 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan in the first place?
A person, or a small group in agreement, sign the order, and FUND the Aggressive War for Profit, or, on the other hand a person, or small group in agreement, sign the order, and FUND the Defensive War for the profit of not being destroyed by Aggressors (criminals).
The actions set in motion could be something other than my measure of it.
My guess is that the person, or the small group who sign the order and FUND the expense, do so in order to maintain their power to do so.
To me all sides in all wars are FUNDED and ORDERED into existence by the same most powerful group that have constituted the most powerful among us, and that group is always small, not always the same individual people in the group, of course, but the same group in power employ the same routine methods by which they are in power.
My answer should then be an understanding that the small group is not Russian, or Muslim, or English, or American, or Chinese. Follow the FUNDING back to the source and who signs the ORDER to FUND the expense of invading Afghanistan?
I don't know.
Sergey, or someone familiar with Russian history, may be able to trace back the actual people inspired to sign the order and set the actions called war in motion, in this case. If the Russian viewpoint turns out to be an inspiration that they claim to be defensive in nature, then there is the real possibility that the origin of the inspiration to set the Dogs of War in motion are not originating in Russia, but why did the Russian decision makers fail to find a solution other than War to solve their defensive problems?
The Grand Chess Board?
Russian Dogs of War are mere pawns?
"There was a man from Afghanistan speaking. He said there was a meeting between Afghanistan leaders and Russian leaders and the Russians opened fire and killed the Afghanistan people they were meeting with. Have you ever heard anything about that? I was probably still in high school are just out so I wasn't really paying that much attention. But the fact that the people were shot during a meeting stuck with me because it bothered me. Do you know about that?"
I do not know about that, but that sounds like false propaganda, too simplistic, too much like a "Western" Hollywood Movies whereby the FUNDING for the movie is traced back to the same powerful people who funnel FUNDING into all sides of almost every War on Earth so that the small group remains in POWER; where the theme of the movie is that we (meaning the U.S. Federal Government) are the good guys and they (meaning any competitor to "Full Spectrum Dominance") are the bad guys, where we serve and protect generously and they injure and destroy greedily.
Specifics are demanded where ignorance of specifics exists.
From Pepe's report I understood that the US lured Russia into Afghanistan during the Carter years. But I still don't understand why.
Here is where due diligence exposes a possible flaw in the subjective opinions of Pepe Escobar, which can be contrasted relative to the actual factual information reported by the same human being. The word choice "lured" appears to suggest that the clear aggressors (invaders) are not responsible for what they clearly do, but my version of events asks the question who is following orders and who is giving out orders?
Is it a Russian, so called, who is "lured" or who is there merely a person in a "Russian" position having an agreement with some small group that is not Russian, which is a counterfeit Russian, in place to make sure that Russians are "lured" into doing evil things?
I have to get a job done at this time.
Finishing last post before moving on:
Maybe both Russia and the US think they have the highest and best use rationale for the lands that surround them and each other?
When all the little lies, threats, and violence used willfully to injure innocent people are added up to a whole sum total of destructive power, in one place, such as America, there is then a very powerful destructive force that can be used to destroy another, almost equally powerful force, such as Russia.
Is that not an ideal set-up for a small group of people who control all the legal power to purchase in the world?
Who is FUNDING any large scale aggression, and how convenient is it to have ready a large scale defender ever ready to defend against large scale aggression?
How about comparing the Revolutionary War in America with the events that became known as World War II?
The Declaration of Independence offers fair warning to anyone who dares to claim ownership of those people making that Declaration. The Aggressors invade anyway, but the aggressors are driven out, and large scale hostilities are temporarily on hold, but not for long.
Compare that to World War II where the supposed good guys are indirectly and directly financing all sides of the large scale conflict and then the same supposed good guys are volunteering to go and defend goodness with a larger scale military force of aggression, and by some strange coincidence there ends up being two, not one, team of good guys defeating the bad guys, where the bad guys property is split in half, one half goes to the Bolsheviks, and one half goes to the Dollar Hegemony.
The last thing the most powerful among us want is a One World Government known to the victims so long as the victims remain powerful enough to mount an effective defense. The victims must always be divided and fighting each other for the Business Psycho to work.
The Revolutionary War almost tore down the most powerful among us.
I've just learned some more on that understanding from Frank O'Collins in the last live discussion.
The actual (not counterfeit) good guys were employing a productive strategy known as annuities, and in this investment process the Americans paid off most of their Revolutionary War debts, which, according to Frank, inspired the New World Order bunch, at that time based in England, to mount the invasion of America, in the War of 1812, to sack Washington and burn the records that including those annuities.
I don't have all this figured out, and it is probably a case where the concept of annuities is a genuinely productive, honest, process, and therefore there is more than likely a counterfeit version that is hatched into a crime made legal with a false, half true, front, like the concept we know as Social Security.
The point here is to point out that defense is exactly what it is, and it is either effective or it fails, and if it is effective then it can be effective on a scale from highest quality and lowest cost to lowest quality and highest cost, and it can still be effective defense inside that scale, then there is a fine line, and then there is false defense that is not defense, whereby the scale goes the other way, whereby it is only high in quality as measured by the criminals, as they get the most they can from the victims, and it can be lowest in cost by the same measure, measured only by the criminals, whereby the bills are paid by the victims and by the measure of the victims there is only a scale of defeat, or lack of defense, where it is all cost, and no benefit to the victims.
Defense, true defense, when it is best, when it is highest quality, and when true defense is lowest in cost, there is no loss by any victim, and the only loss is measured by the criminals who fail to gain at the expense of the innocent victims.
The example of effective defense is offered personally in a previous post.
You or your loved one is seconds from being murdered and someone says NO and the criminal is scared into a life of honestly and productivity because of that one word spoken by that one defender.
What happens if there is no one that volunteers to say NO?
There is no defense, there is no effective defense, there is no ineffective defense, there is simply no defense whatsoever.
Without any defense will there be no crime?
Joe, you may be entirely too busy to mess with my thoughts below. And they really don't matter, but I wrote them anyway and have gone back and added this note before you start answering. I am on page 140 out of 174 of the book. I am going to try to finish today.
I look forward to honest, generous, discussion. I am not too busy.
Honestly, I was not thinking in those terms. I was thinking of the people who were bought out to move them off of their land so the Truman Dam could be built and flooding could be controlled.
That is where it is important to get on the same page. That page is very specific and it is probably documented in many ways by many people who witnessed it first hand, and many people who may have studied it, honestly, and who may have reported on it accurately. That time period corresponds with an America that has already been taken over by the Legal Criminals with the Usurpation known as The Constitution. The time period is also after the Usurpation known as The IRS and The FED.
The idea of remaining within the boundaries of voluntary association while operating within a framework of Crime made Legal is more than likely, in my opinion, because I think human beings are basically good, but the worst of human kind tends to stand out and steal the show, so to speak, so there are always going to be cases of criminals finding out how to get paid well for their type of special abilities.
If it were me I would not force someone out unless there was no option and at the same time failure to force someone out would result in catastrophe for another person and the person holding-out was well aware of the catastrophe that results from their failure to yield and do so equitably.
I know that last sentence may be difficult to piece together, but there can be examples offered to illustrate the concepts reported.
I don't mean to say anything that is not specifically understood by me, and I know there is plenty of room for misunderstanding.
Our area which used to be the "resort area" ended up being the water table control land so the marinas and business that were supported by tourism went belly up while the other side of the dam properties were elevated in value. Our county seat got a federal prison "to make up" for the economic lost. There was an old lady in a nursing home who said they were forced off of their farm land that their family had established. It seems that all the land around the rivers now is state/public land.
Some criminal figures out the game, connects to the right, fellow, criminals, and with secret deals, there are victims made, and there are profits made, and even if the victims end up finding out what happened, it is in the past, and the people hired to protect victims are in on the dirty deals?
That started a long time ago.
I don't personally think that it is natural. I think it is unnatural behavior. I think it is only natural in the sense that the natural tendency to be honest and trusting is exploited very effectively by a few people who then figure out how to specialize in that work and that work is what I call Legal Crime.
"...I would not make them die of thirst..."
"...run me off of my property..."
You are not the problem. Those who use any lie, any threat, or any form of violence to gain at the expense of innocent people are the problem because they will make people die of thirst and they will run people off their property.
"... shown up with a greater use theory..."
Am I to take that as an insult to me? I am showing up with a "greater use theory"?
I am doing no such thing, but your words appear to confuse my offerings with crime made legal.
If the current owners of a place in Japan where nuclear fuel is burning out of control and there is now enough poison unleashed into the ocean and the air to kill hundreds of thousands of people, then that qualifies as use.
Is it highest and best use?
I can be left completely out of the picture.
Anyone can either volunteer to judge the "theory" as they see fit.
Those who die of cancer, dying miserably, can abandon any thoughts of why they die, as they die, and the owners can use the land any way they see fit until they too realize just how well, or how poorly, they are using their land.
My guess is that the users using the land to poison thousands, or millions, or billions are less likely to suffer from their use of their land because they are at least well aware of exactly how well they are using their land, and they don't call it a theory.
If we go with the greater use theory, then we can say that we, the white man, had a greater use for this land between sea to shining sea and therefore the Indians who were here first have no right to block railroads and settlements.
I don't call it a theory, so I'm not in the we group you mention.
Best use is accurately measurable by, at least, the innocent bodies floating down the river.
Best use is not a theory, it is when there are less innocent bodies floating down the river.
Who and What determines greater use? Sometimes it seems like Johnny come lately is the determiner...as long as Johnny has the might to make it right.
You and Frank have in common the appreciation for the Golden Rule. I don't know if you and Frank share the same concept, but the same words are shared in those three words.
The
Golden
Rule
If a determination is made by anyone then how is the determination raised to a point of authority in any case?
I think that Frank says, and I agree, that The Golden Rule, means that if there is a determination made, by any authority, then the determination being made applies to everyone without exception, or it is not an authoritative determination.
So you confuse what I say with what you think is relevant to what I say, and to me there is no connection whatsoever, and often there is the opposite determination made by you concerning what I say.
A.
Johnny, or any criminal, perpetrates a crime upon an innocent victim.
B.
Johnny, or any non-criminal, does not perpetrate a crime upon any innocent victim.
One is one thing. The other is another thing.
Who determines when a crime is perpetrated upon an innocent victim?
Only one person or must there be two people?
If only one person determines when a crime is perpetrated upon an innocent victims then please tell me how that works, because it is beyond my ability to understand, at this time.
If two people fail to agree on a crime having been perpetrated on an innocent victim, does that mean that no crime has been perpetrated upon an innocent victim?
I can't see that working out either.
There will be a criminal, and typically the criminal will not confess.
There will be an innocent victim, and it is not a given that the victim will admit to being a victim.
That is at least 2 people involved in the crime already.
Who and What determines greater use?
Instead of that question, please, consider asking how?
How is greater use determined?
I have offered a method.
If thousands of bodies are floating down the river, as an extreme example, a determination can be made, by any number of people, including the people doing the killing, and including anyone not yet, but soon to be dead, as to what is going on up-river.
No need to call anyone criminal or to call anyone victim. There are dead people in the river. Up stream there will be a cause of death.
The criminals may claim that it is highest and best use, since the living are now dead, as the criminals just so happen to be walking off with everything of value formerly used by the dead people.
I don't claim to be making excuses for killing people.
I am not offering a theory.
Highest and best use can be measured by the number of bodies floating down the river, or the sudden increase in cancer deaths that just so happen to be a result of a sudden release of radioactive material flowing from a place in Japan.
Please sir, please owner, please stop killing so many people, please?
I don't want to die a horrible death, and I don't want my loved ones dying horrible deaths, so, please, consider my theory to be valid?
It is not a theory, not to me.
What happens if they drain all the water to build a dam? Is that a good neighbor relation?
At the point at which crime begins is at that point.
If you know how to know when that point become that point then I'm all ears.
I can offer an extreme example of when that point has obvious been reached, and passed, so as to leave no more room for misunderstanding.
I can only offer, and I'm not offering a theory.
Bodies float down the river.
That is not highest and best use, unless a criminal is doing the measuring.
Back to book work:
Joe, does it make sense to change the word when to while?
Yes that sounds much better as it removes the opportunity to think that the idea is a question when the word used is when. I think I may have a habit of using when when I should use the word while.
Yes that sounds much better as it removes the opportunity to think that the idea is a question while the word used is "when." I think I may have a habit of using "when" where I should use the word while?
In any case the sentence reads better as the word "when" is replaced by the word "while," thanks.
