Thread: Rants and WTF are you talking about and Coronavirus!
+
Add Report
Results 2,461 to 2,475 of 12061
-
03-11-22 19:17 #9601
Posts: 2073Originally Posted by EscapeArtist [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by EscapeArtist [View Original Post]
Consider Saudi Arabia: authoritarian regime, alleged human rights abuser, military aggressor that is bombing and committing war crimes on Yemeni civilians. Why is the West not imposing crippling, economic sanctions on Saudi Arabia? Where is the moral outcry? Where are he "We Stand by Yemen" pledges? Instead 24 percent of the USA's arms exports go to the Saudi-coalition, British 32 percent, Canadian 49 percent. Since 2015, there have been 24000 air raids.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...ts-interactive
Of course the situation in Ukraine is grotesque. But the horror and the suffering cannot be compared to Yemen, defined by the United Nations as the greatest humanitarian calamity of the 21st century.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-media-bias-west-blatant-racism
Congress never authorized American participation in a war in Yemen. And yet, here we are, involved in yet another Middle East war. We have an unfortunate habit of arming foreign nations, only to discover that these supposed allies may be creating more enemies for America than they are killing. Not only are we selling the bombs to Saudi Arabia that they are dropping on Yemen, the presidents first military act was to send a manned raid of Navy Seals into Yemen. Tragically, one of our Navy SEALs was killed, along with several women and children.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/rare-op-ed-us-should-not-fund-saudi-arabia%E2%80%99s-war-yemenOf these interests, supporting U.S. allies is a leading reason why the Middle East has become the epicenter of American overreach and the unwarranted taking of sides in local conflicts. We have essentially treated the often ill-defined and aggressive objectives of U.S. partners in the region as our own, essentially letting these mostly autocratic dictatorships determine U.S. policy in the Middle East.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-enabling-america-s-indefensible-history-saudi-arabia-n1287941
-
03-11-22 18:47 #9600
Posts: 1331Originally Posted by BigBuddy69 [View Original Post]
-
03-11-22 17:48 #9599
Posts: 22251Originally Posted by PaulInZurich [View Original Post]
-
03-11-22 08:53 #9598
Posts: 2207That's what I said, constantly skips to another (stupid) subject when proven wrong, and never checks his sources, which are most of the time utter crap like Facebook and Telegram. The guy who discovered HIV was Luc Montagnier, he died recently and in his last years he became a conspiracy freak (like you). Well at least he did something good when he was younger.
-
03-11-22 06:48 #9597
Posts: 2367Much better to have covid twice than get the vaccine. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04569-5 "strong evidence for brain-related abnormalities in COVID-19", "greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue", "greater changes in markers of tissue damage", "greater reduction in global brain size".
-
03-11-22 01:08 #9596
Posts: 6686Originally Posted by EscapeArtist [View Original Post]
The aids rumor I heard was that after 3 jabs plus, there is an increased chance of getting an autoimmune disease either causing aids, or being aids. It was just a rumor I heard since I didn't read too much into it. From the same guy who first discovered aids I think. Thought I should ask here first.
-
03-10-22 22:28 #9595
Posts: 5656Originally Posted by Pistons [View Original Post]
-
03-10-22 20:55 #9594
Posts: 22251Originally Posted by McAdonis [View Original Post]
-
03-10-22 18:06 #9593
Posts: 1331Originally Posted by McAdonis [View Original Post]
In the end, I don't think security was the active threat to Russia unless you're speaking of economic security or security to their sphere of influence.
Regarding Cuba, well let's just say that America's military interferences in the name of defending "freedom" and "democracy" is not without fault either.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are laughing literally to the bank. There's a lot of terrible criticisms that can be said about the CCP methods in building up their national strength but finding fault in their international relations policies is quite harder. Their spheres of influence reaching from Africa, across the countries of the Indian Ocean, and now pushing into South America was constructed methodically and purely through economic methods.
Military operations are so 20th century and cliched out.
-
03-10-22 14:20 #9592
Posts: 2073Originally Posted by EscapeArtist [View Original Post]
If Canada or Mexico suddenly decided to cozy up to Beijing, and Chinese military were stationed in North America, it would not be tolerated. What Canada or Mexico wants then becomes invalid if it conflicts with USA's security interests. And the USA would be justified in punishing Canada or Mexico, whether that be through acts of subversion, economic sanctions, or even militarily.
When USSR got too close to USA, we almost had WW III. JFK began with a naval blockade, but there were plans to escalate further, if a peaceful resolution with Khrushchev could not be found.
On September 13, Kennedy wrote: "If at any time the Communist build-up in Cuba were to endanger or interfere with our security in any way . . . or if Cuba should ever . . . become an offensive military base of significant capacity for the Soviet Union, then this country will do whatever must be done to protect its own security and that of its allies."
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/fall/cuban-missiles.htmlIn 1962, the Soviet Union had encroached on the U.S. government’s self-defined sphere of influence by installing medium-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, a nation only 90 miles from U.S. shores. The Cuban government had requested the missiles as a deterrent to a U.S. invasion — an invasion that seemed quite possible given the long history of U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs, as well as the 1961 U.S.-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion.
The Soviet government was amenable to the request because it wanted to reassure its new Cuban ally of its protection. It also felt that missile deployment would even the nuclear balance, for the U.S. government already had deployed nuclear missiles in Turkey, on Russia’s border.
From the U.S. government’s standpoint, the fact the Cuban government had the right to make its own security decisions and that the Soviet government was simply copying U.S. policy in Turkey was of much less significance than its assumption that there could be no compromise when it came to the traditional U.S. sphere of influence in the Caribbean and Latin America.
Thus, President John F. Kennedy ordered a U.S. naval blockade — which he called a “quarantine” — around Cuba, and stated that he would not permit the presence of nuclear missiles on the island. To secure the missile removal, he announced, he would not “shrink” from “worldwide nuclear war.”
Eventually, the intense crisis was resolved. Kennedy and Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed the U.S.S.R. would remove the missiles from Cuba, while Kennedy pledged not to invade Cuba and to remove the U.S. missiles from Turkey.
Instead of stationing missiles on the borders of both nations, they simply got rid of them. Instead of warring over the status of Cuba, the U.S. government gave up any idea of invasion.
https://www.riverdalepress.com/stories/what-cuban-missile-crisis-teaches-us-about-ukraine,77815At the time, the U.S. invoked the Monroe Doctrine, first laid out in 1823 and an assertion of American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. politicians said it gave them a free hand to prevent foreign influence in the Americas.
Although Cuban leader Fidel Castro would have liked it, Cuba was never allowed to join the Warsaw Pact — the Soviet equivalent of NATO. The Soviet Union was aware that it would have been extremely provocative to allow Cuba to do so.
The Monroe Doctrine has persisted long after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was reflected in the U.S. invasions of Grenada and Panama in 1983 and 1989 respectively. The U.S. has never formally renounced the Monroe Doctrine, and it remains a part of the American political toolbox when required.
https://theconversation.com/why-vladimir-putin-wont-back-down-in-ukraine-177765.
-
03-10-22 13:36 #9591
Posts: 1331Originally Posted by Pistons [View Original Post]
-
03-10-22 04:55 #9590
Posts: 6686Oh there is no doubt in my mind that the logic behind opening the NATO door to Ukraine is beyond stupid. Sweden and Finland have managed well outside of NATO. And so could Ukraine.
So by not closing the nato door to Ukraine, the west certainly does have some blame.
But EU is different. That's what the Ukrainian people want to join.
-
03-10-22 03:10 #9589
Posts: 1331Originally Posted by McAdonis [View Original Post]
-
03-10-22 01:07 #9588
Posts: 6686What's up with the aids covid-vaxx link I've been hearing about. Any jabbed persons here been tested recently?
-
03-09-22 20:57 #9587
Posts: 2073Originally Posted by EscapeArtist [View Original Post]
When President Bush began looking for ways around a U.N.-sanctioned military action, Chirac warned him: "Don't go it alone." But President Bush did, launching a U.S.-led but not U.N.-sanctioned invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.
Just a month later, U.S. officials were drawing up ways to punish France for getting in Washington's way. Measures included trying to exclude France from discussions on how to handle Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion, and not awarding reconstruction contracts to French companies.
By May, Chirac had had enough. Convinced France was the victim of an "organized campaign of disinformation" from within the Bush administration, the government asked its ambassador to the U.S. to write to President Bush to ask him to set the record straight on accusations in the American media coming from "official sources."
The clash soured Franco-American relations for the next several years, but it increased Chirac's profile at home as the French praised him for standing up to what were seen as bullying tactics from Washington.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jacques-chirac-french-president-who-challenged-us-on-iraq-war-dies-at-86-today-in-paris-2019-09-26/.
The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.
Western (especially US) leaders continued to blow through red warning light after a red warning light, however. The Obama administration’s shockingly arrogant meddling in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s elected, pro‐Russia president was the single most brazen provocation, and it caused tensions to spike. Moscow immediately responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war was underway with a vengeance.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine.