Ukraine Protests

[agent|orange]

I know what the Loya Jirga is, you asked me how many people were in it. Regardless, you act as though the Afghan election in May was a clear cut decision by the people, when we both know that the US came in and negotiated a winner nearly 90 days later...

Afghanistan's disputed election: Divide and rule | The Economist

I asked a 2 part question (what and how many) and you answered you had no idea. If you knew what it was but didn't know how many, you shouldn't have said you didn't know off hand.

Secondly, you left out some pretty critical information. Not to mention a UN overseer and US ambassador being kicked out of a negotiation that would confirm a corruption of the democratic process by a guy (Karzai) that wasn't a fan of Western influence isn't surprising.

This is from your own article:

After the announcement of provisional results, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, travelled to Kabul. Both candidates embraced and vowed to form a government of national unity following an unprecedented audit of the vote, overseen by the UN. The audit found fraud on both sides made little change to the outcome, according to Western officials familiar with its results. That audit process started more than two months ago. In the meantime the candidates have bickered and their supporters have brawled in the audit halls

Italicized links to this: Afghanistan's disputed election: It takes two | The Economist

That led to this: Afghanistan completes election audit in step toward new president | Reuters

So you're telling me the UN supervised audit was puppeted by the US? Some select quotes:

The seven-week audit, a painstaking exercise involving more than 8 million votes, was slow-going at times, punctuated by heated arguments between the two candidates' observers present during the process.

In late August, Abdullah's team boycotted the audit, calling it "worthless" in the face of what they have alleged to be widespread fraud in the June vote.

The United Nations subsequently asked Ghani's team to withdraw its observers too, in the interest of fairness. The audit proceeded in its final week with Afghan and international observers present.

Here is an Al Jazeera release, in case you don't trust Reuters: Abdullah pulls out of Afghanistan vote audit - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

So the US had the puppet it wanted? I don't know, I'm honestly confused. Then the US brokered another puppet audit by the UN and that audit led to this: Does Afghanistan need a unity government? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

So I'm confused. Are you saying the US had it's man the first time around and then pushed for an audit with it's man being named as President but with power sharing?

Or are you saying Abdullah was a US plant and lost in the election and the US threw a fit, had the audit put in place to prove Ghani won and then negotiated for it's "winner" to take a lesser seat of power?

Lets just conveniently ignore the fact that Abdullah is a Pashtun and Ghani is a Tajik and that carries with it plenty of cultural issues which is a key part here and the division of power was actually something that was seen, internationally, as a gateway for Afghanistan to mend the gap between Tajik and Pashtun populations.

Also, Ghani was already on record supporting the bilateral agreement and said he was going to sign it into action: http://www.dw.de/ashraf-ghani-would-sign-deal-with-us/a-17577797

So I'm seriously lost as to who was the puppet.

 

[SergeantVol]

All 3 of those are not only post 1960's... those are fairly recent. The day after the Fed Reserve announced their end to QE in October, Japan announced that they were going to do the biggest treasuries purchase in the history of mankind. Argentina over the past year or so has been fighting a US court ruling that said that Argentina could only pay certain US/multinational bondholders first, and couldn't re-organize their debt to pay their debts in a more reasonable manner. Meanwhile, China (and the new BRICS bank) may step in and assist countries like Argentina and Venezuela with more favorable lending practices and more favorable ways of managing their debts.

Do you have a link that specifically states that the U.S. is doing this because of trade in natural resources or is this your conjecture? We all know you have a very anti-American stance.

 

[SergeantVol]

I asked a 2 part question (what and how many) and you answered you had no idea. If you knew what it was but didn't know how many, you shouldn't have said you didn't know off hand.

Secondly, you left out some pretty critical information. Not to mention a UN overseer and US ambassador being kicked out of a negotiation that would confirm a corruption of the democratic process by a guy (Karzai) that wasn't a fan of Western influence isn't surprising.

This is from your own article:



Italicized links to this: Afghanistan's disputed election: It takes two | The Economist

That led to this: Afghanistan completes election audit in step toward new president | Reuters

So you're telling me the UN supervised audit was puppeted by the US? Some select quotes:



Here is an Al Jazeera release, in case you don't trust Reuters: Abdullah pulls out of Afghanistan vote audit - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

So the US had the puppet it wanted? I don't know, I'm honestly confused. Then the US brokered another puppet audit by the UN and that audit led to this: Does Afghanistan need a unity government? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

So I'm confused. Are you saying the US had it's man the first time around and then pushed for an audit with it's man being named as President but with power sharing?

Or are you saying Abdullah was a US plant and lost in the election and the US threw a fit, had the audit put in place to prove Ghani won and then negotiated for it's "winner" to take a lesser seat of power?

