Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Discussion of current events
User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:51 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:16 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:26 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:49 pm
Russia is clearly very worried as its empire is on the verge of cracking up.

How long can it afford to prop up the dictatorship in Kazakhstan without the oil revenue coming in from it? It was the only country jailed by Russia that made money.

Russia also has goons propping up its puppets in Donbas, the Crimea and Belarus too. This is not cheap, Russia is poor; and a large stream of Afghan refugees by land will likely cause a lot more trouble in Russia’s Near Eastern Abroad.
Thanks Milo!

By the way Sertorio: the USA does not have an "empire" abroad; only a web of alliances.

America is only able to maintain those alliances because the allied states get something from it too.
They get mostly threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave...
By all means, please list the threats, sanctions, and instructions on how to behave that Portugal has received from U.S. policymakers.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 6198
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:51 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:16 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:26 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:49 pm
Russia is clearly very worried as its empire is on the verge of cracking up.

How long can it afford to prop up the dictatorship in Kazakhstan without the oil revenue coming in from it? It was the only country jailed by Russia that made money.

Russia also has goons propping up its puppets in Donbas, the Crimea and Belarus too. This is not cheap, Russia is poor; and a large stream of Afghan refugees by land will likely cause a lot more trouble in Russia’s Near Eastern Abroad.
Thanks Milo!

By the way Sertorio: the USA does not have an "empire" abroad; only a web of alliances.

America is only able to maintain those alliances because the allied states get something from it too.
They get mostly threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave...
By all means, please list the threats, sanctions, and instructions on how to behave that Portugal has received from U.S. policymakers.
Portugal's close economic relations with China have been targeted by the US. No sanctions yet, but that may be a matter of time. And why do you think that Portugal sent troops to fight in Afghanistan? Because we love wars and think that our safety was at play in Afghanistan? Or because we didn't dare displease the US by refusing to do it?...

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Jan 12, 2022 8:36 am

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:51 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:16 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:26 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:49 pm
Russia is clearly very worried as its empire is on the verge of cracking up.

How long can it afford to prop up the dictatorship in Kazakhstan without the oil revenue coming in from it? It was the only country jailed by Russia that made money.

Russia also has goons propping up its puppets in Donbas, the Crimea and Belarus too. This is not cheap, Russia is poor; and a large stream of Afghan refugees by land will likely cause a lot more trouble in Russia’s Near Eastern Abroad.
Thanks Milo!

By the way Sertorio: the USA does not have an "empire" abroad; only a web of alliances.

America is only able to maintain those alliances because the allied states get something from it too.
They get mostly threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave...
By all means, please list the threats, sanctions, and instructions on how to behave that Portugal has received from U.S. policymakers.
Portugal's close economic relations with China have been targeted by the US. No sanctions yet, but that may be a matter of time.
In other words, nothing.
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
And why do you think that Portugal sent troops to fight in Afghanistan? Because we love wars and think that our safety was at play in Afghanistan? Or because we didn't dare displease the US by refusing to do it?...
Portugal sent fewer than 200 personnel at a time. Clearly the point was to do the bare minimum required under its NATO treaty obligations, not to curry favour with the U.S.

The bottom line is that your "threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave" claim is total bullshit.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 7789
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:26 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
Portugal's close economic relations with China have been targeted by the US.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you serious?

According to my info: in 2018 China took in but a measley 1.14% of Portugal's exports and supplied just 3.14% of your imports.
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfi ... by-country

Do you seriously call those "trade ties"? Hell, even the Low Countries are more important to Portugal as external trading partners.

When your country develops a two way trade involvement with China like that of my country.....
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/austral ... china-2020
China is Australia’s biggest trading partner for both the export and import of goods. Figures 1 and 2 below shows the dominance of China, with 39% all goods exported in 2019-20 going to China, while 27% of all goods imported were from China.
......you are most welcome to come back and talk to me about "close economic relations with China" then.

So tell me: why should the Yanks care less about Portugal's current commercial relationship with the PRC?

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 6198
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:16 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 8:36 am
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:51 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:16 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:26 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:49 pm
Russia is clearly very worried as its empire is on the verge of cracking up.

How long can it afford to prop up the dictatorship in Kazakhstan without the oil revenue coming in from it? It was the only country jailed by Russia that made money.

Russia also has goons propping up its puppets in Donbas, the Crimea and Belarus too. This is not cheap, Russia is poor; and a large stream of Afghan refugees by land will likely cause a lot more trouble in Russia’s Near Eastern Abroad.
Thanks Milo!

By the way Sertorio: the USA does not have an "empire" abroad; only a web of alliances.

America is only able to maintain those alliances because the allied states get something from it too.
They get mostly threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave...
By all means, please list the threats, sanctions, and instructions on how to behave that Portugal has received from U.S. policymakers.
Portugal's close economic relations with China have been targeted by the US. No sanctions yet, but that may be a matter of time.
In other words, nothing.
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
And why do you think that Portugal sent troops to fight in Afghanistan? Because we love wars and think that our safety was at play in Afghanistan? Or because we didn't dare displease the US by refusing to do it?...
Portugal sent fewer than 200 personnel at a time. Clearly the point was to do the bare minimum required under its NATO treaty obligations, not to curry favour with the U.S.

The bottom line is that your "threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave" claim is total bullshit.
Afghanistan is not in the North Atlantic area covered by the NATO treaty. We were not under any "treaty obligations" to send troops there. But the US asked and we obeyed...

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by Milo » Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:42 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:16 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 8:36 am
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:51 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:16 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:26 pm


Thanks Milo!

By the way Sertorio: the USA does not have an "empire" abroad; only a web of alliances.

America is only able to maintain those alliances because the allied states get something from it too.
They get mostly threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave...
By all means, please list the threats, sanctions, and instructions on how to behave that Portugal has received from U.S. policymakers.
Portugal's close economic relations with China have been targeted by the US. No sanctions yet, but that may be a matter of time.
In other words, nothing.
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
And why do you think that Portugal sent troops to fight in Afghanistan? Because we love wars and think that our safety was at play in Afghanistan? Or because we didn't dare displease the US by refusing to do it?...
Portugal sent fewer than 200 personnel at a time. Clearly the point was to do the bare minimum required under its NATO treaty obligations, not to curry favour with the U.S.

The bottom line is that your "threats, sanctions and instructions on how to behave" claim is total bullshit.
Afghanistan is not in the North Atlantic area covered by the NATO treaty. We were not under any "treaty obligations" to send troops there. But the US asked and we obeyed...
It is not where the aggressor is located that triggers Article 5, per Article 6; it is that an armed attack take place against the parties, downtown New York certainly qualifies.

What kind of a defence treaty would only protect you from attack by the signatories? Not a very good one I think! Why would you even think something so obviously stupid?
Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-ECAE8DB ... _17120.htm
It was the invocation of Article 5, the first in history, that triggered Portugal’s involvement, not some sort of ‘ask’ from ‘the US’. You’re simply making that up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#War_in_Afghanistan

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 6198
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:00 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:26 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:20 am
Portugal's close economic relations with China have been targeted by the US.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you serious?

According to my info: in 2018 China took in but a measley 1.14% of Portugal's exports and supplied just 3.14% of your imports.
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfi ... by-country

Do you seriously call those "trade ties"? Hell, even the Low Countries are more important to Portugal as external trading partners.

When your country develops a two way trade involvement with China like that of my country.....
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/austral ... china-2020
China is Australia’s biggest trading partner for both the export and import of goods. Figures 1 and 2 below shows the dominance of China, with 39% all goods exported in 2019-20 going to China, while 27% of all goods imported were from China.
......you are most welcome to come back and talk to me about "close economic relations with China" then.

So tell me: why should the Yanks care less about Portugal's current commercial relationship with the PRC?
It's not trade which is important, it is investment. China has invested in some of our biggest firms and thus controls some of our economy.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 6198
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:03 pm

Milo wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:42 pm

It is not where the aggressor is located that triggers Article 5, per Article 6; it is that an armed attack take place against the parties, downtown New York certainly qualifies.
Afghanistan was not the perpetrator of 9/11. Actually it seems the Americans themselves were...

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by Milo » Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:18 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:42 pm

It is not where the aggressor is located that triggers Article 5, per Article 6; it is that an armed attack take place against the parties, downtown New York certainly qualifies.
Afghanistan was not the perpetrator of 9/11. Actually it seems the Americans themselves were...
Afghanistan didn’t have to be the perpetrator of 9/11 to be subject to action from NATO, of course.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Another Conspiracy Theory, or Maybe Not?...

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:56 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:42 pm

It is not where the aggressor is located that triggers Article 5, per Article 6; it is that an armed attack take place against the parties, downtown New York certainly qualifies.
Afghanistan was not the perpetrator of 9/11. Actually it seems the Americans themselves were...
So you've gone full QAnon now. :lol:
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

Post Reply