Medvedev Speaks Out on Ukraine

[American Observer]

PwrAndFlx wrote:

I do not think so, lucky between me and Poland lays 10k miles and Atlantic. Poland wants to install USA missiles on they territory, knowing perfectly what response will be. It is Russians missiles in Kaliningrad region aimed at Poland. This is double win for Poland. First, she is a victim once again; second she can use this card for getting money, weapons and as a propaganda tool. Why do you need USA missiles on Polish land? Is any other reasons or I mentioned all?
<quoted text>

Your knowledge of geography is as lacking as your knowledge of other subject. I have flown over the Atlantic many times. It is nowhere near 10k miles in width.
Why don't you admit that you know nothing and go away?

[Observer]

PwrAndFlx wrote:

I do not think so, lucky between me and Poland lays 10k miles and Atlantic. Poland wants to install USA missiles on they territory, knowing perfectly what response will be. It is Russians missiles in Kaliningrad region aimed at Poland. This is double win for Poland. First, she is a victim once again; second she can use this card for getting money, weapons and as a propaganda tool. Why do you need USA missiles on Polish land? Is any other reasons or I mentioned all?
<quoted text>

Kaliningrad is a small, barren piece of territory. It wouldn't take much time or effort to remove any threat it poses. Poland wants missiles because Russia implicitly and explicitly is threatening the country (along with a whole host of other nations). Why should you be so surprised?

[American Observer]

PwrAndFlx wrote:

I do not think so, lucky between me and Poland lays 10k miles and Atlantic. Poland wants to install USA missiles on they territory, knowing perfectly what response will be. It is Russians missiles in Kaliningrad region aimed at Poland. This is double win for Poland. First, she is a victim once again; second she can use this card for getting money, weapons and as a propaganda tool. Why do you need USA missiles on Polish land? Is any other reasons or I mentioned all?
<quoted text>

Even is you added in 1000 miles from Ky to Atlantic and another 100 from Atlantic to Poland you would still be way short of 10k miles. Go do something more in keeping with your talents such as Coon hunting or Moonshine Distilling.

[Tom in Lazybrook]

PwrAndFlx wrote:

I do not think so, lucky between me and Poland lays 10k miles and Atlantic. Poland wants to install USA missiles on they territory, knowing perfectly what response will be. It is Russians missiles in Kaliningrad region aimed at Poland. This is double win for Poland. First, she is a victim once again; second she can use this card for getting money, weapons and as a propaganda tool. Why do you need USA missiles on Polish land? Is any other reasons or I mentioned all?
<quoted text>

Why does Poland want American missles?

It might have something to do with:

1) First partition of Poland
2) Second partition of Poland
3) Third partition of Poland
4) Molotov-Hitler partition of Poland
5) Katyn Massacre
6) Red Army stops at Vistula to allow destruction of Polish Resistance
7) Post WWII border adjstments to Polish border
8) A 40+ year Soviet occupation of Poland

Poland isn't perfect. There are PLENTY of Poles that support Radio Maritja/Kuznisky twins. But Poland has MANY people who are trying to make it a better place.

[ArtAllm]

Robespierre wrote:

<quoted text>
Britain's foreign policy was trying to align with French foreign policy at that time, and after 1938, suddenly became worried about the NAZI regime in Germany, its annexation of Austria, its occupation of the Sudetenlands, etc...

Why should the will of German people to unite in one country bother Brits?

Robespierre wrote:

They chose Poland's territorial integrity as a line in the sand to stop Hitler's expansionism. But it was too late.

No, that is wrong. Danzig was not part of Poland, and Brits knew that. Besides that, if Poland agree to join the crusade against Communism, it could preserve its integrity. Poland had only to permit Germany to build a rail-road to Danzig, and there would be no war.

Robespierre wrote:

There was hardly any lobby behind Churchill, that's why he was so isolated in the Tory Party, and even a figure of fun, really. But events proved him right, and suddenly he was propelled in power: being the only one, it seems, who had accurately predicted the turn of events, and nurured ant-German fgeelings.
Churchill can hardly be the one who started the war!!

I was talking about wall-street lobbies, not British lobbies. Churchill's mother was American...

Robespierre wrote:

Fascism in Germany found support because of the punitive measures taken against the country by the Versailles Treaty. That was both humiliating and economically crippling. Germany hadn't been defeated militarily, but was severely punished for having started the war.

Germany started WWI? What are you talking about?

Americans think that not they started the war with Afghanistan, but that Afghanistan declared war on USA, blowing the WTC.

Israelis believe that the last massacre in Gaza or Lebanon was provoked by Palestinians, who kidnapped an Israeli soldier.

WWI started with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

After that Austria-Hungry declared war on Serbia.

After that their allies, France and Russia, declared war on Austria-Hungry.

And only after that Germany declared war on Russia and their allies, like France, because the German Kaiser had an agreement with Austria.

Robespierre wrote:

In Germany, the feeling was that since they had removed the culprit, the Kayser, they shouldn't have been so punished.
Unemployement, the financial crisis, etc... are what brough fascism in Germany, just like in Italy; not communism.

Yes, you are absolutely right.

The western allies punished the new liberal government and the German people that lived in what was left of Germany and especially on territories that were given to Poles and Czechs, and that is the reason why the whole political spectrum of Germany was against the unacceptable despotism of Versailles.

Germany would never agree to surrender, if Wilson did not promise in his 14-Points-Plan that the interests of German people would be respected.

German liberals believed in these American promises, and they convinced the German generals to surrender.

But Wilson's promises was just a lie to lure Germany into surrender.

So democratic forces in Germany were fully discredited, and there were only two options for Germans: Surrender to Communism or vote for National Socialism.

Do you really believe that Communism would have been a better option?

BTW, Churchill said in his famous speech in Fulton (The Iron Courtain) that WWII could have been avoided.

What did he mean with that?

[Kubek]

Eurasia wrote:

(...)leave history to historians and keep Micky Mouse out of our borders. That`s all we want of you. But you can`t because you are not independent country.

We can't let your historians take care of our common history because they have tendency to turn it into lies/propaganda.
If you believe official reports, Putin and Obama (and their administrations) are friends now. Are they not? The hugs and smiles were not for real:-) What are you afraid of? Have we conducted a "Zapad2009"-like military excercises recently for you to be concerned?

[ana 8]

American Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow- you met A Polish lady. I have, in my four visits to Poland, met many many Poles. I agree that they are nice people. However, most of the ones I have talked with do not share your rosy view of Russia. They remember how it was under Soviet Control and don't want any more of that.
As usual you are twisting information to suit your own twisted views.
so
STFU

Interesting what language did she spoke to that Polish lady? LOL!

[ana 8]

Yes wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha ha, such big letters. I am glad I pissed you of too.0000))))) So, I manipuletad you also easy. I still have fun, I stay few days more maybe. I will see. Be ready))))))))))

So you got manipulated again into staying a few more days on this forum. You are such an easy idiot to manipulate with manipulative manipulation! LMAO!

[ana 8]

ArtAllm wrote:

<quoted text>
I knew that you would not address the subject of discussion, but continue your ad-hominem attacks.
<quoted text>
Well, that is the best prove that you are not a bright person.
In your small world everybody that does not hate Russia is a Russian and even belongs to some Russian party, like United Russia.
:D

WOW! The whole post without one word of "ZIONIST"? OMG!

[Yes]

ana 8 wrote:

<quoted text>So you got manipulated again into staying a few more days on this forum. You are such an easy idiot to manipulate with manipulative manipulation! LMAO!

Got you again))))))))))

[PwrAndFlx]

Look, USA is using 1000 year + feud between Russia, Poland and Ukraine for advanced placement of our weapons systems. This is for EU protection; it is not to protect San Francisco or Huston for this matter. If you and bunch of war mongers in Republican Party want to finance this, than do it on your own dime. I want my tax money spent for my protection not for another overseas adventure, we had enough of this.

Tom in Lazybrook wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does Poland want American missles?
It might have something to do with:
1) First partition of Poland
2) Second partition of Poland
3) Third partition of Poland
4) Molotov-Hitler partition of Poland
5) Katyn Massacre
6) Red Army stops at Vistula to allow destruction of Polish Resistance
7) Post WWII border adjstments to Polish border
8) A 40+ year Soviet occupation of Poland
Poland isn't perfect. There are PLENTY of Poles that support Radio Maritja/Kuznisky twins. But Poland has MANY people who are trying to make it a better place.

[ArtAllm]

Here is another author that believes that Churchill was the man who started WWII.

[QUITE]
- The main prosecutor of Great Britain (Sir Hartley Shawcross, B.) made in 1985 a statement that we blamed completely falsely Germany for these things and now we have as a threat the impossible communistic, bolshevist Europe, which we perhaps may not be able to control. We rejected Hitler’s desperate wishes for peace. There were altogether nine of them and they were not introduced, because they were considered to be nonsense and a fool’s ideas.

- If one looks at the theses of Churchill from the year 1934, no suspects remain left. The answer of Churchill and Roosevelt was approximately this: Germany is much more dangerous and that is why Stalin was chosen as an ally. The question was of both militaristic and economic threat. The economic aspect was more dangerous to England and France.

- In March 1940 Sumner Welles visited Italy, Germany, France and England. The persons he met said openly that they were compelled to war, no peace propositions are accepted. Similar orders were also given to Poland. Germany was driven into a compulsory situation. The terms of World War I were already shocking.

- History has to change. The truth will appear undisputedly”, affirms Erkki Hautamäki, the writer of this very interesting book. He is also ready to discuss these issues with anybody.

http://www.prokarelia.net/en/...
[/QUITE]

[PwrAndFlx]

Are you all right? No swine flew? Sep. 1, 1939 Germany lead by A. Hitler attacked Poland, violating each and every international law, drugging G. Brittan into war. Dec. 10, 1941 A. Hitler declared war on USA, entire Reichstag applauded. I mean, what other prove do you need?

ArtAllm wrote:

Here is another author that believes that Churchill was the man who started WWII.
[QUITE]
- The main prosecutor of Great Britain (Sir Hartley Shawcross, B.) made in 1985 a statement that we blamed completely falsely Germany for these things and now we have as a threat the impossible communistic, bolshevist Europe, which we perhaps may not be able to control. We rejected Hitler’s desperate wishes for peace. There were altogether nine of them and they were not introduced, because they were considered to be nonsense and a fool’s ideas.
- If one looks at the theses of Churchill from the year 1934, no suspects remain left. The answer of Churchill and Roosevelt was approximately this: Germany is much more dangerous and that is why Stalin was chosen as an ally. The question was of both militaristic and economic threat. The economic aspect was more dangerous to England and France.
- In March 1940 Sumner Welles visited Italy, Germany, France and England. The persons he met said openly that they were compelled to war, no peace propositions are accepted. Similar orders were also given to Poland. Germany was driven into a compulsory situation. The terms of World War I were already shocking.
- History has to change. The truth will appear undisputedly”, affirms Erkki Hautamäki, the writer of this very interesting book. He is also ready to discuss these issues with anybody.
http://www.prokarelia.net/en/...
[/QUITE]

[Tom in Lazybrook]

PwrAndFlx wrote:

Look, USA is using 1000 year + feud between Russia, Poland and Ukraine for advanced placement of our weapons systems. This is for EU protection; it is not to protect San Francisco or Huston for this matter. If you and bunch of war mongers in Republican Party want to finance this, than do it on your own dime. I want my tax money spent for my protection not for another overseas adventure, we had enough of this.
<quoted text>

You're on crack if you think I'm a Republican.

[Lukashenko is Dr Phil]

ArtAllm wrote:

Here is another author that believes that Churchill was the man who started WWII.
[QUITE]
- The main prosecutor of Great Britain (Sir Hartley Shawcross, B.) made in 1985 a statement that we blamed completely falsely Germany for these things and now we have as a threat the impossible communistic, bolshevist Europe, which we perhaps may not be able to control. We rejected Hitler’s desperate wishes for peace. There were altogether nine of them and they were not introduced, because they were considered to be nonsense and a fool’s ideas.
- If one looks at the theses of Churchill from the year 1934, no suspects remain left. The answer of Churchill and Roosevelt was approximately this: Germany is much more dangerous and that is why Stalin was chosen as an ally. The question was of both militaristic and economic threat. The economic aspect was more dangerous to England and France.
- In March 1940 Sumner Welles visited Italy, Germany, France and England. The persons he met said openly that they were compelled to war, no peace propositions are accepted. Similar orders were also given to Poland. Germany was driven into a compulsory situation. The terms of World War I were already shocking.
- History has to change. The truth will appear undisputedly”, affirms Erkki Hautamäki, the writer of this very interesting book. He is also ready to discuss these issues with anybody.
http://www.prokarelia.net/en/...
[/QUITE]

WOW Hitler and Stalin attacking several countries and you blame Winston Churchill for WW2? Still angry about the fact that your hero loser fat drug addicts Hermann Göring lost the Battle of Britain even if every idiot knows that Göring should have kept bombing the air fields and not stop that and start to bomb the cities.

That is the reason why Luftwaffe lost and RAF won.

[PwrAndFlx]

That’s why we say that Democrats and Republicans are the same. You guys dream a dream about world domination and push this country from Vietnam to Iraq. Now you want to fight Russia over Poland’s psycho? What’s the difference between LB Johnson and GW Bush?

Tom in Lazybrook wrote:

<quoted text>
You're on crack if you think I'm a Republican.

[Tom in Lazybrook]

PwrAndFlx wrote:

That’s why we say that Democrats and Republicans are the same. You guys dream a dream about world domination and push this country from Vietnam to Iraq. Now you want to fight Russia over Poland’s psycho? What’s the difference between LB Johnson and GW Bush?
<quoted text>

It is in the US's interest to help free countries defend themselves.

[White Russian Cossack]

Kubek wrote:

<quoted text>
We can't let your historians take care of our common history because they have tendency to turn it into lies/propaganda.
If you believe official reports, Putin and Obama (and their administrations) are friends now. Are they not? The hugs and smiles were not for real:-) What are you afraid of? Have we conducted a "Zapad2009"-like military excercises recently for you to be concerned?

Russia and America are becoming friends you would know that if you lived in the US but you don't. Too bad no McCain he has gone out to pasture.

[Abe]

White Russian Cossack wrote:

<quoted text> Russia and America are becoming friends you would know that if you lived in the US but you don't. Too bad no McCain he has gone out to pasture.

You may be right Cossi but I think its hard to know for sure, albeit I think relations are improving.

But how do you explain the US VICE PRESIDENT pretty much saying that Russia is a dying backwards country?

Its one thing for one of us individuals to have an opinion about Russia. But its quite another for the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to say these things about Russia. Those words were heard far and wide around the world.

Why do you think he said those things about Russia?

[Janet Johnson Smith Doe]

To my understanding, as of about two years ago, Russia and Ukraine, under Yushchenko, came to a very important agreement about the Sevastapool Base. The Sevastapool Base was about to become almost an isssue of war. It is a historic naval landmark. Small practically insufficient naval base, yet a naval base. However, Yushenko supposedly agreed: If Russia refurbishes Sevastapool and creates it as a modernized naval base and historic landmark employing Ukrainian and Russian naval employees and construction workers, Ukraine would GIVE Sevestapool to Russia. In return Russia would provide the finances and a war time treatise or alliance that if Ukraine were ever threatened Russia would use its naval and air forces to defend Ukraine, especially those stemming from Sevastapool and the Black Sea. Both Ukraine and Russian Naval Officers were to be stationed at Sevastapool at that time. So this is what i was informed of and if I seemed to be completely misinformed on the information it is because intelligence communities on my side of the planet often like to take lead pipes and shove them up my derrriere. So. That is why I have been so Pro Ukraine. I thought Yushechenko was making at least vague efforts to appease Russian requests and work with Russia civilly. After reading this article, several issues have been clarified, and I realize that Yushchenko never had these intentions. Sincerely, Janet Johnson Smith Doe.