Koffiekamer Terug naar discussie overzicht

Rusland dreigt met oorlog

1. [verwijderd] 28 augustus 2008 22:22

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Ik typ hier niet meer want ik sta niet achter de inhoud van het draadje
   mvg
2. [verwijderd] 28 augustus 2008 22:24

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   volgens mij wordt dit
   the mouse that roared ,
   part two.
   juist en wie mag winnen die mag betalen.
   volgens mij laat president dmitry medvedev deze film
   wekelijks in zijn presidentiëlepaleisbioscoop draaien.
   www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYMuJDajujc
3. [verwijderd] 28 augustus 2008 22:26

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   Bart Meerdink schreef:

   Het citaat op de tweede regel van de beginposting van deze draad is duidelijk het dreigen met oorlog.
   

   De titel is een misinterpretatie vanuit het engels,zoals zzzzaaaii al zei
4. [verwijderd] 28 augustus 2008 23:41

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   ik vind het een goede zet van Rusland.
   
   wij worden door de pers enorm voorgelogen.
   
   Amerika leeft van oorlogsdreiging door de wapenlobbie in eigen land.
   
   wat is nu eigenlijk de waarheid?
   
   hoe vaak zijn de russen europa binnengevallen?
   
   napoleon en hitler als europeanen dachten wel even Rusland in te lijven maar Russen Europa?
   
   rusland ontwikkelde zich op "westerse leest".
   
   dus ging men op zoek naar een nieuwe vijand.
   
   dat werd Irak en later nog eens vanwege het enorme arsenaal aan kernwapens dat dat land zou bezitten. ze zijn nog aan het zoeken.
   
   nu is het dan Iran...ja ja kernwapenmacht pur sang.
   
   we plaatsen afweerraketten in polen om de bommen uit notabene Iran en noord korea te onderscheppen.
   
   je wordt toch moedeloos van die Amerikanen.
   
   houd toch eens een keer op met die onzin!!!
   
   
5. [verwijderd] 29 augustus 2008 00:03

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   $$$$ schreef:

   Ik had een dergelijke reactie van Rusland wel verwacht.
   
   Als een provincie als Kosovo eenzijdig door westerse landen als onafhankelijk wordt erkend(wat ook nog eens tegen een VN resolutie (1224???) in gaat) dan weet je dat je Rusland flink op de teentjes trapt. Daarnaast speelt natuurlijk het raketschild in de achtertuin van rusland, met natuurlijk het idee dat Polen zo lekker op de Route ligt van Thearan - VS (not).
   
   Dan kan je natuurlijk verwachten dat rusland een keer haar tanden laat zien. Ja dit is een soort RISK maar het westen doet net zo hard mee.
   

   MENSEN!! Rusland heeft zich altijd ingesloten en belaagd gevoeld door het Westen, Turken, Chinezen, Duitsers, Fransen, Japanners (1898, 1940 of daaromtrent weet je nog wel !)
   
   Van Napoleon via Hitler naar Bush enz.
   
   Vinden jullui het dan gek dat ze zich nu met de Navo in Polen NB (Godverd....) en straks in Georgie en Oekaine, Wit Rusland etc etc.
   ontzetten BEDREIGD voelt! Ja bedreigt dus.
   
   Terwijl Bush senior en junior (dat hele nest dus) wel in de achtertuinen van Rusland mogen pissen en shitten (Irak, Afghanistan, Polen, Georgie enz) mogen de Russen dan niet eens HUN belangen verdedigen.
   
   Ik vind het heel heel terecht dat ze dreigen met oorlog (is het in feit al!!!!!) Koud of warm.
   Even dat arrogante en goddeloze Westen eens goed met hun neus op de feiten drukken = HARD en HARD nodig.
   Ik geef toe is het drastisch maar het Westen luistert niet naar slap gedoe vandaar!
   
   En Rusland is niet te overwinnen ook niet met een totale atoomoorlog dan gaan we er nml allemaal all over the world aan.
   Radioactivite kanker vervuiling Atoomijstijd etc etc en nog veel meer ellende
   En wie wil dat nou wel? NiemAND !
6. [verwijderd] 29 augustus 2008 00:08

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Moet Rusland eens een RAKETBASIS op CUBA of Venezuela oprichten. Moet je zien dan is het huis(witte) te klein.
   
   En als het tot sancies komt dan draait Rusland gewoon de OLIE en Gaskraan dicht.
   Moet je dan eens zien.
   
   Nee het laffe Westen zal het bij mooie woorden laten en vooral niet zo stom zijn om deze zaak op de spits te drijven.
   
   Alleen die stomme Amerikanonoos sturen met hun gefrustreerde sentimentele geesten weer een fregat naar de Zwarte Zee.
   
   Wat een Nonoos!
7. [verwijderd] 29 augustus 2008 00:10

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   france schreef:

   ik vind het een goede zet van Rusland.
   
   wij worden door de pers enorm voorgelogen.
   
