StarGateWars Forums

Answer me liquid this please.

Do you think Kosovo should stay separated from serbia, because Kosovo wishes not to return?

LiQuiD wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

take a good look at where russia is. russia are no where near competing with the usa. lol small and relatively new canada makes more naq than proud ancient russia.

urogard wrote:illusion of superiority

nato is superior. theres no illusion, unless i miss something?

i can see china overtaking the west in terms of economic power. i dont believe this will drastically change the world though. china is often introspective. if you dont mess around inside their borders they dont mess within yours (overtly)

this situation seems to be escalating. current russian and western polotics are playing a big role it seems. recognising the two new states knowing it would heighten tension is stupid. russia thinks its the mighty bear showing its strength to the world. if it pushes too far what then? war? the next war after that one would be fought with bows and arrows.

russia would loose any such cold war II. it can not compete on equal footing with nato in prolonged hostility. it has much to loose. it needs to stop flexing its muscles unless it wants some M.A.D. party.

i can think of few things worse than a new cold war. history will judge the aggressor in this by their actions. and i sincerely hope the west doesn't help rebuild Russia after they fall again.

Actually the European Union is starting to take over the market right now (slowly)... that's a different discussion though. But if you see more oil producing nations switch over to selling under the Euro it will probably be a disaster for the US economy and NATO. I don't believe Russia will fall economically again since they have already been though their economic valley and are starting to climb back up(its still a long way). I believe they should consider switching under the union for their own good in the long run(their not ready now but you would probably see soaring living standards over a fairly short time). Not posturing against them. But their might be too much history to overcome their. Silly Russians

[spoiler]



Biggest Newspaper In Holland Says Dutch Intelligence Helped Prepare Imminent Attack On Iran
De Telegraaf front page says sources inside AVID helped CIA map air attack


StumbleUpon

The biggest Newspaper in the Netherlands today devotes its front page to news that the Dutch intelligence agency has helped the CIA prepare for an air attack on Iran which it now believes is imminent.

AVID, Holland's military intelligence service, has pulled back from operations it was carrying out inside Iran as it believes an American led attack will go ahead within weeks according to De Telegraaf's sources.

The headline reads:

"AIVD is calling back spy because of US plans
ATTACK ON IRAN IMMINENT"

De Telegraaf reports that the decision has already been made by the U.S.
to attack Iran using unmanned aircraft. Potential targets are said to be nuclear facilities and military installations. The latter have been mapped by the CIA with the help of the Dutch secret service.

A portion of the article reads:

Good sources have declared to the Telegraaf that the AIVD has been operating in Iran for the last few years with the purpose of the infiltration and sabotage of the weapons industry of the Iranian republic.

The operations are said to have been "very successful" but have recently been put to a halt because of american plans for an air attack. Information regarding the AIVD operation has been shared with the CIA in recent years according to the sources.

Iran is probably working towards an atomic bomb and refuses to comply to western demands to stop enriching uranium. In june Israeli vice president Shaul Mofaz made the statement that an Israeli attack is inevitable if Iran continues its quest for atomic weapons.[/spoiler]


[spoiler]War With Russia Is on the Agenda


Thinking about the massive failure of the U.S. media to report truthfully is sobering. The United States, bristling with nuclear weapons and pursuing a policy of world hegemony, has a population that is kept in the dark — indeed brainwashed — about the most important and most dangerous events of our time.

The power of the Israel lobby is an important component of keeping Americans in the dark. Recently, I watched a documentary that demonstrates the control that the Israel lobby exercises over Americans' view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As a result of the U.S. media's one-sided coverage, few Americans are aware that for decades Israel has been ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes and lands under protection of America's veto in the United Nations. Instead, the dispossessed Palestinians are portrayed as mindless terrorists who attack innocent Israel.

If one reads Israeli newspapers, such as Haaretz, or publications from Israeli organizations, such as the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, one gets a radically different view of the situation than the propagandistic version delivered by U.S. media and evangelical pulpits.

Most Americans know of the 2000 attack by Muslim terrorists on the USS Cole in Aden harbor in Yemen that resulted in 17 dead and 39 wounded American sailors. But few have heard of Israel's 1967 attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 American sailors dead and 174 wounded. Pressured by the Israel lobby, President Johnson ordered Adm. McCain, father of the Republican presidential nominee, to cover up the attack. To this day there never has been a congressional investigation.

The failure of the American media is again evident in the coverage of the Georgian-Russian conflict. The U.S. media presented the conflict as a Russian invasion of Georgia, whereas in actual fact the American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian military launched a sneak attack to kill and drive the Russian population out of South Ossetia, a separatist province.

Russian peacekeepers, together with Georgian ones, had been stationed in South Ossetia since the early 1990s. On orders from Mikheil Saakashvili, the American puppet "president" of Georgia, the Georgian peacekeepers turned their weapons on the unsuspecting Russian peacekeepers and murdered them.

This action by Saakashvili, elected with money from the neoconservative National Endowment for Democracy, an election-rigging tool of U.S. hegemony, was a war crime. In truth, the Russians should have hung Saakashvili, as he is far more guilty than was Saddam Hussein. But it is Russia, not Saakashvili, that the U.S. media have demonized.

Americans have become perfect subjects for George Orwell's Big Brother. They sit stupidly in front of the TV news or The New York Times or The Washington Post and absorb the lies fed to them. What is wrong with Americans? Why do they put up with it? Are Americans the nation of sheep that Judge Andrew P. Napolitano says they are? Americans flaunt "freedom and democracy" and live under a Ministry of Propaganda.

Two decades ago, President Reagan reached agreement with Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev to end the dangerous Cold War. But every one of Reagan's successors has sought to pick a new fight with Russia. In violation of the agreement, NATO has been taken to Russia's borders, and the United States is determined to put former constituent parts of Russia herself into NATO. In an effort to neutralize Russia's nuclear deterrent and compromise her independence, the United States is putting anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders.

The gratuitously aggressive U.S. military policy toward Russia will lead to nuclear war. I am confident that if Americans elect John McCain, or the Republicans steal another presidential election, there will be nuclear war in the second decade of the 21st century.
The neocon lies, propaganda, macho flag-waving and use of U.S. foreign policy in the interests of a few military-security firms, oil companies and Israel are all leading in that direction.

The November election is perhaps the last chance to avoid nuclear war. But the opportunity might already have been missed. The Republicans have chosen as their candidate one of the most ignorant warmongers alive. The Democrats' choice was between one of the most divisive women in America and a man of mixed race with a funny name. Considering American's taste for war, the Democratic candidate could fail to defeat the GOP war candidate.

Many Americans will vote against Barack Obama because he is black. Why does mixed ancestry confer the black label? If America's population were predominantly black, would Obama be considered white?

Race and propaganda are more likely to determine the outcome of the November election than any awareness or consideration of real issues by voters.

The real issues are suffocated by the media. The American middle class is being destroyed by job-offshoring and work visas for foreigners, while the incomes of the super-rich are soaring. The U.S. dollar's reserve currency status is eroded. The United States is massively in debt at home and abroad. Health insurance is unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Injured veterans are being nickeled and dimed, while Halliburton's profits escalate. Americans are losing their homes, while the U.S. government bails out banks. Wars with Iran, Russia and China are being planned in order to secure U.S. hegemony.

Americans no longer have a government that is for the people and by the people. They have a government for and by special interests and an insane ideology.

But Americans have war, which lets them take out all their frustrations, resentments and disappointments on "Muslim terrorists" and "Russian aggressors." Few Americans are disturbed that 1.25 million Iraqis and an unknown number of Afghans have died as a result of American invasions based on Bush regime lies and deceptions. Even Americans, like Sen. Biden, Obama's selection for vice president, who understand that the wars are based on lies, still want the United States to win. So, it was all a mistake and a deception, but let's win anyway and keep on killing.

I know people who still complain that the United States did not nuke North Vietnam. When I ask why Vietnam should have been nuked, they reply, "If we had nuked them we would have won."

What would America have won? The answer is world loathing and the loss of the Cold War.

For many Americans, war is like a sports contest in which they take vicarious pleasure and cheer on their side to victory. Millions of Americans are still bitter that "the liberal media" and war protesters caused America to lose the Vietnam War, and they are determined that this won't happen again. These Americans have no realization that there was no more reason for the United States to be fighting in Vietnam 40 years ago than to be fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan or tomorrow in Iran.

Obama, if elected, is no guarantee against nuclear war. Obama has shown that he is as much under the Israel lobby's thumb as McCain. Obama's foreign affairs advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is not a neocon, but he was born in Warsaw, Poland, and has the Pole's animosity toward Russia. The Bush administration has already changed U.S. war doctrine to permit pre-emptive nuclear attack. With the U.S. government determined to ring Russia with puppet states and military bases, war is inevitable.

Presidential appointees face confirmation in the Senate. Any of Obama's appointees who might be out of step with plans for U.S. and Israeli hegemony could expect opposition from large corporations and the Israel lobby. There is no assurance that an Obama administration would not be positioned on "the issues" by the same special interests that have positioned the Bush administration.

Americans are filled with hubris, not with knowledge. They have no awareness of the calamity that their government's pursuit of hegemony is bringing to themselves and to life on earth.[/spoiler]




full spoiler article can be found here: http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-cr ... nsName=pcr


well, after reading that article it must be clear to everyone whose read it that our leaders are mad, i use the term "mad" deliberately because one nuclear superpower trying to force a confrontation with another must by the very definition, be mad!

write to your members of parliament and congressman and tell them....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!.

I will enjoy a hearted laugh at anyone who'll consider those slap-in-the-face facts as conspiracy theory, even though they reflect american past and future foreign policy

people all over the world have been so conditioned, so brainwashed and have become so reliant on the state for everything that they will deny a nuke has been set off while they stand there dieing from radiation poisoning!

sigh, my avatar says it all methinks

[KMA]Avenger wrote:people all over the world have been so conditioned, so brainwashed and have become so reliant on the state for everything that they will deny a nuke has been set off while they stand there dieing from radiation poisoning!

sigh, my avatar says it all methinks

ha...your current claims in this post do not even scratch the surface of what they mean.

Thats no direct reflection upon you btw, its just another horrible truth most people do not even begin to comprehend.

On what uro said, some is true imo (Georgia part), however, I don't believe some other parts.
War on Russia, Iran and China?
Where will the money come from? And the troops?
If a war against two little countries costs 400bil/year, then imagine a war vs Iran alone would cost...

jim, you have to understand that these neocon people behind the scenes have gone mad, they don't think what the war will cost. the troops will come from "the draft" being reinstated, a war with iran will be the catalyst for world war 4...

i say WW4 because WW3 has already been declared on the people of the world by the elite.


just crazy

what draft? perhaps you saw it on tv and got mixed up between fiction and reality. it happens, and to some more than others aswel it seems.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i say WW4 because WW3 has already been declared on the people of the world by the elite.

no there have been only two world wars. i didnt miss the third one which only you saw. perhaps it happened near your house so the rest of the world was unaware of it?
and you mean the elites from halo? they are dangerous i agree. . . with their swords an all

[KMA]Avenger wrote:just crazy

you might be.

a war in iran could lead to WWIII but i doubt it. no one wants a 3rd world war as no one could win such a war. and iran isnt a big enough cause for a world war. if they are attacked it wont stand a chance. you cant have global conflict if a country is pwned before they can phone their allies (lol north korea, burma, mcdonalds)

you cant let a country like iran gain the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons. it claims its for peaceful purposes but a country that wants to wipe israel off the map cant be trusted. wars a last resort but one that must be taken if necessary.

seems russia is getting quite comfortable in georgia. theres talk of sanctions from the EU. any thoughts on that?

and i dont see why russia isnt more invloved in the missile defence shield business. anyways they already have their own small one. cooperation is better than confrontation.

