On May 7, 6:15=A0am, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 6, 12:27=A0am, vello <vellok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 7:13=A0am, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > On May 3, 12:17=A0am, vello <vellok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 3, 7:38=A0am, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 2, 8:18=A0am, "Henry Alminas" <halmi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:=
>
> > > > > > ... space" matushka is in the process
> > > > > > of engulfing her neighbors yet one
> > > > > > more time. =A0These activities need to
> > > > > > be closely monitored by the Balts. =A0Akin
> > > > > > to the case in Georgia matushka planted
> > > > > > great numbers of her colonizing
> > > > > > kiddies in the Baltics (post war) =A0and has been
> > > > > > making noises about "protecting her
> > > > > > compatriots" for some time now.
>
> > > > > > One should note, however, that rather than
> > > > > > the "bull in the china shop" approach used
> > > > > > in Georgia they are engaged much more
> > > > > > subtle moves.
>
> > > > > > Why - one might ask. =A0The answer is very
> > > > > > simple the Baltic countries are in NATO
> > > > > > - even if largely symbolically. =A0Thus the
> > > > > > Kremlin is not quite sure as to the reaction
> > > > > > of this organization to its more crass (and
> > > > > > more natural for russkies) activities. =A0As a
> > > > > > result it has restricted itself to doing "spade
> > > > > > work" in preparation of getting the Baltic
> > > > > > countries into a Georgian position. =A0It is
> > > > > > investing massive efforts (and funds) in
> > > > > > driving a wedge between the Baltic countries
> > > > > > and other club members within NATO as
> > > > > > well as the EU. =A0This effort has been but
> > > > > > moderately successful. =A0 On the other hand
> > > > > > the Kremlin has lots of time.
>
> > > > > > Certainly Europe, Rather than being mesmerized
> > > > > > by the ****ographic spectacle of the ongoing
> > > > > > krautoid-russkie fornication, needs to wake
> > > > > > up and understand that the Kremlin is playing
> > > > > > the same old russkie game - a game that has not
> > > > > > even gained much in sophistication over the many
> > > > > > centuries.
>
> > > > > > Surely even in societies, completely submerged
> > > > > > within a "I got mine/wanna get mine" mentality,
> > > > > > there must be =A0individuals with enough
> > > > > > intelligence to recognize the game and enough
> > > > > > intestinal fortitude to condemn it and counteract
> > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > That is all I ask.
>
> > > > > > Best - - Henry
>
> > > > > > For educational purposes only:
>
> > > > > > From: The Jamestown Foundation
> > > > > > (Eurasia Daily Monitor)
>
> > > > > > ANNEXATION AND MILITARIZATION OF
> > > > > > ABKHAZIA CONTINUE APACE
>
> > > > > That's clearly a typo: "Akhazia" instead of "Kosovo". Clearly,
thi=
s
> > > > > article was written back in the 1990s about NATO's aggression
agai=
nst
> > > > > Serbia, stealing Koovo and destroying Serbia's territorial
integri=
ty.
> > > > > However, some clown took that old article, replaced =A0"Kosovo"
wi=
th
> > > > > "Akhazia" everywhere, "Serbia" with "Georgia", and "NATO" with
> > > > > "Russia". What a cheap piece of plagiarism. I wonder what clown
di=
d
> > > > > that...
>
> > > > Well there are also differencies - serbians were tiny minority in
> > > > kosovo, but georgians clear maiority in Abkhazia.
>
> > > > Is it somehow im****tant to you?
>
> > > Let's not go in that direction for the 1000th time. For every reason
> > > in favor of Kosovo's indpendence, I have in the past given 100
reasons=
> > > in favor of Transdniestria, Abkhazia and Ossetia. That's not the
issue=
> > > right now.
>
> > > The issue is that either territorial integrity is considered sacred
>
> > It may be considered sacred if we are sure no colonial borders are
> > left. Unhappily things are not this way.
>
> > > and only a UN resolution can change that - in which case Koosvo
should=
> > > be given back to Serbia and/or Montenegro - or individual countries
> > > and/or militant organisations can at their will wage unprovoked
> > > aggressions against any countries they wish in order to occupy them
> > > and/or steal territory from them - in which case neither NATO nor
> > > Socor can complain about the upcoming (hopefully peaceful)
> > > independence of Transdniestria, Abkhazia and Ossetia. =A0Stop double
> > > standards.
>
> > Real double standards are right inside region, even inside your last
> > sentence. Russia, so bravely fighting for independence of
> > "southossetians" have no plans to give independence to northern part
> > of Ossetia, occupied by them.
>
> Ossetia was not occupied. Just as Georgia and Armenia, it joined the
> Russian Empire purely voluntarily in order to be protected from
> genocidal islamic Persians and Turks. Read up history books.
> Unfortunately, South Armenia could not join Russia, and as the result
> they all perished in a genocide in Turkey about 100 years ago, with
> Russia prevented to protect them.
>
> Go ahead, hold an independence referendum in North Ossetia. I
> guarantee you that at least 97% will vote to remain with Russia. Even
> South Ossetians and Abkhazians (the latter being Muslim!) prefer to be
> with Russia than to be independent and be raped by their deranged
> neighbors. Welcome to the Caucusus!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0and - in time they sup****t seccessionist
> > movement in Abkhazia, they drown in blood Chechen nation - a clear
> > maiority in Chechenia.
>
> > > Instead of giving your reasons why Kosovo's desire for independence
> > > should be treated better than Abkhazia's to me for the 20th time,
save=
> > > them for the UN discussion, in which the international community can
> > > set objective standards how to decide which region deserves
> > > independence and which doesn't. =A0How come US and the rest of NATO
ar=
e
> > > more scared of such public discussions more than vampires are scared
> > > of silver crosses and stakes?
>
> > Because UN as it is is not very effective tool - it is more relict of
> > ww2.
>
> NATO countries consider UN ineffective because UN doesn't go along
> with their non-stop rapes of little defenceless countires. Hitler and
> Stalin also considered the League of Nations ineffective.
>
>
>
> =A0> World do need such a structure but it must be rebuilt by
>
> > standards of 21 century.
>
> But there already exist more than one: NATO, CIA, MI5/6, Halliburton,
> Exxon, Guantanamo Bay, Al Ghraib. The structure to rule the World in
> the 21st century is in place and working on overdrive. The New World
> Order. Das Neue Weltordnung, as Hitler coined the phrase some 50 years
> before Bush and Albright resurrected it. =A0Sadly for Hitler, he was
> long dead (those terrible Russians forced him to commit suicide!)
> before his Germany and the rest of NATO fulfilled his two biggest
> dream: =A0Neues Weltordnung and Drang Nach Osten. Too bad for him that
> the Rulers of the World are not Germans but Anglos: US and its
> concubine Britain.
>
>
>
> > Not regions but nations are natural subjects of history
>
> Oh, you are a follower of Stalin's "science"?-
Woodrow Wilson is more a guy of my taste. But it just seems natural -
how can some region or territory act without people living there?
|
