AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Great success of the "International Justice"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
WmLambert Wrote:Why is this a mistake? What logic begs the question without providing reasons?
It was article of woman about woman. I'm not ready to discuss woman's logic. S2
But, if seriuosly, Condi is absolutly inadequate when discussing events around Russia. Her optimism about events in Ukraine is more than strange. Honestly most of West reporters are from Moon. Yushch is obliged to chose between Timoshenko, whome he dismissed from premier-minister post half year ago and between his political enemy Yanukovich. It's stalemate. To destroy Ukrainian economy totally or to commit political suicide. Democratic republic as a sort of marasmus. Show continues, marasmus in West media continues as well. Stratfor prefer to keep silence, the last article was before elections. Condi is celebrating victory of democracy in Ukraine. :?
bh Wrote:
WmLambert Wrote:Why is this a mistake? What logic begs the question without providing reasons?
It was article of woman about woman. I'm not ready to discuss woman's logic. S2
But, if seriuosly, Condi is absolutly inadequate when discussing events around Russia. Her optimism about events in Ukraine is more than strange. Honestly most of West reporters are from Moon. Yushch is obliged to chose between Timoshenko, whome he dismissed from premier-minister post half year ago and between his political enemy Yanukovich. It's stalemate. To destroy Ukrainian economy totally or to commit political suicide. Democratic republic as a sort of marasmus. Show continues, marasmus in West media continues as well. Stratfor prefer to keep silence, the last article was before elections. Condi is celebrating victory of democracy in Ukraine. :?

Hasn't Condi got a PhD in Russian studies?? I understand this is her speciality??
Aah, but don't you know that to really screw things up you need few PHDs? :lol:
Rice is more than a Russian expert... she is THE Russian expert. She was the lead expert when Reagan outnegotiated Gorbachev and delayed the fall of the Iron Curtain until all the Russian military had gone home, thereby preventing flash points as East met West after Peristroika and Glasnost. She speaks and reads fluent Russian and has met and negotiated with every leader over there. She also was able to use Morris Childs' inside information on the Politburo in the Kremlin, so her legacy for doing supernaturally correct things is legendary. The Russians listen when she speaks and are far less willing to write off even inconsequential statements she makes, because they have a record of successful partnership when following her lead, and a record of sorry failures when they don't.

She plays her cards close to her vest, and the MSM, Stratfor, and other guesstimation services are usually left in the dust as she does things they don't learn about until their knowledge can't hurt the process.
WmLambert Wrote:Rice is more than a Russian expert... she is THE Russian expert. She was the lead expert when Reagan outnegotiated Gorbachev and delayed the fall of the Iron Curtain until all the Russian military had gone home, thereby preventing flash points as East met West after Peristroika and Glasnost. She speaks and reads fluent Russian and has met and negotiated with every leader over there. She also was able to use Morris Childs' inside information on the Politburo in the Kremlin, so her legacy for doing supernaturally correct things is legendary. The Russians listen when she speaks and are far less willing to write off even inconsequential statements she makes, because they have a record of successful partnership when following her lead, and a record of sorry failures when they don't.

She plays her cards close to her vest, and the MSM, Stratfor, and other guesstimation services are usually left in the dust as she does things they don't learn about until their knowledge can't hurt the process.

(snicker) Again, good for her!!!!
WmLambert Wrote:She plays her cards close to her vest, and the MSM, Stratfor, and other guesstimation services are usually left in the dust as she does things they don't learn about until their knowledge can't hurt the process.
Of cause there is public policy and policy of top politicians. There was perfect article about inadmissibility of mixing this two layers written by Wrangel's ideologist Ilyin 50 years ago. Sorry, it's in russian:
http://gosudarstvo.voskres.ru/ilin/nz/nz-122-123.htm
Quote:Политика отнюдь не состоит в говорении речей: это лишь поверхностная видимость ее; это иллюзия наивных людей; это ее «полая вода». Настоящая, серьезная и глубокая политика состоит в молчании и действовании. Надо молча готовить дело; и говорить лишь в ту меру, в какую слова необходимы и насыщены волевым молчанием и подготовкою дела.
But, when Condi talks about Russia, she talks mostly crap. Articles of Stratfor are logical. I suspect most of articles were written with participation of former soviet Jews. They know what they are talking about. Honestly I don't know wise black politicians and I dislike Condi's sort of "flexibility" and prefer politicians like Reagan.
Comparing say Bzhesinsky and Condi I would say: Bzhesinsky was dangerous, cause he is Slav and understand slavic mentality. Condi is dangerous, cause she is inadequate, negro as expert in slavic problems is a joke. She can't understand slavic problems like Slavs, it's like studing english living in Kolyma. Uneducated resident of London would know english much better, than educated resident of Kolyma.
WmLambert Wrote:The Russians listen when she speaks
Appoint monkey on her post and Russians would listen monkey...
I guess you favor someone who is not black and is not the supreme expert on Russia? Take your pick. She is that good. Do you have a clue about her?
WmLambert Wrote:I guess you favor someone who is not black and is not the supreme expert on Russia? Take your pick. She is that good. Do you have a clue about her?
No. Just a bigoted rant.
WmLambert Wrote:I guess you favor someone who is not black and is not the supreme expert on Russia? Take your pick.
No, I don't favor today's top US politicians. GB is ersatz of his father only, democrats are nuts.
WmLambert Wrote:She is that good. Do you have a clue about her?
I listened her speech many times, it's more than enough.
bh, you are not really seeing clearly then. Bush 43, true, is Bush 41's son - however - he calls upon Reagan as the model of his administration - not his father's. They are light years apart in all the important issues.

As for Rice, there is much diplomatic necessities used when speaking on behalf of one's government - but listen closely, because she tries to tell her negotiating partners more than just what they need to know - but they are often too unfocused or flat out too limited to recognize what she is telling them.
WmLambert Wrote:bh, you are not really seeing clearly then. Bush 43, true, is Bush 41's son - however - he calls upon Reagan as the model of his administration - not his father's. They are light years apart in all the important issues.
Then the heredity seems to be taking over: as times goes by he resembles his father's wavering more and more. :lol:
Quote:As for Rice, there is much diplomatic necessities used when speaking on behalf of one's government - but listen closely, because she tries to tell her negotiating partners more than just what they need to know - but they are often too unfocused or flat out too limited to recognize what she is telling them.
Why she does it? If she wants them to understand and they don't, she is not communicating effectively. If she is trying to conceal her thinking, then how do you know what she really is communicating? And with regard to telling "negotiating pardners" more than they need to know.... Shock
The main about Condi ( what I dislike of cause): :?
Remember Churchills words?
Quote:Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities.
It's exactly what Condi is doing now, and I dislike this way to do the right thing especially in region, where are I'm living...
Quote:Honestly I don't know wise black politicians and I dislike Condi's sort of "flexibility" and prefer politicians like Reagan.
You mean the fact that she's a woman? I don't actually see any significant philosophical differences between the two politicians, aside from the different situations they find themselves in.

Although now that I think about it I guess you're talking specifically about Russia. The thing is, Russia (and Western Europe) are not as important in international affairs as they once were. I'm not sure what Condi's been telling or not telling Russia, but the situation with Ukraine is not optimistic. Now that the attention of the world isn't focused there, and we are no longer as worried about what will happen if Europe goes communist, Russia will probably be able to keep extending its reach westward - but like I said the entire region is on the decline anyway.
ag Wrote:
WmLambert Wrote:bh, you are not really seeing clearly then. Bush 43, true, is Bush 41's son - however - he calls upon Reagan as the model of his administration - not his father's. They are light years apart in all the important issues.
Then the heredity seems to be taking over: as times goes by he resembles his father's wavering more and more. :lol:
Quote:As for Rice, there is much diplomatic necessities used when speaking on behalf of one's government - but listen closely, because she tries to tell her negotiating partners more than just what they need to know - but they are often too unfocused or flat out too limited to recognize what she is telling them.
Why she does it? If she wants them to understand and they don't, she is not communicating effectively. If she is trying to conceal her thinking, then how do you know what she really is communicating? And with regard to telling "negotiating pardners" more than they need to know.... Shock
I've heard of this Russian Doom & Gloom. Hmmmm.

You are Russian, aren't you?
"Go east Young Man"

I would hope if I were a young Russian man, I would have the sense to pioneer Siberia. Huge potential there for building a life and outside the orbit of European angst.
Ken
KenBean Wrote:I would hope if I were a young Russian man, I would have the sense to pioneer Siberia.
Ken, a lot of young and not so young russian and not so russian man did, what you proposed, 50-70 years ago, but not so voluntarily... :?
Today it's a paradise for tourists. My children want to cruise siberian rivers and mountains, but it costs as 3-4 trips to Greece or Spain. We are discussing the problem.
But there are foreigners, who settled in Siberia last 10 years. I watched interview with not so young (may be 60 years old) american, who settled in Kamchatka. He is building kayaks and use his kayaks to explore region. He is happy, cause he is a part of pristine environment and can even drink unboiled water from river. I don't know how long his happiness will continue, but his russian wife, who lived with him previous period in comfortable US hadn't looked happy in Kamchatka.
I know about German woman who prefer to live on the banks of Baikal in enough unassuming house. She is helping local Buryats and Yakuts and don't want to return Germany.
I don't know if foreigners had solved their money problem before they arrived Siberia, but it looks so. Russians are solving this problem today and can visit Siberia from time to time.
SoloNav Wrote:I've heard of this Russian Doom & Gloom. Hmmmm.

You are Russian, aren't you?
No, why? I think your perception is a ... little off. It is not a question of an assumed RD&G :lol: or someone's origin (ethnic or otherwise), but rather an attempt to formulate a hypothesis that fits observations with an essential stipulation that the selected hypothesis allows one to extrapolate a little (aka, at least to have a potential to see over the horizon). Try to forget about Dem-a-gogs and other noisy idiots and just observe Bush behavior and (I think) you will not be able to explain his late activities (Harriet, immigration, etc.) by any other hypothesis that demonstrates the same (or better) "predictive" qualities. As Sherlock Holmes once said: cut the impossible and you will solve the prob. :lol:
ag wrote: " ...observe Bush behavior and (I think) you will not be able to explain his late activities (Harriet, immigration, etc.) by any other hypothesis that demonstrates the same (or better) "predictive" qualities. As Sherlock Holmes once said: cut the impossible and you will solve the prob."

As a Holmesian aficionado, myself, I can tell you there are plenty of common sense and understandable explanations of Bush's activities, which makes me wonder what hinders your ability to either see them for yourself, or to research and find what others have said on the issue. I hate to think you only want answers that support your own ideas - instead of wanting to get to the bottom of things.

Harriet Miers, for instance was a simple, understandable, issue. The object lesson was Justice Kennedy - a vast disappointment after his selection to the Court. He changed his stripes. All the interviews and reviews of his decisions came to naught as he was successfully wooed by the beltway crowd and catered to popularity rather than following Constitutional Law. You or I could sit on the Supreme Court. Many have been non-lawyers put in place to balance perspective. Miers did have a spotless record - but more importantly - she was personally known to Bush, who knew her leopard spots would not turn into tiger stripes overnight.

The outcry from Republicans was that they wanted an "In your face" candidate to prove a point. Bush knew Miers was a covert Constitutional conservative - but others wanted a showpiece.

As for immigration, a wall will not deport 11 million illegals already here, and terrorists will most probably come into our country with legal papers - not trying to sneak across a desert in the back of a packed Coyote moving van. But, as you paraphrased: "When you eliminate the impossible, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is what must have happened." Perhaps Bush does what he does because he is convinced it is the right thing to do. Reagan did grant amnesty and saw a marked decrease in illegal immigration, so there is precedence for every eventuality.

The real fix on Mexican illegal immigration is to fix Mexico.
With regard to HM her biggest draw-back (IMHO) was that she was not qualified. While Bush knew this he continue to promote her. Who prevented him from nominating Alito in the first place? I've read his action as an attempt to please the opp.
Quote:Perhaps Bush does what he does because he is convinced it is the right thing to do.
perhaps.
Quote: Reagan did grant amnesty and saw a marked decrease in illegal immigration, so there is precedence for every eventuality.
Than where 11 (is it already 12?) mils come from? Delayed reaction is quite common in society. That's why we still have to deal with Carter's legacy in Iran.

Quote:The real fix on Mexican illegal immigration is to fix Mexico.
Again, may be. But Bush has even lesser ability to fix M. than to enforce the existing imm. laws.
Sorry, ag, but you are begging the question. You argue the problem is Miers was not qualified - but as I already pointed out - one does not need to have a law degree to sit on the bench. Her credentials are valid - and although others may be flashier with lower court experience and a record of decisions already made - that doesn't make Miers unqualified.

Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and Miers has always been known for her ability to control group dynamics and get things done. The choice to replace a female Justice with another female - but one of unquestioned allegiance to Constitutional law rather than court activism was another plus. The one thing, however, that made me appreciate her the most, was that her specialties were in the parts of law where many current Justices have no training and experience. She would probably have been tapped to write the majority opinion for a large part of the cases heard because she would be the lead Justice in expertise in these subjects.

As for Reagan's amnesty, it had impact in its time - but the follow-up legislation and actions were never accomplished. That amnesty happened twenty years ago, and since then, the devolvement of the Mexican economy has only hurt things. At the time, Reagan had power over Mexico because Volcker had to print more money to gen up the liquidity in the market so Mexico could manage it's loan repayments. Reagan could have dumped Mexico over the cliff - but instead he propped them up enough for us now to expect gratitude and not resentment.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5