[QUOTE=Rising Sun*;116285]
Scratch anybody deep enough and there’s a savage underneath.
QUOTE]
Speak for yourself! 
I seem to recall that man is today as he was 30,000 years ago, and that it is only knowledge and technology which has changed - but don’t quote me.
The base layer of the pyrimid of needs is ‘Survival-needs’, and that’s when the savage comes out in most people. The politicians never rise beyond this.
Not impossible, but improbable.
Here’sa fictionalised version - Germany is the bad guy: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/c/harold-coyle/ten-thousand.htm
Is it that photo of your honest face that you have promised to show for us in other thread Nick?
Is the gin going out of the bottle?
As distinct from your photo, which I assume was the first Russian cat into space, with the high tech crumple zone helmet to protect it on those Soviet head first hard landings?
Or does it mean the devil’s in the pussy? 
[/QUOTE]
That’s right.
So why in OP the Turkey might be in NATO but Russia no?
As for the Armenian Genocide, it’s an old event that’s not an issue that affects membership of NATO, any more than, say, internal exile and other events in the USSR are in considering Russia’s membership of NATO.
But you still think that “lunatic regime” ( that i.m agree) that deny the Holocaust and want to wipe off the Israel is much better the other one that deny the Genocide of Armenians and wipe off the all Kurds in the world?
Why in this way the USA that in fact supply the Turkey the wearpon systems and ets and provide them membership in NATO is better than the Russia that interact with Iran and agree to act together to prevent it from the own nuclear bomb?Why do you call the russian behaviour as the “help” for the Iran?But ignore the analogical US policy toward Turkey , and Isreal.
Why the “democracy” in Turkey is better then “lunatic regime” in Iran?
I’m not arguing a case for America or anyone else opposing Russia joining NATO. I’m just responding to your OP with what I see as reasons they might have against Russia joining NATO.
All those 'reasons" are biased.
You agree yourself that today the NATO has a members that could creat more problem in future for the safety of the Europe that the hypotetic “Russian threat” today.
Russia actually defends its interests ( as and any other normal country in the world) but we always ready and open for the interaction and partnership with NATO.
I don’t have a solution to the Middle East problems, any more than anyone else does, because there isn’t one. The region is full of primitive arseholes who’d destroy the whole world in pursuit of their stupid bloody religions (as apparently are up to 70 million American Christian fuckwits whose support for Bush is directly related to the current problems in the Middle East which flow from support for Israel http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml) and tribal claims and disputes about who’s the true descendant of Mohammed and whingeing about how what the Nazis did in Germany a few generations ago entitles the Zionists (as distinct from Jews and Israelis) to keep doing the same to the poor bloody Palestinians and everybody else within range of Israel and how Islamic suicide bombers are going to get a zillion bloody virgins in heaven, blah blah blah. FFS! If stupidity was oil in that part of the world, Peak Oil would be a risk only if their birth rate dropped, and we’d be buying petrol now for five cents a litre.
Inserting America’s current irrational aggression into that irrational mix is just a recipe for more irrational disaster, Which might well be the source of the next great war which involves European nations.
absolutly agree here.
But you say that the Russa that opposed the Washington and critize its policy ( as well as and some of the european states) - this is a reason to keep russia outside NATO?
As you see even the USA make the things that creat a new problems for the whole world in the Middle East- Why in this way you dislike the ONLY Russian policy toward Iran?
As for Iraqi Freedon Part 2, here’s why it’s not just about Iran’s nuclear capacity (a lot of which is really about stopping Iran getting power to nuke Israel, which - or at least the threat of which - might be something that shouldn’t be stopped as turning Israel into a glowing car park would get rid of a festering sore that’s going to keep getting worse as long as the Zionists maintain the attitude they’ve had for close to a century) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
Personally, I’m sick to bloody death of the lot of them. They’re all as bad as each other, and that goes for America and Russia too as far as their international conduct in the Middle East is concerned.
I/m too sick of that Middle East conflict that seems exist just to get zionist additional reasons to reach its own aims.So is this a reason of biased relation toward russia?
Guys!
I can see you have fun in hereas always. I do appreciate it! Keep on the good arguing spirit! I am with you! I do!
Just two side notes for you:
[ol]
[li]On the contrary on what you hear in the media, the Iranian president NEVER said that he wants to erase Israel from the map. He only quoted another guy who said so. And his rethorics are against Israely goverment, not the israely people.[/li][li]The Iranian president does NOT deny Holocaust. He says it has been exhagerated. It is a big difference![/li][/ol]
Heil to the mass media! The most mass media in the world!
Who knows?
Turkey was an Allied enemy in WWI.
Russia sent an expeditionary force to France in WWI (which the French duly shelled when the Russians went a bit Bolshie).
After the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Russia (Murmansk, Archangel, Vladivostok) was invaded by mixtures of British (i.e. Imperial), French, American and Japanese troops.
Japan was an Ally in WWI.
The USSR was an Ally in WWII, despite being invaded by most of the Allies after Russia left WWI.