Lets just conveniently ignore the fact that Abdullah is a Pashtun and Ghani is a Tajik and that carries with it plenty of cultural issues which is a key part here and the division of power was actually something that was seen, internationally, as a gateway for Afghanistan to mend the gap between Tajik and Pashtun populations.

Also, Ghani was already on record supporting the bilateral agreement and said he was going to sign it into action: Ashraf Ghani would

So I'm seriously lost as to who was the puppet.

Sadly, he will never answer this question. He also does not answer questions that incriminate Russia either.

 

[agent|orange]

Do you have a link that specifically states that the U.S. is doing this because of trade in natural resources or is this your conjecture? We all know you have a very anti-American stance.

I think it's pretty obvious the US just isn't sinking in billions in security stance benefitting Afghanistan out of nothing more than sheer goodwill.

Anyone who thinks that is naive.

Here's a way to look at it:

Afghanistan is throwing a party. They don't want people crashing it so they hire the US to be security. The US also gets access to the buffet and can eat what it wants as long as it doesn't interfere with the party and provides security.

Afghanistan gets what it wants. The US gets what it wants. Everyone is happy and Afghanistan finally gets to have it's first party in decades without countless outsiders coming in and eating all their bolani.

This is how the US hegemony should work. As long as we're not pilfering Afghanistans resources and they're being treated fairly in export/import deals, this is actually a very mutually beneficial agreement... and is far better than the Afghanis could get from other external powers and they know that. Hence them signing the bilateral agreement in the first place.

 

[SergeantVol]

I think it's pretty obvious the US just isn't sinking in billions in security stance benefitting Afghanistan out of nothing more than sheer goodwill.

Anyone who thinks that is naive.

Here's a way to look at it:

Afghanistan is throwing a party. They don't want people crashing it so they hire the US to be security. The US also gets access to the buffet and can eat what it wants as long as it doesn't interfere with the party and provides security.

Afghanistan gets what it wants. The US gets what it wants. Everyone is happy and Afghanistan finally gets to have it's first party in decades without countless outsiders coming in and eating all their bolani.

That is how the majority of U.S. foreign relations work in areas that are unstable. However, Ras would have everyone believe that the U.S. is trying to install puppet dictators so the U.S. can do whatever it wants to with said country. Bad part is he thinks that Russia would never do what he thinks the U.S. would. When confronted with facts they apparently are all from evil western media outlets who lie.

 

[volprof]

haha! Good, god. This is like watching Muhammad Ali v. some local armory participant.

 

[Velo Vol]

So I'm seriously lost as to who was the puppet.

Analysis incomplete without inclusion of the word "petrodollar."

 

[agent|orange]

Analysis incomplete without inclusion of the word "petrodollar."

That's my favorite word.

It helps you identify people who parrot RT news quotes while ignoring the fact that it's a state-owned mouthpiece for the Kremlin.

Nope. Nothing to be concerned about.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I asked a 2 part question (what and how many) and you answered you had no idea. If you knew what it was but didn't know how many, you shouldn't have said you didn't know off hand.

My mistake. I was very aware of the tribal leaders and Loya Jirga because we were bombarded with the images of these bearded elders sitting around campfires and such not long after 9/11 and the US Afghan invasion. So I knew who they were. I just didn't know how many were in it. I didn't see the number being relevant to the discussion.

Secondly, you left out some pretty critical information. Not to mention a UN overseer and US ambassador being kicked out of a negotiation that would confirm a corruption of the democratic process by a guy (Karzai) that wasn't a fan of Western influence isn't surprising.

This is from your own article:



Italicized links to this: Afghanistan's disputed election: It takes two | The Economist

That led to this: Afghanistan completes election audit in step toward new president | Reuters

So you're telling me the UN supervised audit was puppeted by the US? Some select quotes:

I don't look favorably on much of what the UN does.


Here is an Al Jazeera release, in case you don't trust Reuters: Abdullah pulls out of Afghanistan vote audit - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

So the US had the puppet it wanted? I don't know, I'm honestly confused. Then the US brokered another puppet audit by the UN and that audit led to this: Does Afghanistan need a unity government? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

So I'm confused. Are you saying the US had it's man the first time around and then pushed for an audit with it's man being named as President but with power sharing?

Or are you saying Abdullah was a US plant and lost in the election and the US threw a fit, had the audit put in place to prove Ghani won and then negotiated for it's "winner" to take a lesser seat of power?

I've said nothing. The fact that the US or Afghans never released the vote count and results should raise eyebrows.

Lets just conveniently ignore the fact that Abdullah is a Pashtun and Ghani is a Tajik and that carries with it plenty of cultural issues which is a key part here and the division of power was actually something that was seen, internationally, as a gateway for Afghanistan to mend the gap between Tajik and Pashtun populations.

Also, Ghani was already on record supporting the bilateral agreement and said he was going to sign it into action: Ashraf Ghani would

So I'm seriously lost as to who was the puppet.

So he was on record for supporting the bilateral agreement, yet you find it hard to understand how most reasonable people can't connect the dots between John Kerry's involvement and his support for a candidate that would sign the bilateral security agreement?

So I'm seriously lost as to who was the puppet.

The puppet is any person that falls in line with US foreign policy... at least in these days and times.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Sadly, he will never answer this question. He also does not answer questions that incriminate Russia either.

I answered your questions. If you have proof of otherwise, show me a link.

 

[SergeantVol]

The puppet is any person that falls in line with US foreign policy... at least in these days and times.

What does that make someone who falls in line with Russian foreign policy?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Do you have a link that specifically states that the U.S. is doing this because of trade in natural resources or is this your conjecture? We all know you have a very anti-American stance.

Now wait... what is "this"? The quote you provided from me was dealing with some of the economic maneuvering with Japan, Argentina and Venezuela, which you dismissed because you said it didn't deal with natural resources.

I don't want you to accuse me of dodging a question, so I am asking for you to clarify.

What is "doing this"?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That is how the majority of U.S. foreign relations work in areas that are unstable. However, Ras would have everyone believe that the U.S. is trying to install puppet dictators so the U.S. can do whatever it wants to with said country. Bad part is he thinks that Russia would never do what he thinks the U.S. would. When confronted with facts they apparently are all from evil western media outlets who lie.

Not necessarily true. No country is perfect, so I'm not going to sit here and state that Russia wouldn't take advantage of a situation. But as of right now, nobody is dealing out more bum deals and leveraged agreements than the US. All I'm saying is that the US doesn't have the moral high ground. We aren't the good guys in the white hats liberating countries just for the sake of humanity and spreading freedom. And just by me saying that, I'm suddenly anti-American.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

What does that make someone who falls in line with Russian foreign policy?

Keep in mind on that last quote, I said "in these days and times". I think the US, at one time, may have been a more square dealing nation. But right now, I cannot say that.

As for Russia, as of right now, I don't see any evidence of Russia not being more square dealing with foreign countries than the US. Even with Ukrainian gas... the Ukrainians have been running up a gas tab and siphoning gas for years, yet they offered to forgive those debts under certain conditions. Now does Russia have problems internally? Absolutely. But not even the Ukrainians can honestly say that Russia allowing them to run up a $4 billion gas tab is a form of oppression.

 

[agent|orange]

The puppet is any person that falls in line with US foreign policy... at least in these days and times.

 

[SergeantVol]

I answered your questions. If you have proof of otherwise, show me a link.

Argentina

In the case of Argentina it appears to be fiscal irresponsibility. I am sure that is also the case in the Ghaddafi and Saddam eras. I mean both those leaders were known as dictators that did pretty evil stuff to their populace. Its probably safe to say that the restructure of their countries debt wasn't too kosher with the debtors. Akin to taking out a loan, agreeing to terms and then the payee wanting to renegotiate said terms.

 

[agent|orange]

Keep in mind on that last quote, I said "in these days and times". I think the US, at one time, may have been a more square dealing nation. But right now, I cannot say that.

As for Russia, as of right now, I don't see any evidence of Russia not being more square dealing with foreign countries than the US. Even with Ukrainian gas... the Ukrainians have been running up a gas tab and siphoning gas for years, yet they offered to forgive those debts under certain conditions. Now does Russia have problems internally? Absolutely. But not even the Ukrainians can honestly say that Russia allowing them to run up a $4 billion gas tab is a form of oppression.

While I do agree the US (thanks, Obama) totally raw-dogged the Poles overall your point is totally lost when you try to equate how the US conducts itself and how Russia/China conduct themselves in regards to foreign policy.

The US has definitely, without a doubt, taken a hard punch on the nose in the last 10 years thanks to it's aggressive, arrogant and short-sighted policy.

But that doesn't equate to all US foreign policy being aggressive, arrogant and short-sighted. The US was seen as an overall fair nation and now it's shown that it will cut ethical corners and leave negotiating nations high and dry to better suit it's foreign dealings. How much has this actually damaged US reputation? Negligible. All it has done is given the Russians and Chinese plenty of whataboutism ammunition for their lapdogs to eat up for probably the next 20 years.

Because, as far as I know, the US never annexed Iraq. I'll wait anxiously for you to produce a Russia Today article saying it did.

 

[agent|orange]

Not necessarily true. No country is perfect, so I'm not going to sit here and state that Russia wouldn't take advantage of a situation. But as of right now, nobody is dealing out more bum deals and leveraged agreements than the US. All I'm saying is that the US doesn't have the moral high ground. We aren't the good guys in the white hats liberating countries just for the sake of humanity and spreading freedom. And just by me saying that, I'm suddenly anti-American.

I said the exact same thing.

I just didn't say all the other fluff you did and I try to use legitimate (i.e. not state-owned) sources to back up what I'm saying.

The UN has been the driving force behind just about everything you've referenced. Afghanistan never was, nor is it still now, a US mission. It was a UN backed mission with all votes in favor of all UNSC Resolutions for action. This includes your often referenced and ballyhooed China and Russia.

So where in this are you going to possibly say Afghanistan is a result of US "puppeteering" when all the facts and evidence clearly point to it as a UN mission under NATO direction with the US providing a majority of the muscle and diplomatic presence in? Neither Russia nor China have balked at Afghanistan nor the extension of the NATO mission in Afghanistan (UNSC Resolution 2011) which they, ironically enough, voted in favor of.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

While I do agree the US (thanks, Obama) totally raw-dogged the Poles overall your point is totally lost when you try to equate how the US conducts itself and how Russia/China conduct themselves in regards to foreign policy.

I think one of the fair criticisms of China is that when they do begin to do business in a foreign country, they tend to exclusively import Chinese labor and don't hire local labor. Also, in my opinion, China is far more aggressive in potential land grabbing and annexing than Russia could ever be in this moment in time. China is claiming the Sparatly Islands, Paracel Islands and other various territories within Asian maritime waters that needs to be controlled, or else, we could see a major Asian conflict involving Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam and Korea in the not too distant future.

Russia was perfectly fine with the arrangement with Ukraine had the US not come in and tried to establish a NATO launching area in Russia's backyard.

Poland is a total tool of the US and if things escalate into a hot war, Poland and The Baltic states are in trouble.

The US has definitely, without a doubt, taken a hard punch on the nose in the last 10 years thanks to it's aggressive, arrogant and short-sighted policy.

But that doesn't equate to all US foreign policy being aggressive, arrogant and short-sighted. The US was seen as an overall fair nation and now it's shown that it will cut ethical corners and leave negotiating nations high and dry to better suit it's foreign dealings. How much has this actually damaged US reputation? Negligible. All it has done is given the Russians and Chinese plenty of whataboutism ammunition for their lapdogs to eat up for probably the next 20 years.

I think that the moment is now moving in a direction where most countries feel that the US is not a fair nation and uses their currency as a weapon to control countries through sanctions and financial means and also helps to finance out military while the expenses and inflation are passed on to other countries that hold US treasuries (in essence, the holder of treasuries are helping to finance the US military). That is why you are seeing the big moves on a weekly basis where countries are making trade settlement deals that exclude the USD. As long as the US is able maintain demand and need for USD in countries' foreign reserves, the USD will remain strong relative to other countries.

Because, as far as I know, the US never annexed Iraq. I'll wait anxiously for you to produce a Russia Today article saying it did.

The US invading Iraq, more than half a world away is not the same as Russia being involved in a bordering country. If Russia had sent in the type of military hardware into Ukraine that the US did in Iraq, there would be HD photos and video of such actions, along with satellite imagery of troop movement into Ukraine and all kinds of other evidence.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

While I do agree the US (thanks, Obama) totally raw-dogged the Poles overall your point is totally lost when you try to equate how the US conducts itself and how Russia/China conduct themselves in regards to foreign policy.

I think one of the fair criticisms of China is that when they do begin to do business in a foreign country, they tend to exclusively import Chinese labor and don't hire local labor. Also, in my opinion, China is far more aggressive in potential land grabbing and annexing than Russia could ever be in this moment in time. China is claiming the Sparatly Islands, Paracel Islands and other various territories within Asian maritime waters that needs to be controlled, or else, we could see a major Asian conflict involving Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam and Korea in the not too distant future.

Russia was perfectly fine with the arrangement with Ukraine had the US not come in and tried to establish a NATO launching area in Russia's backyard.

Poland is a total tool of the US and if things escalate into a hot war, Poland and The Baltic states are in trouble.

The US has definitely, without a doubt, taken a hard punch on the nose in the last 10 years thanks to it's aggressive, arrogant and short-sighted policy.

