Thoughts after Russia's recognition

[Happy Times]

And who do you think the industrial-military complex prefers to have in office Obama, pr Mccain?

Im sure some industry would like McCain and some Obama, theres some money to be made with Obamas policies. And many in the military support Obamas and Bidens wiews in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.
Both candidates have also taken a tough line against Georgia invasion.
Im sure there are powerfull lobbies in US but the things they are blamed for go from killing JFK to 9/11. I just think these kind of accusations should come with even a shread of proof.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

As a matter of fact, the individual you speak of is merely providing false propaganda and energetically promoting Russia's point of view...and it's a typical pattern with this person.

Considering that the only thought that seemed to came to Skybird's head when asked why the Russians are not re-arming as fast as one may expect from defense expenditures is "Corruption" (not denying its existence; never mind that it isn't such a big budget, and never mind such obvious concerns as the Russians being so below-standard from years of deprivation in basics like training and housing (even by Russian/Soviet standards) that a lot of money would have to be spent on those before equipment, I won't call him pro-Russian, much less blindly in that direction.)

But then, Russophobia often seems so prevalent in the West that any argument that does not paint the Russians as completely black and doomed often looks like propaganda...

On the other matter, Russia understands the inevitability of the situation anyway.

They do? You see, here's one of the reasons why I'm favoring SB. At least if the Russians use his thoughts, they might indeed logically proceed with their current COAs, so theory satisfies observation. You basically have to write off all their actions as "wrong", "stupid", or "miscalculated" when they don't fit your ideas of logic, which is actually an acknowledgment of theory failure and abandonment of further thought, and an invitation for an enemy to just maneuver around your brain blocks and get to what he wants.

Imagine that in front of a Russian Army are two paths to a goal. One looks muddy and the other looks clear. The Russians start advancing through the muddy path. You will assume they will have to reverse at some point and prepare your defenses along the clear path. Skybird will work out why they might choose the muddy path and redeploy accordingly (most importantly, he accepts they might actually be serious about choosing the mud path). Who's more likely to stop the enemy is obvious...

You're saying making enemies out of NATO, and in particular the USA is beneficial to Russia?

Wait. You are getting ahead of yourself here.

I mean, a Westerner no doubt feels that NATO was a friend to Russia. From Russia's POV, the only way their actions could have been more hostile is if they started launching cruise missiles (given the West's reluctance to engage with ground troops without a uber-thorough air offensive...)

You're supporting the point of view that NATO is hostile to Russia by treating former Soviet client nations as sovereign nations.

Wait, are you saying if NATO refuses their requests to join, NATO does not treat them like sovereign nations?

Does making friends with former enemies truly threaten Russia? Or is it just deep seeded paranoia?

1) From a Correlation of Forces point of view, addition of additional countries to NATO, which can hardly be called a "pro-Russian" alliance on its most friendly day, worsens the Correlation of Forces, and thus is a threat.
2) It is no secret that many of the nations joining bear little love for Russia.

So, it is a worsening of the strategic situation and an increase of the threat, in at least two axes. Let's at least acknowledge this.

Are these nations actually sovereign nations to you Kazuaki, or are they merely slave states to Russia who should only serve Russia's interests even at the expense of their own? Are you serious?

Aah, false dilemma. So, if they don't join NATO, they automatically become "slave states to Russia?"

Now here's another piece of food for thought. From an independence point of view, alliances are good for a few nations of relatively equal strength, standing in front of a large neighbor or another alliance.

Theoretically speaking, a small state placed between two larger powers (read: Poland, Balts ...) tends to retain its freedom of movement (I define this here by the ability to take at least some actions that displease either / both powers) best by staying relatively neutral and playing the two sides off each other. Or by allying with other small states along the same border to become a third bloc.

A small power that allies with one of the large sides becomes in effect a protectorate of the large nations in said alliance. As they are convinced to take actions supporting their new alliance (read: NMD), they inevitably piss off the other side. Eventually, they may piss off the other side so much they have no choice but to be a protectorate. It doesn't show up much as long as small power is lined up with big power. But what sovereignty it is if you can only take actions approved by big nation - I'm sure you agree with this sentiment.

Just try a small disagreement, one that does extremely little, if anything, to the interests of big nation... Take poor New Zealand, 1980s. They decided democratically that they would no longer allow ships which are not declared nuke-free (something America consistently refuses to do for nebulous reasons - surely, declaring one vessel out of about 600 to not have nuclear weapons is not going to significantly improve the Soviet chances of concentrating on the nuke-equipped vessels...). One might say that it is not too rational, but it is nevertheless the will of the people. Democracies are supposed to follow that, no?

