PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Russia Watch
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18539
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raspberry-blower wrote:

Only those countries that didn't have US military bases stationed on their soil you mean
Oh yes, that as well.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18539
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevecook172001 wrote:


You live in La-La-land
La-la-land (aka Britain) is not especially well endowed with natural resources so I doubt we were in danger of invasion by a super-power for the sake of our minerals.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 8311
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:


You live in La-La-land
La-la-land (aka Britain) is not especially well endowed with natural resources so I doubt we were in danger of invasion by a super-power for the sake of our minerals.
So, you agree that those who do possess such resources are well advised to have nukes to protect them against rapacious superpowers who would otherwise plunder them for those resources?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18539
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, I most certainly don't! Rolling Eyes
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 8311
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
No, I most certainly don't! Rolling Eyes
So why employ the disingenuous argument that the reason for the UK not needing nukes is because we don't posses any resources worth nicking? In other words, why not make the honest argument that your opposition to nukes is a strictly moral one (based on your own conception of morality) that lies independently of any material consideration of possession?

Oh wait, I remember, that's not how you conduct debates isn't it Biff. Instead, you conduct them like a politician. That is to say, you decide you are right and then employ whatever rhetorical means you consider effective; be they disingenuous/dishonest or otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18539
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was you who implied the need for nukes by nations with resources, to discourage invasion. I just pointed out that the UK was not especially resource rich so this wasn't much of an argument for having nukes.

Of course my argument for not having nukes is a moral one and is nothing to do with resources.

But I expect that whatever I write you will object to it. Sad
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 8311
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
It was you who implied the need for nukes by nations with resources, to discourage invasion. I just pointed out that the UK was not especially resource rich so this wasn't much of an argument for having nukes.

Of course my argument for not having nukes is a moral one and is nothing to do with resources.

But I expect that whatever I write you will object to it. Sad
My objections to your posts will diminish when you decide to answer the points put to you instead of your usual response which is to make some supercilious, secondary comment.

To reiterate: The essential point made by me, to which you have yet to respond, is that the only reason that [some] non nuke holding countries do not attract unwanted military attention is because they are not in the competition for whatever resource the nuke powers were prepared to fight over. If they had been, they would have been subjects of attention just the same, nukes or no nukes. Indeed, one might argue that those powers that held the nukes, given that they were in that game, were only not invaded, because of their nukes.

Or have you forgotten, conveniently, about the innumerable countries around the world, who did not have nukes, but who nevertheless were in possession of resources that the bigger powers coveted, and the number of times they have been invaded, had puppet governments levered into place and generally been ****** over left, right and centre.

I am not requiring of you that you morally approve of any of the above facts on the ground (I don't happen to approve of them myself, as it happens), I am merely requiring of you, in order for honest intellectual debate to be possible, that you acknowledge them. Or, if not, provide an alternative interpretation of those facts. For example, I could imagine an argument that, whilst acknowledging the internal logic of possession of nukes, states that the potential costs outweigh such perceived benefits. Or, you may have some other argument. The point is, your posts on this and other issues are so often predicated on an implied a-priori consideration of being right (usually buried inside an arrogantly unstated assumption of holding the moral high ground) and that any post you make merely requires whatever rhetorical trick is appropriate to win the day. In other words, I am suggesting that your modus operandi of debating is often intellectually disingenuous and particularly reminiscent of a politician's manner of debating.

As for a country like the UK having nukes despite possessing relatively little by way of natural resources, the situation is far more complicated than you wish to portray. In principle, within the logic of joint allied responsibility across several countries, it is entirely logically, as well as potentially logistically, appropriate for individual countries within those alliances to implement specific military defensive technologies on behalf of the alliance to which they belong. In practice, however, with specific regard to the UK, there are certain arguments that could be made (and I am one of those who would make them) that the UK's nukes are not there to protect an alliance of of equal partners. But are, instead, there to provide an strategic bulwark for the Yanks. But, that is an an entirely different (and entirely context specific) argument for why nukes in this country are a bad idea. it is certainly not an argument, in principle, for not having them per se.


Last edited by Little John on Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:22 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
3rdRock
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
It was you who implied the need for nukes by nations with resources, to discourage invasion. I just pointed out that the UK was not especially resource rich so this wasn't much of an argument for having nukes.

Of course my argument for not having nukes is a moral one and is nothing to do with resources.

But I expect that whatever I write you will object to it. Sad

Correct.

Biff, don't waste your precious time on semantics with the obnoxious t***.

You get but a few short trips around the Sun and then it's over.

Life's too short to engage in an online discussion with someone who's short of friends in the real world and insists on losing even more in a virtual one.

Merry Christmas and peace on earth to all good men. Wink
Back to top
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18539
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smile
Hope springs eternal.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 8311
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Smile
Hope springs eternal.
Your response, as usual, informs far more about your personality than it does your views Biff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1866

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, back to Russia

Tony Cartalucci: The Impending Russian Maidan

Quote:
For a campaign aimed at Moscow itself, it is likely the same playbook will once again be employed. Exposing the insidious, malicious criminality of US policymakers who openly conspire to provoke other nations into conflict and manipulate public perception to maintain moral primacy is the first step to undoing attempts to destabilize and undermine Russia, and all other nations caught in the crosshairs of Wall Street and Washington.

While the West continues to portray Russia as the “aggressor,” throughout America’s own policy papers it can be seen that such accusations are just one part of an immensely insidious and deceitful plan. Portraying Russia as the “aggressors” helps justify further measures to set the board for widespread political subversion within Russia itself. It seeks to justify not only direct ties to opposition groups when they are finally revealed, but also increasingly aggressive interventions both by armed proxies and NATO forces themselves to continue propping up these opposition groups.

The spectacular nature of “invasions” as we imagine them, such as the Nazi blitzkrieg into Western Europe are behind us. Invasions within fourth generation warfare utilize faux opposition groups, covert military support, and full-spectrum economic, political, and information warfare. Russia has built defenses against this form of warfare, confounding the West , but ultimately the moral high ground and all of its advantages is a position only one can hold. Either by truth through exposing the West’s means and agenda will Russia climb to the top, or through the West’s continued successful deception, will Russia be pelted below.


NATO wants to have a compliant puppet - like the permanently sozzled Boris Yeltsin - in charge so that western corporations can get their mits on Russian resources at knockdown prices. What could possibly go wrong? Twisted Evil
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 8311
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes to all of that RB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 8311
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What's the betting, given Russia's natural resources, as well as strategic military location vis a vis China, that without nukes Russia wouldn't be just another Middle East or any other of the numerous examples of resource rich but politically f***ed parts of the world who were otherwise unable to wave the nuclear stick at the Yanks?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1866

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevecook172001 wrote:
What's the betting, given Russia's natural resources, as well as strategic military location vis a vis China, that without nukes Russia wouldn't be just another Middle East or any other of the numerous examples of resource rich but politically ****** parts of the world who were otherwise unable to wave the nuclear stick at the Yanks?


Very rhetorical question that. Attempts to undermine Russia to make it into a compliant banana republic/failed state are continuing
However, thinking along the same lines:
Gerald Celente: Putin is Right

Quote:
In fact, Celente reported almost a year ago that the U.S. had waged a propaganda and misinformation war against Russia.

Putin insisted today: “It’s not payback for Crimea. It’s the cost of our natural desire to preserve Russia as a nation, a civilization and a state.”

Celente agrees. He points to an extensive analysis in the Spring 2014 edition of his Trends Journal,”Stoking a war that can’t be won,” in which he wrote:

“Under the Obama Administration, U.S. conflict with Vladimir Putin’s Russia was part of a trend …”


The US would want to avoid a DIRECT military confrontation - even without nukes the Russian military would seriously expose the limitations of US and NATO military - not to mention massive military casualties to boot.

Therefore go for the insidious, fifth column approach. which, so far, has failed miserably.
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 8311
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not a rhetorical question. That is to say, the answer is entirely open. Though, my own view should be fairly obvious. However, anyone is free to dispute that view..

As it happens, I agree about the USA tackling Russia right now minus the nukes. They would still be a formidable foe. My point was more general and relates to the historical trajectory Russia might have taken over a series of decades minus those nukes. The American elite knew full well immediately following the end of WW2 that Russia and its then fully fledged communist system, for all of its flaws, represented a major political, cultural and military obstacle to global US dominance. I am convinced that had Russia not quickly gained competence in nuclear arms technology following WW2, America would have ensured its break up into easier, more bite-sized states that could then be occupied/dominated/manipulated in the usual way.

As for an argument suggesting that the USA would want to avoid direct military confrontation at all costs, I agree with that but only up to a point. That is to say, while the world's access to key raw resources was growing over the last several decades, I would have entirely agreed. However, we are entering a different world and our elites are as aware of this as anybody else. A world of resource scarcity. That, coupled with a dangerous culture of exceptionalism in the Yank elite, means that I do believe they are preparing for a time when such direct military conflict in our lifetimes becomes inevitable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
Page 4 of 40

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group