The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Thork on August 31, 2014, 09:17:43 PM
-
Our illustrious leaders are busy making it happen.
They have created unrest in the Ukraine and promised them EU membership and now NATO membership. And they are outraged that Russia might have a problem with US airfields and missile platforms on their doorstep.
They have given Ukraine their full support, at which point Ukraine has turned around to Russia and told them they are at a point of no return and must now engage in War with Europe. Thanks Ukraine. Glad to have you. ::)
Somewhat disappointed at the numbers of Romanians who immigrated after EU admission, it seems the best way to get millions in one go is to add a country to the EU and then put it into a war with Russia, ensuring everyone leaves in about 10 minutes.
This is a fairly shit state of affairs if you happen to be a working class person in the UK. You now face more pressure on house prices, lower wages, more unemployment and the grim spectre of conscription ... especially if you find yourself unemployed the day Van Rompuy declares war on Russia. Will there be help from the USA? No, they have decided to generate more debt for American people instead, by providing all the weapons for Ukraine.
And the justification for all this? Russian tanks have been spotted in a part of the former Soviet Union. I don't give a f*ck! This is not our problem! >o<
-
Actually Russia invading its bordering nations is very much the EU's problem. Last time a country invaded a border nation, it was Germany taking over the Sudetenland, which if you recall correctly was met with "eh, not our problem, just let them have it." And once again recalling the results of that diplomatic bargain, it didn't work out too well. Appeasing Russia is likely not to work, therefore conventional warfare is the primary option. Just letting them have Ukraine will only end up giving them a stronger military position as Ukraine has an economy that produces something other than raw resources (Russia's only economic output).
Furthermore, NATO has said they will take Ukraine's proposal under consideration, but they have never said "yeah we accept, welcome to NATO, friends!"
-
They can have Ukraine. They can have every country on mainland Europe. I don't care. They can run Britain if they promise to do a better job than the self serving arseholes we have right now. If they'd only promise to repatriate all of the immigrants from the last 20 years, I'd happily learn the Russian national anthem.
What I see no point in, is the UK becoming broke from a war for the next 30 years, millions dead, and all because the US wants to poke a finger into Russia. Just tell Ukraine they can't be in the EU after all, and we save all these problems. Because the Ukraine isn't our problem. Its the Ukraine's problem.
-
Oh, right. I forgot the mere fact that I was responding you, Thork, and assumed I may receive some semblance of a sane response.
-
I love how Thork's first concern is always money.
-
I think it somewhat ridiculous to plunge 1 Billion people into a post-nuclear era war for the sake of some broke former soviet crap hole.
-
I love how Thork's first concern is always money.
Money is the reason for every war. War is always about money.
-
Money is the reason for every war. War is always about money.
Not really, no. The only people who think war is about money are people who have never actually picked up a history book and mostly concern themselves with conspiracy theories.
Oh wait, Thork, that's you!
-
The only people who think war is about money are people who have never actually picked up a history book and mostly concern themselves with conspiracy theories.
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
Do you think this General knows less about war than you?
-
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
Do you think this General knows less about war than you?
I think you're twisting his words. That quote never implies war exists solely for the pursuit of profits, but simply states that war is profitable. War is ultimately political, not economic.
-
lol. Nuclear weapons won't be used unless shit gets really crazy. The whole reason they exist is so they don't get used.
-
This is idiotic. Russia creeping closer to the E.U. is definitely something of concern. Our precious buffer state is being attacked and it is most certainly our concern.
-
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
Do you think this General knows less about war than you?
I think you're twisting his words. That quote never implies war exists solely for the pursuit of profits, but simply states that war is profitable. War is ultimately political, not economic.
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
Am also twisting the words of the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century?
lol. Nuclear weapons won't be used unless shit gets really crazy. The whole reason they exist is so they don't get used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfcHjZ1qJf8
-
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
Am also twisting the words of the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century?
Considering George Orwell thought war was never profitable, simply that people think it is, yes, you are once again twisting his words and taking them out of greater context. You've now posted two people who had completely different takes on war. Which one do you agree with, Thork? I'm confused.
Are you just hitting a quote generator until it spits something relevant out?
-
Thork, look at Russia's economy then compare it to the UK's economy and tell me which one is better.
-
George Orwell thought war was never profitable, simply that people think it is
I don't suppose you have a shred of evidence to back that up, do you?
Are you just hitting a quote generator until it spits something relevant out?
Being as I am a nutbar conspiracy theorist, it won't shock you to know I read a lot in these subject areas. That is why I know more than you and you always come away from these debates looking silly.
Thork, look at Russia's economy then compare it to the UK's economy and tell me which one is better.
Would you like me to compare apples and pears whilst I am at it?
-
Thork, look at Russia's economy then compare it to the UK's economy and tell me which one is better.
Would you like me to compare apples and pears whilst I am at it?
Are you suggesting that the economy of a nation is fixed and unchangable and that leadership and laws have nothing to do with it?
-
The best way of punishing Russia is to forget about the sanctions and take the 2018 World Cup away from them and give it to England. That'll teach Putin not to mess with Europe!
-
I don't suppose you have a shred of evidence to back that up, do you?
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
Being as I am a nutbar conspiracy theorist, it won't shock you to know I read a lot in these subject areas. That is why I know more than you and you always come away from these debates looking silly.
You know a lot of garbage, that's for sure.
Would you like me to compare apples and pears whilst I am at it?
Do you honestly think Russia is in any way, shape, or form capable of managing an economy that does more than pump natural gas out of the ground? History easily tells us that letting Russia near your finances is a one way ticket to economic collapse.
-
Japan didn't have nukes, and was in total war with the US.
-
The US only nuked Japan to prove to November 17 that nukes are real, but he ended up just saying it was firebombing anyway.
-
I don't suppose you have a shred of evidence to back that up, do you?
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.
-
No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.
And?
-
No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.
And?
Considering George Orwell thought war was never profitable
Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.
-
No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.
And?
Considering George Orwell thought war was never profitable
Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.
I doubt he has ever read anything written by Orwell. That's going to make knowing where to look a bit difficult. I was going to ignore it, in the same way I have chosen to ignore Lord Dave's last post due to its off point and nonsensical prose.
-
War, for the most part, isn't about money, per se. It's more about resources.
-
Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.
It does, though. There are better writings that portray his thoughts; but if I waste time finding links for them, Thork will just toss more out of context quotes at me that he acquired via some Above Top Secret. The problem is that Thork isn't arguing for Orwell's writings, he is simply arguing his own views vicariously through other more well known individuals. It leads to a roundabout argument because Thork is too scared to support his own ideas.
i.e. yawn
-
Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.
It does, though.
How?
-
How?
How does it not?
-
I know you may not have a lot of experience with this, but it is possible to think something and for it to also be true.
-
Jesus Christ, would you two fuck off with this shit already? I'm sure you both think that you're being hilariously glib, but it's just a fucking eyesore for the rest of us whenever these low-content back-and-forths start up.
-
We're sorry Saddam. We didn't even stop to consider whether or not you, Saddam Hussein, are actually entertained by our posts. I promise it will never happen again.
-
I know you may not have a lot of experience with this, but it is possible to think something and for it to also be true.
That depends on the person who is doing the thinking.
Jesus Christ, would you two fuck off with this shit already? I'm sure you both think that you're being hilariously glib, but it's just a fucking eyesore for the rest of us whenever these low-content back-and-forths start up.
Yeah, Saddam, we're sorry for screwing up your own personal enjoyment of forum threads. I'm sure you'd like the thread to get right back to Thork's high-content ramblings of how his NWO bank-masters are just itching to nuke Europe so they can profit from rebuilding it.
-
His NWO bank-masters? Are you suggesting that Thork is in league with them?
-
Saddam, FES police.
-
His NWO bank-masters? Are you suggesting that Thork is in league with them?
Only a slave possesses a master. Also certain other things. but we're not talking about those.
-
War never changes.
-
http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-believes-he-can-win-a-war-with-nato-piontkovsky-says/
According to the commentator, “even the most modest practical realization of [Putin’s] idea of ‘assembling the Russian lands’ requires changes of state borders at least of two NATO member countries, Latvia and Estonia.” Because of the Western alliance’s Article 5 in which an attack on one is an attack on all, that would seem impossible given MAD.
But as many analysts have suggested before, “the MAD doctrine considered only a single most destructive scenario of a military conflict between nuclear powers, total war.” But there are other scenarios, including the limited use of nuclear weapons by one side under conditions when the other side does not respond lest that lead to “mutual suicide.”
-
History is repeating itself.
During the period 1939-1941, USSR prepared for war by annexing territories which would later be used strategically.
The same thing is happening now.
NATO (as a military entity/alliance) should have been dissolved decades ago; to bring Poland, the Czech republic and Hungary into NATO and to extend its borders all the way to the Prut river during the 1990s, meant only one thing: a future war Nato/Russia was planned from the very start (1990).
-
lol, war with Russia has been planned by America since the beginning of the Cold War. That is no secret.
-
War never changes.
-
lol, war with Russia has been planned by America since the beginning of the Cold War. That is no secret.
Not by a long shot.
The assasination of General George Patton, the first person who understood that the Allies were about to surrender half of Europe to Soviet Russia, and that no war was planned for the next 50 years:
www.heroesatmargraten.com/the-death-of-general-george-s-patton.html
“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy.
“Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, ail other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.
“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India."
But these statements were made in 1962, Look Magazine...it was well known by the top leaders, even then, that the Cold War is a hoax...
-
I'm sorry but there's literally thousands of military weapons, ranging from air planes to submarines to missiles, that were designed purely to combat Russia. Even now we're designing weapons to be used against Russia, or Russian equipped militaries.
-
Let us not get into a debate about the nuclear weapons hoax...all and any conventional weapons were created with one purpose on mind: to be used one day, if needed, against each and every human being (be it through a future world war which would involve Russia too).
"From documents covering the First World War that I was able to gather and examine in the War Office in Whitehall, London, it appears that the Royal Institute for International Affairs was commissioned by the Committee of 300 to do a study of manipulating war information.
This task was given to Lord Northcliffe and Lord Rothmere and Arnold Toynbee, who was MI6’s agent at the RIIA. Lord Rothmere’s family owned a newspaper which was used to support various government positions, so it was thought that the paper could change public perceptions, especially among the ranks of growing opposition to the war.
The project was housed in Wellington House, named after the Duke of Wellesly. American specialists drafted to help Lords Rothmere and Northcliffe included Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman. The group held “brain storming” sessions to work out techniques for mobilizing mass support for the war, especially among the working class people whose sons were expected to go to the slaughter fields of Flanders in record numbers.
Using Lord Rothmere’s newspaper, new manipulative techniques were tried out and, after a period of about 6 months, it was apparent that they were a success. What the researchers discovered was that only a very small group of people understood the process of reasoning and the ability to observe the problem as opposed to passing an opinion on it. This, said Lord Rothmere, was the way in which 87% of the British public approached the war, and that the same principle applied not only to the war, but to every conceivable problem in society in general.
In this manner, irrationality was elevated to a high level of public consciousness. The manipulators then played upon this to undermine and distract the grasp of reality governing any given situation and, the more complex the problems of a modern industrial society became, the easier it became to bring greater and greater distractions to bear so that what we ended up with was that the absolutely inconsequential opinions of masses of people, created by skilled manipulators, assumed the position of scientific fact.
Having literally stumbled upon so profound a conclusion, the manipulators put it to one test after another during the war, so that in spite of hundreds of thousands of the youth of Britain being slaughtered on the battlefields of France, there was virtually no opposition to the bloody war.
Records of the time show that by 1917, just before the United States entered the war, 94% of the British working class bearing the brunt of the war did not have the faintest idea what they were fighting for, other than the image created by the media manipulators that the Germans were a horrible race, bent upon destroying their monarch and their country, and who had to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Certainly nothing has changed because, in 1991, we had the exact same situation created by the news media which allowed President Bush to flagrantly violate the Constitution in waging a war of genocide against the nation of Iraq with the full consent of 87% of the American people. Woodrow Wilson can be credited - if that is the proper expression to use - of jumping on the public opinion manipulators’ band wagon and using it to further the causes whispered in his ear by his controller, Colonel House.
On instructions from President Wilson, or rather Colonel House, the Creel Commission was created and, as far as can be ascertained, the Creel Commission was the first organization in the United States to use the RIIA techniques and methodology for polling and mass propaganda.
The psychological warfare experiments perfected at Wellington House were used in the Second World War with equal success, and have been in continuous use in the massive psychological war against the United States which began in 1946. The methods did not change, only the target. Now it was not German worker housing but the middle class of the United States that became the focus of the attack.
As so often happens, the conspirators could not contain their glee."
-
We're sorry Saddam. We didn't even stop to consider whether or not you, Saddam Hussein, are actually entertained by our posts. I promise it will never happen again.
QFT.
-
Let us not get into a debate about the nuclear weapons hoax...all and any conventional weapons were created with one purpose on mind: to be used one day, if needed, against each and every human being (be it through a future world war which would involve Russia too).
I never mentioned nukes nor was I talking about them. I'm talking things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II), which were conceived, designed and built purely to combat a theoretical war with Russia in Europe. Just about every piece of military hardware is somehow designed to counter Russian technology.
As for nukes, I think you're incredibly wrong on them. Nuclear weapons only exist to prevent the country with them from being nuked (at least, for most normal countries with them anyway).
Now I know who I'm talking to, and this will likely prompt another tangential spiel, but this is enjoyable enough for me to bother posting.
-
No, Vindictus. Nuclear weapons do not exist. sandokhan and other wise scholars proved that long ago.
-
sandokhan is a plagiarist.
-
Actually Russia invading its bordering nations is very much the EU's problem. Last time a country invaded a border nation, it was Germany taking over the Sudetenland
I think not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#20th_century)
-
Obama squashes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooDWJzz4uFY#t=20) any possibility of a nuclear war with Russia.
-
Sandokhan is here. Yaakov is here. This needs to happen.
-
Sandokhan is here. Yaakov is here. This needs to happen.
So long as one is here, both are here.
-
Levee, I don't know if you're still perusing these forums, but we have a resident zionist who needs a good talking to. Yaakov resides in the "ask a jew anything" thread. You should probably talk to him about his dirty zionist tricks and learn his secrets.