Catherine. Russia was as bad as Hitler and Germany, do a little of your Russian research on Stalin (Putin's hero).Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Ole Stalin....the communist and ethnic Georgian
He was not even Russian buddy
historian said:FLBear5630 said:We are fighting Russia because they have a history of domination since Catherine. Russia was as bad as Hitler and Germany, do a little of your Russian research on Stalin (Putin's hero). The KGB caused suffering of millions. I have friends that were stationed in Berlin in the 80's (Berlin Brigade). Russia and its propensity for domination was brutal. You may give the CIA crap for funding groups to fight. You may give them crap for funding Democracy. The CIA and the US gave choices. Russia doesn't. It invades. See Czech (My maternal Grandfather family which he lost contact in 68). Don't give me that Russia is a victim to the big, bad US. Some of us have been there or know people that actually patrolled the frontier, in 10th SF, Berlin, or worse have family that no one knows what happened. My Ukrainian friend, was literally on the phone telling her Grandmother not to get into a Russian bus in Ukraine (helped her get her green card). Talk to Finland how benevolent Russia and Putin are. China is the same thing. Communism, Socialism, whatever mask they want to wear now is a sickness no different than a disease the Lenin unleashed on the world. Postion clear enough?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Was it not you....(or maybe it was another of the generic pro-war guys on here)...complaining about how the foreign policy restraint side of American politics only cared about saving money.
That not spending billions on Ukraine and Israel was a cheapskate mentality
Now we need to fight the big bad russkies because they are hurting your little pocket book?
Actually Stalin was worse than Hitler in terms of body count, duration of his tyranny, degree of evil, threats to his neighbors, etc. And don't forget: he made an alliance with Hitler in August 1939, helping to start WWII in Europe.
So when you argued that BRICS was irrelevant, what you really meant was that it's the biggest economic threat to the US in our lifetime.ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket. But keep justifying and cheerleading for something like BRICs which its primary effort is to undermine the dollar and U.S. economic power, which if successful could remove our currency supremacy, and you'd feel it like nothing you've ever felt economically before.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said: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.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Yes. And?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.The_barBEARian said: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.
Huh?
"Saudi Arabia has been historically receiving security assistance from the U.S. since 1945 when Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz and agreed to a deal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_operations_in_Yemen
The_barBEARian said:KaiBear said:whiterock said:You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
Don't recall Hizballah slaughtering Christian Lebanese, but it's very possible they have, and our media didn't report it.
Whiterock is a Jew-slave liar.
Israel could murder his entire gentile family and he be wishing them happy Hanukkah two months from now.
Hezbollah and the Lebanese Christians were/are actually passive allies because their interests align.
It is the Sunni Lebanese factions that are killing all the Christians in Lebanon.
