Very powerful, extremely impressive. I was nearly moved to tears in admiration.
We learned our lesson there and vowed to never again elect a president with high ethics.
1 Like
For some reason, I have more faith in Al-Jazeera than in RT (EDIT: Speaking of govāt. affiliated news organizations). I canāt really explain why, but itās something I was thinking about yesterday. Iāve noticed that Iāll generally read something from AJ, while Iāll almost always skip RT.
1 Like
Are all the AJs equally good? (I generally like what Iāve seen of the English language stuff)
I was reading this yesterday:
And it suggests that Al Jazeeraās Arabic channel has some issues (at least as far as other gulf states are concerned).
I recall reading one article that said Qatar was behind the foreign fighters in the Northern Mali uprising, but not finding anything else when I tried to dig further. Iām not really sure why their foreign policies seem to favor a strict interpretation of Islam, as it doesnāt seem to apply within Qatar itself (not to the same degree as, for example, Saudi Arabia).
I donāt remember whether Qatar was friendly with Eritrea, or with Ethiopian opposition, or with both, but it was at least one of these, as there had been some sort of rift between Qatar and Ethiopia until a year or so ago, when they restored relations. Not to sound pro-Ethiopian, just wondering what was in it for Qatar.
EDIT: Last night I was re-reading a Lonely Planet guidebook (published 2009 or so), and it mentioned that a lot of the Al Jazeera staff came from the BBC foreign service. According to LP, the BBC Arabic bureau was based in Saudi Arabia, but faced too many problems there with censorship.
My problem is that you link to a video with a clickbaity title (caps & scare quotes) in response to someone who actually made a point, without explaining in any way how smartr was incorrect. The expectation that people click on your link and grok your point from that is presumptuous and lazy. This is how things work here: make your point, present supporting evidence. If you just post a snarky meaningless response and a youtube link, expect to be treated as an idiot.
Your response shows an entire lack of understanding of Smartrās point and the main topic at hand. Smartrās commentary on the situation has nothing to do with the youtube video you posted. The fact that you think because Nuland is talking about the Ukrainian opposition power brokers involved and saying things like āfuck the EUā means that America is meddling with stuff behind the scenes shows your understanding of foreign relations comes from an episode of the teletubbies. Her comment was basically āfuck the EU cause weāve got the UN on board so we donāt need themā but your snide know-it-all response makes out like America is calling the shots here.
The comment happened, but doesnāt really say anything. That you believe this phone call is somehow telling of Americaās meddling shows youāre drinking from the RT ŠŗŃŃŃŠ¾-ŠæŠ¾Š¼Š¾ŃŃ.
Itās easy to write words that have no real meaning.
If you really believe that the only cost of giving away money is the actual printing cost then go get a grasp of basic economic principles before trying to sound smart. Itās called inflation, Einstein, and itās what happens to the value of all your existing currency when you print more.
1 Like
your point?
She seems to be offering quite a bit of propaganda herself, such as that nonsense about seeing the āultimate prices people pay for this country.ā
Killing and dying for the interests of neocon barbarians or the ruling elite is not service to the country. It is not patriotism. The people on the receiving end of American military violence are the ones who have paid the ultimate price, seeing their lives, their families and their countries destroyed.
I guess she can go get a job at Fox News now, where her newfound āethicsā will find a receptive audience.
One more data point: Ron Paul comments on Lizās meltdown
The difference between my post and yours is that I like the facts to speak for themselves, whereas you donāt see facts even if they are as obvious as light in the daytime (or when all it takes is to listen to a 4 minute conversation).
The recorded conversation that I linked is between Victoria Nuland (the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (the current United States Ambassador to Ukraine). They are discussing who needs to be appointed as the new leader after the coup is complete, and strategizing on their maneuvering to achieve this goal. Nuland and Pyatt are talking as THE power brokers in this conflict. This is pretty much the definition of meddling in internal affairs of a sovereign nation.
The āfuck the EUā statement was provided as a reference/reminder of which conversation was linked.
Hmmm. Do Cuba and Guantanamo Bay ring any bells?
1 Like
Certainly. How many years of embargo has it been?
What about Grenada of '83 and Haiti of '94? Ring any bells?
Oh, so you were simply talking about an embargo, and not defending Russiaās military invasion of Crimea, because military invasions and embargoes are not different? Thatās not the impression anyone got.
And you said āno country would react different if there was a revolution in a neighboring country and they needed to protect their military and other assets.ā One country has reacted different. Examples of countries acting the same doesnāt diminish the fact that your statement is false as countries have also acted different.
Of course, itās a little inconvenient that Haiti was a multilateral effort authorized by the UN in response to a military coup that overthrew a recently elected government, while in the case of Grenada the US invasion was roundly criticized as a breach of international law (much as Russiaās invasion has been).
Right. There was no attempt to send any kind of invasion force into Cuba? Or blockades? Attempted assassinations? Selective memory much?
I said no country would āreact differentlyā. Actual action would depend on capability, influence, and other factors. Some countries simply have to grin and bear it, while others routinely reach to the other side of the globe and kill thousands or more.
By the way, did the Crimea invasion body count reach the number of wedding goers killed in drone strikes yet? Just curious.
Pretty great unintentional joke thereā¦
Direct aid (and indirect, see NGOs) is also political and comes with strings attached. Take a look at the tiny little apartheid happy country that receives the bulk of American aidā¦
Were any of these things done to pre-empt the revolution, or after it had succeeded? Which is to say, are the situations they happened in actually the same? The blockade was in response to Nukes. Assassination attempts happened well after Castro was firmly entrenched in power, and in some ways are similar to the dioxin poisoning of Yushchenko. The Bay of Pigs was not a full-on US invasion comprising US forces well after Castro was established: if the US really wanted to do something from Guantanamo in the early days of the revolution to snuff it out, they certainly had the power to do so.
OK. Tell me how the US didnāt react differently to Russia. Russia has rushed into Crimea at the first hint of revolution to protect their military base and Russian interest there. How didnāt the US react differently when they allowed the revolution in Cuba to progress despite the US base there and huge US interests in Cuba (remember that Havana was basically seen as Las Vegas to Americans before Las Vegas was a thing). Is it because the US at that time lacked capability or influence in the region? Because they had to grin and bear it?
What on earth does that have to do with Cuba?
But if you want to go to this totally unrelated topic, how many deaths have been attributed to Crimean terrorists? Just curious.
1 Like
You are the one who brought up Cuba. Just an FYI.
I believe this is where Iāll have to draw the line. Happy trails.
OK, I brought up Cubaā¦ but I brought it up in the context of you saying āno country would react different if there was a revolution in a neighboring country,ā and you appeared to think that drones were an appropriate rebuttal to Cuba. But even looking at the context you originally provided, how are drone strikes relevant to that statement about how no country would react different to a revolution in a neighbouring country? [quote=āEreiamjh, post:57, topic:24862ā]
Direct aid (and indirect, see NGOs) is also political and comes with strings attached. Take a look at the tiny little apartheid happy country that receives the bulk of American aidā¦
[/quote]
Yeah, take a look at it. According to the link youāre talking about, Israel falls between Afghanist and Iraq in terms of how much aid money it receives, and and is far from receiving āthe bulk of American aid.ā And for all the strings that come attached to the money, Afghanistan and Iraqās policies and security situation seems just a little different than Israelās, which is kind of difficult to explain under your philosophy.
Thereās no doubt that the US gives a lot to Israel and that politics plays a big role in this, but I think itās more the case that theyāre giving because of Israelās policies, and not that the money has a huge effect on those policies.
The context is much wider because, clearly, some countries routinely donāt stop at conflicts at their border. The comment about drones was meant to highlight that, among other things.