How does the US react? By respecting the right of the sovereign people of New Zealand to decide such things? Well, they did - they didn't quite try "Canberra Spring". But they just expressed their displeasure, and basically kicked NZ out of the alliance system. NZ, of course, was far away from the Soviet Union (and the Soviet threat was beginning to fade by then) and thus could survive this. Poland won't, especially after they pissed Russia off.

Or how about the "Coalition of the Willing". It is well known that many of the "willing" in fact had populations that weren't so "willing". Democratically speaking, those countries shouldn't have sent troops. But you know, they have alliances with the US ... so... We used to call this action of Big State gathering up troops from Little States a name - Feudalism.

Whatever the other pros and cons, how this whole process makes them more sovereign is difficult to note.

The thing is Kazuaki, Russia is like that abusive and jealous ex-husband who used to beat his wife...and now tries to prevent her from seeking other relationships, and indeed turns to stalking her. Then wonders why nobody likes him or thinks he's creepy.

Let's try and add a few elements to it. Many of the wives in this relationship nevertheless lived better than the "ex-husband" (it is no secret that Czechslovakia and East Germany at least had superior living standards to the Soviet Union). And unlike the stereotype of such ex-husbands, Russia let them go. They were richly rewarded as the "wives" not only sought new relationships, but relationships with those who just seem to have it in for Russia (and remember that guy promised he won't try and wed those newly freed wives).

Husband grumbles his displeasure. The wives claim they don't understand why, as does the new husband.

Further, I again repeat, As a state, Russia cannot allow things detrimental to its interests just because of past wrongs. No State can.

We're talking about sovereign nations Kazuaki. I don't give a rat's rear end who's point of view you're looking at it from. Either you respect the right of nations to make decisions for themselves and their own interests.....or you can be like Russia who does not respect the rights of sovereign nations and attempts forced coercion through military threats.

ROFTLMAO! This from a man who lives in the country with the Greatest "Power Projection" capability on the planet (read: the greatest capability, built at enormous expense, to threaten or even actively punish other nations with military force).

If you respect the right of states to make decisions for themselves, then you must respect the right of Russia to express its displeasure and lay out consequences for actions disadvantageous to it. The fact that Decisions don't come with only Plusses is something that all sovereign nations must realize.

Or how about the historical case of the Cubans. When you get down to it, it is their "sovereign" decision to ally with the Soviet Union and even to accept SS-4 and SS-5 missiles on their sovereign soil. However, apparently, this pissed off the Americans with their "Monroe Doctrine"... and we know what happened - Bay of Pigs, followed by CMC. After CMC, America continued to make it as difficult as possible for Cuba to live on. This continues even after the Soviet Union died off...

Tell me, is it so hard to understand that Russia may have similar thoughts to Monroe, or that they have legitimate national security concerns that are being threatened by NATO's latest stunts, or that they have the right to make things as hard on Poland and the rest as possible in return for actions they are taking, while not actually threatening the sovereignty? That's what it means to be a sovereign nation. Your actions have consequences, and when you piss off people, they will punish you (all tempered by realpolitik, of course, which is why I think Russia will get off light for Georgia).

Russia is stupidly choosing to make enemies out of those who were not enemies at all.

Again I refer you to the top. That you guys are not enemies is a Western perception based on a blind belief that smiles and symbolic gestures like an occasional invitation of one ship to BALTOPs and "observer" status on NATO meetings is worth more than NATO continuously expanding and threatening to directly front your border or refusing to relax CFE limitations on Russian military movements within its own territory even though the cause of all those "flank limits" and even CFE itself in the first place are just about gone...

And that includes NATO and the USA. NATO even offered them a seat at the table as an observer with the US blessing. And of course Russia screwed that up. If Russia was smart, and NATO membership in these former states was inevitable, wouldn't it be alot smarter to actually use that seat as a way towards nominal relations? I think that actually sounds quite reasonable really.

"Nominal relations". Oh, you mean relations where Russia gets symbols and the West gets meat? Aah...

Also, again, if any small, fractional chance of getting them out of NATO membership is with getting tough, how would that affect your calculations?

You simply cannot quibble any of this away. Nor can you make yourself look like an unbiased source looking at it "from all perspectives" yourself. If you believe that Russia is proceeding smartly by breaking their cease fire agreements brokered by the French,

Well, it seems the Russians have cleverly arranged the agreement to ensure they'll be able to do so.

is proceeding smartly by increasing their likelihood of economic isolation (perhaps you believe like Skybird that Russia is greater economically than most of the developed nations and needs no trade, no technology sharing or transfers, no food imports, or no lucrative commercial contracts etc. etc. etc. ),

Rather than arguing whether that is the case or not, I'll just note that as you apparently agree, both sides can do real damage to each other. Thus, while the likelihood is no doubt increased, the most likely result, according to [i]realpolitik/i], is next to nothing, at least on this score. No doubt Russia has already factored this in.

As for the food thing, oh good, you can make the West look crueler than Russia in a jiffy! That's where all the humanitarians in the West will stop you.

or if you believe they have proceeded smartly by turning themselves into a hostile player against those they wished to revolve around it's orbit...and now have helped bring NATO right next door (and have ticked them off to boot),

At worst, they made it happen a tiny bit faster. And I bet considering how NATO grabs and grabs in peace, I think the Russians must be finding it a bit difficult to tell when NATO is "friendly" or "enemy", or which is better. I mean, at least when they were "enemy" (Cold War), NATO didn't seem quite so inclined to keep grabbing!

Also consider the lesson of 1999. For months the Russians railed about Kosovo, to little effect. Then, at the last moment, they moved some troops in. Of course the West screamed and roared. But all of a sudden, they got something. They didn't get the command (they probably don't even dream of this) or even a sector (like they hoped but didn't), but at least they got participation and a say (much better than "Observer status"). It is realpolitik, but the lesson is nevertheless obvious.

[Skybird]

Nice reasoning, Kazuaki, a shame that you do not often become so detailed in describing your thinking! Becasue of that I may have underestimated you a bit, and even felt provoked by some brief questions you asked without further comment. I offer my apology to you, therefore. I sorted you wrong.

And since we are at it, yes, all in all you described it correctly how my mind is ticking. The trap in that is that sometimes I use more ratio in my reasoning than reality is complying with - and then I am getting screwed by a more irrational reality, sometimes...

[Happy Times]

Georgia War Shows 'Weak' Russia, U.S. Official Says

Russia's conflict with Georgia is the sign of a "weak" Russian nation, not a newly assertive one, and Moscow now has put its place in the world order at risk, the top U.S. diplomat for relations with the country said in an interview yesterday.

"There is a Russia narrative that 'we were weak in the '90s, but now we are back and we are not going to take it anymore.' But being angry and seeking revanchist victory is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak one," said Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

"Russia is going to have to come to terms with the reality it can either integrate with the world or it can be a self-isolated bully. But it can't be both. And that's a choice Russia has to have," Fried said.

After Georgian forces moved into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia early this month, Russian troops attacked Georgian military installations and moved close to Georgia's capital before partially pulling back. This week, Moscow recognized the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a move the United States and European nations condemned as undermining Georgian sovereignty.

U.S. policymakers have debated whether and how Russia should be punished for its incursion into Georgia. Already, a civil nuclear deal between Russia and the United States appears dead in Congress, and Russia's 13-year effort to join the World Trade Organization is in trouble. Russian officials in recent weeks have disparaged such concerns -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin this week said he sees "no advantages" to joining the WTO -- but U.S. officials predict Russia will suffer if it becomes isolated.

U.S. officials and their allies have begun to suggest that Russia cannot blame any fallout from the Georgia attack on U.S. actions.

"They are kind of giddy. They will need to sober up," said a senior U.S. official, insisting on anonymity because his remarks were diplomatically impolite. "When they sober up, they will see that it is not the U.S. that has done things to them; it's that they have done things to themselves."

Similarly, in a speech yesterday in Kiev, Ukraine, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "Today Russia is more isolated, less trusted and less respected than two weeks ago. It has made military gains in the short term. But over time, it will feel economic and political losses."

Miliband noted that Russia's foreign exchange reserves have fallen by $16 billion and risk premiums for investing in Russia have soared since the crisis began. By contrast, when the Soviet Union attacked Czechoslovakia in 1968, "no one asked what impact its actions had on the Russian stock market. There was no Russian stock market."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has advocated removing Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized democracies. Miliband dismissed that yesterday as a "knee-jerk" call for action, though some Russian political figures have also begun to question whether Russia needs to stay in the G-8.

Yesterday, in a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the other seven members -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and Italy -- said they "condemn the action of our fellow G8 member" to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, adding that "Russia's decision has called into question its commitment to peace and security in the Caucasus."