Nothing makes sense when politicians are involved.
But you still think that “lunatic regime” ( that i.m agree) that deny the Holocaust and want to wipe off the Israel is much better the other one that deny the Genocide of Armenians and wipe off the all Kurds in the world?
I don’t think Turkey’s been quite as definite as that, but if it comes to a choice betweent the Kurds and Israel about getting rid of the biggest threat to world peace, and the biggest internatoinal pains in the arse for their small size and internatonal irrelevance and lack of value, the Kurds can sleep happy.
Why in this way the USA that in fact supply the Turkey the wearpon systems and ets and provide them membership in NATO is better than the Russia that interact with Iran and agree to act together to prevent it from the own nuclear bomb?Why do you call the russian behaviour as the “help” for the Iran?But ignore the analogical US policy toward Turkey , and Isreal.
Why the “democracy” in Turkey is better then “lunatic regime” in Iran?
I never said the NATO / US position was better. Better is meaningless in international relations as any sort of general standard as all nations determine ‘better’ only by what is better for them. Pretty much as most, but not all, people do.
I just put forward the obvious reasons why the NATO crew wouldn’t be too keen on Russia joining NATO.
All those 'reasons" are biased.
Of course they are.
As are Russia’s and Israel’s and Inner Mongolia’s, if it still exists.
You didn’t start this thread as an objective observer from the Tongan Centre for Dispassionate World Studies, but as a Russian who’s not happy with the way Russia’s being treated.
It’s all about self-interest and national interest, which is why no nation of any significance gives a shit about the most appalling massacres in the Horn of Africa and other parts of black Africa which specialise in butchery that makes Yugoslavia look restrained, compared with the huge but pointless efforts of all the major nations over half a century to encourage a few million fairly unimportant Israelis to behave like civilised human beings, while completely ignoring the legitimate complaints of the displaced and dispossed Palestinians.
For whatever reason, blacks in Rwanda and Somalia and Angola and Zimbabwe etc aren’t worthy of one one hundredth of the effort the major natons have put into frigging about in the UN with an intransigent Israel for half a century.
Or, given you mentioned the poor bloody Kurds, nobody gave a shit about them after GWI when the Americans encouraged them to rise up against Hussein and then abandoned the poor bastards to be slaughtered by the great evil monster that America knew him to be, despite funding and supplying him with weapons for years.
And why are the Kurds a problem? Because the British and French and Turks carved them up into the bits they could wrest from the Ottoman Empire, for the benefit of each of those nations without regard to the Kurds’ interests.
You agree yourself that today the NATO has a members that could creat more problem in future for the safety of the Europe that the hypotetic “Russian threat” today.
I didn’t say that.
Letting Russia into NATO would be like letting a vampire into the bloodbank.
And that is my personal opinion.
Russia has a long way to go before it reaches the level of democracy and commitment to human rights and various other things before it can operate on the same level as, say, Germany, France and Britain.
As you see even the USA make the things that creat a new problems for the whole world in the Middle East- Why in this way you dislike the ONLY Russian policy toward Iran?
Again, I was only outlining the American / NATO reasons I can see for not wanting Russia in NATO.
My personal opinion is that America is a far bigger threat to world peace than Russia or any other single country, and has been since they elected that brain dead fuckwit Bush Jnr (although they couldn’t foresee that they’d have that moron in charge to respond to 9/11).
A lot of people outside America agree on that. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252 And check out what Turks think! Not to mention fascist Russians who are more fond of America than Western Europeans!
America’s, and the world’s, problem in recent years is that it lacks the USSR. When the Yanks thought there was a risk that your lot might nuke them if they went too far, they were more restrained. Since your lot self-destructed, there’s no big tough kid on the block to chest the other bully, so the other bully’s got carried away with its ability to steal lunch money from the little kids it doesn’t like.
Before any Americans get stuck into me, think about the checks and balances built into your own constitution and how important they are in regulating your society, then contrast that with the absence of equivalent checks and balances internationally where America can often make its own rules.
I/m too sick of that Middle East conflict that seems exist just to get zionist additional reasons to reach its own aims.So is this a reason of biased relation toward russia?
Nah.
Our bias against Russians is purely because they’re Russians. ;)
Mate, that looks suspiciously like shit stirring. 
shit-stirrer n. a teaser; a person who enjoys stirring up trouble. Hence, shit-stirring, adj., n.
1971 Frank Hardy The Outcasts of Foolgarah ix. 88 That’d be him, thought the Dean, a shit-stirrer from way back, trouble is he stirs more shit against us than the class enemy these days.
ibid. xiii. 185 'They should keep you in there ‘cause you bin shit-stirrer,’ then seriously, ‘I bin get letter from Aboriginal Affairs Department, Tom’s got it, bin say I gotta go back North to Reserve.’
ibid. viii. 91 'Come on, Tich, old mate, we’ll go and do a bit of shit-stirring amongst the
shitties.’
1979 Sam Weller Old Bastards I Have Met 56 But when they get under the control of radical, power-happy, limelighting bloody shit-stirrers, they’re dangerous.
1981 David Foster Moonlite xx. 197 And now, as if there weren’t enough trouble, Pommie shit stirrers wielding socialist paddles have got the men wanting more pay for less work.
1983 Union Recorder (Sydney) 4 Oct 7 When Munro and some of his ‘radical half-caste activists and shit-stirring’ friends objected in 1975 to being barred, because of the colour of their skin, from a Moree Hotel, it led to the widely and sensationally reported Moree rampages.
1987 Rodney Hall Kisses of the Enemy IV. xl. 508 The shit-stirrers are at work[.]
http://www.anu.edu.au/andc/res/LambertonAND.php
I have to ask: why would Russia want to join NATO?
Yeah, well, that’s like saying Christian legislators opposed to abortion aren’t really opposed to it because they’re quoting some other guy called Christ (Who as I recall didn’t say anything about abortion, despite hanging around with a sinful woman. The first person who wants to carry on about Mary Magdelene and Elisabeth and Rebekah and the Greek word baby in the new and old testaments respectively can start another thread, which I might well ignore.)
Here’s what the Arab press thought he said
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
I may be missing something here, but if iran’s Ahmin thingy is going to wipe Israel off the map, doesn’t that suggest that maybe the Israeli people might cop a bit of a scorching?
The Iranian president does NOT deny Holocaust. He says it has been exhagerated. It is a big difference!
I don’t think so.
The press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6945933,00.html
A more academic view
http://www.meforum.org/article/1704
Well there is at least ONE reason - economical.
Being in NATO we could cut off our military budget, limit the army and finally forget about lack of trust in past- and we could be the organic part of Europe ( that is in fact we are).
Besides being in EU we could far more easy interact and coperate with the west- we could supply it by the resorces and provide the Great inner market.
From any side the Russian integration into the West would bring the profit for eveybody.
The possible resault of economical cooperation should be wery great and impressive- the Russian resoaurces could help the Europe reach the World economic leadership ( the place that EU should take in definition).
Sure someheads in other part of the world do not wish it:)
But is this the reason for us to bury the great EU future due to the old cold war fears and prejudices?
True, but would it suit the oligarchs?
And Mr Putin, who is either the poorest or richest leader on the European continent.
http://accidentalrussophile.blogspot.com/2008/01/pauper-or-oligarch-strange-case-of.html
I think it would make sense for Russia to join the E.U., arguably, the best way to overcome prejudices.
Perhaps, Russian resources coupled with E.U. technology would not only provide economic benefits, but also those of an environmetal nature.
We British have problems with relinquishing our sovereignty, as do other member sates. Has Russia the ‘mindset’ to transcend these problems in its preparation to become a member, or would it just create further internal, political problems within Russia?
The all problem could be solved indeed in a future.The main problem is that west even do not wish do something, or even include the Russian in the list of states that COULD be joined to EU.
I/m sure the inner political problem in russian is no more hard that in other states- for instant the separatism is the common problem of many state in Europe.
Besides i.m sure our population would happy of this idea( to join into the EU)- this could creat the additional reason to reform our society more quickly and effective.Coz in this way we could simply take the EU laws as a basis.
This however do not mean that Russia alone would benefit it- the west also would get the profit.
I think we need just politicl will for it.
In this way neither “political tensions” with Britain could not influe at the EU future.
Sure it would.We could send tham all to the Syberia if you wish:)
I think it would make sense for all nations to join together for their mutual benefit.
Don’t we all?
But in the meantime, while I’m waiting for nations to recognise what’s mutually beneficial, I’m going to focus on something realistic, like making my donger a seventeen inch (don’t know metric equivalent and don’t care) weapon of mass destruction just by wishing.
I wish.
Just the Russian ones?
Or can we send some arseholes from the West?
Starting with Rupert Murdoch. He used to be an Aussie before money made him be a Yank. :twisted:
Never underestimate the power of wishing.
I’m going for eighteen, now that seventeen’s been achieved. :mrgreen:
Do I detect a slight note of cynicism, or are you merely highlighting my naivety, mon petite pois?
I am not saying that Mr.Ahmadinedjad is a lamb. He is far from that. But it does not mean that it makes sense to paint it all one color as the mass media does. In this case black color.
I am saying that he is against the Israel as a state. They do not want Israel to exist as a state, i.e. political power. But they are not saying that it means that the Jews as people should be wiped out.
There is a large Jewinsh community present in Iran and they even have the parlament representative. So there is no need to twist the picture more than it is already twisted.
The press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6945933,00.html
A more academic view
http://www.meforum.org/article/1704
Please do not mix Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism. The first is bolox, the second one is a way to research.
Though in the modern world, thanks to the biased people (some of them are biased for a good reasons, some others not) as well as media, the world revisionism was forced to aquire only the negative meaning. Wheras in fact it should be understood as research.
Ahmadinedjad officially is for revisionism, not for denial.