The War in Europe

In 1901, Rudyard Kipling published a book called Kim about a British spy dealing with Russian spies in Afghanistan who were trying to gain access to the Indian Ocean.That's 1901. Nineteen-oh-one.Congratulations on figuring it out more than a century after it became common knowledge.Russians don't change, whether they're Tsarists or Bolsheviks or gangsters.

Don't be smart with me. I've known that Russia has sought warm water port access for over a hundred years. Do you and jar have anything of worth to say besides accusations?|Russians may not change but the world is changing. I just want us to be careful about a one-world globalist government.

It won't be to our advantage! In fact, we will get stuck with a bill we cannot pay. Why else does the Federal Reserve keep kicking the can down the road?

​

The pesky nations will all want some sort of equality which we will be forced to pay for. And don't get cute telling me Jesus would be in favor of it. Jesus is likely fed up with the whole lot of us.

​

The bottom line is that a one-world government will likely end up as the culmination of evil.

​

Everyone has been warned but fails to see it due to their hatred of right-wing authoritarians. Wake up.

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).

Phat, please stop and think.No one is suggesting any one-world globalist movement. That's just another lie that the con-artists make up because they know you never check reality. They know that you and a vast segment of the population have willfully decided to ignore evidence and reality and honesty and so you will gobble up any asinine pitch they present.The reality is that the world is moving towards a plurality consensus model rather than any one-world government.Stop listening to the apologist con-men.Stop thinking source is of any value.Look at content and then test that content against reality rather than your fantasies.AbE:Look at the reality of governmental bodies.There is the UN. It has no real enforcement capabilities and is based again on consensus building. Even when looking at the Security Council it cannot do anything unless there is a consensus of the five permanent members.There is the G7. Again, it is a consensus based organization with limited scope and authority.There are cooperative treaties. Each is based on a consensus of all of the parties to the treaties.There is the EU. Again, each member nation remains autonomous and only in areas where there is a consensus of all members can actions be taken.There is NATO. Again, the members remain separate autonomous entities with the only overriding commonality being an agreement that an attack on any one member will trigger a response from ALL members.Everywhere you look Phat the reality is the exact opposite of any one world government. What exists in reality is an ever widening acceptance of consensus based organization each with limited scope and character.Phat, your sources all know this but they also know that lying to folk like you is the path to power and profit.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

That's an excellent example of doublethink.

You claimed that NATO Article 5 requires NATO countries to attack Russia if Russia attacks any NATO country. It does not. Article 5 speaks of collective self-defense. Here it is in its entirety saying pretty much what I've been saying all along:

quote:

---

Article 5

​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

​

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

---

Your message for the first time finally makes a statement that is actually somewhat consistent with Article 5, making me suspect you may have finally looked it up: But you continue on to make an unjustified assumption: You've decided a priori that any military action by Russia against a NATO member would necessitate a military response against "Russia in Russia." Article 5 does not say this. It says that NATO would take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Necessary actions *include* the use of armed force, they don't require it.I believe you're arguing that as a practical matter the facts on the ground dictate that any attack by Russia on a NATO member would require military responses against "Russia in Russia," but this isn't true. For example, say a missile site in Estonia is deemed a threat by Russia, and so Russia conducts a missile strike against it and takes it out. "Such action as it deems necessary" includes a wide range of possibilities, from the diplomatic to the military.Your insistence on using the phrase "attack Russia" to include anything military done against "Russia in Russia" remains very ambiguous because it includes both defensive and offensive actions. My initial interpretation of your use of the phrase "attack Russia," especially since you also said it would be "suicide," was that you thought a Russian attack against NATO would require NATO countries to invade Russia. I think now that it wasn't your intention to include that interpretation, but I'm still not entirely sure, and you don't seem to care whether your meaning is clear or not. You have a love of ambiguity, lack of clarity, and even of being misleading. To you it would be accurate to state that Ukraine has "attacked Russia," but most people would interpret that as meaning that Ukraine has gone on the offensive against Russia when they definitely have not. They're just trying to defend themselves. You seem to have no interest in using words in ways that create accurate impressions in the minds of people hearing them. It's laissez-faire applied to the realm of language. You seem to think, "Hey, it can be interpreted in a way that makes me right, and that's all that matters." Use of the word "attack" strongly implies going on the offensive. Only someone with no interest in conveying a correct impression would employ the word "attack" to apply to operations employed only for defense, even when conducted within the borders of a belligerent.--Percy

I really don't see the point in saying the same things many times in answer to the same issues put in slightly different tortuous ways.Any attack on a NATO country would result in NATO defending that that country using whatever force necessary to stop the attack succeeding. Obviously if the threat is existential - as it is for Ukraine - that would mean attacking Russian offensive forces and installations wherever they were sited.Isn't that just blindingly obvious?

If you read my posts, you'd know what I have to say - and you'd quit saying silly things like calling me a Marxist or saying I'm trying to escape responsibility or saying I have faith in humanism to solve all our problems or countless other silly things that I've told you are false. There's no need for you to be careful - even if there was anything you could do about it. It ain't gonna happen. The Age of Empires is over. The Russian Empire is fragmented, despite Putin's efforts to duct-tape it back together, and the American Empire is in steep decline. The made-up "nations" of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia have split up. There are separatist movements in many nations. Even international organizations such as the UNH are struggling to hold together.Look to a future of more governments, not one government. And nobody is saying it will - which is why nobody is advocating it. It's just your right-wing fantasy bogeyman. The pesky nation is yours.Years ago, I heard somebody explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats think everybody in the world wants to be an American. Republicans want to make everybody in the world an American.You do want one world government - but you want that government to be yours. See above. Do you know what the slogan of the Nazi Party was? Deutschland erwache!Which translates as "Germany, awake!" Look at the company you're keeping.We need more fear and loathing of right-wing authoritarians, not less.ABE:
I wrote this before reading jar's Message 543 below yours, so any similarities are coincidental - independent minds drawing similar conclusions.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

I just looked up "globalist" and found a variety of definitions.I'm curious how you define globalist and what you mean by one-world globalist government?

Tangle still doesn't get it: But it's the difference between INVADING Russia VERSUS defending yourself from a Russian INVASION. I can see Percy's point and you can and do, too, but you never come out and say it. Sorry to put my foot in the door.

Once an aggressor has invaded there is no difference! NATO would be defending itself against an invasion. That would require attacking the invading forces wherever they are.Can you imagine Russia bombing Estonia from Russia and NATO not attacking the airfields and missile launch sites within Russia? That's not an invasion, it's a necessary defensive reaction. I have no idea what Percy's point is. It seems to me he has no idea of modern warfare - it's been a century since battles where only fought on a localised battlefield.

Tangle claims Well, to put it politely, BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!You are DEAD WRONG there, my friend. You even used the term "aggressor", so you know the difference.Edited by xongsmith, : name misspelled

er, how can the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign independent nation, not be done by an 'aggressor'?There is a very large gaping hole where understanding should fit, but I'm baffled where.

I'm thinking the disconnect is what war would entail. If russia were to move against NATO, no matter where, NATO would defend, stunt the attack, repel the attack then determine if going farther is militarily and politically necessary. Taking out supply lines in Russia, taking out forward airfields in Russia, if warranted, taking up defensive positions on Russian soil are all probable.If one wants to call that invading Russia then so it is.NATO Article 5 is the authorization. Political and military necessity will determine which borders will be crossed. Conquering Russia is not the goal. Stopping their BS and defending NATO territory is. If that means crossing into Russia to affect a military strike, so be it.

Yeh, it would entail war. 190,000 troops have invaded a sovereign, independent country, bombed its cities and displaced millions of civilians. That's war. Of course. I haven't so far put boots on Russian soil - but if that was necessary to reverse an invasion, NATO would of course do it. I've never called it invading Russia, that's just dumb, why would any democracy invade Russia? That's just stupid. I've called it attacking the invaders wherever they are to defend a NATO country that has been attacked. Now get a grip. I have at no time, anywhere said anything about conquering Russia. That's totally absurd and against everything NATO and all modern democracies stand for. Which is exactly what I am saying. Hence the understanding gap.

Good God, Tangle, I wasn't attributing any of this invasion BS or anything else to you.I was commenting on where I saw the issue with the semantics.I know your head's on straight. Calm down.