Ashtar Command Crew - The Awakening Movement

Comments

• 

  Roaring Lovely July 2, 2022 at 1:06pm

  

  'Developed' vs 'developing' is problematic or simplistic. Rwanda is now using drones to deliver some medical stuffs (and some othrr baffling achievements using IT). So it is developed in this sense. So being specific is more meaningful (it helps the electorates better). Specify what it is that you have 'developed' and what it is that still needs to be developed.
• 

  Roaring Lovely July 2, 2022 at 1:00pm

  

  That india case should be astonishing! A country focusing on space programs, nukes, aircraft carriers, neglect its infrastructure etc and leave it for UK to take care of it in the name of 'it is a developing country'? That is insane!
  
  In that sense, I agree that those you call 'leftists' are loonies!
• 

  Drekx Omega July 2, 2022 at 12:45pm

  

  Ha...!! And some of the idealistic lefty idiots in the west, still describe China as a "developing nation." This is particular to lefty globalists...In the UK, there has been great pressure on our politicians to re-evaluate our foreign aid budget....It gets particularly irksome when India receives our financial aid, on the basis of it being "developing, " yet running it's own space programme...You can't make this up....Globalists are completely insane...
  I do think that we cut the budget and redeployed resources, elsewhere....
  However, the USA is not so fortunate, with sleepy Joe at the national wheel....lol
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFJce5zDNEw
• 

  Roaring Lovely July 2, 2022 at 12:35pm

  

  ...Then this jarring Polish and Turkish etc insinuation that 'it can help advance democracy' without themselves being good democracies is just the spread of the usual tendency of 'west' to seek to solve problems in other countries and neglecting problems in their own countries! Biden, for instance, seems focused solely on 'outside' problems. He is now into 'infrastructure in developing world' instead of first concentrating in upgrading US own infrastructure . Meanwhile China's high speed rail is now twice longer than the rest of the world combined! What does it mean to say a country is 'developed'? Is US still 'developed' in this sense of 'having better infrastructure than China?'
  
  I think this 'developed' is misleading, if it makes leaders such as Biden convince its electorate that he is there to solve problems in Ukraine etc, and not US's own problems!
• 

  Drekx Omega July 2, 2022 at 12:30pm

  

  Indeed, for myself I will always favour realpolitik, over idealism....A very salient reason for my voting for Brexit, in 2016...And we can look back to times when the world did have true talent, running nations, with sound logic and compassionate hearts...And if a politician cannot express compassion, than at the very least, seek to preserve the life of nation and people. Protect borders....Your own first, and then the world, too...
  Much of the idealism we see in the so-called "west," post WW2, is an American energy, that pertains to the US's personality ray, which is a sixth ray energy...Devotion to an ideal....
  That ideal could be religious, political, cultural, social....It's even the energy behind the curse of wokery....It certainly energizes those post WW2 "Western block" nations, that are rapidly losing sovereignty to the "European ideal." And NATO is similarly going insane, trying to persue neo-liberal idealism, for export to traditionally illiberal nations, such as Ukraine...And the absurdly idealistic EU, now wants to fast-track Ukrainian membership....?? Good luck paying for that, Germans...lol
• 

  Roaring Lovely July 2, 2022 at 12:11pm

  

  This assumption of 'idealism' is baffling when realpolitik is actually what takes place in the world! The denial of the countries adjacent to Russia from joining NATO is as sensible as denying Saudi Arabia or Iran etc nuclear capabilities. This is realpolitik, not the idealistic one they want to apply in Ukraine.
  
  And are these countries like Ukraine and Poland etc growing into the so called 'democracies'? Nope! Ukraine is busy banning political parties. The 'west' failed to understand that 'democracy', like any other form of governance is more 'regional' than a country wise thing. You can't easily create an 'Island' of 'democracy' immersed in an ocean of 'authoritarianism' the few such 'democracies' are exceptions, not the rule.
  
  With this, even 'advancing of democracy' should not have been an exuse to advance NATO eastward. Same thing applies to 'economic prosperity'. It is often regional. The 1990s promises that 'we can curve out as prosperous countries in the eastern Europe, to the exclusion of Russia as long as they embrace neo-liberal democracy' was a pipedream. Yet this 'we will soon be like the westerners if we only behave like them' fat lie is part of what what wooed these Eastern European countries into NATO, seeding the present conflict.
• 

  Drekx Omega July 2, 2022 at 11:30am

  

  Yes, in Europe we used to have more of a sense of diplomacy and military geo-political strategy, designed to avert war between major powers...Recently, it has been more provocative and that process commenced under President Clinton, in the 1990s...
  Trying to expand NATO right onto Russia's doorstep, which is plainly bonkers...
  
  The unrealistic geo-political strategies, of the "west," originate after the Soviet Union was dissolved and so, by 1991, President Bush Snr could announce a "new world order," making the "west" confident to invade Iraq....I complained at the time...
  
  And the same with NATO, as more and more former Russian satellite states, and also former Soviet Republics, sought western protection...
  Prior to the early 1990s, back in the 1980s and earlier, the western block, wanted to prevent nuclear war, not start it...They feared Russia then, BUT, also respected Russia and did not get involved in the 1968, "Prague spring," when the USSR and Warsaw allies, invaded the former Czechoslovakia. They complained, diplomatically, but realised that it was part of the USSR's turf...Russia's back yard...So they did not mobilise NATO, for a serious rebuttal....
  
  The one event that was very dangerous, was the Russian response to a Polish uprising, in 1980, which caused major tensions between east and west, that could have gone nuclear and actually the west did deploy stealth bombers with neutron warheads, to get under the Russian anti-misslie defenses....This was stopped by the GFL and the neutron bombs were deactivated in their storage pens, Bentwaters Base, England...
  
  The west did fight a proxy war in Afghanistan, using the anti-Russian Mujahideen, but that was not a troop deployment, with Anglo-American forces...1980s...
  And backed Saddam's Iraq, in the war against Iran, 1980-88....But again, proxy support...Geo-politics can make an ally one day, a convenient enemy, the next. As it was with Saddam...
  
  And the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, was a firm resolve, by JFK, but the Russians pulled out their rockets, knowing that it could lead to war escalation...Both sides wanted a balance and wanted to keep the world from a major war....Even a non-nuclear war was considered dangerous, then...It was the same with Hungary, 1956...Russia re-invaded. It was the USSR's back-yard, so NATO did not get involved...
  
  And then we had a series of weapons limitation treaties, such as the START treaty, which limited nuclear weapons, but a sentiment that originated in the 1980s...Under Reagan...
  
  The west now should get it's sanity back....We used to be sane in the UK. And so was the US....Let us not get annoyed with a resurgent Russia....But instead, grow our own economies and trade links, for a better world...
  We could start by shelving the current private western central banking system and going back to sound money, like the BRICS will be doing, soon..And if Iran and Argentina want to join BRICS, well good luck to them....Of course they will have to rename this club; BRIICAS......
  
  And Britain should link up with many Commonwealth nations and our Anglosphere...and the CPTPP....And then, after we get our confidence back, as a former "western block" nation, we might even put out peace feelers to Russia...That bear is much more cuddly than many assume....;-)
• 

  Roaring Lovely July 2, 2022 at 10:50am

  

  Understanding such is puzzling because in the event of a clash between NATO and Russia, those countries bordering Russia will be the battle ground trampled on. It is a great irresponsibility and non-strategy to choose sides when you are on the buffer. Take Iraq, and Jordan for instance. Of course they prevent Iran and Israel (the arch enemies) from fighting. But things will change if military alliances are built eg a Jordan(or Syria)-Iraq-Iran NATO -like mounster. It effectively brings two otherwise too distant enemies close to each other, hence making a war more likely! But middle easterners seem more prudent in this issue, as indicated when Iraq helps to deescalate US-Iran tensions following the renewed Iranian sanctions. Iraq can maintain a good relationship with Iran etc without necessarily forming a military alliance with it.
• 

  Drekx Omega July 2, 2022 at 9:28am

  

  This nuclear potential for escalation, virually written into NATO's absurd rules, means that they cannot be taken as sane....As you say, throughout history, minor border frictions did happen in Europe....It did not and should not always lead to a major war...Of course, it did with the Serbian/Austrian dispute and the German attack on Poland, but it need not...
  
  Personally I observe the main paranoia and Russophobia coming from the former eastern block nations, who always fear Russia re-establishing control over them...The west uses these national phobias, to keep strategic control...Like British and American influence over the Baltic, military assets stationed in the Baltic states. Both UK and US station troops in the formerly east block nations. Poland, Romania, and several nations of that type..And now we see Finland and Sweden going down this track....It's absurd...
  
  Of course, the GFL will not allow either side to destroy this planet, with nuclear...
• 

  Roaring Lovely July 2, 2022 at 5:52am

  What else? Britain etc does not share any boundary with Russia, and so the original Aim of NATO was a more reasonable deterrence with the immense power projection capabilities of USSR in mind, not mere traditional wars where neighbours often are the ones that clash. This was even further enhanced by the advent of Intercontinental Balistic Missiles (IBMs) and the now feard threat of a Nuclear exchange using these IBMs. So it was never about deterrence of the traditional 'boundary wars' at all. These latter wars are best done via bilateral mutual deterrence whereby armies became naturary weaker the more they advance into the territory of the adjacent country. No need for any multilateral arrangement!! Israel, with full support from US and some support from Russia, etc, for instance, is far more powerfull than the mere non-state actor, increasingly sanctioned Hezbollah, and yet the latter group can significantly deter Israel from attacking Lebanon.
  
  So it was good when NATO members don't share any border with Russia, as mere skirmishes that might necessary occur on the border, such as those between Hezbollah and Israel, only risk being a full blown war between NATO and Russia. Why should an attack on one country automatically lead to a world war, and a potential annihilation of civilization? This is unreasonable! Countries have clashed on borders throughout history. It is unrealistic to aim at a world where there are no clashes on the borders, because any such, would lead to a full blown nuclear war!