The Mess

[Hwen Hoshino]

Yeah. I read Tai Pan. Some of those folks I guess are pretty inline with all that. I think we get a little confused with our Hispanic replacements. They are generally socially conservative but as a rule prefer collectivist policies. People say shit like, "well if republicans weren't trying to send them back," (a literal fallacy,) "then maybe they would vote republican," (another fallacy.) Some do though, especially Cubans and some South Americans as far as I can tell. But most of them are used to left wing policies. All you had to do was read Atlas Shrigged to listen to a Russian Jewess bitch about the Liberation Party of Mexico nationalizing American corporations. That party has remained in power for sixty years give or take. They know what they are doing. They thought they could replace us fast enough under Hilary that they wouldn't have to worry about the last of the white working class male voters leaving their party. They bet it all and lost. But the work isn't done because Trump isn't the man we need to correct the path we are on. He's only a remittance. We have to keep pushing for pro American ideals and garner as much hate and vitriol as we can from the left in the meanwhile. Force them into their corner. Force the last of the white Americans out of it. It's the only hope.

Who is your man?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I was surprised how much infighting there was on the right when I first started seeing it, since I was always under the impression that "the lefts' problem is that they always attack themselves, the right knows how to work together to push their agenda!"

Funny that...

That was the Neoconservatives, they held the centre because they had to have the Reagan Democrats, the Barry Goldwater wing of the party was boxed out in favour of Nixon, then Nixon fucked up, so the right was suddenly dead in the water, thus they had to come up with a way to appeal to disaffected Democrats; enter Ronald Reagan. That coalition lasted, right up until George W. Bush.

It really is an artifact of when and where I grew up that I viewed the right the way I did. Those were some interesting blinders to shed, but I am better for it.
I mean, I am still a panty-waste with a neck aching for the noose... but at least I know why I deserve it.

[Smitty-48]

I mean, I am still a panty-waste with a neck aching for the noose... but at least I know why I deserve it.

Gallows humor? That's the spirit, Han-Mon, makes it all so much easier for everyone, no one likes a blubberer.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I mean, I am still a panty-waste with a neck aching for the noose... but at least I know why I deserve it.

Gallows humor? That's the spirit, Han-Mon, makes it all so much easier for everyone, no one likes a blubberer.

Well, lord knows I would hate for my executioners to ever feel guilty for prosecuting their orders.

No sense in taking one's resentments with them to the grave, they will just burden the soul.

[ssu]

*raises hand*

Why is it in America's best interest to be hostile toward Russia? I see a lot of people on the board and in the media encouraging Washington to take a hard line against Moscow, but I can't wrap my head around it. Why would we continue to damage relations with a rival nuclear power?

Replying to this from p.31.

It would be naturally good if America would have good relations with Russia. But first one has to understand Russia's own motives and objectives. Or more specifically, it's leaders objectives. I have no doubt that ordinary Russians basically would indeed want good relations with the US and the West.

Hence one should first look at what kind of objectives Putin has, what is his agenda. And the simple fact is that the Russian elite now in power, the siloviks headed By Putin, needs an enemy. They need it for domestic purposes, for there to be the reason to squelch any true opposition, to have the Russians not looking at how the Russian elite plunders the wealth, how the economy has fallen and only risen due to higher oil prices.

And that enemy is NATO, hence the US. It's the absolute first priority, the biggest threat they percieve, is possible NATO enlargement. But in the Russian military doctrine and in their foreign policy doctrine NATO is the number 1. top priority. Terrorism (and some ISIS) is literrally on the list at number 9.

The it ought to be clear that Putin's objective is to make Russia Great again, to regain as much of that influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed. And to do that, it's ultimate objectives are 1) that NATO fails, the Transatlantic link is cut and 2) EU fails, that Russia can treat Western Europe on a 1-to-1 country basis. Putin is not going to invade Western Europe, he doesn't have any ludicrous Hitler-style ideas. But in his "Near-Abroad", he wants to be the top dog. Hence doing again, for the third time, a "reboot" of the relations, will likely have the same result, Putin will use the opening to dismantle more the Western resolve. Putin has already stopped NATO enlargement, that's for sure.

To have good relations, you need a mutual desire to have good relations. And the opportunity, which actually was there after the Soviet Union imploded, was lost in Kosovo, years ago.

(The Russian idea of Western Europe, they really don't forget Napoleon or Hitler:)

[Hwen Hoshino]

*raises hand*

Why is it in America's best interest to be hostile toward Russia? I see a lot of people on the board and in the media encouraging Washington to take a hard line against Moscow, but I can't wrap my head around it. Why would we continue to damage relations with a rival nuclear power?

Replying to this from p.31.

It would be naturally good if America would have good relations with Russia. But first one has to understand Russia's own motives and objectives. Or more specifically, it's leaders objectives. I have no doubt that ordinary Russians basically would indeed want good relations with the US and the West.

Hence one should first look at what kind of objectives Putin has, what is his agenda. And the simple fact is that the Russian elite now in power, the siloviks headed By Putin, needs an enemy. They need it for domestic purposes, for there to be the reason to squelch any true opposition, to have the Russians not looking at how the Russian elite plunders the wealth, how the economy has fallen and only risen due to higher oil prices.

