Looks like sanctions will be lifted on Venezuela.

Isn't that his choice?

 

During the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Russia played both sides, gave both sides weapons, and let them go at it. Russia used Iran to make sure the United States goes not get a strategic advantage in the region. When the Soviet Union fell, Russia left Iran to their own devices and not really care unless it had to do with Chechyna. Now, Putin wants Iran to be a partner with them against the United States.

 

The USSR never supplied Iran with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. The first 2 years of the war they took a more neutral stance, but once their relations with Iran deteriorated as a result of their Afghan war and other issues, they became Saddam's biggest supplier of weapons and his staunch ally against Iran.

Soviet involvement in the Iran–Iraq War

 

Iran was using T54, T62 and T72s, BTR and BMP military equipment. That is all Soviet, not to mention some aircraft. Iraq had the same weapons.

I think you better reread your own link, especially toward the latter third of the page. Support for Iran ring a bell.

 

Where did you get this information? You are confusing Iraq with Iran.

Some minor quantities of Russian arms via Syria aside, and some captured Iraqi equipment aside, the during the war Iranian army relied on what had been supplied to the Shah before the revolution (mostly US and British MBTs and APCs) and small arms and spare parts via the black market.. Iran entered into its first arms deal with the Soviets after the Iran-Iraq war, where it received some T-72 tanks, Mig29s and Kilo subs. It was a short-lived deal basically canceled under US pressure in 1995.

 

Were you saying that it is the "might," of the government which is forcing the mask mandates on us? If so, that is a pretty clever point, but there is a major flaw in it, being that government is not an external power, forcing itself on us, but rather our own, chosen representation. So, to use an analogy, you are trying to equate masturbation, with rape.

As to the mask question: I don't get out frequently enough, to keep track, as to whether the mask mandates are in force or not. When they are in force, I of course, wear my mask. I had, thankfully, got to remove it for a while, but then mandates came back, because of Omicron. As far as I know, CT has not removed that mandate, once more.

There is a new thread, however, which would only add reason to wear an effective mask, regardless:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-brain-function-study-finds-nqsxm06j3.597706/

"https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-linked-to-decline-in-brain-function-study-finds-nqsxm06j3"

As the title suggests, it is about a study in Nature magazine, that showed a decrease in brain function, after Covid infection-- even mild cases! Though immunization helps one to avoid this, it is much less effective at that, than at preventing the development of serious symptoms. So wearing an N-90 mask (which is not what I've been wearing), would be the best defense, against this.

 

No, not a fantasy. Though, it might be difficult to explain it, to someone who seems to see things in such starkly black- and- white, terms. Do you have kids? Whenever they did something you didn't like, did you just beat the snot out of them? Or did you have various other punishments, because you realized that violence is not the only lever of power, and getting your point across?

 

Gosh... a defense of a fantasy. Sometimes it just can't be made up, one has to witness it. In any event, The US isn't the answer is it? How could it be? What power does it exert over Russia today? None? So much for the might of the intellectual masturbators there. Countries aren't children, although I can tell you view your intellectual elitism as giving your the paternalistic right to treat them in that fashion. Interesting how much disdain you expose in your world view in how other folks must then abide by your wishes. Dictator much?

 

Allow me to recap as you might have misunderstood my comment after you said:

You said that in reference to a poster suggesting something like "We should take out Madura and Cuba on the way home." So you imply that you hold the "moral Highground" as if you think that is extremely harsh. Well I think it is a pretty darn good idea! I feel that way about authoritarian governments. Sorry. (not really)

So I said" I bet you wear a mask". I said that because at least 95% of the people that wear masks these days are virtue signaling. Especially since the science doesn't bear any truth to their effectiveness. When you imply you hold the "moral high ground"......indeed you are virtue signalling.

 

That 3% of Russian oil you import is light oil. You have to get it from somewhere -- since you ain't got it -- so Venezuela drew the short straw.

85% of Russian oil is high-end intermediate to light oil and all sweet. 15% is low-end intermediate to heavy and mix of sweet and sour.

The US is the opposite. 85% of your oil is low-end intermediate to heavy and mostly sour and only 15% is high-end intermediate to light and most of it's sour.

Those people who think the US can become "energy independent?" Well, their bread ain't quite done.

 

Your own wikiipedia link. You just stopped after Iraq.

Even your own link confirms Russia helped Iran. What I did not say was how much. You seem to think that it was ONLY Iraq.

 

Thanks for making your meaning clear. It would have been simpler, though, had you been a bit less enigmatic, in the first place. Though this recondite understanding of the "true" meaning of, wanting to take the moral high ground, may be well- known to you and those in your circle, please believe my assurances, that this is not the way, of which it is commonly thought.

If you wish to make this argument, that to try to defend any high- minded principle-- like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from oppression, national sovereignty, the right to political representation, and a peoples' right to self- determination, in their mode of government (for a few examples)-- is, in fact, "virtue signalling," then I would strongly disagree with that, and will debate you, from the countering position, should you provide any argument, in support of your, literally, amoral view.

 

The Wikipedia article is fine in its description. When read by anyone who wants to know the facts as opposed to make misleading or totally false comments.

The Soviet Union was Iraq's biggest supplier of weapons. The tanks, armor, and aircraft supplied and resupplied to Iraq (in quantities larger than the armed forces of any NATO country) are covered in several pages in that article.

But it was more than that: the Soviet Union for most of the war had terrible and tense relations with Iran, while Iraq was its ally. During the post 1982, and especially after 1986, the Soviet Union was almost a direct combatant on the side of Iraq. Soviet trainers and advisors, and Russian pilots, even took part in some of the fighting alongside the Iraqis. I know all this not because of Wikipedia, but because I am an Iranian who was of military age during the war who had many relatives, including cousins who had been my best friends, fight in that war.

In that context, after pages of description in the Wikipedia article about the support given to Iraq, you want to fixate on some clandestine shipments (nothing like the major platforms or systems you imagined or falsely claimed) of Soviet arms via 3rd parties like Syria and the like in a couple of paragraph about 'support to Iran' all before the 1986-1988 period (when pretty much everyone joined against Iran. allowing all the crimes committed by the Iraqis to be ignored and not be really covered). But even the part you want to allude to starts as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovie...the Iran–Iraq War,especially early in the war.

 

Well, there goes the plan to hike prices and make Europe switch to electric. Now we will face huge consequences due to delays in preventing climate change.

 

don't you support the "freedom" to choose?

 

Nope, the price hikes will be temporary, and Europe is already making plans to get free of Russian oil. The high cost, in both economic and political terms, means they will be using more non-petroleum sources. Germany is quite likely to keep some nuke reactors running after their scheduled shut down.

 

No court has ever said you are free to put other people in coffins.

Quite the opposite..

 

I agree with most of that. We can, and should make ourselves energy independent, but it will take time, and money, and oil will have nothing to do with it.

 

I never said or alluded who was the bigger supplier or not. I simply said that Russia suported both sides of the conflict. and your own Wikipedia article confirmed that fact. Second, it does not matter how the Soviets did it, but they still did it nonetheless. Personally, I don't think neither country knew that Russia was helping the other side at all. If they did, they would never trust Soviet/Russia ever.

What you are trying to do is negate Russia involvement with Iran and solely focused on Iraq. Other than that, you are trying to put a square peg in a round hole type of argument.

 

Soviet support for Saddam was open and without restriction especially after 1986. You just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue which isn't helped by you fixating on spinets. If you truly have an interest, I encourage you to read the entirety of the article or any credible source you like.

 

Sure do. Those that wear a mask out doors, however, tells you something!

 

that they may be doing cancer treatment

 

Why not just pump more of your own oil?

 

We're working on it.

 

The good news is US will have to pay double price for Venezuela's oil and it has to be paid in Russian currency rubles.