Medvedev Names Sole Condition to Prevent World War.

[Donald H]

I honestly do not believe the Americans are aware of the facts prior to - during - and ending the so-called Cuba Missile Crisis.

That's right, but American propaganda, censorship, and sublime "everybody knows" has the population completely in the dark over the matter. FIRST: Russia had a legitimate gripe. SECOND: Whether by design (or not) Russia's message struck home. THIRD: It was Kruschev who got his demands met, not the U.S. Kennedy had to eat crow ... but tell the average American that, and he'll lose his mind and claim otherwise. Let's face it, the US is superior in the world when it comes to propaganda.

Do you mean that a new (equal) world balance has already been achieved?

I agree.

Yes, militarily the US has a very big advantage, but they are stalemated by the fact that they can't use it. No nuclear armed superpower is going to submit to military defeat.

As to the economics warfare the US continuously pursues, China and the alliance that will form around China is now capable of withstanding any or all US dirty tricks.

I've felt that way for a very long time. I don't know if it's true but I can say that "nearly" every war can be attributed to US aggression. I actually lived in Rhodesia during the bush wars but I didn't see any obvious US involvement there although I know that Robin Moore was a CIA agent spying on Americans there while he was residing in Salisbury. One of his men tried to get me to sign his guest book (name address, etc.) but I side-stepped his request. If there's smoke there's fire, they say, so maybe if I had dug deeply enough I'd have found something?

Interesting! All wars are either in US interests or are against US interests. I have no idea which it would be for the bush wars.

 

[GLASNOST]

Yes, militarily the US has a very big advantage, but they are stalemated by the fact that they can't use it. No nuclear armed superpower is going to submit to military defeat.

The key word, I take it, is “submit”. That crap about “peace with honour” in Vietnam is as close as the US can get to admitting “submission”.
It’s an awful reality but no matter how much we might dislike the leadership of North Korea we have to agree (out loud or secretly) that they must never give up the bomb. What’s good for NK is good for the world, as frightening as that is.

As to the economics warfare the US continuously pursues, China and the alliance that will form around China is now capable of withstanding any or all US dirty tricks.

I hope you’re right because the more the US gains the more it wants and the more emboldened it becomes. I mean, how do you discourage Washington from taking anything it wants (by “it” meaning the Complex of Military-Industrial recipients) after the WMD hoax, lie, invasion, destruction, and theft, all with complete impunity? It doesn’t get more “illegal” than that! And what’s to stop them? The bomb. It is an awful fact (if it is a “fact”) that NK, Russia, China, Iran and the worst terrorists in the world are our champions by default.

Interesting! All wars are either in US interests or are against US interests.

It all boils down to two factors: If the US can benefit from anything, anywhere, by anyone then it either commandeers it or destroys it. So yes, I agree that “all wars are either in US interests or are against US interests”.

I have no idea which it would be for the bush wars.

Nor do I but there must be a clue in the realization that during that era the US forbade its citizens from entering Rhodesia (officially, on grounds of racial discrimination) but was completely open to South Africa where apartheid reigned in full force. As I said, I lived in Rhodesia back then and apartheid was not “the law” there but in South Africa (where I spent quite a bit of time) …. Jesus Christ! I can tell you stories about apartheid that you might not believe! So why did the US boycott Rhodesia but not South Africa? There’s got to be a reason and I’m sure it is rooted in treachery.

 

[Donald H]

The bomb. It is an awful fact (if it is a “fact”) that NK, Russia, China, Iran and the worst terrorists in the world are our champions by default.

I think we have to only use the word 'terrorist' with discretion. If they are 'terrorists' then is it because they are fighting for revenge or some other legitimate reason?

I've bolded that comment in the hope that it can stimulate a discussion.

It all boils down to two factors: If the US can benefit from anything, anywhere, by anyone then it either commandeers it or destroys it. So yes, I agree that “all wars are either in US interests or are against US interests”.

Nor do I but there must be a clue in the realization that during that era the US forbade its citizens from entering Rhodesia (officially, on grounds of racial discrimination) but was completely open to South Africa where apartheid reigned in full force. As I said, I lived in Rhodesia back then and apartheid was not “the law” there but in South Africa (where I spent quite a bit of time) …. Jesus Christ! I can tell you stories about apartheid that you might not believe! So why did the US boycott Rhodesia but not South Africa? There’s got to be a reason and I’m sure it is rooted in treachery.

Thanks again for your informative comments.

 

[GLASNOST]

I think we have to only use the word 'terrorist' with discretion. If they are 'terrorists' then is it because they are fighting for revenge or some other legitimate reason?

I am not a terrorist nor a terrorist sympathizer but the term is used for actual terrorists and also for freedom fighters depending upon what side of the struggle you find yourself. I am simply saying that anyone who thwarts American TREACHERY is doing mankind a favour, intentionally or otherwise .... whether they are legitimate or not. The ends do not necessarily justify the means but the ends need to be appraised/evaluated nonetheless.

 

[Donald H]

I am not a terrorist nor a terrorist sympathizer but the term is used for actual terrorists and also for freedom fighters depending upon what side of the struggle you find yourself. I am simply saying that anyone who thwarts American TREACHERY is doing mankind a favour, intentionally or otherwise .... whether they are legitimate or not. The ends do not necessarily justify the means but the ends need to be appraised/evaluated nonetheless.

I like the way you phrase it! "Anyone who thwarts American treachery is doing mankind a favour."

There's enough room in that to interpret it according to anybody's interpretation.

Does America recognize any rules or limitations to its warmaking?

 

[Donald H]

I like the way you phrase it! "Anyone who thwarts American treachery is doing mankind a favour."

There's enough room in that to interpret it according to anybody's iimagination.

Does America recognize any rules or limitations to its warmaking?

 

[GLASNOST]

There's enough room in that to interpret it according to anybody's interpretation.

Yes.

Does America recognize any rules or limitations to its warmaking?

I am trying to think of one but I can't. What about you?

* Fabricating a non-existent threat.
* Committing false flag operations.
* Disobeying international jurisdiction.
* Making illegal invasions.
* Using internationally banned weapons.
* Employing torture.
* Suppressing reports.
* Imprisonment of innocent persons without charges or a trial.

 

[Donald H]

Yes.

I am trying to think of one but I can't. What about you?

* Fabricating a non-existent threat.
* Committing false flag operations.
* Disobeying international jurisdiction.
* Making illegal invasions.
* Using internationally banned weapons.
* Employing torture.
* Suppressing reports.
* Imprisonment of innocent persons without charges or a trial.

Yes.

I am trying to think of one but I can't. What about you?

* Fabricating a non-existent threat.
* Committing false flag operations.
* Disobeying international jurisdiction.
* Making illegal invasions.
* Using internationally banned weapons.
* Employing torture.
* Suppressing reports.
* Imprisonment of innocent persons without charges or a trial.

How about supplying chem/bio weapons to their ally and then pretending that Iran did it?
How about declaring crude weapons such as barrel bombs as WMD's? (Syria)

 

[GLASNOST]

How about supplying chem/bio weapons to their ally and then pretending that Iran did it?
How about declaring crude weapons such as barrel bombs as WMD's? (Syria)

Yep, it's difficult finding something that the US is doing lawfully. When is the American leaderstip going to go on trial?

 

[Donald H]

Yep, it's difficult finding something that the US is doing lawfully. When is the American leaderstip going to go on trial?

Justice is only for the vanquished losing side.

But the slaughter of the Vietnamese people will always be on the record.

With the current war, the US propaganda isn't meant to be making a record of war crimes committed by Russia. It's only meant to be applicable during the war.

How could the ICC in the Hague ever act on US evidence of war crimes?

Even Nuremburg had to be 'pick and choose' according to the accused's value to America.

 

[GLASNOST]

Justice is only for the vanquished losing side.

But the slaughter of the Vietnamese people will always be on the record.

With the current war, the US propaganda isn't meant to be making a record of war crimes committed by Russia. It's only meant to be applicable during the war.

How could the ICC in the Hague ever act on US evidence of war crimes?

Even Nuremburg had to be 'pick and choose' according to the accused's value to America.

So choose one:
* Ilegal invasion and occupattion of Vietnam
* Illegal invasion of Cambodia
* Illegal invasion o Laos
* Coup of a Democratic government in Iran
* Illegal invasion, destruction, and occupation of Irak
* Illegal invasion of Cuba
* Illegal invasion of Grenada
* Illegal bombing of Sebia
* Torture at Abu Graib
* Torture at Guantanamo
* etc.
* etc.
* etc.

 

[Donald H]

So choose one:
* Ilegal invasion and occupattion of Vietnam
* Illegal invasion of Cambodia
* Illegal invasion o Laos
* Coup of a Democratic government in Iran
* Illegal invasion, destruction, and occupation of Irak
* Illegal invasion of Cuba
* Illegal invasion of Grenada
* Illegal bombing of Sebia
* Torture at Abu Graib
* Torture at Guantanamo
* etc.
* etc.
* etc.

The irony is, the US media goes on about 2 or 3 or a dozen civilians dying under the Russian attack, when America's other wars kill hundreds of civilians in nearly every bombing raid on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc., etc.

That's not a justification of civilian deaths, it's a comparison!

War crimes? London? Berlin? Hiroshima? Dresden?

 

[GLASNOST]

The irony is, the US media goes on about 2 or 3 or a dozen civilians dying under the Russian attack, when America's other wars kill hundreds of civilians in nearly every bombing raid on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc., etc.

It's downright evil that they get away with it. Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and a string of American leaders/presidents are all in the same boat.

 

[Litwin]

Medvedev