• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia May Hit Back at Saudi Arabia for Volgogard Attacks

Morality Games said:
We're playing chess, but the game pretty much plays itself. American foreign policy has little to do with Obama personally; he acts out the moves that the situation calls for given our commitments and position in the world.

See:

Legalism (Chinese philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emphasis on the third maxim, Shi -- the position, not the ruler, is the ultimate source of power in political society.
Click to expand...

Been trying to say the same thing for some time. Presidents don't take office and redirect foreign policy. The interests of big money, multinational corporations, defense contractors (MIC) etc, keep a tight reign on that.
 
APACHERAT said:
Tell that to Mubarak.
Click to expand...

But you keep mentioning a dictator we kept propped up. Apparently because it met our " interests". When they don't, the dictator is pulled down for "humanitarian interests" or some made up threat that the peon poses to US national security. A favorite out of the WH.
 
As Fallen said, I don't think the news report is accurate... most likely some chechens will get the snot beaten out of them and an increase in military presence around that area... there will be no invading of Saudi Arabia or anything. And if Putin decides to invade, there is nothing anyone can do about it, but he won't.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Russia May Hit Back at Saudi Arabia for Volgogard Attacks

If True, I wonder what Russia would do. With the US pulling back from the blanket support of Saudi Arabia, Russia could do a limited strike on Saudi Arabia, one of its cruise missile ships could fire a full volley at a few Saudi targets, (if it was the oil export terminal, Russia could gain some significant short term economic benefits





Given that it was reported a few months ago that Bandar did threaten Putin with the words that Saudi controls the islamist rebels in the caucus region, it certainly makes sense that Saudi Arabia either ordered or provided support to the attackes
Click to expand...
[/LEFT]
Click to expand...




It doesn't make sense to me that Saudi Arabia would invite an attack on itself by Russia, which could turn Saudi Arabia into a sheet of glass.

Let's wait and see what happens before we have the big one, eh?
 
shrubnose said:
It doesn't make sense to me that Saudi Arabia would invite an attack on itself by Russia, which could turn Saudi Arabia into a sheet of glass.

Let's wait and see what happens before we have the big one, eh?
Click to expand...

All Putin has to do is remove his shirt and the Saudis are cooked!
 
APACHERAT said:
You only represent and talk for the low information people.
Click to expand...

This coming from someone who uses dog caricatures for formulating political philosophy.

That's quite rich.
 
Rainman05 said:
As Fallen said, I don't think the news report is accurate... .
Click to expand...

But it's on the internet so it has to be true.

I believe because of the WWW (internet not wrestling) we have the most misinformed society today.

Do you think Obama would be sitting in the White House today if there was no internet as we know it today ? George Soros would have had to bought every news media outlet to accomplish what he was able to do on the internet.

Could John Kerry have been "Swift Boated" in 2004 without the internet ? The only people who remembered John Kerry back stabbing the American soldier while they were still on the battlefields of Vietnam were the Vietnam vets. With the internet everyone became aware.
 
APACHERAT said:
While Putin and most of the major players are playing chess, does Obama continue to play checkers ?
Click to expand...

Still trying to make this about Obama? You just don't know what to do if it's not, do you?
 
Rainman05 said:
As Fallen said, I don't think the news report is accurate... most likely some chechens will get the snot beaten out of them and an increase in military presence around that area... there will be no invading of Saudi Arabia or anything. And if Putin decides to invade, there is nothing anyone can do about it, but he won't.
Click to expand...

They actually couldn't even spell Volgograd correctly, so their proofreading is very suspect.
 
APACHERAT said:
But it's on the internet so it has to be true.

I believe because of the WWW (internet not wrestling) we have the most misinformed society today.

Do you think Obama would be sitting in the White House today if there was no internet as we know it today ? George Soros would have had to bought every news media outlet to accomplish what he was able to do on the internet.

Could John Kerry have been "Swift Boated" in 2004 without the internet ? The only people who remembered John Kerry back stabbing the American soldier while they were still on the battlefields of Vietnam were the Vietnam vets. With the internet everyone became aware.
Click to expand...

More bull**** from you.

The internet was bad for helping Obama, but good for slamming Kerry? Seriously?

You need some serious help with your delusional thoughts.
 
SMTA said:
More bull**** from you.

The internet was bad for helping Obama, but good for slamming Kerry? Seriously?

You need some serious help with your delusional thoughts.
Click to expand...

If it slams Dems, it's good and absolutely true. If it hurts Repubs, it's evil and biased. Don't you know the rules yet?
 
rocket88 said:
Still trying to make this about Obama? You just don't know what to do if it's not, do you?
Click to expand...

He is simply a Muppet who has a human working the strings.

It is quite comical.
 
SMTA said:
This coming from someone who uses dog caricatures for formulating political philosophy.

That's quite rich.
Click to expand...

Dog ???

"Formulating political philosophy" ???

My political philosophy was established a long time ago. And I doubt anyone is going to change my political philosophy just like I'm not trying to change anyones else's political philosophy on the DP. The young and inexperienced can be influenced but those who have reached middle age are pretty entrenched in their political philosophy and nobody is goling to change them unless they are sent to reeducation (concert ration) camps.

I find it funny when the young and uninformed with little real experience in life come to the DP and think they are going to change peoples political philosophies.

Let me help you out about using pictures, cartoons, etc in political debate.

A political cartoon is a type of drawing used to present opinions, comments, or criticisms of a situation, person, or events. Cartoons help people to understand information by presenting it in a visual and memorable way. Political cartoonists use many different techniques to achieve their goals:

Caricature - exaggerating one or more physical features - a large mouth to show someone who often speaks out on an issue.