But that doesn't equate to all US foreign policy being aggressive, arrogant and short-sighted. The US was seen as an overall fair nation and now it's shown that it will cut ethical corners and leave negotiating nations high and dry to better suit it's foreign dealings. How much has this actually damaged US reputation? Negligible. All it has done is given the Russians and Chinese plenty of whataboutism ammunition for their lapdogs to eat up for probably the next 20 years.

I think that the moment is now moving in a direction where most countries feel that the US is not a fair nation and uses their currency as a weapon to control countries through sanctions and financial means and also helps to finance out military while the expenses and inflation are passed on to other countries that hold US treasuries (in essence, the holder of treasuries are helping to finance the US military). That is why you are seeing the big moves on a weekly basis where countries are making trade settlement deals that exclude the USD. As long as the US is able maintain demand and need for USD in countries' foreign reserves, the USD will remain strong relative to other countries.

Because, as far as I know, the US never annexed Iraq. I'll wait anxiously for you to produce a Russia Today article saying it did.

The US invading Iraq, more than half a world away is not the same as Russia being involved in a bordering country. If Russia had sent in the type of military hardware into Ukraine that the US did in Iraq, there would be HD photos and video of such actions, along with satellite imagery of troop movement into Ukraine and all kinds of other evidence.

You mock me for using Russia Today as a source of information, yet the US State Department uses Twitter and Facebook as their resource, but I get the ridicule.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Argentina

In the case of Argentina it appears to be fiscal irresponsibility. I am sure that is also the case in the Ghaddafi and Saddam eras. I mean both those leaders were known as dictators that did pretty evil stuff to their populace. Its probably safe to say that the restructure of their countries debt wasn't too kosher with the debtors. Akin to taking out a loan, agreeing to terms and then the payee wanting to renegotiate said terms.

Argentina has been an economic disaster for decades. Their economy exploded in 2001, and then you had banks and institutions come back again and loan them more money, which they are defaulting on right now. Setting aside your concerns or questions about "natural resources" (because Argentina has relatively few in the grander scheme of things and for this discussion), I feel that the creditors need to take their lumps and realize that they lost a bet. They loaned money to a notoriously unstable country and they need to lick their wounds and accept that they lost. How are you going to get some NY Federal court to make them pay US creditors first when these creditors should have known better from the very beginning? Screw them. They lost. And just like these creditors are coming after Argentina, they will do the exact same thing to the US and force us (US taxpayers) to pay the debt. I don't think US citizens or Argentine citizens should pay off bets that were made by foolish investors... sorry. These financial institutions privatize their wins and socialize their losses. Had things gone in the opposite direction, these same institutions would have siphoned off more of what they deserved and still left the average citizen there with no returns or benefits.

 

[red butler]

I said the exact same thing.

I just didn't say all the other fluff you did and I try to use legitimate (i.e. not state-owned) sources to back up what I'm saying.

The UN has been the driving force behind just about everything you've referenced. Afghanistan never was, nor is it still now, a US mission. It was a UN backed mission with all votes in favor of all UNSC Resolutions for action. This includes your often referenced and ballyhooed China and Russia.

So where in this are you going to possibly say Afghanistan is a result of US "puppeteering" when all the facts and evidence clearly point to it as a UN mission under NATO direction with the US providing a majority of the muscle and diplomatic presence in? Neither Russia nor China have balked at Afghanistan nor the extension of the NATO mission in Afghanistan (UNSC Resolution 2011) which they, ironically enough, voted in favor of.

Wait. You're saying the UN was the driving force for the invasion in Afghanistan? Personally I think it was the right call, but to make it sound like the UN pressured all these countries (including the US) to vote for the use of force is rewriting history. Not to mention you're giving too much credit to an inept institution.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Uh ohh... Looks like Russia is pushing around India and Crimea. Those dirty tricksters... :crazy:

Crimean Leader Seeks Indian Investment as Putin Visits New Delhi - Bloomberg

Crimean leader Sergey Aksyonov, who is under international sanctions, appeared in New Delhi to seek investment for the disputed peninsula as Russian President Vladimir Putin began an official visit to India.

Aksyonov, who was placed on U.S. and European Union blacklists for his role in Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in March, said he expects to sign contracts with Indian businesses after meeting representatives of food exporters, seed growers and infrastructure industries. Crimea also seeks investment in hotels and visits by Indian tourists, he said.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

@narendramodi
Wonderful day with President Putin. Our meeting was comprehensive. India's partnership with Russia is incomparable.

 

[MG1968]

@narendramodi
Wonderful day with President Putin. Our meeting was comprehensive. India's partnership with Russia is incomparable.

Like George W. Bush, when he looks into Putin's eyes, does he see Vladimir's soul? :loco: