ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.

---

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.

---

Whoa

Whiterock is a good dude. We don't agree on every single topic.
So what ?

Your post is totally out of bounds.

You need to delete it.

---

That is his shtick on here....be over the top

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Interesting example of denialism at work there.

---

There are much bigger threats to dollar supremacy than BRICs. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of you guys cheering on something that would aid in that outcome. I think the appropriate phrase is to "cut off your nose to spite your face".

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen, that's like saying we gave "foreign aid" to France when they took Qaddafi out.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen, that's like saying we gave "foreign aid" to France when they took Qaddafi out.

---

Could be wrong, but thought previous US military bases in Saudi Arabia were paid for by taxpayers.

In addition thought much of the Saudi military hardware in years past were provided as aid .

Israel's Foreign Minister Confirms Hamas' Top Leader Yahya Sinwar Was Killed In Gaza
Sinwar has topped Israel's most wanted list since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war just over a year ago, and his killing strikes a powerful blow to the militant group.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen,

---

Saudi Arabia is paying for all the military bases, military aid, and US commitments to them?

Really? I would love to see that documented that the House of Saud is paying for all that in cash to us.

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.

---

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.

---

Whoa

Whiterock is a good dude. We don't agree on every single topic.
So what ?

Your post is totally out of bounds.

You need to delete it.

---

It was absolutely an appropriate response to someone belittling Christian murders by Israel.

I wont tolerate any of the Pro-Zionists excusing the death of any Christians on Israel's behalf.

BREAKING:

Netanyahu speaks after the killing of Yahya Sinwar.

He says it’s over for Hamas, that they will never rule again in Gaza and that it’s time for Hamas to give up. pic.twitter.com/aB8lCGNT2W

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 17, 2024

.@VP Harris on Death of Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar: "Justice has been served and the United States, Israel, and the entire world are better off as a result...To any terrorist who kills Americans, threatens the American people...know this; we will always bring you to justice." pic.twitter.com/fOzs9OWg9x

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 17, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

.@VP Harris on Death of Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar: "Justice has been served and the United States, Israel, and the entire world are better off as a result...To any terrorist who kills Americans, threatens the American people...know this; we will always bring you to justice." pic.twitter.com/fOzs9OWg9x

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 17, 2024

---

The United States had nothing to do with the death of this terrorist.

Was an Israeli army patrol that killed him.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen, that's like saying we gave "foreign aid" to France when they took Qaddafi out.

---

Could be wrong, but thought previous US military bases in Saudi Arabia were paid for by taxpayers.

In addition thought much of the Saudi military hardware in years past were provided as aid .

---

We pay the Saudi Arabian government for use of their bases. So I guess that's a defense department expense. Doesn't qualify as foreign aid under budgetary purposes. When we decided to utilize them in mass for the invasion of Iraq, that's when bin Laden became the terrorist he became.

Saudi Arabia purchases our weaponry.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen, that's like saying we gave "foreign aid" to France when they took Qaddafi out.

---

Could be wrong, but thought previous US military bases in Saudi Arabia were paid for by taxpayers.

In addition thought much of the Saudi military hardware in years past were provided as aid .

---

We pay the Saudi Arabian government for use of their bases. So I guess that's a defense department expense.

---

Do American tax payers pay for the Defense Department budget?

If a foreign country is getting our money....its aid/welfare

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen,

---

Saudi Arabia is paying for all the military bases, military aid, and US commitments to them?

Really? I would love to see that documented that the House of Saud is paying for all that in cash to us.

---

As I said above we pay Saudi Arabia for use of their bases. They aren't ours, but we use them in a joint capacity, primarily Prince Sultan air base.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen, that's like saying we gave "foreign aid" to France when they took Qaddafi out.

---

Could be wrong, but thought previous US military bases in Saudi Arabia were paid for by taxpayers.

In addition thought much of the Saudi military hardware in years past were provided as aid .

---

We pay the Saudi Arabian government for use of their bases. So I guess that's a defense department expense.

---

Do American tax payers pay for the Defense Department budget?

If a foreign country is getting our money....it's aid/welfare

---

That's not what foreign aid is, and you know it. There's an actual budget of foreign aid that shows you exactly how much we spend on each country.

But this is going exactly where I figured it would go with you, an effort to "technicality" some debate point. Therefore let's go to exactly what I was responding to. Mr. "Over the top" (your description) said the U.S. was bribing Saudi Arabia and the UAE on behalf of Israel and our ZOG government. Clearly we aren't doing anything of the sort, and we aren't doing anything like what we do in Egypt or Israel. Now you're trying to get in the weeds of classifying tax payer spending on defense in joint military operations that isn't classified as aid.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Interesting example of denialism at work there.

---

There are much bigger threats to dollar supremacy than BRICs. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of you guys cheering on something that would aid in that outcome. I think the appropriate phrase is to "cut off your nose to spite your face".

---

No one is cheering. I'm the one who's been warning about it the whole time. Our policies couldn't be better calculated to isolate us if we wanted them to.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Interesting example of denialism at work there.

---

There are much bigger threats to dollar supremacy than BRICs. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of you guys cheering on something that would aid in that outcome. I think the appropriate phrase is to "cut off your nose to spite your face".

---

No one is cheering. I'm the one who's been warning about it the whole time. Our policies couldn't be better calculated to isolate us if we wanted them to.

---

Or maybe they're trying to isolate themselves so they can act with impunity.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen, that's like saying we gave "foreign aid" to France when they took Qaddafi out.

---

Could be wrong, but thought previous US military bases in Saudi Arabia were paid for by taxpayers.

In addition thought much of the Saudi military hardware in years past were provided as aid .

---

We pay the Saudi Arabian government for use of their bases. So I guess that's a defense department expense.

---

Do American tax payers pay for the Defense Department budget?

If a foreign country is getting our money....it's aid/welfare

---

That's not what foreign aid is, and you know it. There's an actual budget of foreign aid that shows you exactly how much we spend on each country.

---

At best its military welfare

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Interesting example of denialism at work there.

---

There are much bigger threats to dollar supremacy than BRICs. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of you guys cheering on something that would aid in that outcome. I think the appropriate phrase is to "cut off your nose to spite your face".

---

No one is cheering. I'm the one who's been warning about it the whole time. Our policies couldn't be better calculated to isolate us if we wanted them to.

---

Or maybe they're trying to isolate themselves so they can act with impunity.

---

Yeah, it's the world that's isolating itself from us, with the "sole purpose" of undermining our economy. It's got nothing to do with our bullying or our hypocrisy.

Maybe it feels better to look at it that way, but the end result is the same. You want to police the world, you can expect pushback.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.

---

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?

---

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).

---

Ole Stalin....the communist and ethnic Georgian

He was not even Russian buddy

---

He had a Moscow address... Do the math.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.

---

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?

---

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).

---

Ole Stalin....the communist and ethnic Georgian

He was not even Russian buddy

---

He had a Moscow address... Do the math.

---

The whole "everything the USSR did was really Russia" thing is getting old

They were two completely different kinds of States with very different ideologies

The USSR was actively hostile to russian nationalism

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.

---

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?

---

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).

---

Ole Stalin....the communist and ethnic Georgian

He was not even Russian buddy

---

He had a Moscow address... Do the math.

---

The USSR was actively hostile to russian nationalism

---

Not disputing you, but what examples of this can I read about ?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Interesting example of denialism at work there.

---

There are much bigger threats to dollar supremacy than BRICs. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of you guys cheering on something that would aid in that outcome. I think the appropriate phrase is to "cut off your nose to spite your face".

---

No one is cheering. I'm the one who's been warning about it the whole time. Our policies couldn't be better calculated to isolate us if we wanted them to.

---

Or maybe they're trying to isolate themselves so they can act with impunity.

---

Yeah, it's the world that's isolating itself from us, with the "sole purpose" of undermining our economy. It's got nothing to do with our bullying or our hypocrisy.

Maybe it feels better to look at it that way, but the end result is the same. You want to police the world, you can expect pushback.

---

One man's bully is another man's protector apparently.

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@VP Harris on Death of Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar: "Justice has been served and the United States, Israel, and the entire world are better off as a result...To any terrorist who kills Americans, threatens the American people...know this; we will always bring you to justice." pic.twitter.com/fOzs9OWg9x

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 17, 2024

---

The United States had nothing to do with the death of this terrorist.

Was an Israeli army patrol that killed him.

---

You sure? We seem to be well positioned to warn Israel of every movement of their enemies. The CIA knows where these guys like this one are located.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Those countries don't receive foreign aid from the U.S., but you do you.

