|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
 Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:33 pm
|
 |
|
I never said that only the United States was to blame for the situation. I said that the Europeans and the UN were also to blame. And I even said that the anti-nuclear movements were to blame, in which I was a member. But inside those movements I did say then what I am saying to you now, and I did not say that the United States should pay the whole bill. I said that the countries that had the money and didn't want to be threatened by Russian nukes should pay the bill, including my own country, where I pay taxes.
But in 1991 I was doing everything in my power as a citizen to bring about Russian nuclear disarmament. You were not. I am not comparing Europe or the United Nations to the United States. I am comparing myself to you. I tried to solve the problem. You did not.
|
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Wed Jul 02, 2003 11:03 pm
|
|
|
quote:
I said that the countries that had the money and didn't want to be threatened by Russian nukes should pay the bill, including my own country, where I pay taxes.
And what proof do you have that paying the communist party, under Yeltsin would help with anything approaching disarmament? The communist party has money. The people don't. Sounds like you are advocating the act of spinelessly giving in to extortion. Russia threatens you with a nuke, and you whine that the US should just send money. This is doing something about the problem in your view??? LOL
That's not disarmament. That's giving into extortion. This is exactly the kind of thing Saddam would have been able to do had we let him become a nuclear power.
quote:
But in 1991 I was doing everything in my power as a citizen to bring about Russian nuclear disarmament. You were not. I am not comparing Europe or the United Nations to the United States. I am comparing myself to you. I tried to solve the problem. You did not.
Oh...pardon me, when you addressed me in the first person, I thought you meant "YOU" as in United States. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that your argument was not this lame. So now you're telling me you know what I did or did not do in 1991? You're saying you KNOW me personally? What's even scarier is thinking you could "solve" the problem by whining to your socialist governments. You see, when you take it to it's logical conclusions, we see that your argument is typical liberal, feel-good fluff....smoke and mirrors. Because you went out and whined a little bit that Russia should get rid of it's nukes, you feel good about yourself. You say you did all you could do, and that's that. Well...jeeesh, you really think the world's governments give a rat's shooter that you went out and whined?
Your whole argument is based upon this idea that because you may have protested against nukes, only YOU care that Russia has them, and nobody else in the world cares...and from this line of thinking, you extrapolate that the US even WANTS Russia to have nukes! Now we see the thought process…..Holy $#@#!!
I think this illustrates the absolute preposterous nature of liberal arguments beautifully. I must commend you though, halva. At least you stayed with the conversation. Someone like Crazy Larry, $#@#!, or Mech would have ignored my question, dropped a couple pages of cut and paste spam, and moved on, like a bomber drops chaff to evade the heat seeking missiles. You still pretty much ignored my question though, but at least you revealed your line of thinking… |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:41 am
|
|
|
"And what proof do you have that paying the communist party, under Yeltsin would help with anything approaching disarmament?"
--------------------------
Well, this is the problem with talking with an ignoramus, isn't it. Yeltsin is the man who forced Gorbachev to make the Communist Party of the Soviet Union illegal, and you are telling me he LED IT????
"The communist party has money. The people don't. Sounds like you are advocating the act of spinelessly giving in to extortion. Russia threatens you with a nuke, and you whine that the US should just send money. This is doing something about the problem in your view??? LOL"
The Communist Party had been thrown out of power at the time I am talking about, imbecile!!! "The West's" man was running the show.
"That's not disarmament. That's giving into extortion. This is exactly the kind of thing Saddam would have been able to do had we let him become a nuclear power."
Yeltsin was trying to get rid of the Russian nukes, but there was no UN offering to do the job for him, and no American armed forces were offering to invade Russia as they have invaded Iraq. He had to do it with the resources he could find himself.
Also, re all the garbage about liberal whining etc., I am not a liberal and I did not whine to any government, socialist or otherwise.
By the way, have you noticed that at http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000097.html
Jay Reynolds has confessed to having been $#@#! us about chemtrails.
Now we have to find a Jay Reynolds to confess to you to have been $#@#! about nukes. You won't understand anything until someone like Jay Reynolds explains things to you in words of one syllable.
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:46 am
|
|
|
Jay Reynolds has confessed to having been $#@#! us about chemtrails.
uhhh...no he didn't...
and for the record...you and the long list of other fear mongers are trying to $#@#! the people about contrails...
so there... |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:24 am
|
|
|
Well, perhaps I could have phrased that a bit better. By the phrase “under Yeltsin “, I don’t mean to say that he lead the communist party. In fact, he banned the communist party, officially and historically speaking, but I think it is a bit naïve and fanciful to believe that the communist party really ever lost power or the centralized government of Russia ever lost continuity and became a democratically elected Republic.
