Debate-The West is provoking a new cold war with Russia mp3

[Happy Times]

As the title says from Edvard Lucas website, all sides are covered.

The West is provoking a new cold war with Russia

Speakers for the motion:

* Anatole Kaletsky: Associate Editor of The Times
* Professor Norman Stone: Professor of International Relations and Director of the Russian Centre at Bilkent University, Ankara.
* Alexei Pushkov: Anchor of the most popular Russian TV programme “Post Scriptum” which has considerable influence on Russian public perception of international events.


Speakers against the motion:

* Edward Lucas: Central and Eastern Europe correspondent for the The Economist and author of The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West (2008).
* Dr Lilia Shevtsova: Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Washington).
* Ron Asmus, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Link to listen the debate.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/intellige...8_18_35_54.mp3

Website.

http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/


Authors@google: Edward Lucas May 13, 2008

[Jimbuna]

Now this could be interesting...on it now

[SUBMAN1]

Uhm... A cold war already exists. Has been for some time. There is no debate. All that is happening is that it is coming out into the open.

-S

[geetrue]

Cold war?

What's a hot war?

One (1) million degrees of nuclear melt down ...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Cold war?

What's a hot war?

One (1) million degrees of nuclear melt down ...

Yep!

But for some cold war details, this is a good article. It is constantly updated:

http://www.milnet.com/opinion/Cold-War-Is-On.html

-S

[Happy Times]

Dont miss the links.
http://www.edwardlucas.com/default.asp?sec=2

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Iran has not been supplying the insurgents in Iraq with weapons...

Major-General Kevin Bergner said the exact same thing on tens of thousands of captured weapons the insurgents were using that, according to Bush, were from Iran:



(From May 12, 2008)

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Here's a slightly more accurate depiction, but it's admitedly difficult to make something out of the original pile of poo (I suppose it was for educationnal purpose aimed at 5yo kids) :

Is that what it looks like in your fantasy land? Good to know.

-S

A cold war flowchart, groovy.

Subman1,

what's wrong with Mikhayls version...? Besides maybe Iran supporting the Shias and Syria the Sunnis...

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Here's a slightly more accurate depiction, but it's admitedly difficult to make something out of the original pile of poo (I suppose it was for educationnal purpose aimed at 5yo kids) :

pic snipped because it's way too convoluted to deal with more than once

Could we have some research citations on which you based those conclusions? I'd especially be interested in where you did your research on the incest part:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Could we have some research citations on which you based those conclusions? I'd especially be interested in where you did your research on the incest part:rotfl:

Me too!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Don't take it too seriously, it's just slightly better than the original which IMO is a indescriptible piece of BS. Now if you think the original is a fair representation of the situation, nothing I can say will help it

Don't take me seriously too. It would be good to know your real views on it however.

-S

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Thanks, basically I think it's much too complicated to be sumed in a stupid drawing. Even if we focus on the only few countries on that map we would need hundreds more arrows.

Now about my views, I don't want to turn any single thread in a flamewar so it will have to wait. That's the sort of things better talked about face to face with a fresh drink especially when there's a big difference of views between the partys to begin with

I have to agree that's it's much too complicated and there are too many things that we have no way of knowing for sure. As with everything, most of us can only take the information we can get and consider the source and try to make a reasonable conclusion. IMHO, the problem with many disagreements are that some folks tend to take anything written or posted on the internet or in a publication as the (pardon the use of the word) "gospel" truth without knowing who the person was that wrote it.

[SUBMAN1]

I agree with you guys, but I don't think it was ever intended to represent things perfectly. Read the article. The diagrams were supposed to simply give a basic understanding of where things are.

-S

[Happy Times]

Authors@google: Edward Lucas