---

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

---

Yes. And?

---

Is billions in military aid not foreign aid?

---

What billions? The Saudis are one of the few who foot the bill. If you're referring to our decision to support military operations in Yemen, that's like saying we gave "foreign aid" to France when they took Qaddafi out.

---

Could be wrong, but thought previous US military bases in Saudi Arabia were paid for by taxpayers.

In addition thought much of the Saudi military hardware in years past were provided as aid .

---

We pay the Saudi Arabian government for use of their bases. So I guess that's a defense department expense.

---

Do American tax payers pay for the Defense Department budget?

If a foreign country is getting our money....it's aid/welfare

---

That's not what foreign aid is, and you know it. There's an actual budget of foreign aid that shows you exactly how much we spend on each country.

---

At best its military welfare

---

So if we didn't pay would we be receiving the welfare?

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.

---

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?

---

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).

---

Ole Stalin....the communist and ethnic Georgian

He was not even Russian buddy

---

He had a Moscow address... Do the math.

---

The USSR was actively hostile to russian nationalism

---

Not disputing you, but what examples of this can I read about ?

---

Long standing beef between Russian nationalists (and fellow travelers) and the Lenin type Marxists of the USSR who disliked Russian nationalism

Once in a while you can even see it in how the Russian Federation talks about the past.







https://aeon.co/essays/the-soviet-union-never-really-solved-russian-nationalism






In the end it was Russian nationalism (as well as the nationalism of various other groups in the Soviet Union) that led to the break up of the USSR (a left wing multi-ethnic project)

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@VP Harris on Death of Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar: "Justice has been served and the United States, Israel, and the entire world are better off as a result...To any terrorist who kills Americans, threatens the American people...know this; we will always bring you to justice." pic.twitter.com/fOzs9OWg9x

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 17, 2024

---

The United States had nothing to do with the death of this terrorist.

Was an Israeli army patrol that killed him.

---

You sure? We seem to be well positioned to warn Israel of every movement of their enemies. The CIA knows where these guys like this one are located.

---

Supposedly he was killed by ground troops on a totally routine patrol.

When asked about foreign aid to Israel and Ukraine, Elon Musk replies, "What does this do for the citizens of America?"

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/blDBFJt4M8

— AF Post (@AFpost) October 17, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.

---

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?

---

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).

---

Ole Stalin....the communist and ethnic Georgian

He was not even Russian buddy

---

He had a Moscow address... Do the math.

---

The whole "everything the USSR did was really Russia" thing is getting old

They were two completely different kinds of States with very different ideologies

The USSR was actively hostile to russian nationalism

---

Really? Not connected? That whole tragedy took place in some mythical land that really does not exist. That train Lenin snuck back on really went to Albania?

How about sticking to reality and not some dream Russia you want to be true. The Soviet Union was Russia-centric. The disease spread from there and it dominated until today. The Soviet Union was run by Moscow, same as with Lenin and Putin. It is the same, just has its tentacles in less Nations.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.

---

Don't recall Hizballah slaughtering Christian Lebanese, but it's very possible they have, and our media didn't report it.

---

you just missed it...... In fairness, it's been a few moons since the Lebanese civil war, where four different militia organizations burned a lot of gunpowder shooting at each other.

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.

---

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.

---

Of all the bad things I worry might happen to my family, slaughter at the hands of Jews is simply not on the list.
I see Jews/Israeli as natural allies, in a number of areas. Not all of them agree with me. That's ok.
Same cannot be said of Arab Christians. Not a lot of warm fuzzies there toward Jews.
Lebanon is a 4-way balancing act - Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, with even more significant outside players - Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA, France, etc.....
Without Iranian support, the Shia would go back to being the hillbillies of Lebanon.

Christians and Alawites form a coalition govt in Syria, because they are each minorities in a sea of mostly (75%) Sunnis. That has not exactly translated to Lebanon at all. The Syrian regime in fact is allied with Iran and facilitates support for Hizballah in Lebanon (not Christians or Druze, each of which would have a closer tie to the Assad regime were it all about faith).

faith matters and motivates. But the end of the day, Lebanon is a very messy place that defies easy alignments. most significantly for the purposes of this discussion, it is a failed state which hosts a terrorist army that has killed thousands of Americans, and many more others. Israel is under no obligation to endure daily waves of rocketry from southern Lebanon just to keep from pissing you off.

