PDA

View Full Version : Prepare for War, Not Peace.............. V



Ponce
10th June 2014, 08:50 AM
Just in case I am getting a Russian flag ready to go..... and my plan behind my plan?, also a Chinese flag..........let's face it, we are are under command of the Zionist state of Israel and their plan is to nuke the whole world if they are loosing the war.

The same way that the Zionist will never have peace we are now in the same boat.
================================================== ============

Prepare for War, Not Peace

By Alexei Bayer
Jun. 08 2014 21:16
Last edited 21:17




How richly symbolic. Just before the 70th anniversary of the Allied landing in Normandy, Barack Obama flew to Poland, the first official victim of Nazi aggression, and pledged more U.S. troops for Europe. Then the summit of the Group of Seven leading industrial nations, reconstituted after Russia's expulsion for the first time since 1998, discussed in Brussels the first forcible re-drawing of European borders since the end of World War II.

In this light, President Vladimir Putin's isolation at the Normandy celebrations held last week, where Russia' former allies against Nazi Germany kept contact with him to a small handful of meetings and public encounters, was outright ominous.

Indeed, it almost seems that a new war in Europe is upon us: in recent days, pro-Russian separatists have opened up large swaths of Ukraine's border with Russia, allowing for an unimpeded flow of reinforcements from across the former Soviet Union.

Most people in the U.S. and Europe still doubt that Russia represents a threat to the existing world order. Wall Street financial analysts started to price in a new cold war two months ago, but they quickly overcame their anxieties about Russia. Since then the market has been setting new highs, irregardless of the ongoing chaos in eastern Ukraine.

Such insouciance is misguided. The new cold war will be nasty and long, and Russia won't be easy to contain. Confrontation with the West enjoys massive support in Russia. A fresh opinion poll conducted by the Levada Center found that 71 percent of Russians view the U.S. negatively, with a third holding a strongly negative opinion. Some 60 percent dislike the European Union as well. Even more threatening are the Russian volunteers eager and willing to fight in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the West is encouraging Moscow's belief that it can carry on its policies with impunity. Threats of tough sanctions, which were repeated last week, belie Europe's reluctance to start a trade war with Russia and Washington's inability to convince its allies to go beyond oral tsking.

Putin, of course, does not seem to have planned out the new cold war. It began as a backlash to the popular uprising in Kiev which ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and then solidified with Russia's annexation of Crimea. Since then, Putin has been improvising, inventing the new conflict from scratch.

His speech at this year's St. Petersburg Economic Forum, though, reveals that a long-term cold war policy is taking form.

Most observers saw it as conciliatory: Putin appeared to have recognized the results of the Ukrainian presidential election and encouraged foreign companies to stay in Russia. In fact, Putin laid the groundwork for the new cold war. Russia will not go into isolation, at least not yet. To stop buying Western goods outright would be self-defeating — especially high-tech items like the Mistral helicopters carriers it contracted from France. But in the meantime, he promised that Russia will work on import substitution, mobilizing its industry to produce strategically important products domestically.

Meanwhile, Moscow will carry on an underhanded sort of warfare. It will always declare itself ready to negotiate — for example, Putin met with Ukraine's President-elect Petro Poroshenko in France. Then, while denying all involvement, Russia will continue to stand behind separatists in eastern Ukraine, stationing large amount of troops on its shared border and allowing Russian volunteer fighters to filter in. In the most extreme scenario, combat methods being honed in Donetsk and Lugansk could be duplicated elsewhere in Ukraine, in the Baltics and in other regions.

Still, this will be a different cold war than the last one. For all its tough rhetoric, the Soviet Union of the Brezhnev era was a tired, conservative power. Putin's Russia is different. It is bursting with negative energy, hatred of the outside world and enthusiasm for confrontation.

It's a throwback not so much to the cold war diplomacy of missile treaties and international alliances, as to the Soviet Union's revolutionary birth, when the new Bolshevik government in Moscow actively undermined its enemies in the West.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...ce/501720.html

Horn
10th June 2014, 10:19 AM
6429

Glass
10th June 2014, 10:51 AM
that's a very western focused site. Seems to be mostly a blog with a neo con bent. The east west polarization is striking. People still believe that there's a communist threat from Russia? And that Russia is the aggressor here? We don't get a lot on it down here but what is written is same story.

Ponce
10th June 2014, 11:51 AM
Horn? what is in a name? many Americans are "commies" and they don't know it........being a commie is more than just a name, by their actions you will know them.............I see it every day everywhere and usually are those who are the most anti-Communist. Not many recognizes the elephant in the room because they keep their eyes closed.

I for one don't even know what is a commie, to me is only something that the US government is (or was) brain washing the American people as being BAD when it only could be a different way of life.......think of what they have done and what we are doing, any difference?

V

Horn
10th June 2014, 06:30 PM
You should have seen me in Managua tossing the beers back with the Che Guerva black white films running in a loop on a huge screen behind the bar. All the eyeballs glued to me as I went to the restroom... :)

My only question is how quickly you change hats, Ponce? Isn't there some sort of moral standard about what flag you fly?

Ponce
10th June 2014, 08:46 PM
Horn, even thou I was born as a American-Cuban and as a Cuban-American I am 75% Cuban and 25% North American and I have never, never, NEVER, made any bones about it..........and I say it once again.........if Cuba invades the US I would fight the Cubans, if the US invades Cuba I would fight the US but if both of them have a fight in a third country then that's their business.

I did many things for the US where I wore many hats.

V

Horn
11th June 2014, 06:58 AM
Horn, even thou I was born as a American-Cuban and as a Cuban-American

Do you have a birth certificate, or did they use stone to carve it out on that long ago? :)

Tumbleweed
11th June 2014, 07:50 AM
Horn? what is in a name? many Americans are "commies" and they don't know it........being a commie is more than just a name, by their actions you will know them.............I see it every day everywhere and usually are those who are the most anti-Communist. Not many recognizes the elephant in the room because they keep their eyes closed.

I for one don't even know what is a commie, to me is only something that the US government is (or was) brain washing the American people as being BAD when it only could be a different way of life.......think of what they have done and what we are doing, any difference?

V

Communists promise that if you give up your weapons to defend yourself and your property to provide for yourself they will take care of you, keep you safe and protect you. They never deliver as they promise.

I believe Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up their liberty for safety deserve neither".

gunDriller
11th June 2014, 08:35 AM
Pres. Putin actually has a website where you can send him a message.


Having emailed "president@whitehouse.gov" a few years ago ... i enjoyed emailing Pres. Putin.


For the most part, what I see going on is dis-integration of the economy.

With exceptions, e.g. Silicon Valley/SF & San Diego.


i am disappointed today because i tried hiring a local homeless guy and that is not going well. :(

Horn
11th June 2014, 11:48 AM
There's too much rich history for me to accept a Russian or Chinese flag for the sole purpose of protecting myself. :)

Is much safer not flying any at all, imo.

Even though I'm sure Putin would allow me to carry a fully registered and licensed .22 caliber at most only to guard his squares. Mao mao singsing or whoever would never approve unless I wore green died my hair black, and put a head dress under my cap to pull my eyes slanty like.

EE_
11th June 2014, 01:20 PM
You should have seen me in Managua tossing the beers back with the Che Guerva black white films running in a loop on a huge screen behind the bar. All the eyeballs glued to me as I went to the restroom... :)

My only question is how quickly you change hats, Ponce? Isn't there some sort of moral standard about what flag you fly?

This just shows where loyalty lies with foreign born citizens. When the going gets tough, the Mexicans are loyal to Mexico, Cubans are loyal to Cuba. Most are only here for the good life they couldn't get at home.
If a war broke out tomorrow between the US and Mexico, I bet almost every Mexican would join with Mexico.
Just the way it is.

I don't think flying an American flag means you are pledging allegiance to the United States 'government'.
The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't say that anywhere.
I won't fly the American flag now because America and the Republic are lost, too many liberties taken, justice is gone and we have been divided.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Horn
11th June 2014, 03:17 PM
We're all just heroic gorillas at heart, EE_


Emphasizing the image's ubiquitous nature and wide appeal,
the Maryland Institute College of Art called the picture a symbol of the 20th century and the world's most famous photo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrillero_Heroico

Horn
11th June 2014, 08:05 PM
Was it Metallica who quoted "To Secure Peace is to Prepare for War" ? :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmvG2ZiPfoo

Horn
11th June 2014, 09:12 PM
6433

Late 20th and early 21st century[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_von_Clausewitz&action=edit&section=7)]

The deterrence strategy of the United States in the 1950s was closely inspired by President Dwight Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Eisenhower)’s reading of Clausewitz as a young officer in the 1920s.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-Gaddis_1997.2C_page_233-25) Eisenhower was greatly impressed by Clausewitz’s example of a theoretical, idealized “absolute war” in Vom Krieg as a way of demonstrating how absurd it would be to attempt such a strategy in practice.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-Gaddis_1997.2C_page_233-25) For Eisenhower, the age of nuclear weapons had made what was for Clausewitz in the early 19th century only a theoretical vision an all too real possibility in the mid-20th century.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-Gaddis_1997.2C_page_233-25) From Eisenhower’s viewpoint, the best deterrent to war was to show the world just how appalling and horrific a nuclear “absolute war” would be if it should ever occur, so hence a series of much publicized nuclear tests in the Pacific, giving first priority in the defense budget to nuclear weapons and delivery systems over conventional weapons, and making repeated statements in public that the United States was able and willing at all times to use nuclear weapons.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-Gaddis_1997.2C_page_233-25) In this way through the Massive retaliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation) doctrine and the closely related foreign policy concept of Brinkmanship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinkmanship), Eisenhower hoped to hold out a creditable vision of Clausewitzian nuclear “absolute war” in order to deter both the Soviet Union and/or China from ever risking a war or even conditions that might lead to a war with the United States.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-26)

After 1970, some theorists claimed that nuclear proliferation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation) made Clausewitzian concepts obsolete after the 20th-century period in which they dominated the world.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-27) John E. Sheppard, Jr., argues that by developing nuclear weapons, state-based conventional armies simultaneously both perfected their original purpose, to destroy a mirror image of themselves, and made themselves obsolete. No two powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powers) have used nuclear weapons against each other, instead using conventional means or proxy wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_wars) to settle disputes. If such a conflict did occur, presumably both combatants would be annihilated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction). The American game theorist Anatol Rapoport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport)argued in 1968 that a Clausewitzian view of war was not only obsolete in the age of nuclear weapons, but also highly dangerous as it promoted a "zero-sum paradigm" to international relations and a "dissolution of rationality" amongst decision-makers.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-28)

The end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century have seen many instances of state armies attempting to suppress insurgencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency), terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism), and other forms of asymmetrical warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetrical_warfare). If Clausewitz focused solely on wars between countries with well-defined armies, as many commentators have argued, then perhaps On War has lost its analytical edge as a tool for understanding war as it is currently fought. This is an ahistorical view, however, for the era of the French Revolution and Napoleon was full of revolutions, rebellions, and violence by "non-state actors", such as the wars in the French Vendée and in Spain. Clausewitz wrote a series of “Lectures on Small War” and studied the rebellion in the Vendée (1793–1796) and the Tyrolean uprising of 1809. In his famous “Bekenntnisdenkschrift” of 1812, he called for a “Spanish war in Germany” and laid out a comprehensive guerrilla strategy to be waged against Napoleon. In On Warhe included a famous chapter on “The People in Arms.”

One prominent critic of Clausewitz is the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld). In his book The Transformation of War,[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-29) Creveld argued that Clausewitz's famous "Trinity" of people, army, and government was an obsolete socio-political construct based on the state, which was rapidly passing from the scene as the key player in war, and that he (Creveld) had constructed a new "non-trinitarian" model for modern warfare. Creveld's work has had great influence. Daniel Moran replied, 'The most egregious misrepresentation of Clausewitz’s famous metaphor must be that of Martin van Creveld, who has declared Clausewitz to be an apostle of Trinitarian War, by which he means, incomprehensibly, a war of 'state against state and army against army,' from which the influence of the people is entirely excluded."[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#cite_note-30) Christopher Bassford went further, noting that one need only read the paragraph in which Clausewitz defined his Trinity to see "that the words 'people,' 'army,' and 'government' appear nowhere at all in the list of the Trinity’s components.... Creveld's and Keegan's assault on Clausewitz's Trinity is not only a classic 'blow into the air,' i.e., an assault on a position Clausewitz doesn't occupy. It is also a pointless attack on a concept that is quite useful in its own right. In any case, their failure to read the actual wording of the theory they so vociferously attack, and to grasp its deep relevance to the phenomena they describe, is hard to credit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz