PDA

View Full Version : Why the USA do not wish join the Russia to NATO



Chevan
01-17-2008, 01:44 AM
Hey folks.
The all jokes are aside;)
What do you think about NATO's behaviour toward Russia.
Why the West do not even wish to speak about Russians joining to NATO?
What is the problem?

Rising Sun*
01-17-2008, 02:25 AM
Why does Russia want to join NATO when it's been opposed to eastern expansion of NATO? e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-putin13feb13,0,1332898.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

It seems more like a case of Russia wanting to get into NATO to neutralise the threat it perceives NATO to be to Russia.

Which is an excellent reason from the NATO viewpoint for not allowing Russia in.

Chevan
01-17-2008, 03:19 AM
Why does Russia want to join NATO when it's been opposed to eastern expansion of NATO? e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-putin13feb13,0,1332898.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

It seems more like a case of Russia wanting to get into NATO to neutralise the threat it perceives NATO to be to Russia.

Which is an excellent reason from the NATO viewpoint for not allowing Russia in.

No Sun:)
Russia did not oppose the NATO expantions in the 1990-yy during the Yeltsin period.
Besided Putin publicaily the offered of Russia joining in NATO in the early 2001.
The all problems has began after when the NATO has ignored all those attempts of Russia and has started to join the Baltic states into alliance.
http://rdu-old.narod.ru/sobytia/new/sob_92.htm


Putin has sounded the idea - dismiss NATO ( as was dismiss the Warsaw alliance befor) or join the Russia at the NATO
Besides the some of Germans officials also support this idea-
http://www.russk.ru/newsdata.php?idar=170425

The organizer of Munich military defence conference , Horst Telchik said: NATO should offer the Russia the suggestion to be join at the NATO in prospect.This help us to solve many the political problems in our relations
So as could you see my friend not just Putin but also and some officials in the West are not against the idea to include the Russia in NATO.
Buit it seem the Washington has the qoite other oppinion:)Why?

Rising Sun*
01-17-2008, 04:21 AM
Here's a few more reasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/18/wputin118.xml

Russia's support of Iran's nuclear program ain't helping. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm

Maybe the strongest reason is the unstated attitudes derived from the distrust of and opposition to Russia built up since 1917.

Chevan
01-17-2008, 07:07 AM
Here's a few more reasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/18/wputin118.xml

Are the few old strategic bombers is a threat for the USA?


"If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again that's their decision," Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said. "That is a decision for them to take - it's interesting. We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union. It's a different era."

Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said he did not believe the flights posed a threat to the United States.

So this reason is foolish - the russians simply phisically and tecnologically could not threat for the USA today.


Russia's support of Iran's nuclear program ain't helping. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm

Oh mate - do the Iran make a nuclear bomb?
Your information is out of date:)
http://www.apn.ru/news/article18583.htm


Iran does not continie the works for production of own nuclear bomb at least since 2003 - this amazing report was prepeared by the Democratic party in Senate , that was based on the newest USA intelligence datas
So mate the Russia do not support the Iran nuclear program- it just build the nucler station in Iran:)


Maybe the strongest reason is the unstated attitudes derived from the distrust of and opposition to Russia built up since 1917.
But all the bolshevick criminals who captured the power in the 1917- were killed or died during the next time.
Besids to the great happiness the USSR is no more existed:)
Now do you see the Russia is good:)Very good today and try to be democratic:)
We nobody scare ( well may be the poor chechens) and nobody kill any more:)
So how will many times the US use the old cold war prejudices (and own fears) toward the Russia?

32Bravo
01-17-2008, 08:06 AM
IIRC the North Atlantic Alliance, created for a post-war world (Bretton Woods?) has both a political and military arm. The military being NATO whose membership have signed a pact of mutual support if they are attacked. Sometime ago, the French opted out of this with a clear indication that if anyone tried to ove-run them, they'd be nuked.

The political wing was to develop an economic system (E.C. later the E.U.) wherein the member states became more and more economically linked, or inter-dependant, thus, limiting the ability for European states to go to war with each other.

As I see it, Russia will be unacceptable to Nato until it becomes a member of the E.U. and, thus, it would be against Russia's self interests to go to war with any European state.

Chevan
01-17-2008, 09:00 AM
As I see it, Russia will be unacceptable to Nato until it becomes a member of the E.U. and, thus, it would be against Russia's self interests to go to war with any European state.

i.e. the strong economical mutual relations could prevent the possible military conflict, right?
But as i know today the Russia goes further- we constantly increase the Western participation in Rusian economic/bisiness, the increase the selling resources to the west. The share of the Russian gas and oil suppplied to the West constantly increase. The russian companies more and more join itno the international finantional alliances and corporations.
So from this point of wiev the best way to prevent any possible agression is to join the Russia into the EU and NATO- in this way the last bariers for the more close economical cooperation would dissapear.
Form the pure economical point - the Russia could be very IMPORTAINT part of EU - the energy/ resource donor.
So we could get the common profit of it.
But we still obseve the lack of trust from the West.Instead the more close cooperation - the political and economical isolation of the Russia.

32Bravo
01-17-2008, 09:28 AM
i.e. the strong economical mutual relations could prevent the possible military conflict, right?
But as i know today the Russia goes further- we constantly increase the Western participation in Rusian economic/bisiness, the increase the selling resources to the west. The share of the Russian gas and oil suppplied to the West constantly increase. The russian companies more and more join itno the international finantional alliances and corporations.
So from this point of wiev the best way to prevent any possible agression is to join the Russia into the EU and NATO- in this way the last bariers for the more close economical cooperation would dissapear.
Form the pure economical point - the Russia could be very IMPORTAINT part of EU - the energy/ resource donor.
So we could get the common profit of it.
But we still obseve the lack of trust from the West.Instead the more close cooperation - the political and economical isolation of the Russia.

It's about economic power and control.

We could even go to war over it.

32Bravo
01-17-2008, 09:29 AM
i.e. the strong economical mutual relations could prevent the possible military conflict, right?
But as i know today the Russia goes further- we constantly increase the Western participation in Rusian economic/bisiness, the increase the selling resources to the west. The share of the Russian gas and oil suppplied to the West constantly increase. The russian companies more and more join itno the international finantional alliances and corporations.
So from this point of wiev the best way to prevent any possible agression is to join the Russia into the EU and NATO- in this way the last bariers for the more close economical cooperation would dissapear.
Form the pure economical point - the Russia could be very IMPORTAINT part of EU - the energy/ resource donor.
So we could get the common profit of it.

http://europa.eu/



But we still obseve the lack of trust from the West.Instead the more close cooperation - the political and economical isolation of the Russia.
Concur!


It's about economic power and control.

32Bravo
01-17-2008, 01:39 PM
Kremlin tactics echo Cold War
By Olga Craig,
Last Updated: 1:47am BST 23/07/2007Page 1 of 3


If the stand-off between Britain and Russia has brought back memories of the Cold War, then that is just how Vladimir Putin wants it. Olga Craig investigates the ruthless tactics employed by the Kremlin as it attempts to restore the country's faded might.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/22/nrkremlin122.xml&page=1

Those are the kind of headlines that reinforce mistrust. It doesn't matter whether or not Russia has the ability or even the intention of carrying things further, it's the image that renforces distrust, a picture speaks a thousand words etc. - image is everything!

Why would Putin want to create an atmosphere of distrust?

Personally, I don't make much of it - I'm sure it has as much to do with internal politics and his own political agenda, as much as anything. However, it does imply that he cares little about the opinions of the West.

I would argue that much of the lay-persons imaginings of East and West Cold War activities have been instilled by Hollywood. The Soviet Union, as was, proved to be an excellent 'Bad-guy' particularly after Korea, the Cuban affair, and Vietnam. In my opinion, it'll take generations for East to meet West, or visa versa, culturally, we remain poles apart - but I remain optimistic! :)

If the Russians keep their heads down, we'll get on with fighting the new 'Bad-guy' that being: AL Quiade!

Egorka
01-17-2008, 06:17 PM
Guys,

I do not know if it is off topic in here (though I do not think so) but I want to ask.

Do you really beleive 100% that there will never be a grand war in Europe between the European countries?

I am myself unfortunately do not think so. The history teaches us otherwise. And despite to what the mass media speaks I do not think that a man has evolved (read improved) compare to a man lets say 500 years ago.
It just takes a crysis to happened. Lets say oil runs out, water shortage and draughts. Who knows what the goverments would dod in order to keep the living standards.

Rising Sun*
01-17-2008, 06:29 PM
Oh mate - do the Iran make a nuclear bomb?
Your information is out of date:)
http://www.apn.ru/news/article18583.htm

So mate the Russia do not support the Iran nuclear program- it just build the nucler station in Iran:)

The problem isn't what Iran's current nuclear weapons capability is but what it might be.

It's not just the US that is concerned about it, while Russia is seen as being opposed to the Western powers. http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-01-15-iran.cfm

Bearing in mind that Iran is run by a Holocaust denying lunatic who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and who anticipates Armageddon before the Twelfth Imam reappears in two years (can't remember when he made that prediction - probably more than two years ago - he must be disappointed), I wouldn't trust Iran not to resume its nuclear weapons programme, if it hasn't already.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-27-voa49.cfm?CFID=187511988&CFTOKEN=70446385

So the US and other NATO nations can hardly be blamed for not wanting Russia, which supports Iran's nuclear program in principle and practice and opposes sanctions on Iran, to join NATO which might well be part of a military response to Iran maintaining its refusal to comply with UN directions; or Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability or getting close to it; or Iran becoming militarily aggressive.

Nickdfresh
01-17-2008, 07:22 PM
Given the current tensions, I think the British may be even more dubious of a Russia-NATO partnership these days than the US is...

Digger
01-17-2008, 07:50 PM
Guys,

I do not know if it is off topic in here (though I do not think so) but I want to ask.

Do you really beleive 100% that there will never be a grand war in Europe between the European countries?

I am myself unfortunately do not think so. The history teaches us otherwise. And despite to what the mass media speaks I do not think that a man has evolved (read improved) compare to a man lets say 500 years ago.
It just takes a crysis to happened. Lets say oil runs out, water shortage and draughts. Who knows what the goverments would dod in order to keep the living standards.

Yeah off topic, but in light of the question not unreasonable. I agree to a point Egorka. Obviously many European countries want peace and have made strident efforst to drag themselves from the past where issues were resolved by war.

Unfortunately some countries have not learned this lesson. If there is to be a flash point in Europe it will likely be in the Balkans.

digger

Rising Sun*
01-17-2008, 08:22 PM
Guys,

I do not know if it is off topic in here (though I do not think so) but I want to ask.

Do you really beleive 100% that there will never be a grand war in Europe between the European countries?

I am myself unfortunately do not think so. The history teaches us otherwise. And despite to what the mass media speaks I do not think that a man has evolved (read improved) compare to a man lets say 500 years ago.
It just takes a crysis to happened. Lets say oil runs out, water shortage and draughts. Who knows what the goverments would dod in order to keep the living standards.

Bound to be, sooner or later, although it's hard now to see how it's likely among the Western and Southern European powers in the foreseeable future.

Rising Sun*
01-17-2008, 08:32 PM
And despite to what the mass media speaks I do not think that a man has evolved (read improved) compare to a man lets say 500 years ago.

500 years ago?

WWII only finished 62 years ago.

Yugoslavia went feral within the last 15 years.

Scratch anybody deep enough and there's a savage underneath.

That's not usually the problem. It's the politicians and other greedy power hungry bastards that get us into wars, and the savages underneath the rest of us who fight them until the politicians etc decide they've had enough.

Chevan
01-18-2008, 01:25 AM
The problem isn't what Iran's current nuclear weapons capability is but what it might be.

It's not just the US that is concerned about it, while Russia is seen as being opposed to the Western powers. http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-01-15-iran.cfm

Again you look just at the consequences of the crisys in relations.
But if we will look at the most begining i.e. in the 2000, when Russia was loyal for the Washington and do everything that it was wanted.Even if the give the americans the permission to open the new bases in the Middle Asia after the 9'11.
So to the contrast my frined, Russia has demonstrated most good will toward the NATO till the last time.
Even during infamous bombing of the russian ally Serbia - we did nothing ecxept a bit of inner demagogy.
So you do not try to put the waggon befor the horse please:)
It wasn't russians who guilt in a crisys in relations.This is a direct resault of rought motion the NATO to the East without the considering of Russian interests.


Bearing in mind that Iran is run by a Holocaust denying lunatic who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and who anticipates Armageddon before the Twelfth Imam reappears in two years (can't remember when he made that prediction - probably more than two years ago - he must be disappointed), I wouldn't trust Iran not to resume its nuclear weapons programme, if it hasn't already.

Firstly this is not just Iran who wish to wipe Israel off the map, but also Syria, Egupth and half of Arab world:)Sure the domestic demagogy of Iran is a disgasting bulshit.
And Russia immediatelly has expressed the objections of it in international level.
As to the deny of Holocaust- you will laugh but Turkey ( the oldest member NATO) even now do not recognize the Holocaust of Armenians.
Is it the problem for NATO today?:)
ANd if you critize the the Israel in other posts;) - why you close the eyes for the agressive military policy of that state toward the neighbourd?And covering of that policy by the USA?
Is the only "evil arabs" who guilt in the Middle-East crysys?



So the US and other NATO nations can hardly be blamed for not wanting Russia, which supports Iran's nuclear program in principle and practice and opposes sanctions on Iran, to join NATO which might well be part of a military response to Iran maintaining its refusal to comply with UN directions; or Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability or getting close to it; or Iran becoming militarily aggressive.
Yea so if the Russia so bad and wrong toward IRan- how could YOU help to solve this problem with sanctions?
Did sanctions help to knock down the Saddam in the "military agressive" Iraq few years ago?
Why we hear again this foolish demagogy about sanctions and evil regime as in the 2003- is it the operation "Iraq fredom: part 2" has already began?

Chevan
01-18-2008, 01:36 AM
Given the current tensions, I think the British may be even more dubious of a Russia-NATO partnership these days than the US is...

It is strange Nick , but why the real problems (not just domestic political "tentions") till the possible military conflict between the two members of NATO - Turkey and Greece not so long time ago - did not lead to the problems with membership of NATO for both those states?
If the Islamic Turkey that so like the American and jews almost as much as they love the Armenians - is enought "democratic" for NATO but the Russia ( who ...damn....had the tensions with Britain) not:)
Is it not funny for you?
Turkey that officially critize the US 'zionist' policy in Iraq and make the additional problems for them , attacking the Kurds in North is BETTER than Russia..
Ha ha ha.:)

Nickdfresh
01-18-2008, 02:44 AM
It is strange Nick , but why the real problems (not just domestic political "tentions") till the possible military conflict between the two members of NATO - Turkey and Greece not so long time ago - did not lead to the problems with membership of NATO for both those states?
If the Islamic Turkey that so like the American and jews almost as much as they love the Armenians - is enought "democratic" for NATO but the Russia ( who ...damn....had the tensions with Britain) not:)
Is it not funny for you?
Turkey that officially critize the US 'zionist' policy in Iraq and make the additional problems for them , attacking the Kurds in North is BETTER than Russia..
Ha ha ha.:)

Actually, what's strange is that your response has absolutely nothing to do with my post...

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g24/bouwerieboy/catInTinfoil.jpg

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 03:50 AM
As to the deny of Holocaust- you will laugh but Turkey ( the oldest member NATO) even now do not recognize the Holocaust of Armenians.
Is it the problem for NATO today?:)

I would never laugh about Turkey. If the Islamists gain control there, NATO is in for an interesting time. Even more interesting if it happens after Turkey joins the EU.

As for the Armenian Genocide, it's an old event that's not an issue that affects membership of NATO, any more than, say, internal exile and other events in the USSR are in considering Russia's membership of NATO.


ANd if you critize the the Israel in other posts;) - why you close the eyes for the agressive military policy of that state toward the neighbourd?And covering of that policy by the USA?
Is the only "evil arabs" who guilt in the Middle-East crysys?

Yea so if the Russia so bad and wrong toward IRan- how could YOU help to solve this problem with sanctions?
Did sanctions help to knock down the Saddam in the "military agressive" Iraq few years ago?

Why we hear again this foolish demagogy about sanctions and evil regime as in the 2003- is it the operation "Iraq fredom: part 2" has already began?

I'm not arguing a case for America or anyone else opposing Russia joining NATO. I'm just responding to your OP with what I see as reasons they might have against Russia joining NATO.

I don't have a solution to the Middle East problems, any more than anyone else does, because there isn't one. The region is full of primitive arseholes who'd destroy the whole world in pursuit of their stupid bloody religions (as apparently are up to 70 million American Christian ****wits whose support for Bush is directly related to the current problems in the Middle East which flow from support for Israel http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml) and tribal claims and disputes about who's the true descendant of Mohammed and whingeing about how what the Nazis did in Germany a few generations ago entitles the Zionists (as distinct from Jews and Israelis) to keep doing the same to the poor bloody Palestinians and everybody else within range of Israel and how Islamic suicide bombers are going to get a zillion bloody virgins in heaven, blah blah blah. FFS! If stupidity was oil in that part of the world, Peak Oil would be a risk only if their birth rate dropped, and we'd be buying petrol now for five cents a litre.

Inserting America's current irrational aggression into that irrational mix is just a recipe for more irrational disaster, Which might well be the source of the next great war which involves European nations.

As for Iraqi Freedon Part 2, here's why it's not just about Iran's nuclear capacity (a lot of which is really about stopping Iran getting power to nuke Israel, which - or at least the threat of which - might be something that shouldn't be stopped as turning Israel into a glowing car park would get rid of a festering sore that's going to keep getting worse as long as the Zionists maintain the attitude they've had for close to a century) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

Personally, I'm sick to bloody death of the lot of them. They're all as bad as each other, and that goes for America and Russia too as far as their international conduct in the Middle East is concerned.

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 03:50 AM
[QUOTE=Rising Sun*;116285]
Scratch anybody deep enough and there's a savage underneath.

QUOTE]


Speak for yourself! :D

I seem to recall that man is today as he was 30,000 years ago, and that it is only knowledge and technology which has changed - but don't quote me.

The base layer of the pyrimid of needs is 'Survival-needs', and that's when the savage comes out in most people. The politicians never rise beyond this.

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 03:53 AM
Guys,

I do not know if it is off topic in here (though I do not think so) but I want to ask.

Do you really beleive 100% that there will never be a grand war in Europe between the European countries?

I am myself unfortunately do not think so. The history teaches us otherwise. And despite to what the mass media speaks I do not think that a man has evolved (read improved) compare to a man lets say 500 years ago.
It just takes a crysis to happened. Lets say oil runs out, water shortage and draughts. Who knows what the goverments would dod in order to keep the living standards.

Not impossible, but improbable.

Here'sa fictionalised version - Germany is the bad guy: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/c/harold-coyle/ten-thousand.htm

Chevan
01-18-2008, 04:08 AM
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g24/bouwerieboy/catInTinfoil.jpg
Is it that photo of your honest face that you have promised to show for us in other thread Nick?:)
Is the gin going out of the bottle?:)

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 04:16 AM
Actually, what's strange is that your response has absolutely nothing to do with my post...

As distinct from your photo, which I assume was the first Russian cat into space, with the high tech crumple zone helmet to protect it on those Soviet head first hard landings? :D

Or does it mean the devil's in the pussy? ;) :D

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g24/bouwerieboy/catInTinfoil.jpg[/QUOTE]

Chevan
01-18-2008, 05:44 AM
I would never laugh about Turkey. If the Islamists gain control there, NATO is in for an interesting time. Even more interesting if it happens after Turkey joins the EU.

That's right.
So why in OP the Turkey might be in NATO but Russia no?


As for the Armenian Genocide, it's an old event that's not an issue that affects membership of NATO, any more than, say, internal exile and other events in the USSR are in considering Russia's membership of NATO.

But you still think that "lunatic regime" ( that i.m agree) that deny the Holocaust and want to wipe off the Israel is much better the other one that deny the Genocide of Armenians and wipe off the all Kurds in the world?
Why in this way the USA that in fact supply the Turkey the wearpon systems and ets and provide them membership in NATO is better than the Russia that interact with Iran and agree to act together to prevent it from the own nuclear bomb?Why do you call the russian behaviour as the "help" for the Iran?But ignore the analogical US policy toward Turkey , and Isreal.
Why the "democracy" in Turkey is better then "lunatic regime" in Iran?


I'm not arguing a case for America or anyone else opposing Russia joining NATO. I'm just responding to your OP with what I see as reasons they might have against Russia joining NATO.

All those 'reasons" are biased.
You agree yourself that today the NATO has a members that could creat more problem in future for the safety of the Europe that the hypotetic "Russian threat" today.
Russia actually defends its interests ( as and any other normal country in the world) but we always ready and open for the interaction and partnership with NATO.


I don't have a solution to the Middle East problems, any more than anyone else does, because there isn't one. The region is full of primitive arseholes who'd destroy the whole world in pursuit of their stupid bloody religions (as apparently are up to 70 million American Christian ****wits whose support for Bush is directly related to the current problems in the Middle East which flow from support for Israel http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml) and tribal claims and disputes about who's the true descendant of Mohammed and whingeing about how what the Nazis did in Germany a few generations ago entitles the Zionists (as distinct from Jews and Israelis) to keep doing the same to the poor bloody Palestinians and everybody else within range of Israel and how Islamic suicide bombers are going to get a zillion bloody virgins in heaven, blah blah blah. FFS! If stupidity was oil in that part of the world, Peak Oil would be a risk only if their birth rate dropped, and we'd be buying petrol now for five cents a litre.

Inserting America's current irrational aggression into that irrational mix is just a recipe for more irrational disaster, Which might well be the source of the next great war which involves European nations.

absolutly agree here.
But you say that the Russa that opposed the Washington and critize its policy ( as well as and some of the european states) - this is a reason to keep russia outside NATO?
As you see even the USA make the things that creat a new problems for the whole world in the Middle East- Why in this way you dislike the ONLY Russian policy toward Iran?


As for Iraqi Freedon Part 2, here's why it's not just about Iran's nuclear capacity (a lot of which is really about stopping Iran getting power to nuke Israel, which - or at least the threat of which - might be something that shouldn't be stopped as turning Israel into a glowing car park would get rid of a festering sore that's going to keep getting worse as long as the Zionists maintain the attitude they've had for close to a century) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

Personally, I'm sick to bloody death of the lot of them. They're all as bad as each other, and that goes for America and Russia too as far as their international conduct in the Middle East is concerned.

I/m too sick of that Middle East conflict that seems exist just to get zionist additional reasons to reach its own aims.So is this a reason of biased relation toward russia?

Egorka
01-18-2008, 06:16 AM
Guys!

I can see you have fun in hereas always. I do appreciate it! :) Keep on the good arguing spirit! I am with you! I do!

Just two side notes for you:


On the contrary on what you hear in the media, the Iranian president NEVER said that he wants to erase Israel from the map. He only quoted another guy who said so. And his rethorics are against Israely goverment, not the israely people.
The Iranian president does NOT deny Holocaust. He says it has been exhagerated. It is a big difference!


Heil to the mass media! The most mass media in the world!

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 06:55 AM
That's right.
So why in OP the Turkey might be in NATO but Russia no?

Who knows?

Turkey was an Allied enemy in WWI.

Russia sent an expeditionary force to France in WWI (which the French duly shelled when the Russians went a bit Bolshie).

After the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Russia (Murmansk, Archangel, Vladivostok) was invaded by mixtures of British (i.e. Imperial), French, American and Japanese troops.

Japan was an Ally in WWI.

The USSR was an Ally in WWII, despite being invaded by most of the Allies after Russia left WWI.

Nothing makes sense when politicians are involved.


But you still think that "lunatic regime" ( that i.m agree) that deny the Holocaust and want to wipe off the Israel is much better the other one that deny the Genocide of Armenians and wipe off the all Kurds in the world?

I don't think Turkey's been quite as definite as that, but if it comes to a choice betweent the Kurds and Israel about getting rid of the biggest threat to world peace, and the biggest internatoinal pains in the arse for their small size and internatonal irrelevance and lack of value, the Kurds can sleep happy.


Why in this way the USA that in fact supply the Turkey the wearpon systems and ets and provide them membership in NATO is better than the Russia that interact with Iran and agree to act together to prevent it from the own nuclear bomb?Why do you call the russian behaviour as the "help" for the Iran?But ignore the analogical US policy toward Turkey , and Isreal.
Why the "democracy" in Turkey is better then "lunatic regime" in Iran?

I never said the NATO / US position was better. Better is meaningless in international relations as any sort of general standard as all nations determine 'better' only by what is better for them. Pretty much as most, but not all, people do.

I just put forward the obvious reasons why the NATO crew wouldn't be too keen on Russia joining NATO.


All those 'reasons" are biased.

Of course they are.

As are Russia's and Israel's and Inner Mongolia's, if it still exists.

You didn't start this thread as an objective observer from the Tongan Centre for Dispassionate World Studies, but as a Russian who's not happy with the way Russia's being treated.

It's all about self-interest and national interest, which is why no nation of any significance gives a shit about the most appalling massacres in the Horn of Africa and other parts of black Africa which specialise in butchery that makes Yugoslavia look restrained, compared with the huge but pointless efforts of all the major nations over half a century to encourage a few million fairly unimportant Israelis to behave like civilised human beings, while completely ignoring the legitimate complaints of the displaced and dispossed Palestinians.

For whatever reason, blacks in Rwanda and Somalia and Angola and Zimbabwe etc aren't worthy of one one hundredth of the effort the major natons have put into frigging about in the UN with an intransigent Israel for half a century.

Or, given you mentioned the poor bloody Kurds, nobody gave a shit about them after GWI when the Americans encouraged them to rise up against Hussein and then abandoned the poor bastards to be slaughtered by the great evil monster that America knew him to be, despite funding and supplying him with weapons for years.

And why are the Kurds a problem? Because the British and French and Turks carved them up into the bits they could wrest from the Ottoman Empire, for the benefit of each of those nations without regard to the Kurds' interests.


You agree yourself that today the NATO has a members that could creat more problem in future for the safety of the Europe that the hypotetic "Russian threat" today.

I didn't say that.

Letting Russia into NATO would be like letting a vampire into the bloodbank.

And that is my personal opinion.

Russia has a long way to go before it reaches the level of democracy and commitment to human rights and various other things before it can operate on the same level as, say, Germany, France and Britain.


As you see even the USA make the things that creat a new problems for the whole world in the Middle East- Why in this way you dislike the ONLY Russian policy toward Iran?

Again, I was only outlining the American / NATO reasons I can see for not wanting Russia in NATO.

My personal opinion is that America is a far bigger threat to world peace than Russia or any other single country, and has been since they elected that brain dead ****wit Bush Jnr (although they couldn't foresee that they'd have that moron in charge to respond to 9/11).

A lot of people outside America agree on that. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252 And check out what Turks think! Not to mention fascist Russians who are more fond of America than Western Europeans! ;)

America's, and the world's, problem in recent years is that it lacks the USSR. When the Yanks thought there was a risk that your lot might nuke them if they went too far, they were more restrained. Since your lot self-destructed, there's no big tough kid on the block to chest the other bully, so the other bully's got carried away with its ability to steal lunch money from the little kids it doesn't like.

Before any Americans get stuck into me, think about the checks and balances built into your own constitution and how important they are in regulating your society, then contrast that with the absence of equivalent checks and balances internationally where America can often make its own rules.


I/m too sick of that Middle East conflict that seems exist just to get zionist additional reasons to reach its own aims.So is this a reason of biased relation toward russia?

Nah.

Our bias against Russians is purely because they're Russians. ;):D

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 07:02 AM
Guys!

I can see you have fun in hereas always. I do appreciate it! :) Keep on the good arguing spirit! I am with you! I do!

Mate, that looks suspiciously like shit stirring. ;) :cool:


shit-stirrer n. a teaser; a person who enjoys stirring up trouble. Hence, shit-stirring, adj., n.

1971 Frank Hardy The Outcasts of Foolgarah ix. 88 That'd be him, thought the Dean, a shit-stirrer from way back, trouble is he stirs more shit against us than the class enemy these days.

ibid. xiii. 185 'They should keep you in there 'cause you bin shit-stirrer,' then seriously, 'I bin get letter from Aboriginal Affairs Department, Tom's got it, bin say I gotta go back North to Reserve.'

ibid. viii. 91 'Come on, Tich, old mate, we'll go and do a bit of shit-stirring amongst the

shitties.'

1979 Sam Weller Old Bastards I Have Met 56 But when they get under the control of radical, power-happy, limelighting bloody shit-stirrers, they're dangerous.

1981 David Foster Moonlite xx. 197 And now, as if there weren't enough trouble, Pommie shit stirrers wielding socialist paddles have got the men wanting more pay for less work.

1983 Union Recorder (Sydney) 4 Oct 7 When Munro and some of his 'radical half-caste activists and shit-stirring' friends objected in 1975 to being barred, because of the colour of their skin, from a Moree Hotel, it led to the widely and sensationally reported Moree rampages.

1987 Rodney Hall Kisses of the Enemy IV. xl. 508 The shit-stirrers are at work[.] http://www.anu.edu.au/andc/res/LambertonAND.php

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 07:34 AM
Hey folks.
The all jokes are aside;)
What do you think about NATO's behaviour toward Russia.
Why the West do not even wish to speak about Russians joining to NATO?
What is the problem?


I have to ask: why would Russia want to join NATO?

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 07:42 AM
On the contrary on what you hear in the media, the Iranian president NEVER said that he wants to erase Israel from the map. He only quoted another guy who said so. And his rethorics are against Israely goverment, not the israely people.

Yeah, well, that's like saying Christian legislators opposed to abortion aren't really opposed to it because they're quoting some other guy called Christ (Who as I recall didn't say anything about abortion, despite hanging around with a sinful woman. The first person who wants to carry on about Mary Magdelene and Elisabeth and Rebekah and the Greek word baby in the new and old testaments respectively can start another thread, which I might well ignore.)

Here's what the Arab press thought he said


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

I may be missing something here, but if iran's Ahmin thingy is going to wipe Israel off the map, doesn't that suggest that maybe the Israeli people might cop a bit of a scorching?


The Iranian president does NOT deny Holocaust. He says it has been exhagerated. It is a big difference!

I don't think so.

The press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6945933,00.html

A more academic view
http://www.meforum.org/article/1704

Chevan
01-18-2008, 08:21 AM
I have to ask: why would Russia want to join NATO?
Well there is at least ONE reason - economical.
Being in NATO we could cut off our military budget, limit the army and finally forget about lack of trust in past- and we could be the organic part of Europe ( that is in fact we are).
Besides being in EU we could far more easy interact and coperate with the west- we could supply it by the resorces and provide the Great inner market.
From any side the Russian integration into the West would bring the profit for eveybody.
The possible resault of economical cooperation should be wery great and impressive- the Russian resoaurces could help the Europe reach the World economic leadership ( the place that EU should take in definition).
Sure someheads in other part of the world do not wish it:)
But is this the reason for us to bury the great EU future due to the old cold war fears and prejudices?

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 08:26 AM
Well there is at least ONE reason - economical.


True, but would it suit the oligarchs?

And Mr Putin, who is either the poorest or richest leader on the European continent.
http://accidentalrussophile.blogspot.com/2008/01/pauper-or-oligarch-strange-case-of.html

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 08:31 AM
Well there is at least ONE reason - economical.
Being in NATO we could cut off our military budget, limit the army and finally forget about lack of trust in past- and we could be the organic part of Europe ( that is in fact we are).
Besides being in EU we could far more easy interact and coperate with the west- we could supply it by the resorces and provide the Great inner market.
From any side the Russian integration into the West would bring the profit for eveybody.
The possible resault of economical cooperation should be wery great and impressive- the Russian resoaurces could help the Europe reach the World economic leadership ( the place that EU should take in definition).
Sure someheads in other part of the world do not wish it:)
But is this the reason for us to bury the great EU future due to the old cold war fears and prejudices?

I think it would make sense for Russia to join the E.U., arguably, the best way to overcome prejudices.

Perhaps, Russian resources coupled with E.U. technology would not only provide economic benefits, but also those of an environmetal nature.

We British have problems with relinquishing our sovereignty, as do other member sates. Has Russia the 'mindset' to transcend these problems in its preparation to become a member, or would it just create further internal, political problems within Russia?

Chevan
01-18-2008, 08:59 AM
I think it would make sense for Russia to join the E.U., arguably, the best way to overcome prejudices.

Perhaps, Russian resources coupled with E.U. technology would not only provide economic benefits, but also those of an environmetal nature.

We British have problems with relinquishing our sovereignty, as do other member sates. Has Russia the 'mindset' to transcend these problems in its preparation to become a member, or would it just create further internal, political problems within Russia?

The all problem could be solved indeed in a future.The main problem is that west even do not wish do something, or even include the Russian in the list of states that COULD be joined to EU.
I/m sure the inner political problem in russian is no more hard that in other states- for instant the separatism is the common problem of many state in Europe.
Besides i.m sure our population would happy of this idea( to join into the EU)- this could creat the additional reason to reform our society more quickly and effective.Coz in this way we could simply take the EU laws as a basis.
This however do not mean that Russia alone would benefit it- the west also would get the profit.
I think we need just politicl will for it.
In this way neither "political tensions" with Britain could not influe at the EU future.

Chevan
01-18-2008, 09:01 AM
True, but would it suit the oligarchs?



Sure it would.We could send tham all to the Syberia if you wish:)

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 09:07 AM
I think it would make sense for Russia to join the E.U., arguably, the best way to overcome prejudices.

I think it would make sense for all nations to join together for their mutual benefit.

Don't we all?

But in the meantime, while I'm waiting for nations to recognise what's mutually beneficial, I'm going to focus on something realistic, like making my donger a seventeen inch (don't know metric equivalent and don't care) weapon of mass destruction just by wishing.

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 09:11 AM
Sure it would.We could send tham all to the Syberia if you wish:)

I wish.

Just the Russian ones?

Or can we send some arseholes from the West? ;)

Starting with Rupert Murdoch. He used to be an Aussie before money made him be a Yank. :twisted:

Rising Sun*
01-18-2008, 09:16 AM
But in the meantime, while I'm waiting for nations to recognise what's mutually beneficial, I'm going to focus on something realistic, like making my donger a seventeen inch (don't know metric equivalent and don't care) weapon of mass destruction just by wishing.

Never underestimate the power of wishing.

I'm going for eighteen, now that seventeen's been achieved. :mrgreen:

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 09:29 AM
I think it would make sense for all nations to join together for their mutual benefit.

Don't we all?

But in the meantime, while I'm waiting for nations to recognise what's mutually beneficial, I'm going to focus on something realistic, like making my donger a seventeen inch (don't know metric equivalent and don't care) weapon of mass destruction just by wishing.

Do I detect a slight note of cynicism, or are you merely highlighting my naivety, mon petite pois?

Egorka
01-18-2008, 10:50 AM
Here's what the Arab press thought he said

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

I may be missing something here, but if iran's Ahmin thingy is going to wipe Israel off the map, doesn't that suggest that maybe the Israeli people might cop a bit of a scorching?
I am not saying that Mr.Ahmadinedjad is a lamb. He is far from that. But it does not mean that it makes sense to paint it all one color as the mass media does. In this case black color.
I am saying that he is against the Israel as a state. They do not want Israel to exist as a state, i.e. political power. But they are not saying that it means that the Jews as people should be wiped out.

There is a large Jewinsh community present in Iran and they even have the parlament representative. So there is no need to twist the picture more than it is already twisted.



The press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6945933,00.html

A more academic view
http://www.meforum.org/article/1704
Please do not mix Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism. The first is bolox, the second one is a way to research.
Though in the modern world, thanks to the biased people (some of them are biased for a good reasons, some others not) as well as media, the world revisionism was forced to aquire only the negative meaning. Wheras in fact it should be understood as research.

Ahmadinedjad officially is for revisionism, not for denial.

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 02:04 PM
I am not saying that Mr.Ahmadinedjad is a lamb. He is far from that. But it does not mean that it makes sense to paint it all one color as the mass media does. In this case black color.
I am saying that he is against the Israel as a state. They do not want Israel to exist as a state, i.e. political power. But they are not saying that it means that the Jews as people should be wiped out.

There is a large Jewinsh community present in Iran and they even have the parlament representative. So there is no need to twist the picture more than it is already twisted.


Please do not mix Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism. The first is bolox, the second one is a way to research.
Though in the modern world, thanks to the biased people (some of them are biased for a good reasons, some others not) as well as media, the world revisionism was forced to aquire only the negative meaning. Wheras in fact it should be understood as research.

Ahmadinedjad officially is for revisionism, not for denial.


So, If I understand you correctly, when the Arab nations speak of wiping Israel off the map, they merely mean the poltical map and not the topographical map i.e the Sovereign state of Israel will become defunked? Therefore, there would be no more state of Israel - presumably, it would become Palestine - the jewish people which populate the state of Israel whom we currently refer to as Isreali citizens) would be allowed to continue with their lives either in the Arab state of Palestine (let's pretend, for arugments sake, that it is Palestine) or they will be free to emigrate, as they did when the Romans chucked them out - how will this be achieved?

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 04:27 PM
Let's suppose, for a moment, that Russia is allowed to join NATO and the EU; that Europe flourishes and everything European becomes hunky-dory, the new world leader/Superpower. Would this lead, inevitably; to war between the U.S and Europe?

32Bravo
01-18-2008, 04:33 PM
Never underestimate the power of wishing.

I'm going for eighteen, now that seventeen's been achieved. :mrgreen:


Mine's only one inch...........from the ground!

Kato
01-18-2008, 05:59 PM
So, If I understand you correctly, when the Arab nations speak of wiping Israel off the map, they merely mean the poltical map and not the topographical map i.e the Sovereign state of Israel will become defunked? Therefore, there would be no more state of Israel - presumably, it would become Palestine - the jewish people which populate the state of Israel whom we currently refer to as Isreali citizens) would be allowed to continue with their lives either in the Arab state of Palestine (let's pretend, for arugments sake, that it is Palestine) or they will be free to emigrate, as they did when the Romans chucked them out - how will this be achieved?

Don't you find that the problems of Israel are imposed on Americans? Is it really worth viewing the attitude to Israel on behalf of other nations as a sort of main creteria for the US policy abroad?

Nickdfresh
01-18-2008, 06:14 PM
I would never laugh about Turkey. If the Islamists gain control there, NATO is in for an interesting time. Even more interesting if it happens after Turkey joins the EU.

As for the Armenian Genocide, it's an old event that's not an issue that affects membership of NATO, any more than, say, internal exile and other events in the USSR are in considering Russia's membership of NATO....


As for the Islamicists, they actually HAVE gained control through elections, but have shown themselves to be fairly responsible and to rule pretty much as any previous Turkish party, or the military for that matter, has...

Nickdfresh
01-18-2008, 06:17 PM
Is it that photo of your honest face that you have promised to show for us in other thread Nick?:)
Is the gin going out of the bottle?:)

You've been visited by conspiracy cat!

Gin? You mean vodka or tequila! And no, but I did have a beer to make me sleepy as it was the middle of the night and I get insomnia at times. Unfortunately is was crappy Budweiser. :(

Nickdfresh
01-18-2008, 06:28 PM
That's right.
So why in OP the Turkey might be in NATO but Russia no?



Chevan, what evidence do we have that the current Russian gov't wants anything to do with NATO?


I/m too sick of that Middle East conflict that seems exist just to get zionist additional reasons to reach its own aims.So is this a reason of biased relation toward russia?

The Middle East conflict has little to do with the NATO expansion question, directly anyways...

But stop pretending that it's all about the Zionist Jews in Israel. That's a big part of it, as is the US enabling of Israel which seems to be waning ever so slightly. And the Arab states are also at least as equally full of shit as Israel is when it comes to the Palestinian question, a lot of it is about empty rhetoric and using the "Jews" as "boogiemen" to buck up their corrupt, sagging authoritarian gov'ts...

But the thing is about money, oil, and who controls the ever decreasing resource with the rise of China...

Nickdfresh
01-18-2008, 06:31 PM
As distinct from your photo, which I assume was the first Russian cat into space, with the high tech crumple zone helmet to protect it on those Soviet head first hard landings? :D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vjulmL0aSIE

...

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g24/bouwerieboy/catInTinfoil.jpg[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Nickdfresh
01-18-2008, 06:38 PM
...
It's all about self-interest and national interest, which is why no nation of any significance gives a shit about the most appalling massacres in the Horn of Africa and other parts of black Africa which specialise in butchery that makes Yugoslavia look restrained...

For whatever reason, blacks in Rwanda and Somalia and Angola and Zimbabwe etc aren't worthy of one one hundredth of the effort the major natons have put into frigging about in the UN with an intransigent Israel for half a century.
...

Don't forget about the Congo, the bloodiest orgy of wanton, self-serving violence since WWII...

Rising Sun*
01-19-2008, 04:03 AM
Don't forget about the Congo, the bloodiest orgy of wanton, self-serving violence since WWII...

Well, you have to expect that of jungle bunnies, same as the Mau Mau in Kenya and other pieces of African bloodletting.

If only they were more civilised, like, say, Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot, Africa would be so much better. :evil:

Still, the Congo produced the memorable phrase attributed to a BBC reporter asking a group of nuns who'd fled the Congo and later the title of a great book by Edward Behr, "Anybody here been raped and speak English?"

Rising Sun*
01-19-2008, 04:06 AM
Do I detect a slight note of cynicism, or are you merely highlighting my naivety, mon petite pois?

Cynical?

Moi?

Nah!

I'm having a go at your nativity, mate. :D

32Bravo
01-19-2008, 06:18 AM
I'm having a go at your nativity, mate. :D

How unkind, could you not allow me to sleep easy in my simple state of blissfull ignorance, mange tout? :)

Chevan
01-19-2008, 11:55 AM
Gin? You mean vodka or tequila! And no, but I did have a beer to make me sleepy as it was the middle of the night and I get insomnia at times. Unfortunately is was crappy Budweiser. :(
it sadly that in your 37 you have the troubles with a sleep. This is a direct resault of you lovely beer.Stop drink every evening:)
Take the example of the mst Bravo- the sport style of life- the excellent figure and girls love is guaranted.
Not just cats but and real girls will look at you :)
If i need to make sleep quikly i just use the re-reading of my favorite books: Bevour , Clark and Muhin ( russian popular author). And through few mimutes i get a sleep just like a child:)

Chevan
01-19-2008, 12:29 PM
Chevan, what evidence do we have that the current Russian gov't wants anything to do with NATO?

Well if you have missed all my previous posts:).......
Let transform this question a bit - what did NATO to notice the russian attempts toward integration and parthership till the 2003?When the Russian relations were the most friend.
The "current Russia" my friend is the bit other state.
We have clearly saw that instead the equal partnership and mutual guaranties- the NATO simply goes further and could not stop.
The Europe is again included in arm race- the new american plans to place nuclear rockets in the Eastern Europe could not make us happy. You should understand it as well as the Washington's nonsense about "Iran nucler threat". There is no doubt that those rockets should be directed agains China and ... probably Russia.
So you please do not play a fool ... asking "what evidence do we have ".
There are a lot of evidences - even today Putin desperatelly try to interact with the NATO. Recently he have offered the idea to use hte Russian Radar Station in the American AAA- global systems- but his idea " did not found the support in the Washington".
If you think that we russian as much idiots as you have been inspired by you holliwood propoganda and CNN- and we will do nothing watching as the new nuclear rockets are appearing near the our borders:)- i can advice you just to drink a less of beer befor sleep.



The Middle East conflict has little to do with the NATO expansion question, directly anyways...

The Middle East conflict was mentioned JUST top demonstrate you as the members of NATO could behave itself even worsen then Russia and all OK:)



But the thing is about money, oil, and who controls the ever decreasing resource with the rise of China...
That's just when i hear true thought from you:)
That's all agains China. But the problem here is the Russia- the political isolation of Russia inevitably should force it to creat pro-china military alliance soon or later.
So in this way we could get soon a real problem of understnding and trust in future.

Chevan
01-19-2008, 02:56 PM
Let's suppose, for a moment, that Russia is allowed to join NATO and the EU; that Europe flourishes and everything European becomes hunky-dory, the new world leader/Superpower. Would this lead, inevitably; to war between the U.S and Europe?
This is not so funny question as could seen in first view dear Bravo:)
The Russian involving into NATO is a bit other matter than in EU.
As you know though EU occup the terriotry with population over 350 mln - it could not be compared with USA. Neither in the Military nor in economical nor in political influence sense.
The America still rules by the world:)
The Union Europe is still wery weak as the Union of states that could protect its common interests.But EU do develop it need the new resources- therefor Russia could be very usefull for it.
Together with Russian EU could be actually one of the most world centre and could succesfully resist even the Chinas economucal expansion as well as Americans.
As we know the Europe was never enough independent form USA after the end of the ww2.The Americans carefully watched for Europe since the Marshall plan has been realized.
Even the military structure NATO was created by the USA mainly as a mean of protection and moving of its interests forward.
From pure geopolitical point of view - Washington is not interested but TOO independent Europe- they do not wish the one more strong competitor for America;)
And you as European should realize the difference of the European and American approaches toward Russia.
This is pure geopolitica nothing personal.
The strategy of Washington toward russia is to isolate us from the rest Europe via the creation of belt pro-american states and supportion anti-russians pseudo-democratic pro-americans regimes simular like in Georgia where the local dictator rules as he want or like in Ukraine where the different group of oligarhs beat each other in fight for power.Sad but there a lot of rusophobs and nationalist in Eastern Europe that ready to blame the neighbourd state in his personal problems.
Unfortinatelly for the Europe - direct resault of that American policy is the shortage of enegry sources and as the consequence - the problems with economical rise in the EU.
So you should see that the anti-russian american policy ( that often is covered by "care about democracy" and "worry about rise of dictatorship" in Russia) in fact is a policy agains Europe.Even the inner behaviour of Putin in mach scale is determined by this american policy:)( i mean when he has closed the American sponsored media organisations in Russia).

The Russian try to neitralize this policy via the more close economical contacts with old members like Germany. The new gas and oil project are realising today with this aim.
But untill now the USA succesfully use the "old card" - anti-russian fears and prejudices of Europeans.
And Europe lose.....They lose the European base of resources - Russia:)
On the contrary the Americans even do not wish to isolate themself from the resources.
USA has already captured the Iraq oil field by the most insolent and direct way - via the military invasion. now they prepeare the new invation into Iran with simular aims.
Also they State Department officially declared the zone of Kaspij sea ( the other rich of resources place) as a zone of American interests.
So they play a geopolitical game with great success- the EU is a kid in comparition with USA:)
So do not make a tragical mistake my friend- the Russia is a part of Europe - we should be together finally. Coz we have no any more choise - we do not wish to be a part of China or be teared into the pieces by the USA in the many "independent" oil and banan states otherway .

32Bravo
01-19-2008, 03:53 PM
This is not so funny question as could seen in first view dear Bravo:)

Wasn't meant to be 'funny' in any sense of the word, old chap.



The Russian involving into NATO is a bit other matter than in EU.
As you know though EU occup the terriotry with population over 350 mln - it could not be compared with USA. Neither in the Military nor in economical nor in political influence sense.
The America still rules by the world:)
The Union Europe is still wery weak as the Union of states that could protect its common interests.But EU do develop it need the new resources- therefor Russia could be very usefull for it.
Together with Russian EU could be actually one of the most world centre and could succesfully resist even the Chinas economucal expansion as well as Americans.

This is what I was aiming at when posing (not a typo) the question.



As we know the Europe was never enough independent form USA after the end of the ww2.The Americans carefully watched for Europe since the Marshall plan has been realized.
Even the military structure NATO was created by the USA mainly as a mean of protection and moving of its interests forward.

Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality in oder to create a buffer-zone between itself and Germany. The USSR occupied eastern European states for pretty much the same reason.



From pure geopolitical point of view - Washington is not interested but TOO independent Europe- they do not wish the one more strong competitor for America;)

Agreed.....



And you as European should realize the difference of the European and American approaches toward Russia.
This is pure geopolitica nothing personal.


...and again.



So you should see that the anti-russian american policy ( that often is covered by "care about democracy"


Liberty, freedom and democracy are all a bit of a sham. No one is free in its altruistic sense, to be so one would have to live on a different planet.




The Russian try to neitralize this policy via the more close economical contacts with old members like Germany. The new gas and oil project are realising today with this aim.


The British people are very concerned regarding our possible dependence on Russian gas and oil, hence (or at least in part) the latest policies on further developing neuclear power sources.



But untill now the USA succesfully use the "old card" - anti-russian fears and prejudices of Europeans.
And Europe lose.....They lose the European base of resources - Russia:)
I refer the gentleman to my previous comment.



On the contrary the Americans even do not wish to isolate themself from the resources.
USA has already captured the Iraq oil field by the most insolent and direct way - via the military invasion. now they prepeare the new invation into Iran with simular aims.
Also they State Department officially declared the zone of Kaspij sea ( the other rich of resources place) as a zone of American interests.
So they play a geopolitical game with great success- the EU is a kid in comparition with USA:)
So do not make a tragical mistake my friend- the Russia is a part of Europe - we should be together finally. Coz we have no any more choise - we do not wish to be a part of China or be teared into the pieces by the USA in the many "independent" oil and banan states otherway .


Well, there is a long road to tavel you will be able to convince the West of that. The headliner, which I posted from the 'Telegraph' earlier, did more damage to British perceptions of Russian trustworthiness, and it isn't the U.S. that is to blame for those headlines, but President Putin - very foolish if he wishes to garner good relations with Britain.

There is truth and there is perception - and perception is everything!

Personally, I have become so cynical regarding governments and their policies and their ability to bamboozle the people that I mistrust most. You may be speaking with utmost sincerity, but do I know that somene hasn't been pulling your strings since the time of your youth without you being awar of it?

I was raised a Roman Catholic - "Give me a child of seven.." the Jesuits used to say "..and he's mine for life!" (they obviously never met RS ;)).

Wars are usually fought for economic reasons - supply and demand - 'You have something I want, and so I'm taking it!' e.g. 'Cod' :D. http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/cod/index.htm

So getting back to my question, I think what you are saying is thta you agree that a Europe which included Russia would eventually mean a war between Europe and the U.S. (and that's before we even get on to the subject of China).

Keep the faith my friend, their's hope for mankind yet.

32Bravo
01-19-2008, 04:16 PM
Don't you find that the problems of Israel are imposed on Americans? Is it really worth viewing the attitude to Israel on behalf of other nations as a sort of main creteria for the US policy abroad?

I have no argument with that, per se. Could it be that the U.S. by their historic support for Israel have created this situation i.e 'made a rod for their own back'? Is it not true that their is a strong and powerful, Jewish lobby of American citizens that prevent the U.S. from excluding Israel as a main criteria of its foreign policy?

Chevan
01-19-2008, 04:57 PM
Wasn't meant to be 'funny' in any sense of the word, old chap.

Oh sorry my stoopid english:)



Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality in oder to create a buffer-zone between itself and Germany. The USSR occupied eastern European states for pretty much the same reason.

The USSR is not existed already 17 years- so we need to move forward.


Liberty, freedom and democracy are all a bit of a sham. No one is free in its altruistic sense, to be so one would have to live on a different planet.

:)


The British people are very concerned regarding our possible dependence on Russian gas and oil, hence (or at least in part) the latest policies on further developing neuclear power sources.

I refer the gentleman to my previous comment.

This is not possible dependence on Russia my friend , but the MUTUAL economical dependence - i.e the normal process for the member of EU. As you know the strong mutual dependence is the guaranty that the war would never happand. Actually - why we should fight each other for resources ( coz in fact the ALL wars are the the wars for resources) if the Europe could simply use our russian resources without any problems.
So this is normal way to sign the new contracts with Russia - this is good for all of us.
But SOME FORCES try to describe this in the west as the "increase of dependence on Russia".
This is a just attempt to use the old fears agains the Europe ( that i told above).
Do not forget the Russia would export the gas and oil anyway- if not in Europe, then to the China.


Well, there is a long road to tavel you will be able to convince the West of that. The headliner, which I posted from the 'Telegraph' earlier, did more damage to British perceptions of Russian trustworthiness, and it isn't the U.S. that is to blame for those headlines, but President Putin - very foolish if he wishes to garner good relations with Britain.

There is truth and there is perception - and perception is everything!

Here something more that just about the Putin.
You should realize that Putin behave as the rat that drived into corner - he try to neitralize that damage of russian influence and reputation( i hope you will not deny the russian right for influence in world:)).
The all Russian-British scandal is nothing but tinsel of some more importaint things in the world.
He just try to show that the TIMES when the West determined what to do have finished.
He openly declared the russian independence and he try to restore the authority state power inside, that was fully losed by the always drunk Yeltsyn.
You should look at the root of problem - we have the only one final solution- we sould be in Europe, but till this most moment we should save the russia and prevent the possible bloody ethnical conflicts as in Yugoslavia.
While Putin succesfully has decided the very danger Chechen's problem ( that was created previously by 'democrat Yeltsysn")


Personally, I have become so cynical regarding governments and their policies and their ability to bamboozle the people that I mistrust most. You may be speaking with utmost sincerity, but do I know that somene hasn't been pulling your strings since the time of your youth without you being awar of it?

You still do not trust for the true:)
I speak sincerely not becouse just i like you , but becouse this is objective process of globalization- there no other choise we have. We would be part of Europe or part of Asia or (save god ) the part of muslim middle east..
I vote for Europe...



So getting back to my question, I think what you are saying is thta you agree that a Europe which included Russia would eventually mean a war between Europe and the U.S. (and that's before we even get on to the subject of China).

No there will never a war if russia will save its nuclear potential.
Coz USA will not attack the EU in this way:)They simply will have no monopoly for the Absolute World Military power:)
Therefor Putin does right trying to reanimate the old russian Strategic missles, bombers and submarins.
Not to attack somebody - this would be the most stopid desicion, but to save the Russia , Europe and world from the absolute destructive monopoly of US.


Keep the faith my friend, their's hope for mankind yet.

I/m always keep the faith in my heart my fried.
I/m not religious but i believe...

32Bravo
01-19-2008, 05:12 PM
Do you not think that your mistrust of the U.S. is a mirror image of the mistrust westrners have for Russia?

If you are unable to come to terms with the U.S. how do you expect it to work the other way around with Europeans, after all, the Europeans share much the same political phylosophy as the U.S. i.e. market driven demcracies ( I use the term 'democracy' loosely)?

Nickdfresh
01-19-2008, 11:04 PM
it sadly that in your 37 you have the troubles with a sleep.

It's not really that "sad." I've always had "trouble" with sleep since ever I can remember. In fact, I actually have less trouble as I get older...


This is a direct resault of you lovely beer.Stop drink every evening:)

Perhaps. I'm well aware of the 'alcohol rebound effect.' But the truth is, I have insomnia when I do not drink as well.

And FYI, I don't drink every evening...


Take the example of the mst Bravo- the sport style of life- the excellent figure and girls love is guaranted.

Bravo is a stud, but girls like me too. ;)

And I was also a workout maniac at one time. And I probably will be one again.


Not just cats but and real girls will look at you :)

Both cats and real girls look at me brother. It's more about charm and confidence with women anyways. I have both, especially with your Russian girls...;)


If i need to make sleep quikly i just use the re-reading of my favorite books: Bevour , Clark and Muhin ( russian popular author). And through few mimutes i get a sleep just like a child:)

Well I read a lot, but I tend to get even more tense depending on the subject matter. I do really need to start running again though. But in truth, that really only helps to a certain extent....

32Bravo
01-20-2008, 04:31 AM
Perhaps. I'm well aware of the 'alcohol rebound effect.' But the truth is, I have insomnia when I do not drink as well.

Is that on account of bed wetting? :)




And FYI, I don't drink every evening...


Amateur! :)




Both cats and real girls look at me brother.



Are you the Batman?



Well I read a lot, but I tend to get even more tense depending on the subject matter. I do really need to start running again though. But in truth, that really only helps to a certain extent....


Try a woman, old chap, then you can just turn over and go to sleep, as, I'm led to understand, is the usual way with the U.S. male. ;)

Rising Sun*
01-20-2008, 05:47 AM
Perhaps. I'm well aware of the 'alcohol rebound effect.' But the truth is, I have insomnia when I do not drink as well.

Me too.

When I do not drink as well as I can, my body can't handle the reduced intake of alcohol and I stay awake for ages. So I always try to drink as well as I can. Be the best you can, and all that. ;)


And FYI, I don't drink every evening...

Me neither. Very occasionally I'm forced to get home late and have to start at night. ;)

I also like drinking alone. Avoids the pointless pub conversation, and the missus. What can be bad about that?

Every time I take one of those "Are you an alcoholic?" tests, I win. :D

What hope has any reasonable bloke got? Now the doctor experts have dropped safe drinking levels from four to two standard drinks a day here. It's hardly worth opening the fridge for that, not least because a long neck of beer has about three standard drinks in it. Am I supposed to throw the last third away? It doesn't keep, but what would young doctors know about that, sipping carrot juice and living on trail mix as they ride their three thousand dollar bicycles (that killed half a continent and relied on virtual slaves for materials and early manufacture) through the evil car traffic, sucking in enough shit to destroy their sanctimonious lungs before they're forty, with any luck.

Anyway, when did you ever get sensible health advice from a doctor who didn't smoke and drink? It's like getting marriage guidance from a marriage guidance counsellor who isn't divorced, and most of them are divorced because they are serious tools. Actually, they're not. They're not even married, because they're serious tools. Bearded wannabe intellectuals. And that's just the dykes!


And I was also a workout maniac at one time.

Why on earth would anyone do that?

I'm with whoever it was - Mark Twain? Oscar Wilde? - When I feel the urge to exercise, I lay down until it passes.


I do really need to start running again though. But in truth, that really only helps to a certain extent....

I've never seen it, but I'm still hoping to see one of the funniest and most ironic sights. A jogger run over by a car.

Running didn't do James Fixx any good. He died at 52, fit as buggery. I don't run. I try to avoid walking. I'm as unfit as buggery and I've outlived him by 6 years. And, if he was alive instead of wearing himself out with all that running, I could drink the silly ***** under the table. Because instead of wasting my time training my body, I've concentrated on exercising my liver. This flows from my classical inclinations, as the classical Romans and Greeks put a lot of store in the liver. As should the Romans, with their orgies and vomitoriums. {Edit: I should have paid more attention in Latin classes. I think it should be vomitoria.}

Anyway, the basis of good health is the food pyramid.

Fat, alcohol and paracetemol.

Works for me. :D

Kato
01-20-2008, 08:55 AM
Why the USA do not wish join the Russia to NATO

If Russia joins the NATO it will have to play in full accordance to the US rules. There are no advantages in it for the Russian ruling class, only disadvantages. There have been no official inquiries as to possibilities of the Russian membership in the NATO and it is likely that there will be none of them in future.

The same reason can be applied to the possibility of the RF membership in the EU. Nowadays the Russian ruling class is free in using its state monopoly on gas, oil and natural resources to trade with Europe. If the RF joins the EU there will be necessity to revise it according to the interests of other members of the EU.

Besides, one shouldn't forget that the Russian Federation is not a unitarian state but a huge union of Russian and very different numerous indeginous non-Russian nations with their own federal territories. It is highly doubtful that the organizational sructures of the EU and the RF are compatible. The bulk of the RF lies outside Europe.

The problems with separatism in the RF and the EU are incomparable. Are you really going to compare still smouldering conflict in Chechnya and North Caucases ( that has already caused 250000 deaths only among locals) with Basconia or Corsica?

Chevan
01-21-2008, 03:11 AM
I also like drinking alone. Avoids the pointless pub conversation, and the missus. What can be bad about that?

Every time I take one of those "Are you an alcoholic?" tests, I win. :D

Well if conder how many times and post you usially leave in forum - we could to conclude that you not are no quite alone whan you drink at home.
I mean you are in the forum.
I personally , do not like to drink whan i in forums , i drink not a much - well maybe a 0.5-1 littlre of beer per week( but no each week:)
So with comparition with you - i.m a kid:)


What hope has any reasonable bloke got? Now the doctor experts have dropped safe drinking levels from four to two standard drinks a day here. It's hardly worth opening the fridge for that, not least because a long neck of beer has about three standard drinks in it. Am I supposed to throw the last third away? It doesn't keep, but what would young doctors know about that, sipping carrot juice and living on trail mix as they ride their three thousand dollar bicycles (that killed half a continent and relied on virtual slaves for materials and early manufacture) through the evil car traffic, sucking in enough shit to destroy their sanctimonious lungs before they're forty, with any luck.

Anyway, when did you ever get sensible health advice from a doctor who didn't smoke and drink? It's like getting marriage guidance from a marriage guidance counsellor who isn't divorced, and most of them are divorced because they are serious tools. Actually, they're not. They're not even married, because they're serious tools. Bearded wannabe intellectuals. And that's just the dykes!

:)



Why on earth would anyone do that?

You even do not try to inspire the Nickdfresh to take the example from you:)
Coz he need for us alive , in a clear mind and enough active to support discipline in here as a mod:)
HeHe became too lazy when he is drink:)
BTW The man's body SHOULD move - this is demand of nature.The MOTION is the LIFE.
The physical exercises is the best way ( and most cheapest !!- for you to know ) to support body and as a consequence- the health in a good form.
Coz the all the functions of organism depend from a good heart and musculs activity - the many iillness has the the initial reason the lack of the motion.
I personaly visits the sport-rooms 3-4 times per weak. I like a bodybuilding and at least once per week ( if a weather enough good) the running 3-5 km in around city stadium.


I'm with whoever it was - Mark Twain? Oscar Wilde? - When I feel the urge to exercise, I lay down until it passes.

:)
Be carefull my friend - once you can lay down and never stand up again:)
We will sorrow for you very much:)Coz you a real member that make a lot of fun and interest in here.



I've never seen it, but I'm still hoping to see one of the funniest and most ironic sights. A jogger run over by a car.

Running didn't do James Fixx any good. He died at 52, fit as buggery. I don't run. I try to avoid walking. I'm as unfit as buggery and I've outlived him by 6 years. And, if he was alive instead of wearing himself out with all that running, I could drink the silly ***** under the table. Because instead of wasting my time training my body, I've concentrated on exercising my liver. This flows from my classical inclinations, as the classical Romans and Greeks put a lot of store in the liver. As should the Romans, with their orgies and vomitoriums. {Edit: I should have paid more attention in Latin classes. I think it should be vomitoria.}

The sport-maniacs is the other danger illness of some crazy people:)
But this does not mean you could lay in a bad and instead to walk in a fresh air( at least)


Anyway, the basis of good health is the food pyramid.

Fat, alcohol and paracetemol.

Works for me. :D

Holy true:)
this works for everybody else, but unfortinatelly NOT LONG TIME:)
BTW what is yous weight and blood pressure?

Chevan
01-21-2008, 03:30 AM
Well guys back to a serious topic:)

Do you not think that your mistrust of the U.S. is a mirror image of the mistrust westrners have for Russia?

Yes i think you right- however it was tupical for Soviet point.
But since the 1991 the russians view toward america have been seriously revised .
From the absolute "love and trus" - till the more realible value and new suspect in the 1998 when NATO without any doubt and correspondence with Russia has bombed the Belgrad.
This was a first hard teach for us.
But problem of the West - that it even do not wish to revise the Wester relation toward russia.
The "Evil russia" still often usefull in western propoganda.


If you are unable to come to terms with the U.S. how do you expect it to work the other way around with Europeans, after all, the Europeans share much the same political phylosophy as the U.S. i.e. market driven demcracies ( I use the term 'democracy' loosely)?

Well again we was wanted to find the terms with USA my friend.
But the USA do not need to come to mutual agreement now- don't you really see it?
The nobody even wish to hear the right Russian objections agains the place new Nuclear Rockets in Eastern Europe.
The Wasgington need to impose only their view and conditions - could be found agreement here?
They openly offer to place the Rockets in Chech republic - as the compensation they presented the chech population right to visit USA without visas. Shortly speaking they offer the "bribe for the Chechs" - to place in Europe the new Rockets that could be usefull in Anti- China and Anti-russian pro-American political pressure in future.
Is this that "term" that we chould find the "agreements"?
I do not think so.

Rising Sun*
01-21-2008, 05:29 AM
BTW what is yous weight and blood pressure?

Within normal limits, and significantly lower than average cholestorol. It was about ten years ago, anyway, when I went to see a doctor when I was down with the dreaded lurgie and the ***** stuck the cuff on me and took blood and stuff, carrying on about how it's important at my age to have regular health checks. I've been avoiding the ***** ever since. What makes a doctor think I'm in the least interested in statistics and the latest theories about what he thinks about what's going to kill me? There's no evidence they know what they're talking about. Everything causes cancer and heart disease and every remedy for them causes one or the other or something else equally bad, which they usually work out ten or twenty years after they've got us on a new path to death. Doctors don't live any longer than anyone else.

I had a melanoma a dozen years ago and another earlier different and slower type of skin cancer a few years back, caught before it got nasty. The odds are I'm going to get knocked off by a killer freckle. On that basis, I reckon I should enjoy as much grog and saturated fat as I can. At least I'll have something to regret if they kill me. Better than living on carrots and bloody mung beans for sixty or seventy years for an extra nine months of life.

My motto is: Everything in moderation. Especially moderation! :D

Chevan
01-27-2008, 03:26 AM
Within normal limits, and significantly lower than average cholestorol. It was about ten years ago, anyway, when I went to see a doctor when I was down with the dreaded lurgie and the ***** stuck the cuff on me and took blood and stuff, carrying on about how it's important at my age to have regular health checks. I've been avoiding the ***** ever since. What makes a doctor think I'm in the least interested in statistics and the latest theories about what he thinks about what's going to kill me? There's no evidence they know what they're talking about. Everything causes cancer and heart disease and every remedy for them causes one or the other or something else equally bad, which they usually work out ten or twenty years after they've got us on a new path to death. Doctors don't live any longer than anyone else.

I try to avoid *****s and drugs as long as i can.
The doctors seems really hate us , or at least look at us as at the matter of their personal welfare.
Therefore my motto is - the profilactic is the best way to fight for your health.
The moderate sport is the very importaint part of this profilactic.
You are lucky man who has the good health from a beginning( this is clear from you relation to the *****s)
However according the statistic about 70% of young have the different deviations of normal.( and about 20% have the serious innate defects).
Soi think they could not use your love to the fat and alchohol as a the admissible.


I had a melanoma a dozen years ago and another earlier different and slower type of skin cancer a few years back, caught before it got nasty. The odds are I'm going to get knocked off by a killer freckle. On that basis, I reckon I should enjoy as much grog and saturated fat as I can. At least I'll have something to regret if they kill me. Better than living on carrots and bloody mung beans for sixty or seventy years for an extra nine months of life.

Actually there is a some kind of illness like the skin cancer that less depend on you.
However the almost all serious problems with healt starts from the heart disasters and hight blood pressure.
So the Active Motion is the best way to prevent it.
Besides do not forget - the sport make our life vivid and active.
I feels much better themself next day aftert the good exercises

My motto is: Everything in moderation. Especially moderation! :D
Thts' true.