worldbubble
Active Member
if it were truth US would invade Russia the day after they gave up these weapons :lol:miniroo said:
Russia invading Ukraine --- Silver/Gold Implications?
- Thread starter silvermed
- Start date
mmissinglink said:
I dunno, America is a shadow of what it likes to think, Russia is the future, free of Rothschild central banking, big resources, not a vassel of Israel..
My money is on BRICS for the future..
And Russia have thier naval base in the Crimea, and most of the inhabitants are Russian..
This is to deflect away from what's going on in Palestine ATM,
mmissinglink said:
Russia could wipe the US off the face of the earth in like 1.2s as well. What is your point
The USA might try economics sanctions and posturing but that is all it will be is chest beating and words the USA didnt have the balls to fire in the cuban missile crisis and wont now.
The USA like to think they are the world police and the universe revolves around them, I hope the Russians hand it to them, would be nice to see the arrogant yanks taken down a notch or 2.
you are 110000% absolutly incorrect saying Russia is no military threat to the USA,
lol the USA couldn't stop North Korea and lost in Vietnam, the USA are all that great either, I would be putting my $$ on the Russians / Chinese combo anyday.
mmissinglink said:
its time to remind you the USA has done NO BETTER in Afghanistan than the Russians did( infarct probably the USA have done worse considering the USA GAVE the Afghanies weapons to fight the Russians)
, they are going home with their tail between their legs and mark my words within a month after the last ** hack spit *** USA boots are off the ground the Talliban will be back in power.
One of my favourite authors. Goes a long way in explaining what is happening in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
The Clash of Civilizations is a theory that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. It was proposed by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington
Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rights, liberal democracy, and capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the 'end of history' in a Hegelian sense. The identification of Western civilization with the Western Christianity (Catholic-Protestant) was not Huntington's original idea, it was rather the traditional Western viewpoint and subdivision before the Cold War era.[5]
Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious lines.[6]
As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
The Clash of Civilizations is a theory that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. It was proposed by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington
Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rights, liberal democracy, and capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the 'end of history' in a Hegelian sense. The identification of Western civilization with the Western Christianity (Catholic-Protestant) was not Huntington's original idea, it was rather the traditional Western viewpoint and subdivision before the Cold War era.[5]
Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious lines.[6]
As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict.
Court Jester said:
I'm with you CJ
What an arrogant bunch idiots these Americans are.
History also seems to have been written to forget and minimise the role the Russians played in WWII. They were the real heroes in my opinion, the USA did not win the war for the Allies, the Russians played a far greater role than is generally acknowledged.
Most of the sabre rattling in the last Century has been done by the USA to the detriment of the rest of the world. The USA are not the "world savers" they they make themselves out to be.
bellinvest
New Member
worldbubble said:
I'm with you on these points!
NATO wouldn't dare to get involved in this conflict. Russia have the energy tap into Europe. They turned off the gas a few years ago because the Ukraine didnt pay their bills...Europe ended up paying for them because people were freezing to death. Lost revenue + people freezing would be a situation which is resolved fairly quickly for the benefit of both sides.
Russia will take back their historic and cultural land of Crimea with little objection. The real question revolves around the Urkainian lands bordering Russia! These areas still host many russians or russian speaking Ukrainians. THESE area's are where the wealth is in the country...they provide for the other side of the Ukraine. These areas might have ongoing conflicts until its split up.
The USA is a burnt out old horse with loud mouths and a big military. Their politicians are clowns at a side show. Talking about how Russia is breaking international law... how about the invasion of Iraq, Missiles launched in Libya, Arms support for rebels in Syria, drone strike on innocent people throughout the middle east... these are the biggest ter*sts in the world.
Getting to the point - GOLD AND SILVER UP + OIL AND GAS. Depending on how long this fuzz continues will reflect raw commodity prices.
Lot of naive posters here rambling on about how good Russia is and kicking America in the guts.
If you think Russia is such a fantastic country I suggest you pack up and move over there for awhile to give yourselves a reality check. Than you will realize how naive you were to shoot from the hip and make such wild statements from the comfort of your 1st world country which actually has a rule of law and allows you a lot more freedoms than you will find in Mother Russia.
Russia is basically a mafia run state now and there is very little protection from the law. If you make enemies of the wrong people you will either end up dead or broken and imprisoned with little chance of escape. Most Russians who have the means are looking for an escape into Western Europe or another country which actually allows human rights. If they thought Russia was so good why would they be now leaving??
I have nothing against the Russian people, they are like most people throughout the world, just wanting to live out their lives in peace and security. It's the leadership which is the problem(this is true for a lot countries).
As far a military forces go America has the most combat efficient force the world has ever seen bar none. Does this ensure victory every time, of course not. But if I'm a betting man I would back America and her Allies in any conventional warfare. For those of you who want to bring up Afghanistan and Iraq, well I will just say that they aren't conventional wars. Operation Desert Storm was a conventional battle which America and her allies made an absolute mockery of the Iraqi forces. So was the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam was ousted from power within 21 days of the the war beginning. It was only after the conventional warfare had finished that it turned into Guerrilla warfare.
Guerrilla war's are notoriously difficult, and almost always impossible for the invading force to succeed 100% in controlling the country unless the local population willingly roll over. Look at the German occupied area's during WW2, the Germans were constantly battling insurgents throughout the occupation. We can even go back and look at the Roman army which was regarded as the most advanced at the time, they never completely dominated all the areas they conquered and were continually battling insurgents within the occupied regions. Anyways war is really just an extension of economic warfare and you only have to look at the collapse of the USSR to see that in it's full glory.
Every country has it's issues and none are perfect, but I know where I would prefer to live and have voted with my feet(so to speak).
If you think Russia is such a fantastic country I suggest you pack up and move over there for awhile to give yourselves a reality check. Than you will realize how naive you were to shoot from the hip and make such wild statements from the comfort of your 1st world country which actually has a rule of law and allows you a lot more freedoms than you will find in Mother Russia.
Russia is basically a mafia run state now and there is very little protection from the law. If you make enemies of the wrong people you will either end up dead or broken and imprisoned with little chance of escape. Most Russians who have the means are looking for an escape into Western Europe or another country which actually allows human rights. If they thought Russia was so good why would they be now leaving??
I have nothing against the Russian people, they are like most people throughout the world, just wanting to live out their lives in peace and security. It's the leadership which is the problem(this is true for a lot countries).
As far a military forces go America has the most combat efficient force the world has ever seen bar none. Does this ensure victory every time, of course not. But if I'm a betting man I would back America and her Allies in any conventional warfare. For those of you who want to bring up Afghanistan and Iraq, well I will just say that they aren't conventional wars. Operation Desert Storm was a conventional battle which America and her allies made an absolute mockery of the Iraqi forces. So was the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam was ousted from power within 21 days of the the war beginning. It was only after the conventional warfare had finished that it turned into Guerrilla warfare.
Guerrilla war's are notoriously difficult, and almost always impossible for the invading force to succeed 100% in controlling the country unless the local population willingly roll over. Look at the German occupied area's during WW2, the Germans were constantly battling insurgents throughout the occupation. We can even go back and look at the Roman army which was regarded as the most advanced at the time, they never completely dominated all the areas they conquered and were continually battling insurgents within the occupied regions. Anyways war is really just an extension of economic warfare and you only have to look at the collapse of the USSR to see that in it's full glory.
Every country has it's issues and none are perfect, but I know where I would prefer to live and have voted with my feet(so to speak).
All these comments make me smile. Of course the US won't start a war with Russia. They can't even win a war against Afghanistan and Iraq...
Besides, Russia is doing in Crimea what much of the West has been doing for decades in many parts of the world. Crimea is overwhelmingly inhabited by people with Russian ancestry who would rather be part of Russia. Ukraine is now run by a anti-Russia government, which is likely to make life difficult for these "Russian" people. This government of Ukraine wasn't even democratically elected. The democratically elected president was overthrown through an illegal armed uprising (that's how the Russians see it). Now the new government will make life difficult for the Russians. Shouldn't Russia intervene and help them? Note that it is only intervening in the province where the majority of the people are of Russian descent. It isn't doing anything in the rest of the country. Don't forget that Crimea was also once part of the Russian empire, and indeed "Russian civilisation" was born in Crimea.
Imagine if one small section of Indonesia had an overwhelmingly Australian population, and a pro-Australian government was elected, and then overthrown and replaced by an anti-Australian government which would make life difficult for Australians. Wouldn't many Australians want the army to go and protect these people?
What about the military interventions of the French in Africa? Of USA pretty much everywhere? Of Australia in East Timor? There are two sides to every silver and gold coin. The Russians see one side, the Western press sees the other one.
Besides, Russia is doing in Crimea what much of the West has been doing for decades in many parts of the world. Crimea is overwhelmingly inhabited by people with Russian ancestry who would rather be part of Russia. Ukraine is now run by a anti-Russia government, which is likely to make life difficult for these "Russian" people. This government of Ukraine wasn't even democratically elected. The democratically elected president was overthrown through an illegal armed uprising (that's how the Russians see it). Now the new government will make life difficult for the Russians. Shouldn't Russia intervene and help them? Note that it is only intervening in the province where the majority of the people are of Russian descent. It isn't doing anything in the rest of the country. Don't forget that Crimea was also once part of the Russian empire, and indeed "Russian civilisation" was born in Crimea.
Imagine if one small section of Indonesia had an overwhelmingly Australian population, and a pro-Australian government was elected, and then overthrown and replaced by an anti-Australian government which would make life difficult for Australians. Wouldn't many Australians want the army to go and protect these people?
What about the military interventions of the French in Africa? Of USA pretty much everywhere? Of Australia in East Timor? There are two sides to every silver and gold coin. The Russians see one side, the Western press sees the other one.
mmissinglink said:
Why would Putin escalate, he has already won? Putin just bitchslapped Obama and exposed him as a weak leader. The UN is toothless against any major power and Europe, can't win either way. Support Ukraine and Russia cuts off their gas. Support Russia and Ukraine cuts off their gas. Ask Georgia about the might and support of the US & Europe when facing Russia in Russia's own back yard.
Economic sanctions would only work if China agrees and I am betting that they won't. They will extract Russian support for their territorial issue with Japan. Russia and Ukraine will likely sign some long term agreement for Russia to use Sevastapol and Russia will leave some troops on Ukrainian soil. Putin to Europe and Obama, suck it dudes.
mmissinglink
Active Member
zulu said:
You reminded me why people like you are absolute morons who have no clue what they are talking about. If you weren't a moron, you'd have noticed that I never once suggested that I endorse or support any military attack or violence. I simply noted that this is what America is capable and willing to do. No where ever have I suggested it should be done.
.
That's true, I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq the 2nd time around, I think it was a monumental screw up and they are still paying for it now. As for the Drone strikes I think they are creating more enemies than they are killing. Some of them have been highly effective but others not so much. The problem is that we are facing an Ideological enemy who isn't constrained by the rules of war or morals for that matter either. They are brain washed from the young age and believe it is their higher purpose to kill all infidels. I know I will never bow to their Ideology and believe we should never give them a foot hold in this country either. You only have to look at the UK and France to see the issues they are having there now. What are they suppose to do with these captured terrorists, they have already seen a number that have been released than go on to continue where they left off before their capture. It's a very difficult situation, they are damned if they release them and condemned for not at the same time. I remember Obama's Presidential run up where he vowed to close down the detention camps, since being elected though and more briefed on the actual situation on the ground he has gone quite on the issue, hmm I wonder why!!!
mmissinglink
Active Member
zulu said:
@ zulu, The fact that you are trying to claim that because the Soviet Union played a role in WWII and this is why Russia today has a much more formidable military than the US shows just how asinine you truly are. Are you off your medications or something?
You can believe all you like that Russia has a much more capable military than the US but that belief has nothing to do with the truth. Every reputable analysis of global military strength by nation always puts U.S. over Russia. The following site does some interesting and worthwhile comparisons but leaves out certain important factors (such as quality, type, and number of satellite, communications, and cyber technologies) that would give the U.S. a much greater real world military advantage over Russia than is suggested here: http://www.globalfirepower.com/coun...rica&country2=Russia&Submit=Compare+Countries
And finally, stop making up lies about my views. I do not support hegemony or the imperialist use of force. Just because I acknowledge the fact that the U.S. has a much more superior military capability than Russia, doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that I support the exploitation of that power. I do not.
.
mmissinglink
Active Member
dccpa said:
The Russia - Georgia war was anything but a victory for Russia. Not even high ranking Russian military leaders like Colonel Ivan Petrik, the peacekeeper's Chief of Staff were safe from Georgian attacks. The US's role in aiding Georgia was political - the US didn't even have to get involved militarily because Russia wasn't seen as a real threat to Georgia.
Putin won't escalate more than the U.S. allows him to. Obama was not bitchslapped....it was the other way around. Obama bitchslapped Putin by warning Putin when Obama had no horse in this race at all....and still he warned Putin. That's a bitchslap. Putin will NOT militarily force the new Ukrainian gov't out of power....I am telling you this fact that I'm convinced of. Anything else that Putin does other than overthrow the cureent Ukraine gov't shows just how weak and feckless Putin is and shows the seriousness of Obama's bitchslapping Putin.
.
worldbubble
Active Member
mmissinglink said:
Few days before Putin gave his OK to increase the contingent in Crimea Obama told him - don't do it.
Instead RUssian parliament authorized the opposite, Putin did the opposite ... SO, the fact is Putin doesn't care what the West says (the same as the west doesn't care what Russia/China says) US destroyed all of these when US pissed on Security Council in UN by its actions years before current events.
There's no need for Putin to overthrow anybody in Ukraine(I agree with you), he doesn't need Ukraine as a part of Russia either - what he needs is to have NATO and EU stay away from this country. I bet NATO and EU will stay away for a long time from Ukraine as this is what they are talking about right now ... They broke the promise once when they agreed not to move to the East, but RUssia was too weak at the time ...
Europe (UK, German) in fact show some understanding of why russians moved into the Ukraine ... looks like they understand the reasoning ... but guess what - Putin haven't said a word since the even happened.
mmissinglink said:
typical yank attitude
we are the best we know all, do as we say not as we do