Vice President Cheney, speaking to an American Legion convention in Phoenix yesterday, condemned Russia's "unjustifiable assault" on Georgia. "The Georgian people won their freedom after years of tyranny, and they can count on the friendship of the United States," he said.

"Three American presidents -- Bush, Clinton and Bush -- have all in their own way sought to encourage Russia's integration with the wider world. This is a good thing. It was the right set of policies," Fried said. "Russia has now put all of that at risk, because Russian cannot simultaneously behave like the Soviet Union toward its neighbors like this is 1968 and act as if it is 2008 when it comes to the WTO."

Fried said the administration is determined to prevent Russia from claiming a new sphere of influence in the Caucasus. He added: "There are areas where we have common interest with Russia and we want to work with them. The question is whether Russia has an ability to work with us."

In the interview, Fried did not excuse Georgia's initial actions, saying U.S. officials told Georgian officials they could not win a war with Russia. "Georgia is a flawed democracy, a democracy in construction. You don't help them by whitewashing their problems or defending a bad decision. But you don't want it crushed," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082703192.html

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Aah, false dilemma. So, if they don't join NATO, they automatically become "slave states to Russia?"

No. But if Russia is trying to coerce them from joining NATO by use of force, then yes, Russia is trying to posture itself as slave master. That's simply not going to work anymore.

Let's try and add a few elements to it. Many of the wives in this relationship nevertheless lived better than the "ex-husband" (it is no secret that Czechslovakia and East Germany at least had superior living standards to the Soviet Union). And unlike the stereotype of such ex-husbands, Russia let them go. They were richly rewarded as the "wives" not only sought new relationships, but relationships with those who just seem to have it in for Russia (and remember that guy promised he won't try and wed those newly freed wives).

I'm not going to readdress everyother comment, as I think I already sufficiently did above. So I'll only address these few comments we haven't covered and then just agree to disagree with you on most major points. Kazuaki, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on almost everything you have presented. On this example, you share Russia's almost perverse, and deeply ingrained paranoia. Do you have any proof that NATO intends to strike Russia? Where do you get that the USA and NATO has it in for Russia. That is paranoia, and paranoia only. Russia needs to get over it. Like it or not, these soveraign nations have the right to seek out new relations with whomever they want. Russia and their self glorification be damned. They owe Russia nothing my friend. Nor can Russia dictate whom other sovereign nations have relations with. This is almost perverse how you think about this. Sorry but we'll just have to disagree.

If you respect the right of states to make decisions for themselves, then you must respect the right of Russia to express its displeasure and lay out consequences for actions disadvantageous to it. The fact that Decisions don't come with only Plusses is something that all sovereign nations must realize.

OK. They can make whatever choices and voice whatever displeasure they wish. But they will pay a price. It's a guarantee.

Or how about the historical case of the Cubans. When you get down to it, it is their "sovereign" decision to ally with the Soviet Union and even to accept SS-4 and SS-5 missiles on their sovereign soil.

Because those were offensive thermonuclear missile systems? Right? The Russians did base radar and SAM sites on Cuba throughout the Cold War, and we didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Tell me, is it so hard to understand that Russia may have similar thoughts to Monroe, or that they have legitimate national security concerns that are being threatened by NATO's latest stunts,

Perhaps Russia is only afraid that they won't be able to bully these people anymore. Have you ever thought of that. It's clear that they think these "lesser" states should serve Moscow. And they don't wish to.

Again I refer you to the top. That you guys are not enemies is a Western perception based on a blind belief that smiles and symbolic gestures like an occasional invitation of one ship to BALTOPs and "observer" status on NATO meetings is worth more than NATO continuously expanding and threatening

More paranoia and blank accusations. Actually it's simply security agreements between sovereign nations who have the right to make such agreements. And Russia's current posturing makes these nations feel it is now more important than ever. See how that works? This is why I say Russia is stupid here. NATO observer is actually something substantive that Russia will no longer get due to their own paranoia. I know that you think it's meaningless, and a worthless gesture, but we will have to disagree on this point.

"Nominal relations". Oh, you mean relations where Russia gets symbols and the West gets meat? Aah...

Nope there was plenty of meat coming Russia's way. Especially in the top economic groups through nominal trade agreements. Of course I'm sure to you it's all meaningless and worthless gestures. So basically I can't help you see just how much Russia has lost and is losing by proceeding forward like a paranoid crazy man who can't accept his divorce and now stalks his ex like a looney.

Also, again, if any small, fractional chance of getting them out of NATO membership is with getting tough, how would that affect your calculations?

I don't think it's worth making an enemy out of NATO, and the world's major economic blocs. That fractional chance will cost them more than they gain long term. Not only that, but with this fractional chance will make them enemies in the eyes of these former client states. These nations want to be part of the West anyway. Russia cannot change that attitude. But Russia's stupidity has slammed the door on their own faces.

Well, it seems the Russians have cleverly arranged the agreement to ensure they'll be able to do so.

Not cleverly. Stubbornly. They will stay in Georgia for as long as they wish. But every day will cost them and will only further anger others. They will not get anything significnant for their troubles either.

Rather than arguing whether that is the case or not, I'll just note that as you apparently agree, both sides can do real damage to each other.

Yes. Which is why I hope it ends. Russia will come out to lose much more. We simply see it as unnecessary as it will lead to further hostilities between both sides. Not something beneficial to us either.

As for the food thing, oh good, you can make the West look crueler than Russia in a jiffy! That's where all the humanitarians in the West will stop you.

If they're going to get in the mud...they risk getting dirty. I'm not saying we will stop food shipments like grain, poultry, beef, and many more items. But we could. The "humanitarians" you speak of wouldn't be able to stop anything. But I just wanted to bring up that they do indeed rely on us for something of great value to them. I know one other person here can't bring his little soul to accept that. But I digress here.

At worst, they made it happen a tiny bit faster. And I bet considering how NATO grabs and grabs in peace, I think the Russians must be finding it a bit difficult to tell when NATO is "friendly" or "enemy", or which is better. I mean, at least when they were "enemy" (Cold War), NATO didn't seem quite so inclined to keep grabbing!

This is where you keep coming up short and confused. NATO didn't grab anything back then because there was nothing to grab. But these nations are now sovereign nations. NATO is grabbing nothing still. NATO membership is up to the candidate nation. NATO is not forcing anybody join it. And these nations have a right to join it if they choose and feel it is in their own national interests. Russia cannot dictate this. Yes, Russia has pushed these nations away from it and has made it a whole lot worse for themselves now. They'll never get the love of these nations, and at this point I fail to see how they can get any respect at all from them. It's been all due to obsolete paranoia of days past. They truly need to get over it Kazuaki.

Also consider the lesson of 1999. For months the Russians railed about Kosovo, to little effect. Then, at the last moment, they moved some troops in. Of course the West screamed and roared. But all of a sudden, they got something. They didn't get the command (they probably don't even dream of this) or even a sector (like they hoped but didn't), but at least they got participation and a say (much better than "Observer status"). It is realpolitik, but the lesson is nevertheless obvious.

I remember that. And they got nothing for that as well. Their "say" didn't have any impact. I will give Russia one thing..they truly know how to waste their time and make enemies in the process. Their version of realpolitik is ineffective.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Think I've gotten enough of your personal insults, hurting lies about me and slanderings regarding my person, SD, because that's what your attacks and claims about me are. Off to my ignore-list you go. It's not about differing opinion. It is about bad behavior, and about you trying to promote your views by setting up lies and slanderings about people opposing your opinion. Maybe tricks like that are acceptable in your world. But not in mine.

And I'm with Sea Demon, you arrogant individual.

You think that with your pseudo-intellectual babble, and your pretentiously "neutral" approaches, you can fool the people here. Well, actually, for the most part you indeed can. For the most part, the people fall for it. Because you are good at it. You are good in fooling people to listen to your bull****, while you pretend some kind of neutrality. You abuse the willingness of the people - better men than you are - to grant others and you the benefit of the doubt, in order to abuse this admirable virtue of them to promote your propaganda BS.
You are a despicable individual.

And if there is one thing I truly hate about America, it's that you guys are too naive, too often, and for too long. You assume others would act like you do. Wrong.
Most of you don't like pretentious thugs. But you always give them the benefit of the doubt. Because you are a free people. This is admirable, but sometimes, with your good willingness, you buy into too much bull**** of others. Some people are very good in hiding their despicable agendas by putting them into pseudo intellectual and pseudo superior / neutral ways of expression. And you fall for it because you think they are honest brokers.

Well, consider the option that they aren't.

-->That they aren't.<--

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by heartc

And if there is one thing I truly hate about America, it's that you guys are too naive, too often, and for too long. You assume others would act like you do. Wrong.
Most of you don't like pretentious thugs. But you always give them the benefit of the doubt. Because you are a free people. This is admirable, but sometimes, with your good willingness, you buy into too much bull**** of others. Some people are very good in hiding their despicable agendas by putting them into pseudo intellectual and pseudo superior / neutral ways of expression. And you fall for it because you think they are honest brokers.

Well, consider the option that they aren't.

-->That they aren't.<--

Uh, Sky is German, as far as I know. Assuming you are ranting against him since you quoted him.

[Skybird]

I even never had spoken a single word with heartc. In fact I even did not ever really noticed he is around.

Great appearance, heartc. You really set new standards, I'm impressed. You certainly showed what you are made off.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Uh, Sky is German, as far as I know. Assuming you are ranting against him since you quoted him.

I know he is.

That's why I made second a section. The second part was directed towards those who waste their time in ultimately pointless hopes of coming to some kind of mutual understanding with him - well, at least those he did not yet put on his "ignore list" because they meant too much trouble by presenting a different and steadfast opinion to this self-proclaimed philosopher.

[AntEater]

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by heartc

I know he is.

That's why I made second a section. The second part was directed towards those who waste their time in ultimately pointless hopes of coming to some kind of mutual understanding with him - well, at least those he did not yet put on his "ignore list" because they meant too much trouble by presenting a different and steadfast opinion to this self-proclaimed philosopher.

Ah, ok. The 'swing' in the post confused me. =)

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I even never had spoken a single word with heartc. In fact I even did not ever really noticed he is around.

Great appearance, heartc. You really set new standards, I'm impressed. You certainly showed what you are made off.

Oh, you did, but never mind. I, on the other hand, have seen you a thousand times by turning on the TV set here or opening the Spiegel magazine.
You are the kind who blaims America for Fox News but you yourself are so deep into home made BS that you dont even realize it anymore.
No, wait - wrong. You do realize it, but happily put more fuel into the fire, because you are one of those who eat from it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.

Maybe that is why I started to overlook him sometime ago. I am not angry when people do not disagree with me. for exampe there is HappyTimes, who also disagrees with me on most things, but neither am I angry at him, nor does he personally attack me and tell lies about me. And with others it is sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing as well - no problem, it's okay. just when somebody like SD or heartc or August think they must push their "argument" by insulting me, accusing me of lies, putting things in my mouth and quote me out of conctext to distorrt what I said and get a score for them over that fake quote, and agendas they claim I have but in fact have not, and I see myself being subject of slandering - then I am getting a bit intolerant to these people in return, yes. In earlier years I would have posted endlessly in return, and we remember the useless flame wars that came from that in the wake of the Iraq war. Today I put such fabulous debators on the list, and make my life easier and free from personal insults, and help to make the forum a little bit more peaceful by evading any future fights and friction with these figures that way.

It is not about censoring other opinions, or not wishing to deal with them. It is about not tolerating bad manner and unpolite behavior and personal diffamation, and refusing to waste time and energy with such superior gentlemen. I continue discussions currently with three board members, over three different threads, and all of them and me disagree, but nevertheless we keep it friendly and humorous and are on the way to become kind of pen-pals, in fact two of them are alteady that,m since two or three years - I doubt that I have deficits in being able to bear other opinions. Just the personal mud-throwing started by some people almost by reflex when "Skybird" has shown up - is becoming annoying at times. Skybirdophobia it is, i think.

A small gain for me, but a huge gain for forum peace on this board:

[heartc]

Originally Posted by AntEater

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.

Ass licking. Yeah. Traitor, huh? I am not one of those Anti-American hippies in this country who are such Anti-American fools that they were and are not even willing to join the army of their own country and swear an oath to defend their own country, DEUTSCHLAND, but would put up the white flag as soon as the Russians would come.
(But I think you were not one of *those* fools, either.)
I'm ass-licking freedom, if you will. While some other people are too busy seeking blame in those who brought freedom back to us and seek the Nazis in e.g. today's Israel so they can feel better about their own history.

"Ass licker". Funny. In 1945, Goebbels said, in effect: "First they will hate us. But in a hundred years from now, they will honor us again." 37 years to go. And if I'm the ass-licker now, because I take offense in the outright Anti-American BS that the media and most political parties love to throw around here already now - and not just since Mr. Bush - he might still be right in the end.

But I'm the "ass-licker". You do not even consider a different opinion to be just that. A different opinion under freedom. No, it must be ass-licking. Go to hell.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Too bad the ovens are gone, hugh, Skybird?