Russian Muscle Flexing

[Park Kraken]

I've learned some interesting happenings recently in Russia where the military seems to be flexing it's muscles for the first time since the end of the Cold war. Tu-95 Bear bombers have been reported buzzing the British coastline and they also buzzed the U.S. military base in Guam.

Just the other day a pair of Tu-160 Blackjacks violated U.K. airspace as well. This comes on the heels of a Russian rocket attack on Georgia on August 6th, and a Russian mission to plant their flag under the North Pole. And now Senior Russian Admirals are talking of establishing a permanent base in the Mediterranean.

Tensions are high, with the U.K. spy incident, the U.S. missile defense shield, and other problems going on. Has anyone heard anything else going on, or wants to comment on this?

[Karl Valten]

Haven't heard anything on this incident. You have any links you can put up?

[Zem-El Vymes]

The Russian President and the Duma all turned in their notices at once. That's much more worrisome than some Bear patrols really.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Maybe you should instead to be looking at why Russia suddenly has a Cold War mentality again, plus a good dose of paranoia.

(Hint - make sure you don't elect a good part of the reason and his buddies again)

There are a lot of resources in ex-Soviet territories and there's a rush on to exploit it. US companies have been very aggressive in trying to stake a claim, combined with an Administration in helping them legally or illegally. Putin and co are no fools and see what this will mean to Russian influence and power - and this, plus other reasons like the Bush Admin going back on their word to leave said territories alone and a feeling of being stabbed in the back after Putin offered a lot of support for the USA at 11/9 as well, the Russians are much more flush with cash - due to oil prices escalating due in large part to another enormous Bush Admin blunder - and thence have the motive and now the money to do a bit of sabre rattling and making it clear they will not allow further intervention in areas they see as their own.

Not bad really. Scare North Korea and Iran into nukes, destroy a country for oil (as it is now clear that was the real reason), poke the sleeping Soviet bear back awake and directly by dumb policies increase world terrorism. And that's just for starters.

[Park Kraken]

(as it is now clear that was the real reason)

Oh right, because we all know that policing the streets of every major city in Iraq rather than focusing all of that protection around the oil fields and refineries is a real good indicator of that.

*snicker*

[Jaime Tomahawk]

(as it is now clear that was the real reason)

Oh right, because we all know that policing the streets of every major city in Iraq rather than focusing all of that protection around the oil fields and refineries is a real good indicator of that.

*snicker*


So.... ummm..... been keeping up with statements from ex-Bush Administration people lately? How about Alan Greenspan? Or how about Dr Brendan Nelsen, the Aust Defence Minister and thence chief of Armed Forced of Australia - Australa of course being one of the three partners that invaded Iraq in the first place?

Also been keeping up with the truth about what the partners knew about Iraq to begin with?

Just because the main violence is in cities doesn't deny in ANY way the original reasons and the reasons your staying there now. If there was not oil, you really seriously think they wold care enough to flush 700 Billion down the craphole called Iraq?

Take two doses of cynical and call me in the morning.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Actually Alan Greenspan has said in interviews that the war should have been about oil.

[Zem-El Vymes]

I think that oil and the Iraq war are now analogous to slavery and the Civil War. As one of my history buff friends once opined:

A novice thinks the civil war is about slavery.
An average historian thinks the civil war is about states rights.
A competent historian knows the civil war is about slavery.

Substitute Iraq War with Civil War, oil with slavery, and sphere of western influence for states rights, and I think that same argument holds weight.

[Cat X]

Actually Alan Greenspan has said in interviews that the war should have been about oil.



“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

And I can pull other quotes off reputable news sources and also probably link a podcast of local ABC's PM where he clearly said the same thing. But be that as it may, he is not the only semi decent source to point out the elephant in the room and it is also very clear the war invasion reasoning sold to the public was very much false - and more than that, knowingly a lie.

The Us administraltion have no interest in throwing a dictactor out or staying behind to clean up the resulting huge mess, especailly with the staggering cost. They went in and now stay in because of oil.

[Khendon Sevon]

There's a simple reason that the US military doesn't need to put up walls and machine gun nests around the oil resources of Iraq:

There are over 20,000 "contractors" in Iraq. Let's get rid of the doublespeak and filter in an appropriate word for those 20,000 armed men: mercenaries.

All of the companies that are "rebuilding" Iraq are protected by private security forces (don't kid yourself, they're mercenaries).

Interestingly enough, the US military interacts with private military corporations more and more. It's what happens when the US army doesn't have the manpower or resources to effectively control a country.

Man, Iraq is such a mess up. We would've been perfectly fine if we'd only stayed in Afghanistan. We had the resources for it.

Then we bit off more than we could chew. Sure, our technology was great at subduing the legitimate Iraqi military. Oops, we never really planned for this whole "insurgence" (read: freedom fighters) thing. Why would a country we just invaded and have no plan of leaving hate us?

Pff. Bush's foreign policy? What foreign policy.

You think he has any reason beyond business for doing this? Weapons of mass destruction, maybe? Come on. The reports are out. He didn't believe that. He just fed it to everyone else.

All he had to say: humanitarian reasons, in support of UN resolutions.

But, then he'd have to wait for the UN, he'd have to be part of the coalition instead of being it, he wouldn't "control" (joke) the country.

Bleh. Politics.

[Park Kraken]

(as it is now clear that was the real reason)

Oh right, because we all know that policing the streets of every major city in Iraq rather than focusing all of that protection around the oil fields and refineries is a real good indicator of that.

*snicker*


So.... ummm..... been keeping up with statements from ex-Bush Administration people lately? How about Alan Greenspan? Or how about Dr Brendan Nelsen, the Aust Defence Minister and thence chief of Armed Forced of Australia - Australa of course being one of the three partners that invaded Iraq in the first place?

Also been keeping up with the truth about what the partners knew about Iraq to begin with?

Just because the main violence is in cities doesn't deny in ANY way the original reasons and the reasons your staying there now. If there was not oil, you really seriously think they wold care enough to flush 700 Billion down the craphole called Iraq?

Take two doses of cynical and call me in the morning.


Ohh right. I forgot. Since former party members have quit Bush administration, suddenly anything they say would no longer be considered lies and coverups, but rather would be considered holy truth write.

Pfft. I always take anything politicians, former or current, say with a grain of salt. More than likely they are going against their former party members to cemement their popularity with the voters, seeing as how the Bush administration is going downhill fast.

While I'm not saying that oil isn't a big part of the reason that we are there now, I think the original main reason that we were in there was so that Bush could finish what his father started and oust Saddam Hussein.

And dude, I don't think anyone buys that Bush was looking for WMDs. I think maybe he was hoping to find them, to justify this war a litle bit more, but I don't think he honestly expected to find any.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Ohh right. I forgot. Since former party members have quit Bush administration, suddenly anything they say would no longer be considered lies and coverups, but rather would be considered holy truth write.


Some have been saying it while IN the administration. Brendan Nelson is the Defence minister of Australia as of this moment.

And it's pretty well known that politicals like to actually come clean once out of office. Study your history.



Pfft. I always take anything politicians, former or current, say with a grain of salt. More than likely they are going against their former party members to cemement their popularity with the voters, seeing as how the Bush administration is going downhill fast.


Did you just miss the fact that evidence about the truth of what Greenspan said has been gathering for .... like.... 4 years? Dutchy said it outright right here before the war started and got flamed out for saying it. I called BS at the time of the war at people supporting the Bush Admin's reasoning - and while I didnt claim the war was for oil (but I did say every single other reason was BS), Dutchy and I and those who were screaming and dancing like burning chooks have been proven 100% right.

Now if a bunch of dirty smelly backwards people who live on parts of the world map that have HERE BE DRAGONS had it called 4 years ago, I see no reason why this time "war was for oil" noises coming out of ex staffers and current politicians should be doubted. Cause you know...... it's true.


While I'm not saying that oil isn't a big part of the reason that we are there now, I think the original main reason that we were in there was so that Bush could finish what his father started and oust Saddam Hussein.

And dude, I don't think anyone buys that Bush was looking for WMDs. I think maybe he was hoping to find them, to justify this war a litle bit more, but I don't think he honestly expected to find any.

And tell me..... what exactly was the main reason the USA gives a fat rip about Kuwait in the first place? Middle East policy is all about one thing and one thing only.

[Zem-El Vymes]

Ohh right. I forgot. Since former party members have quit Bush administration, suddenly anything they say would no longer be considered lies and coverups, but rather would be considered holy truth write.

It's possible, but I have to ask where is the impetus? The impetus to lie under the Bush administration is at least readily obvious - these people want to keep their jobs.


While I'm not saying that oil isn't a big part of the reason that we are there now, I think the original main reason that we were in there was so that Bush could finish what his father started and oust Saddam Hussein.

If Gulf War I was about regime change, it would have been done. Even then, our massive anti-Iraq coallition was overwhelmingly against the idea, for reasons we're discovering well enough as it stands.

It's natural to want to see tyrants deposed, but to assume this mantle of ownership over the Saddam question is incredibly culturally ignorant and completely glosses over the geopolitics of the middle east entirely.

I know how you feel because I initially felt in a similar fashion. It just doesn't work that way though.

[Park Kraken]

And tell me..... what exactly was the main reason the USA gives a fat rip about Kuwait in the first place? Middle East policy is all about one thing and one thing only.

Well if that's true, then why do we care about Isreal so much? Last time I checked, they didn't have much of an oil economy.

[Morgan Evanar]

Isreal is a different beast and does not have the same bearing.

[Khendon Sevon]

...

You're kidding me, Park.

You've got to be kidding me.

Why does America care so much about Israel? Why does America care so much about Israel!?

Some reasons:
- Major developer of weapons & computer technology
- Major support from a certain religious group in the US
- A DEMOCRACY
- They have the bomb and have shown restraint

You'll find more reasons; but, I'm personally less inclined to agree with American foreign policy towards Israel. We'd have to start an entirely new thread to discuss that, though. I'd rather not get into it.

Pick up a book on the middle east, will you? Make it two or three books. Try to get very different opinions.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

There are "oil" reasons too, but that goes into the whole political balance and keeping possible extremists in check from taking over more of the Middle East and a whole bunch more reasons that do require a lot of books to explain fully. Yep agreed, get read on the subject.

[Park Kraken]

...

You're kidding me, Park.

You've got to be kidding me.

Why does America care so much about Israel? Why does America care so much about Israel!?

Some reasons:
- Major developer of weapons & computer technology
- Major support from a certain religious group in the US
- A DEMOCRACY
- They have the bomb and have shown restraint

You'll find more reasons; but, I'm personally less inclined to agree with American foreign policy towards Israel. We'd have to start an entirely new thread to discuss that, though. I'd rather not get into it.

Pick up a book on the middle east, will you? Make it two or three books. Try to get very different opinions.

I already knew all these things Khendon. Please don't ridicule me like this, I was just testing Jaime to see what his opinions on the matter of our relations with Isreal are.

So, we went to Iraq and stay there for oil. Since you have conclusivley and decisivley proven this, my question now is, ok so now what? The U.S. of A. is in Iraq to secure oil production and shipments. This is what you want to hear, and my question is, do you want anything other than to be proven that your predictions were correct?

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I already knew all these things Khendon. Please don't ridicule me like this, I was just testing Jaime to see what his opinions on the matter of our relations with Isreal are.

So, we went to Iraq and stay there for oil. Since you have conclusivley and decisivley proven this, my question now is, ok so now what? The U.S. of A. is in Iraq to secure oil production and shipments. This is what you want to hear, and my question is, do you want anything other than to be proven that your predictions were correct?


You lot elected the main moron in this crapfest and those who still support him even after all his reasons were one by one blown away, spinning your countries defiect out of control and prodding Russia are just outright plain stupid. But as that may be, since it's your Administration that caused the present Iraq crapfest and gave Russia the reason to get paranoid, you lot make sure you dont elect another idiot. That's what we all want to see.

[Yog]

you lot make sure you dont elect another idiot. That's what we all want to see.

Unfortunately, I could see that happening again. Giuliani (Republican frontrunner) has been one of the most dedicated supporters of the Iraq war and is very vocal about using the military against Iran. He also does not seem to have a plan for fighting recession and budget deficits which will be an increasing problem in the years ahead. As for the democrats, Hillary Clinton is leading the polls big over Barack Obama. Which is a shame, because Obama is a much better human being and politician than the power hungry and corrupt Clinton. If it comes to a race between Giuliani and Clinton (likely), I could see Giuliani winning simply because he is less hated.

[Morgan Evanar]

Ugh, Giuliani is almost a fascists :(

I do not say that lightly. He doesn't give a fig about the Bill of Rights.

[Figrin D'an]

Our voting options are going to be even more untenable in '08 than they were in '00 and '04, which is really, really sad. There's maybe 2-3 candidates amongst both of the major parties that I could conceivably vote for and not feel sick to my stomach, but none of them have any chance of getting out of the primaries with their campaigns intact, save for Obama.



The Russian President and the Duma all turned in their notices at once. That's much more worrisome than some Bear patrols really.

Completely agree.

[Zem-El Vymes]

In my perfect world, Bill Richardson would have a market share for the donkeys.


Sigh.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

you lot make sure you dont elect another idiot. That's what we all want to see.

Unfortunately, I could see that happening again. Giuliani (Republican frontrunner) has been one of the most dedicated supporters of the Iraq war and is very vocal about using the military against Iran. He also does not seem to have a plan for fighting recession and budget deficits which will be an increasing problem in the years ahead. As for the democrats, Hillary Clinton is leading the polls big over Barack Obama. Which is a shame, because Obama is a much better human being and politician than the power hungry and corrupt Clinton. If it comes to a race between Giuliani and Clinton (likely), I could see Giuliani winning simply because he is less hated.

Pretty much every word I would want to reply with has the word filter on it :(

I havent really been watching any moves about military action against Iran and thence didnt know Giuliani was hawking for that. I aint watching that because I cant believe anyone would be serious in suggesting that. Nor do I think anyone in the USA support action in that direction. Despite the Iran's President's big mouth, Iran itself is actually no where near the Islamic hatehouse that the Bush Admin tries to make out, nor are they as close to nukes either. Iran certainly does not support Al Quadia nor the Taliban either.

That's really depressing to hear that.

[Zem-El Vymes]

Well the do most certainly prop up hezbollah and there are an uncomfortable amount of people who seem to think that "we can take em!"

:(

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Well the do most certainly prop up hezbollah and there are an uncomfortable amount of people who seem to think that "we can take em!"

:(

Hezbollah really is in a different category to say Al Quadia, you're kinda hard pressed to firmly have them as just terrorists. They do have a lot more legitimate activity and in gerenal are recognized as a resistance movement by Arab countries, due in big part to their main target being illegal Israeli occupation of their land. Plus in reality only 6 countries have Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Be that as it may, there's no doubt they do get up to some signifigantly evil things but it's not just black and white as a whole. They are part of the governemt of Lebanon and represent a significant amount of people in that country, as well as looking after a lot of people in refugee camps, providing food and building infrastructure.

Of course, it can be pointed out the USA has supported terrorist organisations in the past, which kinda makes the moral leg to stand on a bit shake for the Administration. If we wanted to get the terrorists, the place to go is still Afghanistan and also now north Pakistan. We really should have more resources in Afghanistan, instead of sabre rattling to Iran

[Jaime Tomahawk]

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=854

Pat Buchanan actually making a whole bunch of sense?????? And worth a read.....? Okay the last jibe aint right but.... amazing all up

I might also as now point out Iraq is costing you, the USA taxpayer 8,000 dollars a second. Now just imagine that added onto a possible Iran move.....

[Khendon Sevon]

I already knew all these things Khendon. Please don't ridicule me like this, I was just testing Jaime to see what his opinions on the matter of our relations with Isreal are.


If you don't want to be called ignorant on a topic, don't purposely come off as oblivious on said topic. You want someone's opinion? Ask for it ;)

The US needs a new political party. People are too ingrained in the whole Democrat/Republican system. It really makes me wonder if they know it wasn't always that way? I just don't see how anyone can logically be aggressive and territorial over party politics...

And they have a stranglehold on American "democracy" (let's use that word loosely).