LiQuiD wrote:what draft? perhaps you saw it on tv and got mixed up between fiction and reality. it happens, and to some more than others aswel it seems.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i say WW4 because WW3 has already been declared on the people of the world by the elite.

no there have been only two world wars. i didnt miss the third one which only you saw. perhaps it happened near your house so the rest of the world was unaware of it?
and you mean the elites from halo? they are dangerous i agree. . . with their swords an all

[KMA]Avenger wrote:just crazy

you might be.

a war in iran could lead to WWIII but i doubt it. no one wants a 3rd world war as no one could win such a war. and iran isnt a big enough cause for a world war. if they are attacked it wont stand a chance. you cant have global conflict if a country is pwned before they can phone their allies (lol north korea, burma, mcdonalds)

you cant let a country like iran gain the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons. it claims its for peaceful purposes but a country that wants to wipe israel off the map cant be trusted. wars a last resort but one that must be taken if necessary.

seems russia is getting quite comfortable in georgia. theres talk of sanctions from the EU. any thoughts on that?

and i dont see why russia isnt more invloved in the missile defence shield business. anyways they already have their own small one. cooperation is better than confrontation.

Iran should be watched...that's all I think has to be done. Any strange/suspect move by them, and then, actions can be taken.
Georgia started this mess...also don't forget Kosovo's independance. EU approved it. So, why Ossetia and Abkhazia couldn't be? They want as much as Kosovo afteral! We shouldn't have allowed it then..
Considering who holds the missiles bases for shield, I doubt it's -only- directed at Iran...
Cooperating with Russia would be better, but well...jealousy of another superpower and Cold war nostalgia wouldn't let it happen.

LiQuiD wrote:what draft? perhaps you saw it on tv and got mixed up between fiction and reality. it happens, and to some more than others aswel it seems.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i say WW4 because WW3 has already been declared on the people of the world by the elite.

no there have been only two world wars. i didnt miss the third one which only you saw. perhaps it happened near your house so the rest of the world was unaware of it?
and you mean the elites from halo? they are dangerous i agree. . . with their swords an all

[KMA]Avenger wrote:just crazy

you might be.

a war in iran could lead to WWIII but i doubt it. no one wants a 3rd world war as no one could win such a war. and iran isnt a big enough cause for a world war. if they are attacked it wont stand a chance. you cant have global conflict if a country is pwned before they can phone their allies (lol north korea, burma, mcdonalds)

you cant let a country like iran gain the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons. it claims its for peaceful purposes but a country that wants to wipe israel off the map cant be trusted. wars a last resort but one that must be taken if necessary.

seems russia is getting quite comfortable in georgia. theres talk of sanctions from the EU. any thoughts on that?

and i dont see why russia isnt more invloved in the missile defence shield business. anyways they already have their own small one. cooperation is better than confrontation.

the crazy ones are the ones in power who are provoking a war with russia by funding, training and urging the georgians peace keepers to kill the russian peace keepers and then bomb and kill 2k+ civis in the middle of the night, putting missile defence systems in poland and making backroom deals with other former soviet satellites thereby surrounding russia and now they want to impose sanctions on them to stop russia selling cheap oil and gas, in effect keeping prices high and making sure they keep an economic stranglehold on russia...which wont happen cuz they'll just nuke poland and invade their former satellites which in all likelihood escalate out of control.

any army attempting to invade russia would get its backside handed to them if its a conventional ground/air attack.

many troops leaving the armd forces now are being employed by private corporations who have their own standing armys and intell units (check out blackwater corp), so now we have legal mercs in iraq and afghanistan, do you think these armys would be a match for russian forces?

hitler (being the last person to admit this) said that waging a war on 2 fronts is madness, he wrote that in mein kampf...using that logic, how are we to define a war on 3+ fronts?

where would the troops come from? the US and UK armed forces are stretched to breaking point as it is, with armed forces moral at an all time low!

yes WW3 is underway but don't take my word for it (before you say so, i know you wont).

this is the world aka earth
http://bpujos.free.fr/PagesPhotos/Photo ... ld_map.GIF
have a look. its not easy to surround russia.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:which wont happen cuz they'll just nuke poland and invade their former satellites which in all likelihood escalate out of control.

if they nuked poland nato would nuke russia. therefore russia wouldnt nuke poland. its called MAD.

i dont see how the EU or russia could put sanctions on eachother. they are too dependent on eachother.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:any army attempting to invade russia would get its backside handed to them if its a conventional ground/air attack.

i doubt that. it would be a terrible fight though. the only real advantage russia would have would be fighting on home ground.

these merc companies are used for everyday security, not invasion. thinking they would spearhead a nato assult is silly.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:where would the troops come from? the US and UK armed forces are stretched to breaking point as it is, with armed forces moral at an all time low!

theres reserve forces aswel as THE REST OF NATO. it wouldnt be the usa/uk alone. they would have like 24 countries with them (aswel as MNNAs).

[KMA]Avenger wrote:yes WW3 is underway but don't take my word for it (before you say so, i know you wont).

er it has to be said that it isnt and i wont

well all i can say to tht lot is this...

i wouldn't go around provoking the russians like they did the japs prior to pearl harbor, which they seem hell bent on doing.
i also doubt all of nato would want to get involved because the US, israel and the UK dont know when to quit, and if a war does come about with russia the US, israel and the UK will be to blame.

i never said the mercs would be a spearhead and wasn't trying to imply that (my bad if thats the impression i gave) but these guys would be little use against any russian forces they would be pitted against, either as an independent strike group or mixed in with the armed forces, i seriously doubt soldiers fighting for their country would want someone fighting for money in their midst.


besides, if war does come, any force attacking russia would have to start the campaign in spring at the absolute latest....do you think an aggressor could at best beat the russians in 6 to 7 months, tops?

and do you think western equipment (no matter how sophisticated) could deal with the harshness of the russian terrain during the winter months?

even if an invading army could secure a foothold and dig in till winter passes, the extreme cold combined with the incessant counter attacks would be so demoralizing it would be akin to a suicide move for any government wishing to undertake such a mind numbingly stupid venture!

Napoleon learnt it the hard way.
So did Hitler.

Moral of the story?
You don't invade Russia.
You just don't.

That's like mixing day and night together, it just doesn't work.

where to start

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i also doubt all of nato would want to get involved because the US, israel and the UK dont know when to quit, and if a war does come about with russia the US, israel and the UK will be to blame

if one nato country is attacked it is taken as an attack on all members. how would only israel, usa and uk be responsible? russia would be the innocent choir boy im sure

[KMA]Avenger wrote:but these guys would be little use against any russian forces they would be pitted against

it wouldnt surprise me if they were equal to russian regulars. most of the mercs are ex-military from what i know.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:either as an independent strike group or mixed in with the armed forces

LOL yes they would mix the few thousand mercs in with regular units LOL get real. 1) they wouldnt mix them in a frontline combat group 2)there are not enough mercs to make a difference anyway.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i seriously doubt soldiers fighting for their country would want someone fighting for money in their midst

fighting for money LOL (again) soldiers get paid therefore they fight for money also. fighting for a country and getting paid arent mutually exclusive.


no an attack on russia wouldnt have to wait for spring. for a large scale land campaign, maybe, but an attack doesnt need sunny skies.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:do you think an aggressor could at best beat the russians in 6 to 7 months, tops?

depends on your definition of beat.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:and do you think western equipment (no matter how sophisticated) could deal with the harshness of the russian terrain during the winter months?

yes. nato equipment isnt made of paper and glass.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:even if an invading army could secure a foothold and dig in till winter passes, the extreme cold combined with the incessant counter attacks would be so demoralizing it would be akin to a suicide move for any government wishing to undertake such a mind numbingly stupid venture!

they invading army wouldnt dig in. it would be mobile warfare, not trench warfare. and nato does have cold weather clothing if you think they dont maybe do some research. . .

the incessant counter attacks would be only counters to natos attacks. hence their name, COUNTER. nato would be attacking with russia on the back foot. air superiority would be natos. could russia even afford to fire missiles i wonder. nato could fire off £billions worth of ordinance in a day. smart bombs are extremely expensive.

it could be a suicide move for the governments which attack but that would depend on the cause for the attack. if russia nuked poland that would be a justification. if putin said france was gay, that would not.

urogard wrote:Napoleon learnt it the hard way.
So did Hitler.

not exactly a modern example mate. warfares changed a bit since then. and russias past tactics to deal with invasion seems to be to withdraw and retreat, surrendering huge swathes of their country until the invaders get bored and go away.

dont get me wrong it would be a bloody battle which would be hell. no one would want it. no sane person. but if either side goes too far and uses military force against the other side it would be war. the russian bear would be left with a mangled after facing nato, unless nukes were utilised, in which case everyone would loose.