Symbols - using a recognizable item to communicate an idea - an elephant to represent the Republican Party.

Caption - having the characters speak or summarizing the message in a few words above or below the cartoon.

BTW: If you ever post a political cartoon on the DP, do you know what your going to look like upstairs with the grown ups ?
 
rocket88 said:
They actually couldn't even spell Volgograd correctly, so their proofreading is very suspect.
Click to expand...

Most people don't know where Volgograd is or that it used to be Stalingrad... and because it's in the south of Russia, close to the Caucus mountains, it's a fan favorite strike location for chechen terrorists or other islamic groups that activate in the region, as well as radicals that can seek refuge in the mountains.

APACHERAT said:
But it's on the internet so it has to be true.

I believe because of the WWW (internet not wrestling) we have the most misinformed society today.

Do you think Obama would be sitting in the White House today if there was no internet as we know it today ? George Soros would have had to bought every news media outlet to accomplish what he was able to do on the internet.

Could John Kerry have been "Swift Boated" in 2004 without the internet ? The only people who remembered John Kerry back stabbing the American soldier while they were still on the battlefields of Vietnam were the Vietnam vets. With the internet everyone became aware.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are the most misinformed society but i do think there is a lot more disinformation available for people to fall prey to than before.

However... there are reliable news sources and I trust some internet publications waaaay more than I trust big TV media or such.

What I think I'm trying to say is that if you have a little persistence and are a more calm person, you can get to the bottom things more reliably... but if you're a hyperactive OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING BECAUSE THE MAYA SAY SO kind of person... you're going to get duped a lot. Even if you're not, you MAY get duped some of the time for a while...

But fortunately, those people get distracted easily and they end up nowhere at least, nowhere near the red phones, the big chairs and the red buttons. At least not yet...
 
Rainman05 said:
Most people don't know where Volgograd is or that it used to be Stalingrad... and because it's in the south of Russia, close to the Caucus mountains, it's a fan favorite strike location for chechen terrorists or other islamic groups that activate in the region, as well as radicals that can seek refuge in the mountains.



I don't think we are the most misinformed society but i do think there is a lot more disinformation available for people to fall prey to than before.

However... there are reliable news sources and I trust some internet publications waaaay more than I trust big TV media or such.

What I think I'm trying to say is that if you have a little persistence and are a more calm person, you can get to the bottom things more reliably... but if you're a hyperactive OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING BECAUSE THE MAYA SAY SO kind of person... you're going to get duped a lot. Even if you're not, you MAY get duped some of the time for a while...

But fortunately, those people get distracted easily and they end up nowhere at least, nowhere near the red phones, the big chairs and the red buttons. At least not yet...
Click to expand...

Care to share which internet news source you trust ?

I use to use the BBC for getting my news on the Iraq war. But they even had a bias and an agenda.

Just the quality of journalism today sucks. And the print media is the source that most other news sources use.

In my lifetime I've been either directly involved or an eyewitness to an event. Soon the news paper reporters and the local news stations show up. Some times I was interviewed by the reporters. The next day the story is in the paper and what they said happen didn't happen.
 
APACHERAT said:
Care to share which internet news source you trust ?

I use to use the BBC for getting my news on the Iraq war. But they even had a bias and an agenda.

Just the quality of journalism today sucks. And the print media is the source that most other news sources use.

In my lifetime I've been either directly involved or an eyewitness to an event. Soon the news paper reporters and the local news stations show up. Some times I was interviewed by the reporters. The next day the story is in the paper and what they said happen didn't happen.
Click to expand...

euobserver.com for a lot of my EU related news.
dw.de for international news and also some European news.
BBC is pretty fair... it has a lefty bias but you know, what can you do.
The telegraph can be ok.
reuters is pretty good and mostly brings the full picture.
Another really, really good one is spiegel.de .
And then 1-2 that are Romanian so they're useless for you.

But yeah, journalism sux today.
 
Rainman05 said:
euobserver.com for a lot of my EU related news.
dw.de for international news and also some European news.
BBC is pretty fair... it has a lefty bias but you know, what can you do.
The telegraph can be ok.
reuters is pretty good and mostly brings the full picture.
Another really, really good one is spiegel.de .
And then 1-2 that are Romanian so they're useless for you.

But yeah, journalism sux today.
Click to expand...

I use Reuters. They are a source for many in the print and MSM.

I'm a regular with Spiegel and even used it a couple of times on the DP as a credible source.

As for the Romanian sources, there are program to translate it to English.

I've found using friends I have living in Europe and other parts of the world as one of the best sources. I had three friends living in Europe in three different countries during the time when NATO was attacking Libya and from what they read in the European papers and along with their own personal opinions, how the MSM in America covered Libya and the reason why Gaddafi was removed from power isn't the same.
 
DiAnna said:
Saudi Arabia might be an ally, but it is not a friend. It wouldn't bother me one iota if, given irrefutable evidence the Saudis were involved, Russia decided to shove a few missiles up some Saudi ass.

Unfortunately, I have no idea if our government would turn into a bunch of hand-wringing pansies and get itself involved, rather than staying on the sidelines with a "well, you asked for it" attitude.
Click to expand...

Putin owns Obama. Obama will do nothing but a few harsh words. :)

Tim-
 
Kobie said:
I am far more informed than you.
Click to expand...

You are probably more informed on what's going on downstairs.

So who's the target today down there ?

That's right, you're not allowed to say.

Since this is supposedly a political website lets put you to the test.

In what year did the "Republican right" divide Democrats into five categories and what were those categories ? You get bonus points if you can answerer why they were divided into five categories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom