Jump to content

Photo

From The Ukraine To War With Russia?


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#61 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,817 posts
2,000
Excellent

Posted 07 March 2014 - 03:01 PM

Actually if one goes far enough left one will be on the right.  :blink:

 

God bless,

Larry

I think that's the idea behind claiming Nazis are far right...Jews today in America don't want to support an agenda of "right-wingers" because of what happened in Germany, little realizing that it is the left they truly have to worry about.



#62 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
666
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:04 PM

Left or right, who cares, he's a fascist. 

 

http://rt.com/news/u...ea-protest-458/

 

God bless,

Larry



#63 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,481 posts
269
Excellent

Posted 08 March 2014 - 05:37 AM

The reason the Left claimes Nazis and neo-nazis' to be Rightists is because of their nationalist viewpoints. Other than that, the broad socialist aspects of the Nazis is strictly Leftist.

 

The reason neonazis are called far-right is because of their nationalism, as you say, and their conservatism. Right-wing people call them far-right too and have done for years. If anything it just shows how the 'left' and 'right' political spectrum is redundant. People can be economically right but not conservative, for example.



#64 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 08 March 2014 - 08:03 AM

There are two key pillars to Nazism, that being Nationalism and Socialism. Nationalism wasn't always the domain of the Right. Those on the Left in America used to also be nationalists. It wasn't until the latter half of the 20th century that nationalism became a dirty word on the American Left.

 

Socialism, which from a traditional American view is clearly Leftist, permeates Nazism. Even their nationalism is promoted through socialism.

 

I absolutely agree that in America today there are few on the Right which are actually traditional, or paleo-conservatives. With much of the Right giving in to the advances of the Left, they have attempted to meld a bit of their Rightist philosophy with Leftism. This gives us so-called conservatives who are "fiscal conservatives but social liberals".

 

Meanwhile, as the Right moves more to the Left, the Left moves even further to the Left. True conservatives from the past would be viewed as extremists by most on the so-called Right today while past Leftists would be viewed as to conservative for the Leftists.

 

This is why today we can have those like Romney and Christie hailed as conservatives and we hear those to the right of them tagged as "far right wing", "extremists", and worse.

 

This is also why some Leftists today think Hillary Clinton isn't Left enough though in the 90s she was considered a far Leftist.

 

The term "conservative" is basically meaningless in America today. A true, traditional constitutionalist today couldn't be a conservative because there is nothing of that left to conserve! Nearly everything the conservatives have claimed to be fighting to conserve for the past several decades has been lost. This is why we see todays conservatives working to conserve the welfare state, to conserve big government with tiny reforms around the edges to suit their ideas, to conserve the influx of millions of illegal immigrants, to conserve unconstitutional court rulings as "settled law", etc.

 

Nazism isn't conservatism but then again, American conservatism today isn't traditional conservatism either.



#65 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,481 posts
269
Excellent

Posted 08 March 2014 - 08:14 AM

In the UK, groups like the English Defence League and British National Party call for a return to 'traditional' England where 'traditional' English values are upheld and there are no foreigners are allowed. Such conservatism is considered right-wing, which is why groups like EDL are called 'far-right'. Perhaps that's why they get called far-right in Ukraine too, was all I was saying. I wasn't talking about USA.



#66 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
666
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 08 March 2014 - 10:29 AM

I think I'll let Johnny splain the problem to yall.  :biggrin:

 

 

God bless,

Larry



#67 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 08 March 2014 - 02:24 PM

I've spoken with over two dozen English WWII veterans who all said if they knew England would have become filled with all the foreigners like it is now they would have preferred to let the Germans win.

 

I know many English who came to America to escape the "foreign invasion" only to become dismayed at seeing the same thing occurring here.



#68 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
666
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:06 AM

Here is a discussion (22 minutes) about why the Ukrainian problem is so dangerous.  I put this on here because the western governments and media are putting out the story that this power struggle in the Ukraine is all about FREEDOM.  It is not about Freedom it is all about MONEY and OIL and GAS and who controls the flow of it.

 

 

God bless,

Larry



#69 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 10 March 2014 - 06:42 PM

That's exactly why the EU and US went to such lengths to stir up internal conflict. Their plan was that either the Ukrainian government would give in, turn from Russia and join with the EU but things soon got out of hand and we have the current mess.

 

Most conflicts come down to matters of resources; which means money and power for those who gain them, and less for those who don't.



#70 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 11 March 2014 - 08:37 AM

What Would the GOP Do?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Tuesday - March 11, 2014

Though Barack Obama is widely regarded as a weak president, is the new world disorder really all his fault?

Listening to the more vocal voices of the GOP one might think so.

According to Sen. Lindsey Graham, Vladimir Putin's move into Crimea "started with Benghazi."

"When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression," said Graham. Putin "came to the conclusion after Benghazi, Syria, Egypt" that Barack Obama is "a weak indecisive leader."

Also blaming Obama for Crimea, John McCain got cheers at AIPAC by charging, "This is the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy in which nobody believes in America's strength anymore."

This "blatant act" of aggression "cannot stand," said McCain.

How McCain plans to force Putin to cough up Crimea was left unexplained.

Now Marco Rubio seems to be auditioning to replace the retired Joe Lieberman as third amigo. His CPAC speech is described by the L.A. Times:

"[Rubio] said that China is threatening to take parts of the South China Sea ... a nuclear North Korea is testing missiles, Venezuela is slaughtering protesters, and Cuba remains an oppressive dictatorship. He added that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons and regional hegemony and Russia is attempting to 'reconstitute' the former Soviet Union."

What all these countries have in common, said Rubio, is "totalitarian governments." Rubio proposes a U.S. foreign policy of leading the world to "stand up to the spread of totalitarianism."

Not quite as ambitious as George W. Bush's "ending tyranny in our world," but it will do.

Where to begin.

First, it is absurd to suggest Putin felt free to restore Crimea to Russia because of Obama's inaction in Benghazi. And while Castro's Cuba and Kim Jong-Un's North Korea are totalitarian, Putin's Russia is not Stalin's. Nor is Xi Jinping's China Mao's China.

Russia and China are great power rivals and antagonists, not the monster regimes of the Cold War that massacred millions. We must deal with them, and they don't take direction from Uncle Sam.

As for Iran, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies say it has no nuclear weapons program. Moreover, Hassan Rouhani is an elected president now presiding over the dilution of his 20-percent-enriched uranium in compliance with our November agreement.

McCain points to Obama's failure to enforce his "red line" in Syria with air and missile strikes, when Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, as the reason Obama is not respected.

But a little history is in order here.

While John Kerry and Obama were ready to attack Syria, it was the American people who rose up and said "no." It was Congress that failed to give Obama the authorization to go to war.

If McCain, Graham and Rubio think Obama should attack Syria, why don't they get their hawkish Republican brethren in the House to authorize war on Syria? See how that sits with the voters in 2014.

Last fall, Lindsey Graham was shopping around a resolution for a U.S. war on Iran. What became of that brainstorm? After Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are weary of what all this bellicosity inevitably brings.

Is Russia really reconstituting the Soviet Union?

True, Putin seeks to bring half a dozen ex-Soviet republics, now nations, into an economic union to rival the EU. But where the state religion of the USSR was Marxism-Leninism, i.e., communism, Putin is trying to restore Russian Orthodox Christianity.

There is a difference, as there is a difference between Stalin murdering priests and Putin prosecuting Pussy Riot for blasphemous misbehavior on the high altar of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

How do we think King Abdullah would have handled the women, had they pulled their stunt in the Great Mosque in Mecca?

While China is indeed moving to claim the East and South China seas, bringing her into possible conflict with Japan over the Senkakus, the GOP is not without culpability here.

It was a Bush-led Republican Party that voted to throw open America's markets to China. Result: In the last two years, China ran up $630 billion in trade surpluses at our expense, a figure larger than the entire U.S. defense budget for 2015.

Our trade deficits with China provide her annually with enough dollars to finance her own defense budget twice over. Twenty years of such U.S. trade deficits have given the Middle Kingdom the trillions it needed to build the armed forces to drive us out of East Asia.

Are U.S. sailors and Marines now to die defending the Senkakus against a menacing China that the Bush free traders helped mightily to create?

If Sen. Rubio wants to "stand up" to China, why not call for a 50 percent tariff on all Chinese-made goods. Try that one out on the K Street bundlers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet Marco Rubio in the primaries would be healthy for America. A showdown between non-interventionists and the neocon War Party, to determine which way America goes, is long overdue. Let's get it on.
 

Read More At: http://buchanan.org/blog/gop-6286



#71 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
666
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:31 PM

Possibilities in the Ukraine as well as the U.S economy by Paul Craig Roberts in interview on USAWatchdog.com. 

 

 

God bless,

Larry



#72 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 12 March 2014 - 05:37 PM

It's rather ironic that America believes giving Ukraine a billion dollars is a good answer and something that works against Russia. Ukraine is in great debt to Russia which means that most, if not all of that billion dollars will end up in Russia.

