• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Acknowledging Today’s Nazis could lead to U.S. alliance with

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Acknowledging Today’s Nazis could lead to U.S. alliance with Russia


Acknowledging Today’s Nazis could lead to U.S. alliance with Russia
By Shoebat Foundation on March 2, 2014 in Blog, General

By Ben Barrack

In World War II, the U.S. and the U.K. aligned with the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin against a much greater threat – the Nazis, who were allies with the Muslim Brotherhood. Imagine a threat so grave that the U.S. had to form an alliance with a nation headed by one of the world’s most notorious mass murderers. The decision of the Obama administration to ally with that Nazi partner notwithstanding, the U.S. may one day have to revive an old alliance of necessity.

On One Hand…
Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin has become a rather dichotomous and paradoxical figure for westerners in general and Americans in particular. He has a history which includes a career with the KGB that began in 1975; the KGB was an arch nemesis of the U.S. for decades during the Cold War. Last December, Putin called for a statue of Stalin to be erected. The Daily Beast referred to Putin’s legend as that of a “postwar thug”, and that upon returning to Russia from Germany after the Cold War ended, he…

…succeeded in transforming the country, turning back democratic reforms and ultimately establishing a thoroughly corrupt and inefficient authoritarian regime in the image of the U.S.S.R.

Then, of course, we have the Russian incursions into Georgia in 2008 and, most recently, into Ukraine’s Crimea.

In discussing the crisis in Ukraine, conservative writer Charles Krauthammer was unequivocal in his assertion that Putin wants the Soviet Union back, via RCP:

Last June, it was reported that Putin pocketed a $26,000 New England Patriots Super Bowl Ring when team owner Bob Kraft let him try it on and later saying that three KGB agents helped the Russian President make off with the jewelry.

On the Other Hand…
When Middle Eastern Christians are given the choice between siding with westerners or with Putin, they invariably choose the latter. Syrian Christians can’t run into the arms of the Russian-backed Bashar al-Assad fast enough. The Assad regime seems more than willing to help them as best it can. In the U.S., the Obama administration is hell bent on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood-backed jihadists, who are right now slaughtering innocent Christians. When Syrian Christian leaders attempted to charge up Capitol Hill to seek protection, Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ) berated them. In so doing, he made it clear that he was siding with the jihadists.

A quick look at Egypt reveals similar dynamics. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi regime saw the persecution of Coptic Christians. When Mursi was overthrown, the Obama administration (as well as McCain) seemed most interested in coming to the aid of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the months since, General Abdel Fatah el-Sisi has essentially run into the arms of Putin’s Russia. Again, Putin is on the right side here. U.S. Congressional delegations wring their hands over el-Sisi’s alliance with Putin while ignoring the reason why – Obama’s alliance with the Brotherhood.
Putin sides with el-Sisi while Obama sides with the Brotherhood.

Putin sides with el-Sisi while Obama sides with the Brotherhood.

A feckless U.S. Congress refuses to call out U.S. President Barack Obama’s affinity for the Brotherhood; it’s a very real problem.

The Obama administration is choosing to align with a close World War II ally of the Nazis in these examples; Putin is not. In fact, his defense of Christians indicates he’s lining up against the descendants of Hitler’s allies; those allies today share Hitler’s goals then. The ability of Americans to see this requires both a post-Cold War mentality and a jaundiced eye toward Russia based on Putin’s desire for a return to a Soviet era.

In short, the U.S. should actually be seeking an alliance of necessity with the Russians like it had with Stalin, not because Stalin was a good guy but because the bad guys are so bad.

Complicating all of this is the fact that while Putin was becoming a KGB agent, Barack Obama was being mentored by Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member and Soviet loyalist, Frank Marshall Davis, who was also a loyal Stalinist. From 1944-1963, the FBI compiled a 600-page plus file on Davis, even placing him on the security index.
Frank Marshall Davis: Obama mentor and Stalin loyalist.

Frank Marshall Davis: Obama mentor and Stalin loyalist.

During the Cold War, the U.S. never let its guard down when it came to the Soviet Union. The fall of the Berlin Wall changed that. Another consequence of the Soviet Union’s dismantling has been the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, something that Putin seems to understand and wants to fight while Obama embraces it. U.S. politicians and pundits like Krauthammer express no understanding of the relevance of either of these realities.

That leads to the possibility of a showdown between Russia and Turkey, as Walid suggests. As was the case with the Nazis, the U.S. may one day have to align with the Russians, but if and when that day comes, it will almost certainly come in a post-Obama era and should include a jaundiced eye.

Such an alliance would also require a threat so grave that humanity itself would be in danger as it would have been had Hitler had his way.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
There is a lot to think about in this article.

Obama's pro-Islamic administration, has created a world wide problem for sure. I believe that this Islamic uprising will be countered by the world forces again and overcome. I just don't know what side of it, we'll be on when that happens.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The Obama administration is choosing to align with a close World War II ally of the Nazis in these examples; Putin is not. In fact, his defense of Christians indicates he’s lining up against the descendants of Hitler’s allies; those allies today share Hitler’s goals then. The ability of Americans to see this requires both a post-Cold War mentality and a jaundiced eye toward Russia based on Putin’s desire for a return to a Soviet era.

I wasn't even going to respond.. but really..

should we also put Germany on the list of countries to not care about?

after all they were basically the problem in two world wars..

you and several others are falling into a liberal trap on this one..


So here's why Germany is struggling to ban neo-Nazis

Germany has tough laws to prevent the resurgence of Nazism, such as a ban on displaying the swastika and an edict that makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust.

However, constitutional protections for free speech have made it difficult to ban the NPD just because its ideology bears some similarity to Adolph Hitler's. To do that, the plaintiffs must show the party is actually working to overthrow the state through violence.

Experts say that may be very difficult to prove.

The NPD has seats in only two state parliaments and no presence whatsoever in the Bundestag. In recent elections, it won a paltry 1.3 percent of the popular vote, although that total is much higher than the support it earned between 1990 and 2005.

alot has changed since WWII

but some still cling to the notion that extreme nationalist ideals are the way to go.. and those movements often are led by extremists..

while most of us want to protect our culture view them as nuts.. liberals use them to attack our nationalistic views..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve said:
The Obama administration is choosing to align with a close World War II ally of the Nazis in these examples; Putin is not. In fact, his defense of Christians indicates he’s lining up against the descendants of Hitler’s allies; those allies today share Hitler’s goals then. The ability of Americans to see this requires both a post-Cold War mentality and a jaundiced eye toward Russia based on Putin’s desire for a return to a Soviet era.

I wasn't even going to respond.. but really..

should we also put Germany on the list of countries to not care about?

after all they were basically the problem in two world wars..

you and several others are falling into a liberal trap on this one..


So here's why Germany is struggling to ban neo-Nazis

Germany has tough laws to prevent the resurgence of Nazism, such as a ban on displaying the swastika and an edict that makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust.

However, constitutional protections for free speech have made it difficult to ban the NPD just because its ideology bears some similarity to Adolph Hitler's. To do that, the plaintiffs must show the party is actually working to overthrow the state through violence.

Experts say that may be very difficult to prove.

The NPD has seats in only two state parliaments and no presence whatsoever in the Bundestag. In recent elections, it won a paltry 1.3 percent of the popular vote, although that total is much higher than the support it earned between 1990 and 2005.

alot has changed since WWII

but some still cling to the notion that extreme nationalist ideals are the way to go.. and those movements often are led by extremists..

while most of us want to protect our culture view them as nuts.. liberals use them to attack our nationalistic views..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve, I haven't checked the other thread yet, but did you read up on those that just overthrew the Ukrainian democratically elected government?
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve, I haven't checked the other thread yet, but did you read up on those that just overthrew the Ukrainian democratically elected government?

you are barking up the wrong tree here..

Chechnya and Russia have been fighting for decades now.. and losing..

all the sources are coming from Russian state media.. I trust them about as much as I trust MSNBC.. if they can make the extremist sound more extreme they will..

but the reality is.. not all of the Ukrainians are extremists.. most just want a free country.. without Russian tanks in their streets..

on a side note.. how does Nuland's f--- EU comment play into this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

I have a feeling like Egypt, Lybia ect. the Obama meddling has shoved another peaceful country into chaos....

but like those countries,.. I wouldn't side with gadaffy, a dictator.. or putin.. either..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Steve, I haven't checked the other thread yet, but did you read up on those that just overthrew the Ukrainian democratically elected government?

you are barking up the wrong tree here..

Chechnya and Russia have been fighting for decades now.. and losing..

all the sources are coming from Russian state media.. I trust them about as much as I trust MSNBC.. if they can make the extremist sound more extreme they will..

but the reality is.. not all of the Ukrainians are extremists.. most just want a free country.. without Russian tanks in their streets..

on a side note.. how does Nuland's f--- EU comment play into this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

I have a feeling like Egypt, Lybia ect. the Obama meddling has shoved another peaceful country into chaos....

but like those countries,.. I wouldn't side with gadaffy, a dictator.. or putin.. either..

Was it acceptable to side with Stalin?

IMO, many still have the cold war mentality about Russia. In many instances, the US is just as corrupt...especially with Barry in power.

Unfortunately, it has become a nightmare navigating the propaganda, from either side.

And with the UN in the mix, it has become even more difficult.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Was it acceptable to side with Stalin?

in my opinion no.. Germany and Russia would have fought irregardless..

all our (the allies) agreement did was turn over half of Europe to be brutalized by the USSR for decades..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
Was it acceptable to side with Stalin?

in my opinion no.. Germany and Russia would have fought irregardless..

all our (the allies) agreement did was turn over half of Europe to be brutalized by the USSR for decades..

Germany and the USSR were already fighting by the time the US decided to side with Stalin, the British, China and Canada.

In geopolitics it is ALWAYS necessary to side with "the least of your enemies", if I can call it that.

You side with the lesser threat(the underdog), to eliminate the greater threat, with hopes that your greater threat lessens the capabilities of your lesser, so you can take care of him/her later.

why do you think the US stayed out of WWII for so long? It was a great strategy.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
Was it acceptable to side with Stalin?

in my opinion no.. Germany and Russia would have fought irregardless..

all our (the allies) agreement did was turn over half of Europe to be brutalized by the USSR for decades..

Germany and the USSR were already fighting by the time the US decided to side with Stalin, the British, China and Canada.

In geopolitics it is ALWAYS necessary to side with "the least of your enemies", if I can call it that.

You side with the lesser threat(the underdog), to eliminate the greater threat, with hopes that your greater threat lessens the capabilities of your lesser, so you can take care of him/her later.

why do you think the US stayed out of WWII for so long? It was a great strategy.

if that is the case.. then we are obligated by geopolitical rules to side with the Ukraine..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
in my opinion no.. Germany and Russia would have fought irregardless..

all our (the allies) agreement did was turn over half of Europe to be brutalized by the USSR for decades..

Germany and the USSR were already fighting by the time the US decided to side with Stalin, the British, China and Canada.

In geopolitics it is ALWAYS necessary to side with "the least of your enemies", if I can call it that.

You side with the lesser threat(the underdog), to eliminate the greater threat, with hopes that your greater threat lessens the capabilities of your lesser, so you can take care of him/her later.

why do you think the US stayed out of WWII for so long? It was a great strategy.

if that is the case.. then we are obligated by geopolitical rules to side with the Ukraine..

you are always free to side with the Nazis, if you choose, or the Syrian rebels, or Libyan rebels, or Hamas, or Hezzbollah.

Your President calls the shots...
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Germany and the USSR were already fighting by the time the US decided to side with Stalin, the British, China and Canada.

In geopolitics it is ALWAYS necessary to side with "the least of your enemies", if I can call it that.

You side with the lesser threat(the underdog), to eliminate the greater threat, with hopes that your greater threat lessens the capabilities of your lesser, so you can take care of him/her later.

why do you think the US stayed out of WWII for so long? It was a great strategy.

if that is the case.. then we are obligated by geopolitical rules to side with the Ukraine..

you are always free to side with the Nazis, if you choose, or the Syrian rebels, or Libyan rebels, or Hamas, or Hezzbollah.

Your President calls the shots...

and you can kiss my ass OT
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
if that is the case.. then we are obligated by geopolitical rules to side with the Ukraine..

you are always free to side with the Nazis, if you choose, or the Syrian rebels, or Libyan rebels, or Hamas, or Hezzbollah.

Your President calls the shots...

and you can kiss my ass OT

How often has your present President been wrong on these types of decisions

why trust him on this one
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
you are always free to side with the Nazis, if you choose, or the Syrian rebels, or Libyan rebels, or Hamas, or Hezzbollah.

Your President calls the shots...

and you can kiss my ass OT

How often has your present President been wrong on these types of decisions

why trust him on this one

I don't.. I think he totally screwed this one up..

had he any understanding of Ukraine/Russian tensions.. or even looked at the Georgia / Russian conflict he would have approached this differential...

but in his usual clueless inept foreign policy blunders.. Obama has brought another nation to it's knees..

this all could have been avoided..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
I don't.. I think he totally screwed this one up..

had he any understanding of Ukraine/Russian tensions.. or even looked at the Georgia / Russian conflict he would have approached this differential...

but in his usual clueless inept foreign policy blunders.. Obama has brought another nation to it's knees..

this all could have been avoided..

It can still all be avoided...you let Russia be the king of the castle by asserting their power, over their bases and keep the Ukraine from exerting their power over the bases that they leased to Russia.

The NG and oil remains flowing and it is no more than any other military exercise.

No need for the western media to fall into the trap of helping the US gain another satelite nation.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
I don't.. I think he totally screwed this one up..

had he any understanding of Ukraine/Russian tensions.. or even looked at the Georgia / Russian conflict he would have approached this differential...

but in his usual clueless inept foreign policy blunders.. Obama has brought another nation to it's knees..

this all could have been avoided..

It can still all be avoided...you let Russia be the king of the castle by asserting their power, over their bases and keep the Ukraine from exerting their power over the bases that they leased to Russia.

The NG and oil remains flowing and it is no more than any other military exercise.

No need for the western media to fall into the trap of helping the US gain another satelite nation.

it still doesn't change the fact that Russia invaded a sovereign country..

if you had read the piece you posted you would see that Russia is using oil, NG and trade to pressure if not rule the Ukraine and make it's decision for it.. and all the agreement just drive the Ukraine into deeper debt with Russia..



either way.. Russia's actions just pissed off the world and most of the Ukrainians.
 
Top