WC sidetrack: Russia, National Security, and Responses

[Tiresais]

[quote author=Tiresais
Chinese "economic colonialism" is happening on generally more generous terms than the previous American engagements - they're certainly no worse than American corporatism and exploitation of the past 70 years. As I mentioned in the other topic, afaik some had tattoos of the parachute regiment of Russia - they are clearly not the FSB because it'd be completely stupid to have secret service members on camera, so no idea why you'd think it's them. The FSB have been working in Ukraine for over a decade now.

I pick out the CIA specifically because they block democratic processes in the US, that was the main base of my accusation of murkiness. If you'd like to explain how the MSS or FSB has anything like the level of activity as the CIA, given their much smaller budgets, go right ahead.

"Generally more generous terms..." derisible foolishness.  If they are no worse then they are just as bad.

I'm not sure how you could see "tattoos" on the arms of the armed men when they are covered from head to toe to specifically avoid any such identifying marks.  Because they are covered from head to toe, it matters not whether they are on camera or not.  I don't know that they ARE FSB... but similarly you don't know that they are NOT... that is the point being made.

You claim the CIA blocks "democratic processes"... such as?  How is this any different from the MSS or FSB assassinating political opponents of the government or arresting newspaper editors and jailing dissenters?  Or are those not the kind of "democratic processes" you had in mind?

EDIT:   I suppose now would not be a time to mention Mossad in the "murkiness" discussion.

I have suggested you read the African Bank's own analysis of Chinese foreign investment in the region, you instead call it foolishness - where's your evidence that it's particularly more detrimental than 40 years of neocolonialism? "If they are no worse then they are just as bad" sure, but I said at worst, which means there is considerable latitude above this level. For example, China is building major ports in both Jamaica and Trinidad - these ports will be used for trade other than China-centric. The reason is partly competition with America - this competition gives states (for better or worse) the ability to demand more or at least more agreeable terms with the US, EU, or China (and increasingly India, Russia and Brazil). America's Hegemony has been detrimental in a number of aspects for these countries, which China's presence is undermining.

On the second point - http://mashable.com/2014/03/07/crimea-troops-russian/

The third point has a lot of evidence, the most recent one is the news that they spied on the Senate committee appointed to oversee them. This is an on-going news story, but historical examples involve infiltrating the NYPD with "no limits", promoting propaganda in American media, experiments in mind-controlling American citizens, and numerous accusations of being involved in drug-trafficking to fund operations outside the reach of the Senate/

This is more problematic in my opinion simply because the CIA is showing a blatant disregard or even contempt for its own mission parameters and objectives, from the CIA website;

Does the CIA spy on Americans? Does it keep a file on you?
CIA’s mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the domestic activities of U.S. citizens. By direction of the President in Executive Order 12333, as amended, and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against U.S. citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA’s procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA, or similar ones, have been in effect since the 1970s.

The CIA is supposed to be subservient to the interests of democratically elected leaders, yet consistently acts in opposition to what we might consider democratic principles. The FSB and MSS act in exactly the way we might expect - their motives are clear, and they're not as competent at assassinations (Castro aside) as the CIA, whom have shown a penchant for assassinating democratically elected leaders whom they fear (at least they were told to murder him by the president?). The Guardian highlighted some of the most prominant targets in the past; Here , but I know that list misses some interesting targets.

Whilst a political realist might disagree with my analysis, my claims of murkiness really stem from matching the CIA against the values they are constitutionally mandated to uphold - they are a force of evil in the world in my opinion, and have acted to undermine democracy in a number of instances. The FSB and MSS basically have lower standards, which isn't a glowing recommendation, and is likely to change over the next 20 years.

TBH not including Mossad was an oversight on my part - they truely are an evil bunch and would probably qualify above the CIA if Israel hadn't shown itself totally uncaring of human rights.

[Tiresais]

RE: TIRESAIS

.... (first 3 solved by post above?)

4. There is IMV nothing benign about Chinese economic activity in Africa, so I'm a bit hesitant to compare the "generosity" of foreign actor intervention on the continent (caveat: although the Korean approach needs further assessment). It's amusing that you single out the US, and make no mention of the more penetrative "engagements" of European nations.

The EU have a terrible legacy, France especially. French activities in France were an affront to dignity in a number of instances so you're right to pull me up on that. Britain and France continue this to date, and Italian companies have also been involved in a couple dodgy deals. Rather than launch a huge post on the failings of the EU, I'll just stick with the US

[Pointman]

International Law is bullshit just like the ICC.

Well since we beginning with that premise, I guess there's really nothing to discuss.  In parting I'll just leave you with a couple pointers:

"Where was International Law and the UN when the US invaded Grenada and Panama or when China invaded the sovereign nation of Tibet or when the Italians invaded Ethiopia . At least Russia is saying that she is coming to the aid of ethnic Russians in the Crimea. Flimsy just like all the other invaders."

1. Grenada

This is probably the best parallel, but even so the circumstances are drastically different.  The violence on the ground in Grenada far out-stripped that which was seen recently in the Ukraine.  Let's not forget that after deposing Bishop, Coardner et al ruled Grenada with an iron fist, implementing a shoot-to-kill curfew on locals.  Maybe you was too young to remember.  So unpopular was Coardner that the people revolted against his regime and freed Bishop... only for the troops loyal to Coardner to open fire on the crowd killing dozens... before executing Bishop and his closest comrades.  Grenada was close to being a lawless state prior to the US invasion.  Reagan definitely went about it the wrong way, and was universally condemned for it, but in the end it is imminently more justifiable than what Putin has done in the Ukraine.

2. Panama
Article 4 of the Panama Canal Treaty:

2. For the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America shall have primary responsibility to protect and defend the Canal.
The rights of the United States of America to station, train, and move military forces within the Republic of Panama are described in
the Agreement in Implementation of this Article, signed this date.

This and the fact that the Noreaga regime was considered a rogue regime for its role in faciliating the movement of drugs into the US implicating Article 51 of the UN Charter; and Article 21 of the OAS Charter, governing self-defense.

3. Tibet

The sovereignty of Tibet was never established and China had asserted control of the nation for thousands of years.  Tibet asserted its independence in the earlier part of the 20th century prior to the Chinese seizing control in 1950, but there was very little recognition of it as an independent state.  It's like Quebec arguing that it's independent of the rest of Canada. 

4. Ethiopia

The UN didn't exist back then... surprising that you don't acknowledge this.  Without the UN "international law" has very little hope for enforcement.  The precursor the the UN, the League of Nations was too weak to do anything (prevent Nazi incursions in Europe, for instance).  Even so, Mussolini's actions were roundly condemned and Ethiopia received military support from the Allied forces, helping it free itself from Italian occupation.

But as yuh say, International Law is bullshit... so I'm sure you'll continue to remain unmoved by any of this.

I am probably older than you Bakes cause when this Grenada invasion took place I was already in college(HU). What I know of that situation as that the Reagan admin chose to ignore information coming from its diplomatic service in the Eastern Caribbean which was telling them that Americans, particularly the med students,  were in no danger in Grenada. I don't know how old you are but that was the pretext for the American invasion and nothing to do with lawlessness and Grenadians being killed etc.
The fact of the matter is the US didn't want another Marxist country in its backyard. It already had Cuba and (at that time) Nicaragua to deal with. A Marxist Grenada posed a special ideological problem for the US in that the people of Grenada were Africans and English speaking and the Reagan admin worried about it's influence on African Americans. Those are the FACTS.

You will never in your lifetime, if you live to 159 years old, see the UN intervene in a crisis as a peacekeeper involving a major World power i.e Russia(Crimea), USA, China, India, England, Israel etc. The UN is almost like a toothless dog. The UN could barely do anything in Bosnia. Them bastards didn't even go into Rwanda 20 years ago until it was far too late and what resulted was a major genocide on an embarrassingly large scale. To that I say F@%K the UN.

Regarding Tibet: Since ancient time Tibet was regarded as an "independent" nation, so much so that even the great Mongol leader Chingis Khaan (known in the west as Ghengis Khan) on his march west conquering territory as far as France left Tibet alone to govern itself(in part because of its Buddhist traditions). The fact of the matter is China was the aggressor/invader of a sovereign state under Mao. Before Mao, no Han Chinese ruler ever considered annexing Tibet.

Regarding Ethiopia: Now you just splitting hairs.  I do know the the UN didn't exist in 1935. Yes I know the League of Nations( forerunner to the UN) was the forum that the late Emperor Haile Selassie I address pleading for international assistance to aid his INDEPENDENT nation against an aggressor/invader Italy. No aid was given and rest as you know is history.

The UN is bullshit. It's just a forum to talk yuh talk. They have a lil army that only go into developing nations and not much else.

[Deeks]

The UN is bullshit. It's just a forum to talk yuh talk. They have a lil army that only go into developing nations and not much else.

The UN is as effective as the permanent members want it to be. None of the permanent members will allow their creation to usurp them.

[elan]

The UN lol, they sat back and allow the US to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan for free. Jokers.

[Pointman]

The UN is bullshit. It's just a forum to talk yuh talk. They have a lil army that only go into developing nations and not much else.

The UN is as effective as the permanent members want it to be. None of the permanent members will allow their creation to usurp them.

Absolutely!!

[Ramgoat]

International Law is bullshit just like the ICC.

Well since we beginning with that premise, I guess there's really nothing to discuss.  In parting I'll just leave you with a couple pointers:

"Where was International Law and the UN when the US invaded Grenada and Panama or when China invaded the sovereign nation of Tibet or when the Italians invaded Ethiopia . At least Russia is saying that she is coming to the aid of ethnic Russians in the Crimea. Flimsy just like all the other invaders."

1. Grenada

This is probably the best parallel, but even so the circumstances are drastically different.  The violence on the ground in Grenada far out-stripped that which was seen recently in the Ukraine.  Let's not forget that after deposing Bishop, Coardner et al ruled Grenada with an iron fist, implementing a shoot-to-kill curfew on locals.  Maybe you was too young to remember.  So unpopular was Coardner that the people revolted against his regime and freed Bishop... only for the troops loyal to Coardner to open fire on the crowd killing dozens... before executing Bishop and his closest comrades.  Grenada was close to being a lawless state prior to the US invasion.  Reagan definitely went about it the wrong way, and was universally condemned for it, but in the end it is imminently more justifiable than what Putin has done in the Ukraine.

2. Panama
Article 4 of the Panama Canal Treaty:

2. For the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America shall have primary responsibility to protect and defend the Canal.
The rights of the United States of America to station, train, and move military forces within the Republic of Panama are described in
the Agreement in Implementation of this Article, signed this date.

This and the fact that the Noreaga regime was considered a rogue regime for its role in faciliating the movement of drugs into the US implicating Article 51 of the UN Charter; and Article 21 of the OAS Charter, governing self-defense.

3. Tibet

The sovereignty of Tibet was never established and China had asserted control of the nation for thousands of years.  Tibet asserted its independence in the earlier part of the 20th century prior to the Chinese seizing control in 1950, but there was very little recognition of it as an independent state.  It's like Quebec arguing that it's independent of the rest of Canada. 

4. Ethiopia

The UN didn't exist back then... surprising that you don't acknowledge this.  Without the UN "international law" has very little hope for enforcement.  The precursor the the UN, the League of Nations was too weak to do anything (prevent Nazi incursions in Europe, for instance).  Even so, Mussolini's actions were roundly condemned and Ethiopia received military support from the Allied forces, helping it free itself from Italian occupation.

But as yuh say, International Law is bullshit... so I'm sure you'll continue to remain unmoved by any of this.

  Grenada is indeed similar to The Russian position on the Crimea and it has nothing to do with Coarder .
 Reagan explicitly stated the the reason the he invaded Grenada was that 1000 American students int the tropical medicine college in Grenada was in imminent danger and that was why he invaded  to protect American citizens ,
 Any other way that you try to spin it is revisionist   history . Russian  foreign minister Sergei Lavrov   specifically stated that this was a precedent and when millions of Russians in Crimea is in danger, Russia is compelled to act ,

[Tiresais]

International Law is bullshit just like the ICC.

Well since we beginning with that premise, I guess there's really nothing to discuss.  In parting I'll just leave you with a couple pointers:

"Where was International Law and the UN when the US invaded Grenada and Panama or when China invaded the sovereign nation of Tibet or when the Italians invaded Ethiopia . At least Russia is saying that she is coming to the aid of ethnic Russians in the Crimea. Flimsy just like all the other invaders."

1. Grenada

This is probably the best parallel, but even so the circumstances are drastically different.  The violence on the ground in Grenada far out-stripped that which was seen recently in the Ukraine.  Let's not forget that after deposing Bishop, Coardner et al ruled Grenada with an iron fist, implementing a shoot-to-kill curfew on locals.  Maybe you was too young to remember.  So unpopular was Coardner that the people revolted against his regime and freed Bishop... only for the troops loyal to Coardner to open fire on the crowd killing dozens... before executing Bishop and his closest comrades.  Grenada was close to being a lawless state prior to the US invasion.  Reagan definitely went about it the wrong way, and was universally condemned for it, but in the end it is imminently more justifiable than what Putin has done in the Ukraine.

2. Panama
Article 4 of the Panama Canal Treaty:

2. For the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America shall have primary responsibility to protect and defend the Canal.
The rights of the United States of America to station, train, and move military forces within the Republic of Panama are described in
the Agreement in Implementation of this Article, signed this date.

