The United States(!) of A

factotum's picture
factotum started the topic in Thursday, 27 Aug 2020 at 11:12am

Septic Tanks are going to Septic Tank

sypkan's picture
sypkan's picture
sypkan Saturday, 17 Sep 2022 at 3:33pm

"there is no border crisis!"

"we are sanctuary cities"

...until...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-ron-desantis-human-traffi...

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/migrants-win-free-trip-to-marthas-viney...

possibly the funniest and smartest political move ever... poliics aside, super smart...

ignore tucker carlson if you must... but a quote's a quote... and there's some damning ones in there

and, the army... they called the army!

hypocrisy has truly gone next level

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Saturday, 17 Sep 2022 at 7:39pm

You’ve got a real boner for Tucker hey?

This is 3 days old.

You been in a coma? The ‘funny’ and ‘smart’ angles of the stunt might have been overtaken by other perspectives.

sypkan's picture
sypkan's picture
sypkan Saturday, 17 Sep 2022 at 11:43pm

no boner... just a strange curioslity...

the funny is hilarious, because it's made an absolute mockery of everything the democrats have ever said on the issue

the smart is, because its made the media actually talk about the issue, 2 years late, and 2 million or more 'undocumented' migrants later...

and that's only the ones they know about

and the hypocrisy... oh the hypocrisy!

of the martha's vineyard set, biden's secret midnight migrant flight shuffles, and the sancturay cities, who flat out denied any such crisis ...until an absolute miniscule portion of migrants turned up on their doorseteps...

political dynamite, whatever you think of the players...

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Sunday, 18 Sep 2022 at 7:36am
etarip wrote:
frog, good post and plenty to discuss.

I still think the NATO expansion theme is totally overstated. Past 15 years, 2 countries have joined NATO. Neither country contiguous to Russia. Total population - 2.5 million."

The NATO expansion can be painted as seeming inconsequential as you have but this pattern sits alongside the following context:

Putin quote "But they have always been seeking the dissolution of our country – this is very true. It is unfortunate that at some point they decided to use Ukraine for these purposes."

Rightly or wrongly he sees a pattern and a plan to Russia's harm with Ukraine at the pointy end.

I think your previous comment that the US saw the invasion as an "incredible opportunity" (to weaken Russia I presume) means you understand the context of the sense of threat Putin feels very well.

It suits you to downplay this issue for some reason when you discuss the causes for Russia's actions. Why i wonder?

It is only one leg of the 3 legged stool analogy i made. But evidence of plans for the dissolution of their country is not an insignificant thing for a leader to consider.

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Sunday, 18 Sep 2022 at 8:22am

I have been in one fist fight in my life. The other guy threw the first punch while my arms were full of stuff I was carrying.

Who started the fight. He did. Who caused it? I did. If I had not been annoying him over a period of time (stupid stuff) it would never have happened.

Technically it could be called unprovoked according to theory on provocation and was therefore the first punchers fault. But that teaches nothing about cause and effect or how to avoid fights.

Surf muscles won the day.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Sunday, 18 Sep 2022 at 9:21am

I think you’re misrepresenting what I’ve written about the ‘opportunity’. You’ve seized upon that as some sort of admission that this is all part of some carefully orchestrated plan.

It wasn’t. The US, along with almost everyone else, expected Ukraine to collapse and planned accordingly. The mistake was the invasion, and that was Putin’s error. He created the specific situation by resorting to military action at the time and in the way that he did.

The opportunity turned out to be Putin’s invasion and the way it played out. Russian mistakes and Ukrainian resolve are the reason Putin’s goals weren’t achieved. This war can end, and Russia can reduce its vulnerability to sanctions and internal strife by ceasing military actions and returning to the pre-24 February borders (at a minimum) at any time. The decision to start and continue this war is Russia’s.

Maybe reverse your analogy - the surf muscles might actually be the West’s?

Maybe we’re just never going to agree on this final point. That’s fine. - NATO expansion was the confected pretext, not the reason for the invasion of Ukraine (a state that had been repeatedly told it could not join NATO). Russia wants Ukrainian resources and it doesn’t want a strong, independent, European-aligned Ukraine.

If you want to develop or explore a meddling theme, have you considered the theory that the Donbas crisis was created by Russia in 2014, and then sustained, precisely for the reason that current involvement in a conflict precludes (by convention if not actually in writing) a state becoming a NATO member?

And, you’ve never addressed the question, If NATO expansion to Russian borders is a ‘justifiable’ trigger for war, why has Russia done nothing about Finland and Sweden both commencing and accelerating the process to join? Nothing. Nada, nyet.

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Sunday, 18 Sep 2022 at 11:14am

My impressions of 2014 events is that it is murky and hard to unpick.

I think oil and gas resources of the Ukraine are a major motivator for Russia to make its move.

But I suspect that if the west had focussed on positioning the Ukraine as a neutral buffer zone and did not in multiple ways give indications that they would like Russia to be weakened, broken up and isolated it would have been much harder for Russia to justify the invasion - internally and externally to China, India etc.

Putin may well have been content to sell lots of oil and gas to Europe and leave the status quo in place.

Do nothing is always an option.

Official membership of NATO by the Ukraine might have been a long way off. But unofficially it was becoming part of it in all but name.

Jumping to now. It seems it has recently become a full NATO versus Russia conflict with newly trained troops, new tactics, more equipment, experienced contract soldiers with interesting accents.

Plenty of new muscle.

US general sees total victory by next year. Maybe.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Sunday, 18 Sep 2022 at 1:09pm

“Full NATO vs Russia conflict”

Really?

“Part of NATO in all but name”

Which means what exactly?

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher Monday, 19 Sep 2022 at 8:42am

The cold stark nature of war.
Ukraine's record gains in reclaiming territory...but is it a false front?
As Winter descends upon Europe it becomes a War of Attrition.
EU are capping Russian Oil Exports
US are supplying longer range missiles to take out deeper strategic Russian Targets.
Whole of Russian wide Covid outbreak is rising to (60,000/day)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/russia/
Russian Troops are left out in the cold, walking away & handing over Tanks to Ukrainians.
Ukraine with a mass of weapons are fast reclaiming territory as Russia recall Winter outpost Troops.

Russia's default war strategy will no doubt need to play to its own strengths...
Russia owns or leases much of Ukraine's Energy & Resources & can cut supply mid Winter!
EU is also notoriously weak on Winter Resource.
Talk of 70-80% EU stockpile is laughable as any will sell of their reserves for instant 10x profit.

Any recent Ukraine gains will be short lived, racing to secure highly populated poorly resourced cities!
Russia may then also return deeper missiles to further undermine Ukraine domestic security.

Cannon Fodder Russian prisoners will be set free if they bitterly defend poorly resourced cold outposts.
Winter lends to more measured response with key targets the main game...(Increasing Civilian deaths)
We could be looking at a strategic Russian Covid / Winter colder war retreat until a restart in Spring.

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Monday, 19 Sep 2022 at 10:03am
etarip wrote:

“Full NATO vs Russia conflict”

Really?

“Part of NATO in all but name”

Which means what exactly?

Not sure if this was intentional or you just like debating but it feels a bit like this:

"The goal is to frustrate and tire by twisting someone's own words back at them, forcing them to defend themselves from their own words. So they argue semantics, attempting to make their someone explain themselves more and more pedantically....."

I am tired and will leave it at that.

DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet Monday, 19 Sep 2022 at 6:25pm

At least there’s no mean tweets!

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/biden-locks-in-defence-of-taiwan-austr...

Even better now that Biden has run down the US wartime emergency special oil supply*, given away huge portions of the US weapons cache to Ukraine and done his best to bankrupt the country.

*Also includes the Australian Special Oil Reserve! Yewww

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Monday, 19 Sep 2022 at 6:46pm

frog, I feel like they’re legitimate questions. I’m sorry that you don’t take them that way.

This isn’t quibbling about semantics.
You’ve put out some pretty big statements there. Devoid of substance or supporting evidence.

Have you read anything about the NATO-Ukraine relationship? The process for joining NATO? The process for foreign volunteers to join the Ukrainian military? (not mercenaries - they’re legally part of the Ukrainian armed forces, btw). What arms ‘have’ (and as importantly ‘have not’) been provided by foreign donors - NATO and non-NATO (and why)? These are all relevant to the statements you make.

Because if you have, it isn’t clear from what you post. I’m happy to continue discussing this. Or not. But if you post stuff without basis then I’m going to keep asking you questions right back. If you post something that you’re drawing your perspective from, there’s a good chance I’ll read it.

From 1997: https://www.brookings.edu/research/enlarging-nato-a-questionable-idea-wh...

Ukr perspective on joining NATO (ca 2018)
https://www.unian.info/politics/10023578-is-it-possible-to-join-nato-in-...

NATO FAQs:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/faq.htm

NATO / Ukraine relationship:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

New NATO members:
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-nato-will-change-if-finland-and-sweden-...

Why all the NATO stuff? Because people like talking about something that they haven’t tried to understand.

(I get it… it’s the internet)

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 7:19am

So, I open one of your links at random:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

What it describes looks like a very cosy, close and growing relationship or in my crude imprecise shorthand "Nato in all but name"

- Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
- Since 2009, the NUC has overseen Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration process, including reforms under the Annual National Programme (ANP).
- Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial, with Ukraine actively contributing to NATO-led operations and missions.
- Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
- Since the NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, NATO’s practical support for Ukraine is set out in the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine.
- In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution entered into force.
- In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine’s new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO.
- In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, since 2014 NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity-building in Ukraine.
NATO stands with the people of Ukraine and its legitimate, democratically elected president, parliament and government. The Alliance will always maintain its full support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.

On my "NATO versus Russia" short hand description by which I mean major support in every way possible

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/what-ukraine-needs-to...

https://www.nato-pa.int/news/allied-ukrainian-lawmakers-and-officials-di...

"but our Ukrainian friends need our ongoing, determined and united support to prevail,” President Connolly noted. “This Assembly will continue to play its full part in mobilizing support.”

II find it strange that
- when I state such fairly obvious points (maybe imprecisely) that are just part of the reality that you leap in to debate mode
- pose questions I am sure you know the answer to e.g.
"If NATO expansion to Russian borders is a ‘justifiable’ trigger for war, why has Russia done nothing about Finland and Sweden both commencing and accelerating the process to join? Nothing. Nada, nyet."
- perhaps they already have a serious fight on their hands, perhaps they were taken by surprise, perhaps they will use a different strategy, perhaps they do not have a decade of troubles with those two countries.
You know the answer. Why ask?

Just remember justification does not equal cause. A war can be unjustifiable but still happen. It will have causes. My main points have been on causes not justification.

So I say again, whether intentional or not:, your discussion approach is often:

"The goal is to frustrate and tire by twisting someone's own words back at them, forcing them to defend themselves from their own words. So they argue semantics, attempting to make their someone explain themselves more and more pedantically....."

I know keeping the swellnet "muppets" in line is an important job so I will leave you to it.

Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 12:22pm

etarip says:

‘Why all the NATO stuff? Because people like talking about something that they haven’t tried to understand.’

Skip to the 10:20 mark of this vid ;);)

https://m.

So… do you understand more? And are you more of an expert ? ;)

Are you posting with ‘basis’ ?
…. or bias ? ;);)

- or maybe your penchant for conflict is still unresolved…

Who knows ;)

- it may take more than a few months to get a proper understanding of that tho.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 5:49pm

Do you want me to answer these questions? Or are you speaking rhetorically?

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 7:10pm

It's almost as if Ukraine are NATO in all but name.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 8:47pm

Andy, I wouldn’t say so. But, hey fill your boots.
NATO member / NATO partner. Is there a difference? I think so. A pretty big gulf.

Article 5? Mean anything to you?

Let me guess. You haven’t bothered to check what the difference is? Again. But that’s just semantics, right? (Actually, it’s not…)

JF. I disagree with a few of the assessments of the guy in the video. Happy to explain what and why, but not sure if there’s any point. I also think you’ve confused employment of a simile with a statement of fact.

Frog. I’m sorry that you feel that my questions make you feel that you have to be pedantic in explaining what you mean when you say things like “a full NATO versus Russia conflict”. That’s a fairly emphatic statement.
Not much nuance. If you’re not comfortable explaining what you mean, you don’t have to. Please don’t do it on my account.

I think your three legs of a stool was a good argument, and I acknowledged that. My counter was that one of the “legs” was over-stated as a cause and that it’s essentially a distraction from the Russia’s actual reasons for war. Again, the Finland / Sweden question was to highlight the inconsistency in your position.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 9:21pm

Hey I was just going on what a former U.S. Marines intelligence officer was saying.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 10:05pm

Yeah, do you know what a simile is?

Like I said, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with everything he says on this topic. Neither would a few former colleagues that were US, UK and Australian military officers. He contradicts himself multiple times over in that video. Rewatch it. (Wait… lemme guess… you DIDN’T watch it!?! You fast-forwarded to 10.20, maybe scrolled back, then maybe a third time? And then you posted? Amirite?)

To be effective, intelligence assessments need to be contested. I think Iraq 2003 (re)taught us that.

Also, and not to detract from the content of the interview…
“William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer and convicted sex offender”

https://web.archive.org/web/20120113031324/https://www.poconorecord.com/...

I mean, everyone can make a simple mistake right? (Twice) That guy’s obviously of a good character since then. He’s clearly got heaps of calls for his analysis. completely unbiased. Here’s his biography on the Russia Today (RT) website.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/scott-ritter/

Finally, that interview was punishing to listen to. Those leading questions, narrative setting and the long preambles to new topics by the host sucked. It’s a curse on journalism.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Tuesday, 20 Sep 2022 at 10:13pm

JF, Sorry if I’m being pedantic or combative with your choice of source.

Convicted sex offenders who are paid up contributors to Russia Today aren’t usually my go to for expert analysis. Each to their own.

(Not to take away from ‘some’ of the decent analysis in his interview - AndyM - he wasn’t ‘your’ source, I get it)

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 7:05am

etarip,

A clever take down of Scott Ritter without really saying much on any points he made.

Once I saw JF post the link, I was waiting for you to post with the obligatory references to his past charges and the RT links. Sure enough in you swooped.

Strange how you seem to so often follow a sort of Standard Operating Procedure to defend the official narrative (disrupt, tire, frustrate) when swooping in to throw questions at us "muppets" (your word for us quite some posts ago). And now again, once a video that challenges the official narrative is posted, SOP comes out again (jump in, denigrate source, sidestep issues raised). I must say in terms of technique, you laid it on a little too thick - two posts to firmly put Ritter firmly in the untouchable category! Careful next time.

Have you had training in this? Are you paid to do it? Or have you just picked it up by osmosis from your past career?

Swellnet is a bit of a refuge from the overwhelming MSM official narrative on many topics. But in you come to keep us in line.

You obviously have some knowledge. Here you make an offer:
"JF. I disagree with a few of the assessments of the guy in the video. Happy to explain what and why, but not sure if there’s any point."

I would be interested in your explanations.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 7:23am

I don’t think you are frog.

Did you watch the video? It’s littered with contradictions. Here’s two:
- His estimate of Ukrainian and Russian casualties, and ratios, is completely out of whack with anything else I’ve seen - and he provides no evidence of his assertions.
- his contention that Kharkiv was predominantly held by lightly security armed troops (it was) is inconsistent with his subsequent assertion that these troops were able to inflict ‘massive’ casualties on a heavily armoured Ukrainian offensive.
Do I need to point them all out to you or are you capable of critical thought? I reckon you’ve got a strong tendency toward confirmation bias.

And, in the theme of consistency, I’ve posted plenty of links, many from non-western and non-“MSM”. Only once have you actually engaged with the content of those links - and it was when you believed that they supported your argument (when it didn’t - but I’ll accept your POV as a matter of semantics). When I do point out your failure to do so, you cry that I’m twisting your words and making you explain yourself.

Ref credibility of the source - it’s not unreasonable to consider the background and credibility of the source is it? Or do you only consider bias when it comes from western or MSM sources? Again, think about why an *expert* who has limited credibility (yes because of his sex offending but also because of his inconsistency on a range of topics)

Here we go again with your attacks on me. You’ve just accused me of keeping everyone in line with the MSM narrative? What have I posted that links to the MSM as a source? My guess is that you don’t read much of what anyone links to. Unless it supports (confirms) your own bias

Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 7:14am

Haha etarip… it’s ok, no apologies needed ;)
You are pedantic and combative- but it’s got nothing to do with the ‘choice’ of source…

That was sent to me by a friend of Russian heritage that lives in the US.
As far as I’m aware the bloke gave a commentary on Russia/ Ukraine - not sex advice ;);)

Now… I’m not gonna defend or pretend I know the guy talking. His points on NATO and Russia and Ukraine, however, were interesting. And relevant ;) With or without basis I don’t know - yet he does have some military intelligence credentials and he is also providing slightly inconvenient info ;);)

The host lady did a fantastic job of asking questions without actually talking. That was fascinating ;)
Russian bot ? ;);)

And for a host that ‘sucked’ - well, her main point was that she discouraged all war and is simply trying to gain a clearer and more impartial understanding of the situation.

This is not about taking sides.
It’s not ‘us’ versus ‘them’…

By the way…
ADF members swear allegiance to the crown. Strange how certain judgements on sex offences (or ‘convictions’) have been brought into this…

Is there a crown prince that is a serial sex offender and pedophile that is, to this day, protected by the British monarchy? ;);)

You know, the same institution our soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to?

Wow. That’s inconvenient ;)

Or… is it like ‘illegal’ invasions etc.
Different definitions for different folks ;)
- ok for us but not for them…. Again.

Double standards. Hypocrisy. Propaganda.

God save the king ;);)

Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 7:17am

https://m.

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 7:34am

JF. Couple of points:
Ref sourcing. Do you often go to sex offenders for sex advice? Interesting that both you and frog have seized upon his conviction for child sex offences but ignored his alignment with Russia Today.

Ref the Monarchy. I’m a republican by inclination.

Ref interviewing style. You must have listened to a different video to me?

Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 7:53am

Haha … nice edits ;)

Pedantic. Combative.

Your real inclination is only to listen to what you want to hear. That isn’t listening…

And no one is seizing upon anything - you are quick to point out anything that you think can be used to try and discredit info.

Yet your info and sources and understanding of the matter is more informed and accurate ? Of course ;)

Let’s not try be in judgement of one’s character tho. ;);)

Coz some people actually participated in illegal wars and, in doing so, also swore allegiance to a pedophile harbouring bunch of racist warmongers.

But we won’t mention that yeh…

Carry on ;)

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 8:10am

Still ignoring his bias and now reverting to personal attacks?

Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 8:32am

;)

Ignoring your bias…
And highlighting obvious truths.

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 9:12am

etarip,

Your debate style is a little combative - leave it at that. I have previously taken on board your confirmation bias point made many posts ago. It is a trap.

However, with the overwhelming official narrative in the MSM and the west winning the info war 10 to 1, even somewhat biased sources are worth considering.

The whole thing is so murky on both sides I actually don't have many totally defendable firm opinions on much of it.

My 3 legged stool analogy seems valid though (which has plenty of grey in it - which is reality). And, I still suspect that a different approach by the US could have put the move by Putin in the too hard basket - too risky and / or too hard to sell to China, India who had to be onboard etc

I think geopolitically the US saw this as a very important opportunity to ensure Germany in particular and Europe as well made a more substantial pivot away from Russia economically and in terms of energy dependence. Germany is the jewel in the crown economically and geographically of the European US "empire". It was drifting Russia's way just through economics and proximity. That is just not acceptable to the US.

Putin's move was encouraged in various ways as part of the ongoing great power struggle where in the realism doctrine that holds sway in the US, unless you are winning you are losing.

It would be mentally easier to just see it all as goody versus baddie narrative and accept it. But I know too much to do that. But not enough to really know what is going on.

DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 9:50am

Bewildering how anyone can come to the conclusion that the US didn’t intend to goad and provoke Russia into a Ukrainian conflict one way or another. By hook or by crook they were getting that war.

sypkan's picture
sypkan's picture
sypkan Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 12:29pm

...well they did have to wait a long long four years before the war machine could kick back in...

before they could get the war they were promised

hilary's promise...

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 5:39pm

JF:

“Coz some people actually participated in illegal wars and, in doing so, also swore allegiance to a pedophile harbouring bunch of racist warmongers.

But we won’t mention that yeh…“

You’re actually quite a funny fella. Love the personal attacks. Keep em coming ;-)

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022 at 10:37pm

You go away for a while and when you get back Russia has mobilised.

Wilhelm Scream's picture
Wilhelm Scream's picture
Wilhelm Scream Tuesday, 27 Sep 2022 at 1:45pm

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Friday, 30 Sep 2022 at 11:41am

With winter approaching, cheap gas a thing of the past and economic, social and political fractures everywhere, many European leaders have dutifully assumed the position for the honour of the fraternity:

Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater's picture
Jelly Flater Friday, 30 Sep 2022 at 12:05pm

https://m.

gsco's picture
gsco's picture
gsco Saturday, 1 Oct 2022 at 7:03am

Curious to know what Xi Jinping thinks of his best mate Putin invading and then annexing those regions of Ukraine via vote and "will" of the people.

Does that mean the people of Taiwan can hold a vote for their independence?

Or if Xi supports Russia's activities, can the US now go into Taiwan and then the people can vote to be a new US state? Seems fair. I think they'd prefer that than become part of China...

frog's picture
frog's picture
frog Saturday, 1 Oct 2022 at 8:19pm

A US opinion on the current geopolitical obsession outside the approved groupthink:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/stockman-slams-washingtons-pointl...

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno Saturday, 1 Oct 2022 at 10:12pm

Ukraine just applied for NATO membership - probably a reply to the votes and annexing. So many questions: Will they get it?(no: can't when in a dispute apparently) Why no borders outlined for the new Russian annexations? (perhaps due to having Ukrainian soldiers/tanks advancing within them) Who did the pipelines? (he who smelt it dealt it) How much does this feel like escalation? (A bit)

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno Saturday, 1 Oct 2022 at 10:13pm

Nice hardbass vid btw - they are not all that different to us ;)

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Sunday, 2 Oct 2022 at 7:46am

Frog, think about it like a ‘different’ groupthink - it’s just ‘your’ group…

See how that works? Like when you post links to Russian aligned sources. It’s usually just part of the MSM - for a different audience.

You’re fooling yourself that you’re anymore objective for reading and quoting a source - without commentary or reflection no less - assessed as:

“Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.
Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY/PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Bulgaria
Press Freedom Rating: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

But, y’know. Keep on keeping on with your open mind and all that.

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher Sunday, 2 Oct 2022 at 10:55am

Like when Oz Natcab perfectly orchestrate record Covid Tests for record lowest Oz poll day turnout.
Resulting in record lowest percentage governance in Oz history...Here! Here!

Here's an example of the huge difference in Media bias:
MSM will never ever once in the course of time ever report on endless obvious Oz record vote rigging.
MSM will only always ever report on upcoming Russian Vote rigging before or if it ever happens.
We can do away with fucked up factchecker...cause all know this to be true!

etarip's picture
etarip's picture
etarip Sunday, 2 Oct 2022 at 11:24am
truebluebasher wrote:

Like when Oz Natcab perfectly orchestrate record Covid Tests for record lowest Oz poll day turnout.
Resulting in record lowest percentage governance in Oz history...Here! Here!

Here's an example of the huge difference in Media bias:
MSM will never ever once in the course of time ever report on endless obvious Oz record vote rigging.
MSM will only always ever report on upcoming Russian Vote rigging before or if it ever happens.
We can do away with fucked up factchecker...cause all know this to be true!

so, what exactly are you saying TBB? That the “MSM” is not an entirely credible source of news?

Define the “MSM” for a start. Fox / Sky seems pretty “Mainstream” for a lot of people. As does ABC. And the Guardian for others.

But, there’s ‘alternative media’ and then there’s straight out, messed up conspiracy theory sites. Media bias / Factcheck sites provide some context behind that.

Wilhelm Scream's picture
Wilhelm Scream's picture
Wilhelm Scream Wednesday, 5 Oct 2022 at 1:15pm
san Guine's picture
san Guine's picture
san Guine Wednesday, 5 Oct 2022 at 5:37pm

Nice little piece on Jimmy Carter, a much maligned President while in office, but a stellar public life post the White House.
https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/jimmy-carter.htm

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher Wednesday, 5 Oct 2022 at 9:52pm

Axis of Evil launch Hyumooo-2 Missile attack on Korea.
Here's how that came about...

9th Aug 1945 US Bombing of Japan
July 1959 US bombed Japan
Dec 1965 US nuked Okinawa Japan
Sept 1968 US nuked Naha Port Japan
Nov 1968 US tried to Bomb Vietnam but bombed Japan instead...(They all look the same to us!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Sept 1986 Russia tries to bomb itself & bombs China instead.
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/16/world/a-soviet-missile-is-said-to-mis...
1964-1996 Chinese Nuked themselves 40 Times.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-chinas-nuclear-tests/
1st July 2016 Taiwanese fire missile at China but a Taiwanese Vessel gets in the way...(Bummer!)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/world/asia/taiwan-china-missile.html
28th April 2017 North Korean bombs North Korean Industrial / Farm lands
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/when-a-north-korean-missile-accidentally...
Jan 2018 Japan Military issue J Alert just 3 days after Hawaiian Missile Alert.
Only...There was no missile threat or missile anywhere near either Nation.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/16/578283950/japan-also-...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/japan-issues-false-alarm-over-missile-...
Sept 2022 Chinese Space Station Rocket showers debris over Malaysia / Indonesia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/02/chinese-china-rocket-re-en...
4th Oct 2022 - US / South Korean Bombing of South Korea after J Alert.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/10/05/south-korea-missile-blows-in-drill-a...

GI Joe says if Asian Nations can't blow themselves' up, then it's up to America to show them how.
Oz fully sanction the latest Good Guy's DIY missile strike!

truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher's picture
truebluebasher Wednesday, 5 Oct 2022 at 11:17pm

Oz Media bias continued...
1989 -2000 Media Watch was deemed too controversial for the Howard Era so the Host was sacked.
2001 ABC Head was also then sacked & show was gone!
2002 Feedback & The Show returned to constant fire from parliament & Media Moguls.
Even the odd dead fish landed on the host's desk as a gift from News Editors...Hence reprisal Trophy!

Crew would rate Media Watch highly, even with a clean up rate of a few crumbs over 30 years.
Meaning ...all know Oz Media is inherently corrupt or this show wouldn't survive as long as it has!
Note...any intending to host this show need to speak fast to combat the growing pile of Oz Media bias!
ABC could blow their budget on a 2 hour daily Media Watch program & still not make a dent!

san Guine's picture
san Guine's picture
san Guine Friday, 7 Oct 2022 at 11:02am

A bit of recent historical context to the Ukrainian conflict with Russia.

https://johnmenadue.com/the-great-game-in-ukraine-is-spinning-out-of-con...

The argument of encirclement is not dissimilar to that expounded in the authoritative WW1 history, The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Similar encirclement arguments have also been used to explain Chinas' bellicosity and expansionism.

Have Western leaders learnt anything from history?

andy-mac's picture
andy-mac's picture
andy-mac Friday, 7 Oct 2022 at 11:21am
san Guine wrote:

A bit of recent historical context to the Ukrainian conflict with Russia.

https://johnmenadue.com/the-great-game-in-ukraine-is-spinning-out-of-con...

The argument of encirclement is not dissimilar to that expounded in the authoritative WW1 history, The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Similar encirclement arguments have also been used to explain Chinas' bellicosity and expansionism.

Have Western leaders learnt anything from history?

Frightening!!

flollo's picture
flollo's picture
flollo Friday, 7 Oct 2022 at 11:47am

Jeez, how many claims are in this article without any (or very limited at the best of times) credible references? This is no surprise considering only the most basic formatting guidelines are required to post on this website. Wikipedia is a space shuttle for this.

https://johnmenadue.com/style-guide-email/