Beyond Cold War to Mobilization for War Against Russia?

It makes you wonder what it is about politics which attracts retards and no-hopers. It seems to go with the territory?

 

The best leader is a person who had leadership thrust upon them.

The worse leaders are those who seek power.

AA

 

Guantanamo. If Guantanamo - a camp for prisoners of war, the Guantanamo - the scope of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. In this case, the US government - the war criminals. Same as Hitler. What I always say.





On this could finish answering your nonsense. By the way, for your education - Guantanamo prisoners mostly stolen in other countries and smuggled into the US death camp.

The rest part your comments - or deliberate lies and falsification. Or the amazing stupidity. Therefore, in any case, makes no sense to respond to your comment.

 

In the same way as your comments. (I asked you to give the link, but you chose not to notice my request.)

 

LOL..well unfortunately for you comrade, facts do matter, and it isn't a lie if it is true, and it is true. You are just on the wrong side of the truth. There are no US run death camps. That's not stupidity, that's just the truth, and that is why you have no evidence to back up your assertions.

 

You asked for a link...seriously? Well here it is, written by a Nobel Prize winning economist:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/the-doctrine-of-immaculate-crowding-out/

 

Hahaha. Do you know that today in 2016? Today is not 2011, not 2000, not 1864. Also refer to the Nobel Prize - mauvais ton. Obama also has for example the Nobel Prize. And terrorist - Yasser Arafat and Nelson Mandela - also Nobel Prize.

 

Maybe you see a doctor? Or look at Google. "Torture in US prisons." https://www.google.ru/search?q=Tort...n4zNAhWHZpoKHVVjBLIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=685

 

Seriously...? Instead of hahaha perhaps you should do a little thinking before responding. You asked for proof the "crowding out effect" Greenspan mentioned had been debunked. I gave you that proof, and that proof was just as true 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago as it is today. It's kind of like the laws of gravity. The proof doesn't go away or change with time.

Actually, Arafat won a third of a Nobel Peace Prize. He shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Shimon Peres (Prime Minister of Israel) and Yitzhak Rabin (Prime Minister of Israel). Were Peres and Rabin terrorists too? And I don't understand your grief with Mandela. He was a dissident who spent most of his life imprisoned, but he wasn't a terrorist, and he too won a Nobel Peace Prize. The fact that South Africa transitioned peaceably to a more democratic and stable country is mostly attributable to Mandella. The fact that South Africa didn't go down the path of Rhodesia is largely attributable to Manella. That's generally considered a good thing. The fact is Nobel Prizes are coveted prizes and the author of the article I referenced received the Nobel Prize for his work in the field of Economics. Greenspan doesn't. Greenspan is at odds with virtually every credible economist, and he cannot support his assertions with evidence. Unfortunately for the nation, Republicans don't need or want evidence. It's all about ideology with them, facts be damned.

 

Greenspan was Fed chairman. You are the head of the Fed? .... Or You want to say that in the US the important position occupied idiots? If so, I agree with you. All major officials in the United States - are idiots. I can only add - authorities in the US owned by a crazy and aggressive maniacs and cannibals.

Mandela - 100% terrorist. Mandela has formed the Youth League of the African National Congress. Terrorist organizations. Organization of racketeering and extortion from black entrepreneurs South Africa.
Mandela created the martial wing of the ANC called "spear of the nation". He urged his colleagues to blow up public places, which are associated with the policy of apartheid, such as passport offices, local magistrates' courts and government agencies. In addition, he insisted on the destruction of infrastructure: electrocommunications, transformers, railroad tracks, hoping to thereby reduce the investment attractiveness of the Republic of South Africa. Just more than 156 acts of terrorism were committed for two years. (Including the building of the station was blown up in Johannesburg)
By the way, the legislation of the apartheid era served as a model for anti-terrorist measures taken by the West after September 11.
In the summer of 1963 as a result of a large-scale police raid on an underground base on a farm in Rivonia, leaders of a militant organization of the ANC were arrested (among other things on their whereabouts, South African authorities have informed the CIA).
There was a court. Mandela and his comrades were sentenced to life imprisonment. And no matter what is now the critics of the apartheid regime, we must admit: in South Africa at that time was very liberal legislation - in most countries in the world for the crimes in which the accused head of the "Spear of the nation", he would be sentenced to death.
What, in fact, different Mandela from the Bin Laden? Saudi rebel from a good family, which is concerned about the fate of ordinary Muslims and fighting for their rights, do not hesitate to use terrorist methods ... If Laden no turned against the United States, perhaps in time he also earned would be a Nobel Prize for his "peaceful settlement" in a Taliban Afghanistan, for example.
Incidentally, Mandela terrorist organization continued terrorist activity, done in the 80 years 982 Act of terrorism (including we are talking about sabotage at a nuclear power plant near Cape Town, the explosion at Church Street in May 1983, and the terrorist attack in Durban in June 1986- second, when the car stuffed with explosives, crashed into a local bar building).
And this man received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Arafat is the same 100% terrorist. His acts of terrorism, you can easily find in Google. Or you banned in Google?

 

They want more money for sure, simply because they can. There will be no war, because nobody in the right mind can start it. Moreover, it is a madness and immoral even to plan it. When you elect a politician, think before voting.

 

How does that in any way make any kind of sense? The fact remains Greenspan has some beliefs that have been thoroughly debunked by economists, the "crowding out effect" being a case in point. The Fed Chairmanship is a political appointment. Ideally, the POTUS would appoint a good Fed Chairman. But that isn't always the case (e.g. Greenspan). Government fails when it puts partisan ideology above the interests of the country, evidence, and reason which is often the case with the American right wing.

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Krugman-Greenspan-Fed-economy/2015/05/06/id/642982/

I haven't said or even hinted all government officials are idiots. Such a belief would be ludicrous. Unfortunately, many elected officials are without a moral backbone (e.g. Canadian Ted). Our government is in dire need of electoral and ethics reforms. The Constitution needs to be amended. And we need better informed electors.

The facts are Arafat in conjunction with 2 Israeli prime ministers won a Nobel Peace Prize for their effort to bring peace to the region. That's what the Nobel Peace Prize is all about. It's about today and what winners are doing to bring about peace. If you want to keep throwing turds at each other, which is apparently what you want to do, there will never be peace. The Nobel Prize was a reward for efforts on the part of Arafat and the Israeli prime ministers to resolve their differences and effect peace in the region. That's generally considered a good thing. That's why the three shared a Nobel Peace Prize. If you think pursuing peace is a 100% terrorist, then you have some screwed up thinking going on.

And the fact Remains Mandela advocated for and oversaw the peaceful transition from apartheid. He spend much of his life in prison because he opposed apartheid. That's why he received the Nobel Peach Prize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#National_reconciliation

The unfortunate fact for you is Nobel Prizes are revered around the globe and his probably the most valued prize on the face of the planet. And what the hell does Bin Ladin have to do with any of this? Bin Ladin never received a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead of rolling a round on the floor in laughter, your time would be better spent educating yourself. Unfortunately in your world dishonesty works as long as you keep it simple.

 

It is pointless talk. I can not speak with fanatic who does not listen to the arguments. You think it would be possible even to Hitler to give the Nobel Peace Prize, if he had agreed to sign an agreement with the anti-Hitler coalition. But if now the head of the ISIS speak for peace - he, too, is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?
For what merits Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize?

Nobel Committee - a bunch of venal prostitutes infected with syphilis. Reference to the Nobel Prize - a sign of incompetence.

(Links to Wikipedia -. Moveton. This is the same reference to the grandparents gossip)

 

Said the pot to the kettle, that's really funny you calling someone else a "fanatic"; you the person who has steadfastly refused to acknowledge evidence and reason. The facts are what they are as much as that displeases you.

Among the unfortunate facts for you is that unlike your beloved Baby Bush, Obama has launched no wars. He has consistently worked to deescalate wars. He was long advocated and worked to bring about peaceful solutions. He avoided what could have been another war, a war with Iran, through diplomatic means – as much as that displeases you.

The Nobel Peace Prize is award based on effort to bring about peace. Obama has certainly done that. Obama was a dramatic reversal from the previous Baby Bush administration which began and botched 2 wars and caused the insurgency and proliferation of terrorism which we are even now almost a decade later still dealing with and will probably be dealing with for at least another decade. Just because you don't like the Nobel Prize, it doesn't change the fact that it is the most revered and respected award in the world.

And none of that changes the fact that the right wing belief in the " crowding out effect" as espoused by Greenspan has been thoroughly debunked by credible economists. It doesn't change the fact that no credible economists believes anything Greenspan has to say, not even the current Federal Reserve Boards of Governors.

So instead of rolling on the floor in laughter and calling people names and using a host of illogical arguments, you would be better served by some deep introspection and thought and an honest look and assessment of fact and reason. But I think in your case, we both know that isn’t going to happen. Is it? You cannot destroy your own illusions, much less the illusions of others, nor do you want to.

 

1. The money. US produces weaponry and relies on weaponry to keep their empire together. More risks make more weapon orders and more money. People all over the world would agree to sacrifice some half of their level of living if they are made to regard it necessary for survival.
2. The money. If EU agrees with the new trade order and kills its own market with american products of worse quality and higher price the americans would have another decade to feel fine, while the EU would have some war to explain the troubles of economy.
3. The money. The best way to deal with debts is political payment. Some 100 years ago GB traded all of its empire to the US in exchange for debts-policy. The big american share of debt can be reduced somewhere in the middle of the war...

The problem is that the money is nothing. And all the war comes at the costs of lives in exchange for nothing. That will be understood by those who never learnt about the social effect of WWI and WWII. Plus a bonus of a possibility of crushing this planet if some ruler of the parties involved looses his nerves.

 

And you write nonsense again.

[video=youtube;yYRJoc5ttxA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYRJoc5ttxA[/video]

 

Look....he is going to keep baiting you with his nonsense.

This is his..MO.

AA

 

Thanks, I have gathered as much. He is obviously not to be taken seriously.

 

It was defending a lie peddled to them by politicians. But back in the ealy & mid 20th Century British people were still very proud of their Nation. Not so to-day, after decades of media telling them to hate their own culture & history. To an extent we could never fight another war of patriotism, it just doesn't exist to-day amongst the British.

personally I don't see why we had to fight WWI & I don't see why we had to fight WWII after the fell of Poland.

Mainland Europe should have fought their own war & Britain & its Empire stand aside... Instead we fooloshly got involved, bankrupted ourselves & lost our Empire.

 

The US doesn't want war.

This thread is baiting.

Welcome. There are five or six Russian trolls that try to bait.

If it is a long perfectly written post involving something would take at least an hour or two in time,you found the troll

Otherwise just put them on ignore, most do

 

Just a response to Russia's imperialistic ambitions and military taunts.

 

You know...you are right as far as how the British Media has ad nauseam gone on and on about how the British should be ashamed of what they have done in the past.

Sure the British Empire was ruthless in it's day....but that day has come and gone and there is no need for the British people to feel ashamed anymore.

AA

 

Oh it's Russia then, and here I thought we were the 'empire'?

 

Be sure and bump this thread every month....while we wait on World War-Three to start.

 

Tell it to the neo cons.