You should thank Israel for sacrificing their young men and women to destroy Hamas and Hizballah on our behalf. Their efforts actually do make all of us safer.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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....

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

Absolutely,

The whole "USSR invaded Poland as well" fact seems to have been completely forgotten.

But its also shocking how FL and others continue to act like Stalin (the non-russian) and the Communist USSR was trying to "fight for Russia"

"On taking power the Bolsheviks ruthless suppressed Russian nationalists"

"The roots of nationalist discontent lay in Russia's peculiar status within the Soviet Union. After the Bolsheviks took control over much of the tsarist empire's former territory, Lenin declared 'war to the death on Great Russian chauvinism' and proposed to uplift the 'oppressed nations' on its peripheries. To combat imperial inequality, Lenin called for unity, creating a federation of republics divided by nationality. The republics forfeited political sovereignty in exchange for territorial integrity, educational and cultural institutions in their own languages, and the elevation of the local 'titular' nationality into positions of power. Soviet policy, following Lenin, conceived of the republics as homelands for their respective nationalities (with autonomous regions and districts for smaller nationalities nested within them). The exception was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, or RSFSR, which remained an administrative territory not associated with any ethnic or historic 'Russia'.

Russia was the only Soviet republic that did not have its own Communist Party, capital, or Academy of Sciences."

---

if you understood socialism better, you would not be making this argument.

Socialism was practiced by Hitler on behalf of the German people (race).
Socialism was practiced by Stalin on behalf of the proletariat (class).

Bolshevik ideology held that nationalism didn't matter; class did. So anyone who disagreed (for any reason) was 'repressed.' That does not in any way change the fact that the USSR was a Russian system, headquarted in Russia, constructed by Russians for the benefit of Russians, with such inclusion of other nationalities as was necessary to ensure effective administration throughout the empire. The soviet state expanded territorially in the exact same ways as prior and subsequent Russian regimes - for the benefit of Russia. only the boilerplate justification changed.

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.

---

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.

---

Whoa

Whiterock is a good dude. We don't agree on every single topic.
So what ?

Your post is totally out of bounds.

You need to delete it.

---

It was absolutely an appropriate response to someone belittling Christian murders by Israel.

I wont tolerate any of the Pro-Zionists excusing the death of any Christians on Israel's behalf.

---

so why do you then tolerate Hizballah killing Christians by the hundreds?

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.

---

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.

---

Of all the bad things I worry might happen to my family, slaughter at the hands of Jews is simply not on the list.
I see Jews/Israeli as natural allies, in a number of areas. Not all of them agree with me. That's ok.
Same cannot be said of Arab Christians. Not a lot of warm fuzzies there toward Jews.
Lebanon is a 4-way balancing act - Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, with even more significant outside players - Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA, France, etc.....
Without Iranian support, the Shia would go back to being the hillbillies of Lebanon.

Christians and Alawites form a coalition govt in Syria, because they are each minorities in a sea of mostly (75%) Sunnis. That has not exactly translated to Lebanon at all. The Syrian regime in fact is allied with Iran and facilitates support for Hizballah in Lebanon (not Christians or Druze, each of which would have a closer tie to the Assad regime were it all about faith).

faith matters and motivates. But the end of the day, Lebanon is a very messy place that defies easy alignments. most significantly for the purposes of this discussion, it is a failed state which hosts a terrorist army that has killed thousands of Americans, and many more others. Israel is under no obligation to endure daily waves of rocketry from southern Lebanon just to keep from pissing you off.

You should thank Israel for sacrificing their young men and women to destroy Hamas and Hizballah on our behalf. Their efforts actually do make all of us safer.

---

Informative post.

However I don't agree that Israeli killings of Christian Lebanese and various Muslims makes US citizens safer. In fact just the opposite.

The existence of Israel and the incredible amount of influence their money purchases within our government has resulted
in the placement of thousands of US sailors and ground troops in the region. Where they are killed, and in return kill their antagonists. All to protect Israel and ( on a side note ) oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. None of which protects US citizens.

No other country provides such military assistance to Israel.
It remains an unjustifiable habit, purchased by Israeli lobbyists over the last 60 years.

Time for a new policy.