 

At the same time America is over 17 trillion dollars in debt, with China owning most of our debt, which means America is borrowing a billion dollars from China, plus interest, in order to give it to Ukraine so it looks like America is doing something, which will then hand over that money to Russia as debt payment.



#73 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 13 March 2014 - 02:29 AM

I'm still dubious about all these reports coming out of the Ukraine and what is really going on. The truth usually doesn't come out until long after all the lies have died off.

 

I do believe Russia has special interest in that pipeline going through Crimea and that's the main reason they moved in there.

 

By the way, has anyone read the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg? The "far left" is really the "far right" in their practice and method.  I've read portions of it and heard an interview with him on Glenn Beck's show when he was on FOX (only time I think I ever watched his show). It sounds like quite telling read.


Edited by ASongOfDegrees, 13 March 2014 - 02:32 AM.


#74 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 13 March 2014 - 02:33 AM

It's rather ironic that America believes giving Ukraine a billion dollars is a good answer and something that works against Russia. Ukraine is in great debt to Russia which means that most, if not all of that billion dollars will end up in Russia.

 

 

My first thought too when I heard this. I'm sure Putin is already using some of that money to go bear hunting.



#75 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
666
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 16 March 2014 - 07:32 PM

Not surprising but something one does not like to contemplate.  I have for a long time thought that the U.S might be taken out before the final conflict in the middle east takes place.  I sure hope this isn't the time for that to happen.  Only God knows the future our leaders will take us into.

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-212003397.html

 

God bless,

Larry


Edited by ThePilgrim, 16 March 2014 - 07:52 PM.


#76 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 16 March 2014 - 07:47 PM

No doubt Russia has that ace in the hole. Also, if Russia has well maintained their nukes it's likely they have more than America does at this time.

 

If the American president had any common sense he would have stayed out of the whole matter in Ukraine and once it was clear things were going a bad direction there he would have made a few simple comments and let it alone.

 

The Russians went into the nation of Georgia while President Bush as in office and there wasn't this much fuss going on. At this point Russia has only stepped into Crimea, which has been Russian since Catherine the Great and which Russia has been very clear about them never seeing Crimea fall into unfriendly hands.

 

Obama hates being upstaged and he hates that Putin doesn't like or respect him (hmmm, I wonder why!) and he hates the fact Putin has outflanked him at every turn during his presidency. Perhaps Obama should have thought of the consequences that might come from the dismissive, disrespectful way he treated Putin at the beginning of his presidency instead of bowing to Muslim kings.

 

Obama won't threaten war with Russia. First, he has to have somebody around him smart enough to warn him of the potential for near annihilation, and second because wants to be known as the president that got America out of foreign wars, not one that started one.

 

It's clear, or should be, that if Russia wants Crimea, they will have her. We should accept that and move on to more important matters.



#77 swathdiver

swathdiver

    Surrendered

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,980 posts
1,231
Excellent
  • LocationTreasure Coast

Posted 18 March 2014 - 01:50 AM

By the way, has anyone read the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg? The "far left" is really the "far right" in their practice and method.  I've read portions of it and heard an interview with him on Glenn Beck's show when he was on FOX (only time I think I ever watched his show). It sounds like quite telling read.

 

Yep, great read and should be read for those wanting to understand where these different liberal movements came from, what they're based on in reality versus what they say in public.  Until reading this book, I didn't realize that fascism was not separate from socialism but part of it.  You cannot have socialist/communist state without the element of fascism.  The left uses that word to tar and feather their opponents while they themselves indulge in it.

 

In the end, these groups are run by lost and rebellious people seeking to create a perfect world for themselves and maybe others apart from God.  The leaders believe they can accomplish these goals apart from God, setting themselves up as little gods.  Vanity and ohh so wasteful in resources and human lives.  It's evil and of the devil.



#78 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 18 March 2014 - 06:41 AM

Is Putin the Irrational One?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Tuesday - March 18, 2014

Vladimir Putin seems to have lost touch with reality, Angela Merkel reportedly told Barack Obama after speaking with the Russian president. He is "in another world."

"I agree with what Angela Merkel said ... that he is in another world," said Madeleine Albright, "It doesn't make any sense."

John Kerry made his contribution to the bonkers theory by implying that Putin was channeling Napoleon: "You don't just, in the 21st century, behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext."

Now that Putin has taken Crimea without firing a shot, and 95 percent of a Crimean electorate voted Sunday to reunite with Russia, do his decisions still appear irrational?

Was it not predictable that Russia, a great power that had just seen its neighbor yanked out of Russia's orbit by a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev, would move to protect a strategic position on the Black Sea she has held for two centuries?

Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Putin is out to recreate the czarist empire. Others say Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union and Soviet Empire.

But why would Russia, today being bled in secessionist wars by Muslim terrorists in the North Caucasus provinces of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, want to invade and reannex giant Kazakhstan, or any other Muslim republic of the old USSR, which would ensure jihadist intervention and endless war?

If we Americans want out of Afghanistan, why would Putin want to go back into Uzbekistan? Why would he want to annex Western Ukraine where hatred of Russia dates back to the forced famine of the Stalin era?

To invade and occupy all of Ukraine would mean endless costs in blood and money for Moscow, the enmity of Europe, and the hostility of the United States. For what end would Russia, its population shrinking by half a million every year, want to put Russian soldiers back in Warsaw?

But if Putin is not a Russian imperialist out to re-establish Russian rule over non-Russian peoples, who and what is he?

In the estimation of this writer, Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethnonationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad the way Israelis look upon Jews abroad, as people whose security is his legitimate concern.

Consider the world Putin saw, from his vantage point, when he took power after the Boris Yeltsin decade.

He saw a Mother Russia that had been looted by oligarchs abetted by Western crony capitalists, including Americans. He saw millions of ethnic Russians left behind, stranded, from the Baltic states to Kazakhstan.

He saw a United States that had deceived Russia with its pledge not to move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army would move out, and then exploited Russia's withdrawal to bring NATO onto her front porch.

Had the neocons gotten their way, not only the Warsaw Pact nations of Central and Eastern Europe, but five of 15 republics of the USSR, including Ukraine and Georgia, would have been brought into a NATO alliance created to contain and, if need be, fight Russia.

What benefits have we derived from having Estonia and Latvia as NATO allies that justify losing Russia as the friend and partner Ronald Reagan had made by the end of the Cold War?

We lost Russia, but got Rumania as an ally? Who is irrational here?

Cannot we Americans, who, with our Monroe Doctrine, declared the entire Western Hemisphere off limits to the European empires -- "Stay on your side of the Atlantic!" -- understand how a Russian nationalist like Putin might react to U.S. F-16s and ABMs in the eastern Baltic?

In 1999, we bombed Serbia for 78 days, ignoring the protests of a Russia that had gone to war for Serbia in 1914. We exploited a Security Council resolution authorizing us to go to the aid of endangered Libyans in Benghazi to launch a war and bring down the Libyan regime.

We have given military aid to Syrian rebels and called for the ouster of a Syrian regime that has been Russia's ally for decades.

At the end of the Cold War, writes ex-ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, 80 percent of Russia's people had a favorable opinion of the USA. A decade later, 80 percent of Russians were anti-American.

That was before Putin, whose approval is now at 72 percent because he is perceived as having stood up to the Americans and answered our Kiev coup with his Crimean counter coup.

America and Russia are on a collision course today over a matter -- whose flag will fly over what parts of Ukraine -- no Cold War president, from Truman to Reagan, would have considered any of our business.

If the people of Eastern Ukraine wish to formalize their historic, cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, and the people of Western Ukraine wish to sever all ties to Moscow and join the European Union, why not settle this politically, diplomatically and democratically, at a ballot box?
 
 

Read More At: http://buchanan.org/...tional-one-6292



#79 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
666
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 19 March 2014 - 01:29 PM

This video interview with Mr. Orlov gives me hope that the Ukraine fiasco will not end in the world becoming a radioactive wasteland.  They get into the Ukraine problem at about 4:00 minutes and most of the rest of the interview has to do with it.

 

On the Ukraine crisis, Orlov thinks, “The Crimea referendum was the first legal way to find out what the people wanted to do.  The turnout was remarkable, and they voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, to become part of Russia once again.  The interesting thing here is it was not just the Russians that voted to join Russia but the Ukrainians in Crimea, which makes a sizable part of the population voted to join Russia. . . Ukraine is composed of sort of a no man’s land in the West and then Russian territories in the East. . . .  If that trend holds, you are basically left with this insolvent nugget of nothingness, and it will be up to the international community to decide what to do with these people.  They are right now marching around Kiev with baseball bats and going into government offices and beating up members of local government and installing their own members.  They are basically running amok.

 

Here is the interview video link:

 

God bless,

Larry



#80 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,881 posts
5,454
Excellent

Posted 19 March 2014 - 08:12 PM

The truth of what's going on there is much different than the American media is saying and far different than what the warhawks in congress are saying.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500