And that enemy is NATO, hence the US. It's the absolute first priority, the biggest threat they percieve, is possible NATO enlargement. But in the Russian military doctrine and in their foreign policy doctrine NATO is the number 1. top priority. Terrorism (and some ISIS) is literrally on the list at number 9.

The it ought to be clear that Putin's objective is to make Russia Great again, to regain as much of that influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed. And to do that, it's ultimate objectives are 1) that NATO fails, the Transatlantic link is cut and 2) EU fails, that Russia can treat Western Europe on a 1-to-1 country basis. Putin is not going to invade Western Europe, he doesn't have any ludicrous Hitler-style ideas. But in his "Near-Abroad", he wants to be the top dog. Hence doing again, for the third time, a "reboot" of the relations, will likely have the same result, Putin will use the opening to dismantle more the Western resolve. Putin has already stopped NATO enlargement, that's for sure.

To have good relations, you need a mutual desire to have good relations. And the opportunity, which actually was there after the Soviet Union imploded, was lost in Kosovo, years ago.

(The Russian idea of Western Europe, they really don't forget Napoleon or Hitler:)

Give me some concrete evidence outside of articles with no Russian sources.I want some leaked insider policy documents for example. Their version of the PNAC.

[Smitty-48]

No one is required to nor should they; cite any sources in the Mess, anyone demanding sources to be cited in the Mess, is in bad form, a gentleman's word is good enough in the Mess, the Mess is not a formal debating club, take that sort of thing elsewhere.

[ssu]

No one is required to nor should they; cite any sources in the Mess, anyone demanding sources to be cited in the Mess, is in bad form, a gentleman's word is good enough in the Mess, the Mess is not a formal debating club, take that sort of thing elsewhere.

Hear hear,

When Smitty, the NCO responsible for the mess, reminds of the rules, they ought to be followed.

[Xenophon]

*raises hand*

Why is it in America's best interest to be hostile toward Russia? I see a lot of people on the board and in the media encouraging Washington to take a hard line against Moscow, but I can't wrap my head around it. Why would we continue to damage relations with a rival nuclear power?

Replying to this from p.31.

It would be naturally good if America would have good relations with Russia. But first one has to understand Russia's own motives and objectives. Or more specifically, it's leaders objectives. I have no doubt that ordinary Russians basically would indeed want good relations with the US and the West.

Hence one should first look at what kind of objectives Putin has, what is his agenda. And the simple fact is that the Russian elite now in power, the siloviks headed By Putin, needs an enemy. They need it for domestic purposes, for there to be the reason to squelch any true opposition, to have the Russians not looking at how the Russian elite plunders the wealth, how the economy has fallen and only risen due to higher oil prices.

And that enemy is NATO, hence the US. It's the absolute first priority, the biggest threat they percieve, is possible NATO enlargement. But in the Russian military doctrine and in their foreign policy doctrine NATO is the number 1. top priority. Terrorism (and some ISIS) is literrally on the list at number 9.

The it ought to be clear that Putin's objective is to make Russia Great again, to regain as much of that influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed. And to do that, it's ultimate objectives are 1) that NATO fails, the Transatlantic link is cut and 2) EU fails, that Russia can treat Western Europe on a 1-to-1 country basis. Putin is not going to invade Western Europe, he doesn't have any ludicrous Hitler-style ideas. But in his "Near-Abroad", he wants to be the top dog. Hence doing again, for the third time, a "reboot" of the relations, will likely have the same result, Putin will use the opening to dismantle more the Western resolve. Putin has already stopped NATO enlargement, that's for sure.

To have good relations, you need a mutual desire to have good relations. And the opportunity, which actually was there after the Soviet Union imploded, was lost in Kosovo, years ago.

(The Russian idea of Western Europe, they really don't forget Napoleon or Hitler:)

I still don't understand why America should be concerned with any of what you said. I understand that your proximity to Russia makes them an immediate threat to you, but how is that America's issue? My understanding is that NATO will check Russian expansion past a certain point, so why panic about Russia if the tripwire is already in place?

[Speaker to Animals]

If the US were invaded and overrun, Finland would not mobilize and declare war against the aggressor for our sakes. Perhaps we ought to seriously consider who would help us when we have nothing left to offer in return, and focus on mutual defense pacts with those nations.

Many of the European nations like NATO so much because they get a lot of protection from nations like the US, UK, and France, while not having to seriously reciprocate in any meaningful way.

I reached the conclusion that NATO harms these small nations more than helps them. It encourages dependency upon larger nations to pay for defense, while instead diverting defense spending towards unsustainable welfare states and social policies. A healthy defense pact ought not encourage nations to forsake their own defense and bankroll massive welfare states on the capital other nations must then spend on behalf of their lacking armed forces.

If we continue with NATO at all, we ought to require nations meet specific defense spending levels in terms of percent of GDP, and to maintain quotas of troop levels, tactical and air interdiction squadrons, etc.