Russia's 650 billion dollar rearmament plan

[revelations12_12]

With Russia's $650 billion rearmament plan, the bear sharpens its teeth - Yahoo! News

Moscow – The graying bear is getting a make-over. Russia's military is launching its biggest rearmament effort since Soviet times, including a $650 billion program to procure 1,000 new helicopters, 600 combat planes, 100 warships, and 8 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.

Lets not forget China and Russia signed an agreement to no longer trade with each other using the US dollar... lots of saber rattling coming from the worlds super powers...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-11/24/content_11599087.htm

China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday.

 

[Harry3142]

That's supposed to surprise us? I've been expecting this for awhile now.

Unlike the USA, where history is something to be tolerated rather than studied, the Russians study avidly their history. That history includes what happened in Germany in the years leading up to the war that cost Russia 20 million of its people. They have studied how Hitler and his henchmen succeeded in attaining power in a democratic nation, only to turn it into the worst dictatorship recorded in history.

And they're seeing it happen again, only this time it's happening here in the USA. Special-interest organizations are attacking the U.S. Constitution, claiming that it is either outdated and should be set aside in preference to a more 'progressive' manifesto, or that, if left in place, should be 'overseen' by a group of people who would themselves decide whether a particular part of it is still to be seen as binding.

The constitution, so long as it is accepted as it has been written, guarantees the rights and freedoms of all within the borders of the USA, as well as the safety of other nations. So long as its limitations are accepted, other nations know that we will not mount a pre-emptory strike against them. The 'checks and balances' in the document forbid that from happening.

But if an elitist group that sees the constitution as something to be set aside or manipulated to serve their own ends attains sufficient power in this country, that protection is null and void. From that point on, any other country could very well be subject to attack, and they know it. They see the constitution as their protection against our military might, and the persistent attacks on it from every direction internally has given them cause to worry.

Even as Stalin was agreeing to the non-agression pact with Germany he knew that all it did was 'buy time' for him and Russia to prepare for war. He had no illusions that Hitler would honor the treaty. Russia's natural resources were too vast. There was too much land there suitable for cultivation. There were too many different minerals there to be mined. There was too much oil there to be used in German industiries, as well as military vehicles and weaponry. And those natural resources are still there in abundance today. We know that, and the Russians know that we know it.

The Russians will never permit themselves to be caught in such a weakened position as they were when Hitler began his conquest of Europe. It cost them too dearly, both in lives lost and cities destroyed. And that was with conventional weapons only. So they look at the USA and all its groups attempting to subvert the U. S. Constitution to their wants and desires, they see some of those same groups attaining a power that they did not earn and should not have, and they say to themselves, "It's time to prepare for what we see coming."

 

[new_wine]

The current constitution needs to be scrapped and made anew.

It no longer functions for our current republic. It has not since the coming of the industrial revolution.

We need a new one. One based on our current society. We should have representation across economic groups not from one group only or by old ideologies of the 18th century. We should hold elections not on Tuesdays which suited farmers in the 1800's but on weekends when most people have off. We should move to a meritocratic form of government and not the current cronyism.

There are many things that need to change in how the system runs. We cannot do it with the current document.

That's supposed to surprise us? I've been expecting this for awhile now.

Unlike the USA, where history is something to be tolerated rather than studied, the Russians study avidly their history. That history includes what happened in Germany in the years leading up to the war that cost Russia 20 million of its people. They have studied how Hitler and his henchmen succeeded in attaining power in a democratic nation, only to turn it into the worst dictatorship recorded in history.

And they're seeing it happen again, only this time it's happening here in the USA. Special-interest organizations are attacking the U.S. Constitution, claiming that it is either outdated and should be set aside in preference to a more 'progressive' manifesto, or that, if left in place, should be 'overseen' by a group of people who would themselves decide whether a particular part of it is still to be seen as binding.

The constitution, so long as it is accepted as it has been written, guarantees the rights and freedoms of all within the borders of the USA, as well as the safety of other nations. So long as its limitations are accepted, other nations know that we will not mount a pre-emptory strike against them. The 'checks and balances' in the document forbid that from happening.

But if an elitist group that sees the constitution as something to be set aside or manipulated to serve their own ends attains sufficient power in this country, that protection is null and void. From that point on, any other country could very well be subject to attack, and they know it. They see the constitution as their protection against our military might, and the persistent attacks on it from every direction internally has given them cause to worry.

Even as Stalin was agreeing to the non-agression pact with Germany he knew that all it did was 'buy time' for him and Russia to prepare for war. He had no illusions that Hitler would honor the treaty. Russia's natural resources were too vast. There was too much land there suitable for cultivation. There were too many different minerals there to be mined. There was too much oil there to be used in German industiries, as well as military vehicles and weaponry. And those natural resources are still there in abundance today. We know that, and the Russians know that we know it.

The Russians will never permit themselves to be caught in such a weakened position as they were when Hitler began his conquest of Europe. It cost them too dearly, both in lives lost and cities destroyed. And that was with conventional weapons only. So they look at the USA and all its groups attempting to subvert the U. S. Constitution to their wants and desires, they see some of those same groups attaining a power that they did not earn and should not have, and they say to themselves, "It's time to prepare for what we see coming."

 

[Harry3142]

New Wine-

The current constitution is the end result of a successful fight against a ruler who was quite literally going mad due to a congenital condition and a parliament that was made up primarily of an elitist class who saw 'The Colonies" as only a source for increasing their own wealth. If you read that document from its beginning to the last word of the 10th amendment, you will be reading the insurance against this country's ever coming under that threat again, either externally or internally.

The men who wrote the constitution had seen the tactics which a tyrant uses in order to maintain, solidify, and increase his power. They didn't have to read about it in books written by authors 200 years after the fact; they were so close to the actual occurrences that they could still remember the faces of those who had conspired to rule rather than represent. To counter the ability of anyone to attempt this in the future, they wrote a constitution which ordered that power be spread over three different systems (legislative, executive, and judicial) so that no one group could ever have the power necessary to seize total control of this nation.

At the same time, they provided for changes in our societal makeup by writing a constitution that other amendments could be added to as the situations progressed forward into the present day. Nothing of what you have said needs a new document; if considered important to change, an amendment can be added to this document, making the necessary changes and/or updates.

But I am not so naive as to think that those who would advocate 'scrapping' our constitution are doing so out of altruistic leanings. If you want to see what happens when a constitution is done away with you need look no farther back in time than Germany and the rise of the Nazi party. What they accomplished is what really happens when you toss out the entire democratic foundation rather than simply correcting or updating some of its particulars.

 

[tulc]

Wow...did this thread get Godwined in the second post?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[new_wine]

And if you can't see that since the 1880s that the nation is being ruler by an elite group of Plutocrats funded by wealthy corporations so they can increase their own wealth and don;t see parallels to the colonial times; well you are not watching carefully.

And other nations changed their constitutions entirely and do fine. So your argument of Germany is only one point of view.

There are people on both sides that would like to make a new government for good and bad reasons. Just like there are people that would keep it because it is either tradition to do so or to maintain the status quo so they can continue to abuse the system.

And we are hardly democratic. Especially when a small percentage choose whom will be elected, a small minority goes the polls to cull the list to two and a small group vote consistently for those two.

People do not believe their vote counts anymore, because the majority of citizens are not being represented as their representation is not made up of themselves.

New Wine-

The current constitution is the end result of a successful fight against a ruler who was quite literally going mad due to a congenital condition and a parliament that was made up primarily of an elitist class who saw 'The Colonies" as only a source for increasing their own wealth. If you read that document from its beginning to the last word of the 10th amendment, you will be reading the insurance against this country's ever coming under that threat again, either externally or internally.

The men who wrote the constitution had seen the tactics which a tyrant uses in order to maintain, solidify, and increase his power. They didn't have to read about it in books written by authors 200 years after the fact; they were so close to the actual occurrences that they could still remember the faces of those who had conspired to rule rather than represent. To counter the ability of anyone to attempt this in the future, they wrote a constitution which ordered that power be spread over three different systems (legislative, executive, and judicial) so that no one group could ever have the power necessary to seize total control of this nation.

At the same time, they provided for changes in our societal makeup by writing a constitution that other amendments could be added to as the situations progressed forward into the present day. Nothing of what you have said needs a new document; if considered important to change, an amendment can be added to this document, making the necessary changes and/or updates.

But I am not so naive as to think that those who would advocate 'scrapping' our constitution are doing so out of altruistic leanings. If you want to see what happens when a constitution is done away with you need look no farther back in time than Germany and the rise of the Nazi party. What they accomplished is what really happens when you toss out the entire democratic foundation rather than simply correcting or updating some of its particulars.

 

[Harry3142]

New Wine-

I have voted since 1968's general election. I have never been told that I must obtain permission from someone else to vote, nor have I ever been told that I must explain to someone else why I voted as I did.

When I have entered the polling booth I have seen numerous candidates from a variety of political parties listed for me to select from. I have never had anyone tell me that I must vote for a certain party's candidates irregardless of the selection, nor have I been told that only 2 parties are to be seen as permissible to vote for. My choice has been freely selected by myself, with no interference from others.

I have seen the argument used before that our entire system of government must be scrapped and then replaced by a 'more progressive' one. But in each and every case where I have seen that argument it has always been accompanied with the claim that the person or group in support of the argument is to have sole authority for creating this more progressive society. It stands out as glaringly as the sun on a cloudless day that the true purpose of their preaching that we are to scrap what we have now has nothing whatsoever to do with the improvement of government. Rather, it has to do with the desire of some to rule over all others absolutely, and their determination to accomplish just that.

Our government is not perfect, because man is not perfect. The founders of this nation knew that, and set checks-and-balances deliberately to safeguard the people against the desires of some to abolish one kingship only to establish another. If one branch of our government decides that the laws as they are written do not apply to them or their group, there are two other branches of government that they must answer to for their actions. Our constitution has made it impossible for any one branch to become so powerful as to be capable of crushing any and all opposition to their goals.

When the U.S. Constitution was written it was not done out of a belief that all the problems of government would be solved then-and-there. Instead, its purpose was, and still is, to be the protector of individual liberties. The dividing of government into three seperate branches, with none of them subordinate to the other, guaranteed that no one branch would become another ruling order. The first 10 amendments, known to us as The Bill of Rights, guaranteed that the tyranny that had enveloped the citizens of this country just a few years earlier could never happen again without the perpetrators' being answerable to the very people they sought to subjugate.

Since then there have been numerous amendments added to that constitution. But its basic guarantee of the right of the individual to live his own life in the absence of fear has always been recognized by the citizens of this country, as well as the citizens of other countries, as sacred. We know that so long as others propose laws and/or amendments which update the constitution, while leaving its basic tenets of separation of power and individual liberties alone, that we can rest easily. But we are not so ignorant, or so naive, as to think that anyone would desire to detroy that basic structure for any purpose other than to centralize power in themselves, while subjugating all others through the deliberate denial of those very liberties that our founding fathers saw as so important that they wrote them down and made them the official foundation of this nation.