   Amerika leeft van oorlogsdreiging door de wapenlobbie in eigen land.
   
   wat is nu eigenlijk de waarheid?
   
   hoe vaak zijn de russen europa binnengevallen?
   
   napoleon en hitler als europeanen dachten wel even Rusland in te lijven maar Russen Europa?
   
   rusland ontwikkelde zich op "westerse leest".
   
   dus ging men op zoek naar een nieuwe vijand.
   
   dat werd Irak en later nog eens vanwege het enorme arsenaal aan kernwapens dat dat land zou bezitten. ze zijn nog aan het zoeken.
   
   nu is het dan Iran...ja ja kernwapenmacht pur sang.
   
   we plaatsen afweerraketten in polen om de bommen uit notabene Iran en noord korea te onderscheppen.
   
   je wordt toch moedeloos van die Amerikanen.
   
   houd toch eens een keer op met die onzin!!!
   

   PRECIES GROTE LEUGENAARS en MANIPULANTEN zijn het die Amerikanen (inderdaad wapenlobby boeven en moordenaars zijn het inwezen)
   
   Jongens toe kijk dan , doe die ogen toch eens open JA!!!
8. [verwijderd] 29 augustus 2008 00:12

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   Bart Meerdink schreef:

   [quote=directcash]
   We bekijken alles vanuit een pro-amerikaanse bril.
   
   nl.youtube.com/watch?v=ya6JfFK_lYQ
   [/quote]
   Nou, je kunt míj niet beschuldigen van pro-Amerikaans, tenminste wat betreft de politiek van het land (tegen het land zelf of de mensen heeft niemand iets natuurlijk).
   
   De VS voeren al geruime tijd een eenzijdige wapenwedloop, en zelfs Nederland doet daar helaas een beetje aan mee (in het kader van de JSF).
   
   Maar we hebben het hier over Rusland. Discussie over wat er mankeert aan de politiek van VS is hier off-topic.
   

   KUNNEN we ipv de stomme JSF's niet gewoon de veel betere en goedkopere MIGxxx kopen?!
9. [verwijderd] 29 augustus 2008 02:11

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Geloof nooit een politieker of advokaat, want liegen is hun job. Voor Putin heb ik het niet, voor Bush nog veel minder.
   Maar Putin zegt nu wel zoals het is, ...
   
   De Russische premier Vladimir Poetin heeft de Verenigde Staten van Amerika beschuldigd de oorlog in Georgië te hebben georchestreerd om één van de Amerikaanse presidentskandidaten te helpen. Dat zei de voormalige president aan CNN.
   
   www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland/arti...
10. [verwijderd] 31 augustus 2008 21:12

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Gaat lekker daar...
    
    Criticus Kremlin dood na arrestatie
    
    ***************************************
    ` In de Russische republiek Ingoesjetië
    is een kritische journalist gedood na
    zijn arrestatie door de politie.
    Magomed Jevlojev was net geland toen
    hij door de politie uit het toestel
    werd gehaald en in een auto gezet.
    
    Volgens medewerkers van Jevlojev is hij
    vervolgens uit de auto gegooid met een
    kogelgat in zijn hoofd.De autoriteiten
    in Moskou spreken van een 'incident'
    dat onderzocht zal worden.
    
    Jevlojev had een onafhankelijke website
    die kritiek leverde op Moskou en op de
    Moskougezinde regering van de deel-
    republiek.In Ingoesjetië werd in 2004
    een opstand tegen Moskou neergeslagen.
    
    teletekst.nos.nl/tekst/125-01.html
12. [verwijderd] 31 augustus 2008 22:44

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Sjaak-Ass-Villa is beide. Met lang verblijf in de USA.
    
    Volgend artikel uit NZeeland is lezenswaardig.
    
    Ik denk dat hij de spijker op de kop treft.
    
    www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm...
    
    

    quote:

    tim670 schreef:

    Geloof nooit een politieker of advokaat, want liegen is hun job.

13. [verwijderd] 31 augustus 2008 22:51

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    whocaress schreef:

    Gaat lekker daar...
    
    Criticus Kremlin dood na arrestatie
    
    ***************************************
    ` In de Russische republiek Ingoesjetië
    is een kritische journalist gedood na
    zijn arrestatie door de politie.
    Magomed Jevlojev was net geland toen
    hij door de politie uit het toestel
    werd gehaald en in een auto gezet.
    
    Volgens medewerkers van Jevlojev is hij
    vervolgens uit de auto gegooid met een
    kogelgat in zijn hoofd.De autoriteiten
    in Moskou spreken van een 'incident'
    dat onderzocht zal worden.
    
    Jevlojev had een onafhankelijke website
    die kritiek leverde op Moskou en op de
    Moskougezinde regering van de deel-
    republiek.In Ingoesjetië werd in 2004
    een opstand tegen Moskou neergeslagen.
    
    teletekst.nos.nl/tekst/125-01.html
    

    tjaa... die journalist speelde gewoon met vuur...
    
    er zijn in het verleden tientallen voorbeelden, wie tegen de Kremlin is, gaat gewoon eraan...
    
    zie voorbeelden Chodorkovski: ooit rijkste man van Rusland, bezat 40% van de aandelen van Yukos en nu? de bak in en geen cent meer...
    
    hij of zij (gedode journalist(e)) had het zelf kunnen weten dat het zijn of haar dood wordt...
    
    
14. Bart Meerdink 31 augustus 2008 23:43

    auteur info

    • Bart Meerdink

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 2000

      Laatste bezoek: 10 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 2172

      Gegeven: 1071

    •    Aantal posts: 6.838

    quote:

    Andy Capp schreef:

    Sjaak-Ass-Villa is beide. Met lang verblijf in de USA.
    
    Volgend artikel uit NZeeland is lezenswaardig.
    
    Ik denk dat hij de spijker op de kop treft.
    
    www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm...
    

    De kritiek op de Amerikaanse mainstream media deel ik. Maar het artikel is zelf een regelrechte echo van het Russische verhaal. Lees bijvoorbeeld:
    
    (quote) Like most wars, oil plays a major part. Saakashvili's provocative decision to allow the West to build a pipeline through his country from the Caspian oil fields as an alternative to the present one through Russia was just another straw on the back of Russia's camel. The West's recent enthusiasm to also unilaterally recognise Kosovo splitting from Serbia was another. Supporting ethnic communities to break away and form new countries was always going to come back and haunt the West, for what's good for Kosovo is also good for South Ossetia. (end quote)
    
    Hoezo is er wat mis met de "provocative decision" om een pijplijn door je eigen land te laten aanleggen en zo de Centraal-Aziatische landen en Europa minder afhankelijk te maken van Rusland voor hun contracten?
    
    Ook het Kosovo-standpunt van Rusland wordt klakkeloos overgenomen.
    
    Verder worden er veel dingen als feit gepresenteerd die volgens mij discutabel zijn, en er wordt geen bron voor gegeven.
15. [verwijderd] 1 september 2008 00:05

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    er zijn nogal wat indianen verhalen over ruslands gedrag in omloop. ook in deze draad wordt er nogal wat spin voor waarheid aangezien. hierbij een citaat uit een neiuwsbrief van dines, over het algemeen een heel goed geinformeerd periodiek. ter lering ende vermaak. grt roos.
    1) Introduction
    The bad news is that Russian troops have invaded a
    sovereign country for the first time since the collapse of
    the Soviet Union in 1991. We ponder whether it might
    lead to a new Cold War, Russian troops next storming
    into another of its former satellites, and using its veto in
    the UN’s Security Council obstructionistically to protect
    Iran, or the unmentionable menace of nuclear war
    between Russia and NATO. Even Mikhail Gorbachev, a
    favorite of the West, has come out in support of Russia,
    blaming Georgia for its attacks* on South Ossetia. How
    did Russia get to its blitzkrieg of Georgia and what
    might be its importance to everybody’s future? The
    good news is that there’s no nuclear war as we go to
    press, and that Russian troops are withdrawing.
    2) Why Does TDL Believe Russia is So
    Important?
    Russia is crucial in TDL’s calculations of future
    probabilities for many reasons. It is the world’s largest
    country and its icebound mineral wealth will finally be
    amenable to exploitation if global warming continues especially oil, with current production second only to that
    of Saudi Arabia’s. Russia truly belongs to Europe on the
    vast Eurasian landmass, and will be a key ally on the
    front lines of "The Coming Great Religious Wars" as part
    of Europe and the Americas later this century.
    Russia is one of the world’s ten largest economies, an
    impressive improvement after it was nearly bankrupt
    only a decade ago. It has foreign-exchange reserves over
    $500 billion, has paid all the $200-billion foreign debt on
    which it defaulted in 1998, has had an average economic
    growth rate of 7% in the last five years, inflation has
    declined to a single digit and its GDP has more than
    doubled in the last four years.
    Russia has the world’s third-largest gold and foreign
    exchange reserves, and investors worldwide are pouring
    money into the country, possibly oblivious to the risks of
    state theft; for example, Gazprom having stolen energy
    reserves from Shell and TNK-BP. Putin himself has
    steered Russia firmly toward nanotech, seeking high-tech
    leadership (the corporation is called RosNanoTekh), and
    used it last September to produce the world’s largest,
    non-nuclear "Father of All Bombs," a giant step up from
    Marxist-Leninist fixation on heavy industry. Russian
    banks missed the West’s sub-prime real-estate lunacy
    and the country is blessed with enormous natural
    resources, with plentiful and cheap labor. Flotation of
    stocks and bonds to foreigners has enriched Russians
    sufficiently to have bought art, real estate and chunks of
    corporations worldwide, replacing the communist
    revolution’s crude goals with mature and sophisticated
    capitalist methodology.
    Placing ourselves in Russia’s shoes is not easy, but the
    fact is, the country has been repeatedly ravaged, not only
    by Romans from the south, Mongols from its east, the
    French and Germans from its west, not to mention
    America’s invasion from its north after the Bolshevik
    revolution. Like a musclebound giant assaulted by
    Lilliputians from every direction, Russia is understandably
    defensive and xenophobic. Triumphant after
    World War II, and enslaved by a brutal communist
    dictatorship, the Soviet Union was nonetheless so
    convinced that its system was superior to capitalism’s
    that Khrushchev famously promised "We will bury you."
    In the 1980s TDL predicted that the mighty Soviet
    empire, bloated with the conquests and booty of World
    War II, would "implode," not only because of moral
    imperatives and Low States, but the scientificallycontrolled
    experiment of prosperous West Berlin as
    compared with the poverty of East Berlin. When the
    Berlin Wall finally collapsed in 1989, Russia was
    understandably demoralized because it had spent most of
    the 20th century on the wrong road, its economy lay
    prostrate before the West and NATO crowed
    triumphantly. In 1994 TDL suggested that Russia be
    invited into NATO, firmly locking it in. That was the
    moment to have required that the KGB be dissolved and
    a new democratic order allowed to arise in a Russia
    bereft of its colonies. In our opinion it will be looked
    back on someday as a missed opportunity that will have
    consequences for centuries to come, a position with which
    nobody might now agree.
    We must confess to having been completely unaware that
    Russia had actually broached the subject of joining NATO
    in 2001, but America gave it the cold shoulder. Granted
    that a Russia in NATO would have vetoed wrenching
    Kosovo away from Serbia, kicking the can down the road
    for a future generation to solve, much as was done with
    Hong Kong and Taiwan rather than having had a war with
    China over them. The benefits of having drawn Russia
    decisively into our circle might have been worth it, in the
    long run, but it’s too late now anyway. Business Week
    (14 Jul 08, page 73) reported that Putin had met with
    former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State
    Madelaine Albright and National Security Advisor Samuel
    Berger, and asked about Russia’s applying to join NATO
    so that Russia could integrate more tightly with the West.
    Putin was brushed off because, as with the other 19 NATO
    members, Moscow would wield a veto. Putin raised the
    idea again with visiting Congressmen, and was rebuffed
    again. Yet, after September 11, 2001, Putin was among the
    first to offer President Bush condolences with an offer to
    provide assistance, and a grateful President Bush requested
    Russian acquiescence to a US military presence in
    Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan for bases from which to attack
    the Taliban-led Afghan government. Bush promised that
    the bases were temporary and only for the Afghan attack,
    but one-and-a-half years later America broke its agreement
    and said they were not leaving. After the anti-missile
    installation plan in Poland and the Czech Republic was
    announced, an upset Putin* retributively forced Royal
    Dutch Shell and France’s Total to sell controlling shares in
    their Russian oil properties to state-run companies, and
    warned the same would happen to Britain’s BP and Exxon-
    Mobil. Which then is cause and effect?
16. [verwijderd] 1 september 2008 00:07

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    part II
    
    3) Who is Ossetia?
    The world was rocked by last week’s garish headlines
    reporting "Russia’s invasion of Georgia," but every
    member of the press failed to mention that the Georgians
    had attacked South Ossetia first! To us, there was
    obviously more to it than met the eye. We do not allow ourselves the luxury of taking sides, as this is not a political
    newsletter; we only hope that the issue of America risking
    a nuclear war over Georgia is publicly debated so that the
    Americans could make their own judgments.
    Georgia’s President Saakashvili has been very close to
    the US State Department. How come? Randy Scheunemann*
    is so low key that he is almost never noticed by the
    world’s press, even though he now is presidential candidate
    McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser. When Scheunemann
    was a foreign-policy adviser for McCain’s 2000
    presidential campaign he pushed for "regime change" in
    Iraq that led to America’s war there, and promoted NATO
    membership for Georgia and other former-Soviet republics
    as a paid and registered lobbyist for Georgia, and whose
    firm has received $1-million to present Georgia’s case to
    America. Scheunemann was also a paid lobbyist for
    Taiwan, Macedonia, Romania and Latvia. In fact,
    Scheunemann actually headed the Committee to Liberate
    Iraq in 2002, before the US invasion, and he also alleged
    after 9/11 that there were links between Saddam Hussein
    and al-Qaeda. He should have ethically recused himself
    from commenting on the subject of Georgia. McCain is
    now making the American defense of Georgia a campaign
    issue with Obama. McCain has visited Georgia no less than
    three times in the last decade, as has Condoleeza Rice, and
    must have known that planting a NATO missile base flush
    against Russia’s border, possibly to host missiles aimed at
    Russia, was bound to cause conflict.
    We were puzzled as to why Georgia’s Saakashvili
    attacked South Ossetia, since he made comments as if he
    had presumed American help – that the United States
    would go to war with Russia over Georgia – so what kind
    of assurances might he have been given? After the Ossetian
    attack, the American State Department immediately cut
    Saakashvili loose and said that they had advised him not to
    attack the Russians, although they would now send 130 US
    troops as "advisers" to help modernize Georgia’s army. Is
    this insanity? John F Kennedy was ready to risk a nuclear
    war over Russian missiles to be stationed in Cuba in 1962,
    so did American leaders really believe that they could get
    away with something like building up a military presence
    on Russia’s southern border? Especially since Russia had
    already expressed deep antagonism over the stationing of
    military hardware in Poland and the Czech Republic? What
    if Russia places missiles near its North Pole, or Canada,
    aimed at America!
    Some who use the word "dork" have never checked the
    dictionary as to which part of the whale it is. Similarly, the
    function of war is to teach Americans the geography not
    learned in school. Sakartvelo was called "Georgia"
    centuries ago because Saint George is the country’s patron
    saint. The Soviet Union’s collapse freed Georgia, but two
    of its enclaves also declared independence from Georgia at
    that time: Ossetia and Abkhazia. North Ossetia is just over
    the border, in Russia. South Ossetians in Georgia want to be joined with North Ossetia within Russia, as their language
    is not even related to Georgian. (The Abkhazian
    language is only remotely similar to Georgian, but they
    would like independence from both Georgia and Russia
    instead.) President Saakashvili, who insists that both
    enclaves are part of Georgia, earned President Bush’s favor
    by wanting to be part of NATO and by having contributed
    troops to the Iraq war. Both enclaves won some kind of
    independence from Georgia after fighting in the early
    1990s, and Russia negotiated having peacekeepers stationed
    in South Ossetia under that peace treaty.
17. [verwijderd] 1 september 2008 00:08

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    part III.
    
    South Ossetia under that peace treaty.
    Suddenly, on 7 Aug 08, Georgia broke that agreement and
    attacked South Ossetia in violation of its treaty, so Russia
    sent in its troops. Georgia was the aggressor in the surprise
    attack. It is no secret that there is bad blood between
    Mikhail Saakashvili and Vladimir Putin. But we can only
    wonder why a country as tiny as Georgia would take on the
    Russian superpower unless, as mentioned earlier, it had
    been counting on America’s help (possibly a secret
    agreement with America) sticking it to the Russians on their
    own southern border, as it were. Was Saakashvili hoping to
    draw America into a war with Russia? Whether this was a
    deliberate provocation by Georgia or not, the world’s press
    almost unanimously bashed Russia. TDL takes no position
    on who was right or wrong, which will be ascertained in its
    own time, so we lay out the facts and raise questions.
    America immediately airlifted Georgia’s troops back
    home from Iraq, further inflaming Russian Prime Minister
    Vladimir Putin, who said, "The Cold War has long ended,
    but the mentality of the Cold War has stayed firmly in the
    minds of several US diplomats." If Georgia had been
    counting on help from American troops, it was as deluded
    as were the Prague rebels against the Soviet Union in 1968
    who were first instigated, then betrayed by the West, left to
    be crushed by Soviet military force.
    After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, TDL wrote that
    it was Orwellian to maintain the name "NATO," which
    stands for the "North Atlantic" Treaty Organization. First of
    all, drawing countries from eastern Europe into it is a
    violation of its North Atlantic original charter, inasmuch as
    Georgia is not all that close to the North Atlantic Ocean.
    Second, Russia had been defeated by NATO, so keeping the
    name was ungraciously rubbing its nose in it, almost as if it
    were intentionally provocative. There were a half-million
    operatives working for Russia’s KGB (now called the
    "FSB," the Federal Security Service) who witnessed the humiliation by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and which left
    many of them smoldering with revenge. Putin is strong
    enough to control them, but FSB probably would have
    eaten Medvedev alive and, after the chaos of Russia’s
    1990s, Putin wanted to reassert governmental control. (As
    an aside, China is switching from communism to
    capitalism at a relatively slower and more measured pace,
    as we have predicted since 1980.) It is noteworthy that
    Putin has an 80% approval rating from the Russian public,
    which is higher than any American politician could claim
    these days. Having Georgia, a candidate for membership in
    NATO, probably with missile bases, flush against its
    southern border, was obviously going to inflame Russia’s
    military-industrial complex and Putin had already made
    that clear.
    The United States has only three neighbors, Canada,
    Mexico and Russia (a mere 35 miles from Alaska). We
    wonder what the West thinks it’s doing by provoking
    Russia. Does the American public realize that, under
    Article 5 of the NATO Agreement, an attack on one must
    be responded to by all? Are America and NATO really
    ready to fight a nuclear war with Russia over Ossetia?
    Really? NATO can’t even scrape up enough troops from its
    so-called NATO allies for Afghanistan against rag-tag
    opponents, so with which kind of blustering bluffing are
    America’s leaders deluding themselves? Would America
    really go to war to defend Taiwan, or Israel? Really? TDL
    cannot answer these questions, but we raise them so that
    others might consider the realities of a cruel world. China
    and Russia will affect many nations near and far in the
    hereafter, and the decisions made now will haunt the future
    much as did the dreadful Versailles Treaty in 1919, after
    World War I, tragically having spawned at least four world
    wars.
18. [verwijderd] 1 september 2008 00:09

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    part IV
    
    4) Is This All About Oil Again?
    As stated earlier, America is now sending 130 troops to
    Georgia on a "humanitarian mission," increasing
    America’s commitment to an ally despite Russia’s
    determination to assert control over its southern border. As
    already noted, according to NATO’s Article 5, another
    NATO member could draw America into a war, including
    against a Russia that has enough nuclear weapons to kill
    everybody on the planet – including the cockroaches.
    Bringing a nation into NATO should be debated at the
    highest levels, along with the American public, because of
    the risks involved, especially since the New York Times
    quoted "a senior Pentagon official" (not named) who said
    the relief effort was intended "to show Russia that we can
    come to the aid of a European ally, and we can do it at will,
    whenever and wherever we want." Is that belligerent?
    Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who sharply
    criticized what he called a failure of the West to support his
    country, called the relief operation "a turning point" in the
    conflict and interpreted it as an American decision to
    defend Georgia’s ports and airports, though the Bush Administration and Pentagon officials quickly added that
    that would not be the case. At least not so far.
    Keeping in mind that Russia’s national sport is chess,
    featuring careful long-range planning, replete with hidden
    moves, Russia has been tightening its grip on Europe by
    providing it with natural gas that could be turned off in the
    middle of winter in case of a crisis. Countering that thrust,
    America completed the BTC pipeline* through Georgia.
    Russia grabbing Georgia would sever that oil pipeline from
    Central Asia’s energy resources, neutralizing a pro-
    Western Georgia that could have been a competitor for
    Russia’s Natgas (the Russian gas monopoly). So it’s all
    about oil again, another facet of what we have been calling
    "The Coming War for the Last Drop of Oil," only this time
    for control of Europe, so the stakes were really big enough
    for Russia to have braved the world’s anger by marching
    into Ossetia.
    Indeed, due to the Ossetian conflict, Azerbaijan has
    already halted its shipments of oil to Black Sea ports and
    stranded 72 freight cars of oil in Georgia, sending the price
    of crude oil up in world markets. This is yet another
    warning from the marketplace that the world’s energy
    supplies are dangerously tight and vulnerable to
    disruption, especially during winter.
    We again predict that Europe will switch massively away
    from carbon-based fuels to renewables (including nuclear
    power) so as to liberate itself from depending on a Central
    Asia that is destined for "The Coming Great Religious
    Wars." We do allow ourselves to hope that American
    policies will not drive Iran, Russia and Venezuela into each
    other’s arms, and that such an alliance of these oil
    producers will not lead America to a war – economically
    or militarily.
    Russia owns the world’s largest natural-gas reserves, and
    the European Union is the planet’s second-biggest gas
    consumer. Russia’s controlling Europe’s gas supplies is a
    very effective way of dominating the entire Continent
    without an army, except for one soldier to turn the gas
    valve to "off" in the middle of winter. Furthermore,
    Russia’s state-owned energy giant Gazprom has offered
    Nigeria billions to develop what are possibly among the
    largest untapped gas reserves in the world. The CEO of
    ENI, Italy’s largest oil and gas company, said Europe has
19. [verwijderd] 1 september 2008 00:11

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    part V
    
    been "sleepwalking into a staggering
    dependence on imported gas," and
    when North Sea gas runs out by around
    2020, Europe might awaken, shivering
    in the dark, and ask "What do we do
    now"? In a brilliant strategic move,
    because Russia’s pipelines only carry
    gas westward and thus make it overly
    dependent on European markets, Putin
    has agreed to build a pipeline to China,
    giving Russia even more competitive
    power over the European market by
    surviving Europe’s possible refusal to
    buy Russian gas! Russia’s only energy
    competitor is the abovementioned BTC
    Pipeline, now suddenly an insecure
    source of oil for Europe. Interestingly,
    America’s sanctions against Iran have
    prevented it from competing with
    Russia for the European gas market,
    classic DINOPA!*
    The Russian and Italian governments
    are cooperating on a 558-mile pipeline
    to carry 1.05-trillion cubic feet of gas
    annually from Russia into Europe
    through the Black Sea, called South
    Stream. Thus Russia quietly builds its
    chokehold on Europe’s energy
    supplies, to which it sheepishly
    acquiesces instead of scrambling to
    strive for independence by way of an
    emergency expansion of nuclear
    power.
    It was announced last month that
    Russia will coordinate its energy
    policies with Venezuela’s, sticking it
    back to America, inasmuch as
    Venezuela is already Russia’s largest
    arms customer in Latin America and is
    discussing building a pipeline to
    Brazil. Venezuela is buying three
    diesel submarines and twenty S-300
    Thor anti-aircraft missile systems from
    Russia, so is America’s foreign policy
    working as well as it might?
    NATO has been strained by the
    refusal of Europeans to provide more
    combat troops to Afghanistan, although
    France is sending a battalion of elite
    paratroopers. Here we are protecting
    Europe’s energy pipeline and NATO
    won’t send enough soldiers to
    Afghanistan. What is NATO anyway
    and why is America the unpaid
    policeman of the world, spending its
    blood and treasure? With too many
    billionaires in Moscow than in any other city in the world.*
    5) Walk Around Like a Hammer, and Everything Looks Like a
    Nail
    Actually, Russia’s invasion of Georgia did not surprise us, as we had
    already been busy working on this major TDL feature for this issue due to the
    repeated warnings that Russia was flashing to America having been completely
    ignored, when the Georgian invasion preempted us. Hearing warnings
    has not always been America’s strongest suit. We had been studying this for a
    long time. The first installment of our focus on Russia was a special feature
    "The Russian Uranium Colossus Awakens While America Dozes" in our TDL
    of 23 Mar 07 (page 6) as it aggressively expanded its nuclear-power plants in
    a fulfillment of our predictions of "The Coming Nuclear Age."
    We had been mystified by American insistence on placing 10 anti-missile
    interceptors in Poland, plus radar in the Czech Republic. While these could
    easily be overwhelmed by thousands of Russian warheads, Russia’s stated
    concern was that it would lead to a more advanced missile defense system that
    could blunt a Russian nuclear attack. Especially since the Bush decision to
    abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Why is America spending money
    purportedly to protect Europe from Iranian missiles to be stationed flush up
    against the Russian border? Particularly since an angry Russia is withdrawing
    from a treaty restricting conventional forces in Europe and a nuclear arms
    treaty? Is that worth it?
    TDL was impressed by Putin having offered compromises, such as Russia’s
    early warning radar in Azerbaijan, or even stationing the anti-missile systems
    in Turkey. The Americans rejected their offer because they said that that radar
    was old – but why not update it? Instead, US officials insisted that Garbala in
20. [verwijderd] 1 september 2008 00:12

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    part VI
    
    Azerbaijan could complement rather than substitute for
    the Czech radar, which put Putin off sufficiently to again
    warn that Russia would target its own missiles at
    European countries if America went ahead placing
    missiles and radars on its borders. And the Strategic
    Arms Reduction Treaty that expires in 2009? America
    wants a less-formal agreement to decrease the stockpile
    of nuclear weapons, while Russia is publicly pushing for
    a legally binding agreement. We’d like to see that
    debated also.
    Putin also questioned why the US was basing troops in
    two other former Soviet Bloc nations, Bulgaria and
    Romania, stating: "NATO is bringing its adversarial
    forces to our state’s borders, and it is a serious factor
    provoking reduction of mutual trust." Russia’s Foreign
    Minister Sergey Lavrov asked America to freeze its
    plans for the missile bases in Poland and the Czech
    Republic while negotiations for compromise could
    continue, but Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
    declined, for no discernible reason. What’s the rush? Last
    December Foreign Minister Lavrov said that Washington
    had gone back on the compromises agreed* on when he
    had met with Rice the previous October, including
    constant Russian monitoring of the US missile bases.
    Putin also rejected Bush’s view that there is an
    "imminent" Iranian threat, believing instead that Bush’s
    motive is to encircle Russia. In October Lavrov was
    promised that Russian personnel could be stationed
    permanently at the sites to monitor their operations, but
    America later broke its agreement* unilaterally to allow
    only intermittent visits, and even those visits would have
    been subject to Polish and Czech approval. Putin wanted
    perceived threats at the missile bases to be evaluated not
    only by America, but also Russia and European nations,
    prompting Putin to portray America as a hot-headed
    threat to global peace.
    After all that, on 15 Aug 08 – amidst the Georgian
    crisis – the United States and Poland rushed to sign the
    missile deal, provoking a furious reaction from Russia.
    Worse, the final deal included "at least temporarily,
    American soldiers to staff air defense sites in Poland
    oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would
    be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with
    greater speed than required under NATO, of which
    Poland is a member," (New York Times, 15 Aug 08).
    Poland gets enhanced security cooperation, notably a
    top-of-the-line Patriot air defense system that could shoot
    down shorter-range missiles or attacking fighters or
    bombers, with a battery moved from Germany to Poland,
    and operated by about 100 American military personnel.
    As we studied different news accounts, they all
    consistently reported that the Bush Administration had
    invited Moscow to join as a partner in the missiledefense
    system, which does not appear to have been
    entirely accurate.
    'F
    7 JCF
    DGVVGT JQNF
    What makes this crazy is that NATO’s anti-missile
    missiles cannot always find their targets, are easily fooled
    by decoys, and the laser plane is a big Boeing 747 that
    could simply be shot down by missiles, or Russian missiles
    fired while the plane was being refueled – so the system is
    never going to work and again we are perplexed as to what
    this is all about. An angry Russia warned Poland that it is
    exposing itself to a nuclear attack by accepting the base on
    its soil, to which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
    replied that, "Russia should welcome having democracies
    on its border, not threaten them."
    The above should bring into focus why Russia is reacting
    so badly to South Ossetia, which Russia has ruled for
    centuries, and it is clear to us that Ukraine could be the
    next big controversy. Now the West is confronted with its
    next nightmare: Ukraine, part of Russia for over 200 years –
    if American missiles get planted in that country – might be
    a cause of war with a Russian opponent that possesses
    thousands of multi-warhead, nuclear-tipped weapons, and
    intercontinental ballistic missiles that could deliver them
    anywhere in the world. At least one-third of Russia’s
    military equipment is made in Ukrainian factories, and the
    Ukrainian capital (Kiev) is known as the "Mother of
    Russian cities." Around 17% of Ukraine’s population of 46
    million is ethnically Russian, and has been part of Russia
    since the 18th century, so Putin has ample pretexts to
    invade it. Ukraine also strategically controls Russia’s
    Black Sea fleet, based in Sevastopol. If America thinks
    Russia will allow Ukraine to join NATO and put missiles
    in it, or in Georgia, both within easy range of Moscow,
    then it’s time for the world to start building nuclear bomb
    shelters again, all of us. Inconceivably, it seems as if
    Russia is being deliberately antagonized in order to restart
    the Cold War, and we do not understand why we do not let
    sleeping dogs lie. Who is really behind all this?
    Scheunemann? And who behind him?
    The enclave of South Ossetia, which is two-thirds
    Ossetian and one-third Georgian, is in a way comparable
    with Kosovo’s enclave in Serbia, and is it not a fair
    question for the Russians to ask why it was okay to wrench
    Kosovo away from Serbia but not South Ossetia from
    Georgia? Around 90% of Kosovo’s 2-million people are
    ethnic Albanians, much as 90% of the South Ossetians
    would like to be independent of Georgia and join the North
21. [verwijderd] 1 september 2008 00:12

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    part VII
    
    Advice and Information for Traders and Investors August 22, 2008, Page 7
    Ossetians across the Russian border. Again TDL
    inquires, supposing Russia does invade Poland, would
    America really get into a nuclear exchange with Russia?
    And with whose army, since America is already tied
    down in two wars it can barely handle? And we don’t
    even know who the next American president is going to
    be, or what he would really do in that situation, do we?
    6) What Will Be Said When Later They Ask,
    "Who Lost Superpower Russia?"
    Speculation that Russia might seek a military presence
    in Cuba was denied by Moscow, although Vice-Premier
    Igor Sechin met (on 31 Jul 08) with Cuban President
    Raul Castro to discuss projects in energy, health care
    and communications. Is Georgia really worth getting
    Cuba and Venezuela together under Russia’s leadership?
    And why has Venezuela bought from Russia 5,000
    sniper rifles, or the Dragunov long-barreled semiautomatic
    design with telescopic sights, superseding the
    Kalashnikov rifle that has been so deadly against
    American troops in Iraq? To foment guerrilla
    revolutions in Latin America?
    Instead of aggravating Russia’s fears, wise strategic
    thinking might be to reassure Russia to be more
    confident about its relationship with the West, as its
    more-serious problems include its 2,700-mile border
    shared with a China that must envy relativelyunpopulated
    Siberia’s rich resources, and which
    continues to slip in illegal immigrants. Also militant
    Islam on its southern borders, with past troubles in
    Chechnya and Afghanistan only a prologue. The West
    does not even seem to realize it is in an international
    religious war, much less that Russia will be our natural
    ally on the West’s front lines, straddling much of the
    entire Eurasian landmass.
    In a brilliantly written article one year ago, our
    Russian studies noted that (1 Aug 2007), the Financial
    Times (London) reported Russia was perceiving the
    West as ungrateful and unfriendly, so Putin sent
    Alexander Voloshin, former Chief of Staff to both Putin
    and Yeltsin, on a private trip to meet senior US officials
    in Washington. Voloshin recounted Moscow’s
    concessions, including having closed its intelligencegathering
    post in Cuba, another base in Vietnam, and a
    green light given for the US to use air bases in central
    Asia to support the invasion of Afghanistan. He told
    them Putin had gotten very far out ahead of the FSB
    (KGB), but in return got NATO in Kosovo, the Orange
    Revolution in Ukraine, and the Rose Revolution in
    Georgia. The US response to Voloshin was a callous:
    "So what"?
    That was the last straw for Putin who concluded that
    striving to get the attention of the US by being nice was
    over, and it heralded his speech to the Munich Security
    Conference this February in which he fiercely criticized
    US foreign policy, especially the siting of missiledefense
    units in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin
    yet again attacked NATO enlargement as a hostile gesture,
    the forerunner of an abrogation of the Conventional Forces
    in Europe treaty. Russia wants respect for its system of
    "managed democracy" that has seen the creation of two
    artificial pro-Kremlin parties to dominate the State Duma, or
    its peculiar market economy combining a free-for-all in
    wealth creation but with rules favoring state-controlled
    companies, and it’s their country.
    To be fair, while the West might seem insensitive to
    Russia’s fears, due to its past history, it would also be fair to
    note that its members also remember Stalin’s Low-State
    brutality, and the Orwellian gulag. The West is defensively
    wary of Russian troops moving outside its borders again, but
    are its actions and attitudes ironically producing that very
    result? By DINOPA?
    7) Conclusions: War is a Shout to the Deaf
    TDL has amply demonstrated on previous occasions a
    willingness to follow the truth anywhere it leads us, even if
    it means standing up to the whole world. What we perceive
    as the central issue is not Russian aggression in Georgia.
    The world’s press and media are saturated with criticism of
    Russia’s invasion of Ossetia, but our focus is different.* We
    view the Georgian invasion as the effect rather than the
    cause. To us, the real cause is NATO’s insistence on
    planting anti-missile bases ever-closer to Russia’s borders,
    despite warnings. This is not about Georgia, just as wet
    sidewalks don’t cause rain. The killing question is not what
    to do about the Russian invasion of Georgia, but why is
    NATO (actually America) insisting on building missile
    bases closer to Russia’s borders while declaring missiles are
    there to protect Europe and the world from Iran, and is it
    worth a nuclear war over it? As was stated in our Secrets of
    High States book (page 126), "Force is the lowest form of
    communication," and see how it is already causing trouble
    in Georgia.
    The Constitution of the United States requires the consent
    of Congress to declare war, but the treaty with Poland forces
    us to go to war if Poland is attacked. Huh? George
    Washington specifically bequeathed a warning to us to
    "avoid entangling alliances." We had been observing the
    bases being built closer to Russia despite Putin’s warnings,
    with growing alarm and, as noted above, it erupted just
    before we were going to publish it in this issue anyway.