Where is the separation of powers? Were there true democratic elections? I suspect there were democratic elections for Yeltsin in the sense that there were democratic elections for Saddam Hussein….because he was not very popular. Who knows what funny business goes in in the Russian voting system. You can call the figurehead of Russia, a duly elected “president” all you want, but I say it is still a country lead by a communist party type system, albeit, with Democratic reforms.
Note here, that I’m not saying that what was officially known as “the communist party” was in power. My meaning is that it is still a communist type system, even though it’s been labeled something else by Yeltsin. He may have been called president, he may have put down a coup by what was officially known as “The communist party“, but there is still a single party rule….whatever name that party is called (and I‘m not sure what it‘s called). I’m talking about meanings here, rather than labels. Communism, as I know it, is where one party of elites rule and make policy for the masses with very little input from the will of the masses. Under Yeltsin, the best you might say was that it was still a communist or totalitarian system with some attempted Democratic reforms.
The idea of a representative Republic, or multi-party (democracy and oft mis-used term) is what they want you to see on the surface. In reality, I would argue (despite my admiration for what Reagan accomplished) was that the old Soviet Russia is still very much intact, under the illusion of democracy, while the struggle for a true democratic system continues. The communist system was still intact in 1991.….Government party elites still live in wealth, and make decisions for the people, while the people themselves struggle. I meant to say that when you give money to Russia, it does not end up in the hands of the people who would dismantle the atomic program, despite what Yeltsin may have claimed he wanted to do. A Russian so-called president with incompetent, although well-meaning, economic policies would say anything to get the US to pour money into his supposed “cause” and using the subject of nuclear disarmament is an ideal ruse. It basically amounts to extortion, if you buy into it. Money inevitably ends up in the hands of a communist TYPE system under the ruse of going towards nuclear disarmament, because I believe you are making a faulty assumption here. You assume that the people of Russia were really in power, and Yeltsin really had control over whether Russia’s nuclear program could be disassembled. I’m arguing that this assumption is faulty. Throwing money at it would not have solved the problem.
Now let’s address some of your comments;
quote:
Yeltsin was trying to get rid of the Russian nukes, but there was no UN offering to do the job for him, and no American armed forces were offering to invade Russia as they have invaded Iraq. He had to do it with the resources he could find himself.
So you are saying you WANTED America to invade Russia? Wow….I hope you remain consistent on this ideology. You are the first person with leftist leanings on this board I’ve heard say something like this. Most here say America or it’s foreign policy of aggressive intervention is the root of all evil in the world, and that the want America to stay out of other countries. In fact, invasion and occupation of a country has always been a policy of last resort for America. We are not a county that conquers. We are a country that liberates. You seem to understand this fact by your statement above. Now let’s see if you are consistent. Secondly, I don’t think it would be wise for a nuclear power to invade another nuclear power, when there is question as to who REALLY controls those nukes, and it would risk the possibility of them being used. An American invasion in 1991 to help Yeltsin put down the communist party coup against Gorbechev would probably have been an extremely foolish foreign policy move. Better, is to simply encourage leaders who have an apparent Democratic agenda, rather than get involved with confronting another nuclear power militarily.
quote:
Also, re all the garbage about liberal whining etc., I am not a liberal and I did not whine to any government, socialist or otherwise.
Correct me where I’ve been mistaken, but from your previous writings here, it seems to me you fit the modern definition of liberal. And if you were wanting the UN or most European governments to lift a finger to do something about Russian nukes, you were whining to socialist leaning governments. I say “socialist leaning” because true socialism never has really existed in the world. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 11:29 am
|
|
|
Well I reiterate what I said before. Until there is some kind of intermediary who can explain things to you in terms you can understand. Likewise with Seeker, who can't even understand what Jay Reynolds says, or know how to ask him. Not that I would advise trying to ask him. You won't get a straight answer. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Thu Jul 03, 2003 3:07 pm
|
|
|
You Americans don't know your place and have to be put in it. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003 5:13 am
|
|
|
we should have nuked your ass in the sea years ago...your kind quit putting out quality thought a longtime ago...if it were not for gyros and baklava you'd have nothing...
the ability to mislead europeans is well known...and still quite easily done...apparently...
F/O when you get the time halva...
BTW, what was this about all those weapons on that ship in your harbor the other day halva ?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 07-03-2003] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003 5:21 am
|
|
|
.^. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Fri Jul 04, 2003 3:27 pm
|
|
|
Maggie Thatcher was one person who tried to do something about Russian nukes in 1991. She made a lot of noise at the time of the danger of them falling into the hands of terrorists etc. etc. Apparently this noise was meant to prelude trying to do something, like helping Yeltsin eradicate Russian nukes. It was not, for once, designed just to win an election or start a war.
The result was that she found herself ignored even more than previously. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 7:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