This and the fact that the Noreaga regime was considered a rogue regime for its role in faciliating the movement of drugs into the US implicating Article 51 of the UN Charter; and Article 21 of the OAS Charter, governing self-defense.

3. Tibet

The sovereignty of Tibet was never established and China had asserted control of the nation for thousands of years.  Tibet asserted its independence in the earlier part of the 20th century prior to the Chinese seizing control in 1950, but there was very little recognition of it as an independent state.  It's like Quebec arguing that it's independent of the rest of Canada. 

4. Ethiopia

The UN didn't exist back then... surprising that you don't acknowledge this.  Without the UN "international law" has very little hope for enforcement.  The precursor the the UN, the League of Nations was too weak to do anything (prevent Nazi incursions in Europe, for instance).  Even so, Mussolini's actions were roundly condemned and Ethiopia received military support from the Allied forces, helping it free itself from Italian occupation.

But as yuh say, International Law is bullshit... so I'm sure you'll continue to remain unmoved by any of this.

  Grenada is indeed similar to The Russian position on the Crimea and it has nothing to do with Coarder .
 Reagan explicitly stated the the reason the he invaded Grenada was that 1000 American students int the tropical medicine college in Grenada was in imminent danger and that was why he invaded  to protect American citizens ,
 Any other way that you try to spin it is revisionist   history . Russian  foreign minister Sergei Lavrov   specifically stated that this was a precedent and when millions of Russians in Crimea is in danger, Russia is compelled to act ,

If you believe that you'll believe anything - this was clearly an invasion to "Contain" socialism in the region - when you have Thatcher calling you asking you to not invade and your own senators saying the students aren't at risk you can easily discount your hypothesis. You appear to be willing to believe leaders perhaps more than you should - Reagan was lying.

[Ramgoat]

International Law is bullshit just like the ICC.

Well since we beginning with that premise, I guess there's really nothing to discuss.  In parting I'll just leave you with a couple pointers:

"Where was International Law and the UN when the US invaded Grenada and Panama or when China invaded the sovereign nation of Tibet or when the Italians invaded Ethiopia . At least Russia is saying that she is coming to the aid of ethnic Russians in the Crimea. Flimsy just like all the other invaders."

1. Grenada

This is probably the best parallel, but even so the circumstances are drastically different.  The violence on the ground in Grenada far out-stripped that which was seen recently in the Ukraine.  Let's not forget that after deposing Bishop, Coardner et al ruled Grenada with an iron fist, implementing a shoot-to-kill curfew on locals.  Maybe you was too young to remember.  So unpopular was Coardner that the people revolted against his regime and freed Bishop... only for the troops loyal to Coardner to open fire on the crowd killing dozens... before executing Bishop and his closest comrades.  Grenada was close to being a lawless state prior to the US invasion.  Reagan definitely went about it the wrong way, and was universally condemned for it, but in the end it is imminently more justifiable than what Putin has done in the Ukraine.

2. Panama
Article 4 of the Panama Canal Treaty:

2. For the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America shall have primary responsibility to protect and defend the Canal.
The rights of the United States of America to station, train, and move military forces within the Republic of Panama are described in
the Agreement in Implementation of this Article, signed this date.

This and the fact that the Noreaga regime was considered a rogue regime for its role in faciliating the movement of drugs into the US implicating Article 51 of the UN Charter; and Article 21 of the OAS Charter, governing self-defense.

3. Tibet

The sovereignty of Tibet was never established and China had asserted control of the nation for thousands of years.  Tibet asserted its independence in the earlier part of the 20th century prior to the Chinese seizing control in 1950, but there was very little recognition of it as an independent state.  It's like Quebec arguing that it's independent of the rest of Canada. 

4. Ethiopia

The UN didn't exist back then... surprising that you don't acknowledge this.  Without the UN "international law" has very little hope for enforcement.  The precursor the the UN, the League of Nations was too weak to do anything (prevent Nazi incursions in Europe, for instance).  Even so, Mussolini's actions were roundly condemned and Ethiopia received military support from the Allied forces, helping it free itself from Italian occupation.

But as yuh say, International Law is bullshit... so I'm sure you'll continue to remain unmoved by any of this.

  Grenada is indeed similar to The Russian position on the Crimea and it has nothing to do with Coarder .
 Reagan explicitly stated the the reason the he invaded Grenada was that 1000 American students int the tropical medicine college in Grenada was in imminent danger and that was why he invaded  to protect American citizens ,
 Any other way that you try to spin it is revisionist   history . Russian  foreign minister Sergei Lavrov   specifically stated that this was a precedent and when millions of Russians in Crimea is in danger, Russia is compelled to act ,

If you believe that you'll believe anything - this was clearly an invasion to "Contain" socialism in the region - when you have Thatcher calling you asking you to not invade and your own senators saying the students aren't at risk you can easily discount your hypothesis. You appear to be willing to believe leaders perhaps more than you should - Reagan was lying.

You misjudged me . Of course it was all to do with containing Socialism for you have to remember that the Cubans were building the Port Salines Airport in Grenada  at the time .
 Students were never at risk but like you said  it was all about containing Socialism at the time '
 The Russians however are totally  justified to be in Crimea and soon eastern and Southern Ukraine
 I am more curious though , what the hell are you doing being up at this hour/

[Tiresais]

International Law is bullshit just like the ICC.

Well since we beginning with that premise, I guess there's really nothing to discuss.  In parting I'll just leave you with a couple pointers:

"Where was International Law and the UN when the US invaded Grenada and Panama or when China invaded the sovereign nation of Tibet or when the Italians invaded Ethiopia . At least Russia is saying that she is coming to the aid of ethnic Russians in the Crimea. Flimsy just like all the other invaders."

1. Grenada

This is probably the best parallel, but even so the circumstances are drastically different.  The violence on the ground in Grenada far out-stripped that which was seen recently in the Ukraine.  Let's not forget that after deposing Bishop, Coardner et al ruled Grenada with an iron fist, implementing a shoot-to-kill curfew on locals.  Maybe you was too young to remember.  So unpopular was Coardner that the people revolted against his regime and freed Bishop... only for the troops loyal to Coardner to open fire on the crowd killing dozens... before executing Bishop and his closest comrades.  Grenada was close to being a lawless state prior to the US invasion.  Reagan definitely went about it the wrong way, and was universally condemned for it, but in the end it is imminently more justifiable than what Putin has done in the Ukraine.

2. Panama
Article 4 of the Panama Canal Treaty:

2. For the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America shall have primary responsibility to protect and defend the Canal.
The rights of the United States of America to station, train, and move military forces within the Republic of Panama are described in
the Agreement in Implementation of this Article, signed this date.

This and the fact that the Noreaga regime was considered a rogue regime for its role in faciliating the movement of drugs into the US implicating Article 51 of the UN Charter; and Article 21 of the OAS Charter, governing self-defense.

3. Tibet

The sovereignty of Tibet was never established and China had asserted control of the nation for thousands of years.  Tibet asserted its independence in the earlier part of the 20th century prior to the Chinese seizing control in 1950, but there was very little recognition of it as an independent state.  It's like Quebec arguing that it's independent of the rest of Canada. 

4. Ethiopia

The UN didn't exist back then... surprising that you don't acknowledge this.  Without the UN "international law" has very little hope for enforcement.  The precursor the the UN, the League of Nations was too weak to do anything (prevent Nazi incursions in Europe, for instance).  Even so, Mussolini's actions were roundly condemned and Ethiopia received military support from the Allied forces, helping it free itself from Italian occupation.

But as yuh say, International Law is bullshit... so I'm sure you'll continue to remain unmoved by any of this.

  Grenada is indeed similar to The Russian position on the Crimea and it has nothing to do with Coarder .
 Reagan explicitly stated the the reason the he invaded Grenada was that 1000 American students int the tropical medicine college in Grenada was in imminent danger and that was why he invaded  to protect American citizens ,
 Any other way that you try to spin it is revisionist   history . Russian  foreign minister Sergei Lavrov   specifically stated that this was a precedent and when millions of Russians in Crimea is in danger, Russia is compelled to act ,

If you believe that you'll believe anything - this was clearly an invasion to "Contain" socialism in the region - when you have Thatcher calling you asking you to not invade and your own senators saying the students aren't at risk you can easily discount your hypothesis. You appear to be willing to believe leaders perhaps more than you should - Reagan was lying.

You misjudged me . Of course it was all to do with containing Socialism for you have to remember that the Cubans were building the Port Salines Airport in Grenada  at the time .
 Students were never at risk but like you said  it was all about containing Socialism at the time '
 The Russians however are totally  justified to be in Crimea and soon eastern and Southern Ukraine
 I am more curious though , what the hell are you doing being up at this hour/

I'm based in the UK - it's a sociable 9:30am here :p

[asylumseeker]

RE: TIRESAIS

.... (first 3 solved by post above?)

4. There is IMV nothing benign about Chinese economic activity in Africa, so I'm a bit hesitant to compare the "generosity" of foreign actor intervention on the continent (caveat: although the Korean approach needs further assessment). It's amusing that you single out the US, and make no mention of the more penetrative "engagements" of European nations.

The EU have a terrible legacy, France especially. French activities in France were an affront to dignity in a number of instances so you're right to pull me up on that. Britain and France continue this to date, and Italian companies have also been involved in a couple dodgy deals. Rather than launch a huge post on the failings of the EU, I'll just stick with the US [Why?]

It was responsive to to #1 only. What you posted did not address the budget contention. Also, regarding the masked men ... the assertion wasn't whether the men were Russian assets (was there any doubt?). Not fully responsive to what I raised.

Please post link to the African Bank report.

Why this preoccupation with US intelligence and no expressed interest in your nation's intelligence apparatus?

Finally, hopefully upon a second reading you'll locate the issues with what you wrote here:

The FSB and MSS act in exactly the way we might expect - their motives are clear, and they're not as competent at assassinations (Castro aside) as the CIA, whom have shown a penchant for assassinating democratically elected leaders whom they fear (at least they were told to murder him by the president?).

[asylumseeker]

A couple posts should probably have stayed on the other thread.

[Tiresais]

RE: TIRESAIS

.... (first 3 solved by post above?)

4. There is IMV nothing benign about Chinese economic activity in Africa, so I'm a bit hesitant to compare the "generosity" of foreign actor intervention on the continent (caveat: although the Korean approach needs further assessment). It's amusing that you single out the US, and make no mention of the more penetrative "engagements" of European nations.

The EU have a terrible legacy, France especially. French activities in France were an affront to dignity in a number of instances so you're right to pull me up on that. Britain and France continue this to date, and Italian companies have also been involved in a couple dodgy deals. Rather than launch a huge post on the failings of the EU, I'll just stick with the US [Why?]

It was responsive to to #1 only. What you posted did not address the budget contention. Also, regarding the masked men ... the assertion wasn't whether the men were Russian assets (was there any doubt?). Not fully responsive to what I raised.

Why? I've got a deadline and can't spend too long, just focusing on the US to avoid branching the discussion out. The budget contention is moot - the fact is that the US national security services are far above the level of others in the world in terms of funding. The CIA have clearly been acting - i don't accept your assertion that VP is somehow more willing to use the FSB on the evidence I've posed previously - US Presidents have extensively used the CIA and the CIA have acted without authorisation on a number of occasions. The CIA are more effective, better funded, and are involved more broadly across the world imo. The nature of these organisations prevents any conclusive position, so we might have to disagree

On the boarder guards - I think you're being a little cheeky here. When we were talking about the FSB I was clearly not including boarder guards and I don't think you were either - clearly boarder guards standing outside military installations is a different proposition to highly-trained secret agents.

Please post link to the African Bank report.

They did a bunch, this website sums it up generally; http://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/article/new-afdb-study-takes-in-depth-look-at-china-africa-partnership-8377/ the one I was specifically talking about was by Brautigam, titled "China, Africa and the International Aid Architecture", which was an African Development Bank working paper.

There are also two IMF Working papers of interest - google "FDI from BRICS to LICs" and "BRIC's philosophies for development". DfID also funded a paper about development assistance in Africa "How China delivers development assistance to Africa", whilst the OECD did a working paper on "Prudent versus Imprudent Lending to Africa: From Debt Relief to Emerging Lenders" in which it had both recommendations and reservations on China's lending strategies in the region.

In short - China often packages loans at agreeable rates, partially backed by commodities, whilst also offering concessionary loans and grants for projects for which it doesn't expect teh government to earn money off (for example, football stadiums, hospitals). Private American capital generally does nothing for the communities outside the trickle down benefits and employment opportunities (and even these are limited by some Export Processing Zone policies).

It's a really interesting topic, and one that's being murdered in popular media. The threat of 'other' is something maybe more noticeable if you live in a country that has perpetrated racism in its past, it's just a type of racism from ignorance. The deals on offer, as I said, are no worse than American hegemony has offered, except they're done by China, which automatically makes them worse for some segments of the media and explains such negative press.

My issues with it stem from my issues with foreign ownership of national assets and FDI, as I am partial to resource nationalism. The country who does it is irrelevant to me per se, it's the policies that matter.

Why this preoccupation with US intelligence and no expressed interest in your nation's intelligence apparatus?

Simply time-constraints. People are misinterpreting my comments - I know MI6 are a bag of dicks as well, I simply believe the CIA are possibly the worst culprits (possibly Mossad are worse). This is not to minimise the evil taht MI6, the FSB and MSS carry out.

Finally, hopefully upon a second reading you'll locate the issues with what you wrote here:

The FSB and MSS act in exactly the way we might expect - their motives are clear, and they're not as competent at assassinations (Castro aside) as the CIA, whom have shown a penchant for assassinating democratically elected leaders whom they fear (at least they were told to murder him by the president?).

[/quote]

As I mentioned before my issue with the CIA comes from two prongs;

1) they betray their own mission statement and objectives, undermining the democratic institutions of the country they are incorporated and charged to protect

2) they're more prevalent than MI6, and more competent than the rest.

The FSB are a secret service organisation under the command of an oligarch charged with defending the interests of the élite, and make no pretence to protect things such as privacy and individual rights. I hold them to a lower standard - they're not "murky", they're exactly what you expect.

[asylumseeker]

1. Ok, so this notion that one agency is more competent at assassinations merely based on numerosity is  All intelligence agencies have histories of being allegedly so engaged. Sufficiently competently. That competence does not turn on your analysis of global matters or to selective application of history or to revisionism ... or your bias towards the US security apparatus. You seem to be disregarding much of Soviet history.

2. Fact is the prospect that FSB were on the ground was plausibly raised by another poster ... and in addition to his contentions, I provided 2 other supporting refutations (one of which was that the border agency is part of the FSB) ... hence not ridiculous that FSB were on the ground in the Crimea. That is reality. As I also asserted, intelligence assets being on the ground was not a ridiculous proposition. Moreover, by definition, there are fewer intelligence assets than troops. Every single factor on the ground need not be a trained intelligence asset.

3. I'm not relying on any evidence you posted in making the assertion regarding VP's influence over the FSB/security apparatus budget. Nor am I inventing it.

I'll address the China matter under separate cover.

[Bakes]

I am probably older than you Bakes cause when this Grenada invasion took place I was already in college(HU). What I know of that situation as that the Reagan admin chose to ignore information coming from its diplomatic service in the Eastern Caribbean which was telling them that Americans, particularly the med students,  were in no danger in Grenada. I don't know how old you are but that was the pretext for the American invasion and nothing to do with lawlessness and Grenadians being killed etc.
The fact of the matter is the US didn't want another Marxist country in its backyard. It already had Cuba and (at that time) Nicaragua to deal with. A Marxist Grenada posed a special ideological problem for the US in that the people of Grenada were Africans and English speaking and the Reagan admin worried about it's influence on African Americans. Those are the FACTS.

You not telling me anything that I don't know... from the outset I acknowledged the similarities between the actions taken by Reagan and that taken by Putin.  I also pointed out the stark differences.  Of course it was largely pretextual, but the same "intelligence" that Reagan had also let him know that Castro had little to do with the construction of Pt. Salines... in fact the US were approached for assistance and declined the aid.  To say that the invasion had "nothing to do with lawlessnes and Grenadians being killed" is just dogmatic adherence to your position in face of the reality... which that there were several reasons for the invasion, some more justifiable than others.

You will never in your lifetime, if you live to 159 years old, see the UN intervene in a crisis as a peacekeeper involving a major World power i.e Russia(Crimea), USA, China, India, England, Israel etc. The UN is almost like a toothless dog. The UN could barely do anything in Bosnia. Them bastards didn't even go into Rwanda 20 years ago until it was far too late and what resulted was a major genocide on an embarrassingly large scale. To that I say F@%K the UN.

If yuh was really smart yuh woulda realize the that the reason yuh wouldn't see the UN intervene in any of those countries you mentioned is because all of them, save India and Israel sit on the Security Council and have veto power over any UN action... so please make some kinda sense.  Is not hypocrisy (as you insinuate), it's the reality that the UN relies on these superpowers for its financing and enforcement capabilities... which of them would compromise their sovereignty in return?  That is just pragmatism.

Regarding Tibet: Since ancient time Tibet was regarded as an "independent" nation, so much so that even the great Mongol leader Chingis Khaan (known in the west as Ghengis Khan) on his march west conquering territory as far as France left Tibet alone to govern itself(in part because of its Buddhist traditions). The fact of the matter is China was the aggressor/invader of a sovereign state under Mao. Before Mao, no Han Chinese ruler ever considered annexing Tibet.

Boss... check yuh research again, Tibet has had a very fractious history and it is nowhere as contiguous as you making it seem.  Tibet has never been "regarded as an 'independent' nation" since ancient time.  There has been periods of independence, followed by periods of conquest by China... I don't know about "no Han Chinese ruler"... but Tibet was annexed during the Yuan dynasty and at several periods since, leading up to Mao's invasion in 1959, simple Google search reveals as much.  In fact, just Google "Tibetan Sovereignty Debate" and yuh'll see... that such a stand alone topic exists is proof enough of the disputed nature of Tibetan "independence."

Regarding Ethiopia: Now you just splitting hairs.  I do know the the UN didn't exist in 1935. Yes I know the League of Nations( forerunner to the UN) was the forum that the late Emperor Haile Selassie I address pleading for international assistance to aid his INDEPENDENT nation against an aggressor/invader Italy. No aid was given and rest as you know is history.

The UN is bullshit. It's just a forum to talk yuh talk. They have a lil army that only go into developing nations and not much else.

Splitting hairs??  Make some kinda frigging sense nah fella?  How yuh go ask about "where was international law" during Italy's invasion of Ethiopia when there was no such "international law", or specifically a body for enforcing it back then??  You entirely missed the point of my post... for there to be international law there has to be a means of enforcing it, otherwise it's not a "law" but some shit written on paper in a drawer some place.  Yes the UN is slow, and in some cases powerless to act at times, but it cannot in anyway be compared to its predecessor, the League of Nations.  Had the UN been around there's a good chance they would have intervened in Ethiopia is my point... as underscored by the fact that even without a cohesive intervention body/policy in place, the Allied forces STILL intervened to help free Ethiopia... another point glibly and conveniently ignored.

[Bakes]

The UN lol, they sat back and allow the US to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan for free. Jokers.

Actually they didn't sit back and allow the US to do anything, the US sought and received permission to act first.  Go siddung somewhere and leave the talk to big people.

[Bakes]

Grenada is indeed similar to The Russian position on the Crimea and it has nothing to do with Coarder .
 Reagan explicitly stated the the reason the he invaded Grenada was that 1000 American students int the tropical medicine college in Grenada was in imminent danger and that was why he invaded  to protect American citizens ,
 Any other way that you try to spin it is revisionist   history . Russian  foreign minister Sergei Lavrov   specifically stated that this was a precedent and when millions of Russians in Crimea is in danger, Russia is compelled to act ,

The similarities have already been acknowledged and the differences elaborated on.  Nothing to see here.

[elan]

The UN lol, they sat back and allow the US to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan for free. Jokers.

Actually they didn't sit back and allow the US to do anything, the US sought and received permission to act first.  Go siddung somewhere and leave the talk to big people.

Don't get yuh big people panties in a bunch.

That is exactly what I mean. The US showed up with their excuse and the UN just rubber stamp it. You really think the US care about the UN. The US was bombing Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of what the UN did say, but being the muppets they are they went along with it.

It doesn't take much to understand this - well maybe if you're an apologist - then you may struggle.

[Bakes]

Don't get yuh big people panties in a bunch.

That is exactly what I mean. The US showed up with their excuse and the UN just rubber stamp it. You really think the US care about the UN. The US was bombing Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of what the UN did say, but being the muppets they are they went along with it.

It doesn't take much to understand this - well maybe if you're an apologist - then you may struggle.

The only person in this discussion struggling is you, the rational for invading Iraq was false, and the UN didn't just "rubber stamp" it, there was vigorous debate and if it wasn't for the force of personality that was Colin Powell, a credible argument could be made that UN would not have authorized either invasion.  The UN process worked, no matter what your subjective take of the situation might be.  That you would include Afghanistan in the discussion at all only betrays your limited grasp on the issue at hand.

[Toppa]

lol Tit for tat, eh? Politicians...

Kick U.S. out of World Cup, Russian politicians tell FIFA

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-soccer-fifa-russia-us-idUSBREA2A1DV20140311

[elan]

Don't get yuh big people panties in a bunch.

That is exactly what I mean. The US showed up with their excuse and the UN just rubber stamp it. You really think the US care about the UN. The US was bombing Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of what the UN did say, but being the muppets they are they went along with it.

It doesn't take much to understand this - well maybe if you're an apologist - then you may struggle.

The only person in this discussion struggling is you, the rational for invading Iraq was false, and the UN didn't just "rubber stamp" it, there was vigorous debate and if it wasn't for the force of personality that was Colin Powell, a credible argument could be made that UN would not have authorized either invasion.  The UN process worked, no matter what your subjective take of the situation might be.  That you would include Afghanistan in the discussion at all only betrays your limited grasp on the issue at hand.

How the hell I struggling. I said the UN is useless and according to you also they are useless. How the hell the process could work if the US do what they wanted to do.

Hey mom I will be home at midnight.
NO your curfew is 10.
Okay mom, see you at midnight.

Mom good, my process is working.

 

[elan]

And by the way the UN did tell the US that invading Iraq will be against protocol.

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter.