Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineCrumist
Stranger
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Brian Jones]
    #23568215 - 08/23/16 06:16 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
He made his fortune the way all Russian oligarchs made their fortunes; when the Soviet Union turned capitalist, high ranking officials got huge shares of the newly privatized companies.  In order to increase his wealth, Russian companies would need to do well (I don't think his current sub $200,000/year salary is making him rich).




He, his family, and his close friends make lots of money on the decisions of Putin's government. In the US we would call that bald-faced corruption, but Ive read that in Russia it is simply seen as the cherry on top of being President/dictator. I suppose no foul there. He has totally messed up Russia's strives towards democracy though, what with taking three extra terms and playing dirty with the competition.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Please reread this post and then correct any mistakes or omissions so I better undersand "Russian Aggression".

Perhaps the issue is I figured you were talking about the armed conflict as the "coup" as I understand a coup as where the military takes over the gov't, sometimes as an agent of a political faction. The Ukrainian military mostly refrained from partaking in the 2014 Maidan revolution, but was otherwise under the command of Yanukovych. I am sure the CIA and Euro spy agencies were encouraging Euro Maidan, but the eventual admittedly illegal removal of Yanukovych must have been a result of his brutish crackdown on the student protests. You skip over the details of the protest and just point out that Crimea was traditionally Russian. THe gist is: students gather to celebrate trade deal with the EU, Yanukovych says "jinks!" fuck the EU, Im going to sign deals with Russia instead, disappointed students protest, police assault square with clubs, fatalities, but ultimately they are repelled [url=trailer of "Winter On Fire" a good, but admitedly pro-Ukraine and therefore pro-West perspective. The film has good footage of Maidan 1st]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RibAQHeDia8[/url], the protestors erect baracades, un-uniformed Russian special forces aggression (as was suspected and as has been since admitted) support police and infiltrate the protest, escalation until eventually the police are using live ammunition aggression. Cease-fire called, Yanukovych runs away to Russia, Russian troops occupy Crimea aggression. They do have the naval base, but this was clearly an occupation, not exercises.

Again, I admit Obama and Merkle were probably all for Euro-Maidan as Russia supports Occupy Wall Street and BLM, but you can't incite all those citizens to fight the armored Berkut with fisticuffs, or a man with an assault rifle with stones and captured riot gear.


Quote:

Crumist said:
Russia's military action in Syria against US friendly and soft civilian targets is reprehensible and greatly complicates, rather than assists the handling of ISIS.



Do you mean their attacks against ISIS are hurting ISIS's chances of taking out Assad?

That is objectively true, but as there are many parties to the conflict in Syria, bombing the Kurds and groups that are both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS have lost us ground against ISIS.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Warming Russian-Iranian relations also slams shut the opportunity for the United States to do the same.



Perhaps.  But why do you think Iran (and now Turkey) are warming up to Russia rather than to the US?




Honestly, because I feel the US propaganda machine is at a low point and Russias is back in its prime. The US gets blamed for the Turkey coup and the president doesn't as much as make a timely statement?


--------------------
'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion
Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Brian Jones]
    #23568866 - 08/23/16 11:19 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Sorry long post.
    I don't understand the theme of this post at all. Are the people on here so young? The USSR/Russia has been our enemy since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. There were only two breaks in our animosity towards them.
    At the beginning of WWII, Hitler and Stalin made a nonaggression pact. Hitler violated it and attacked the USSR (big mistake). We then became allies with the Soviet Union, and they basically won the war in Europe, as 80% of the German divisions were on the Eastern Front. The Russians took more casualties than any other country. As the war ended, we were very worried about their expansionism (as opposed to ours) Some of our top military brass wanted to attack them immediately. We proved we had the bomb in Japan, and we weren't sure if they did or not. The centrists (I think Eisenhower and Truman, but I'm not sure) prevailed saying we were tired of war. The Soviets took control of Eastern Europe and other satellite countries. We rebuilt Western Europe and took control of the Pacific basin, because we won the war there and defeated Japan.
    This was followed by the Cold War, when for decades both sides built nuclear missiles as fast as they possibly could. The Soviets knew our missiles were more accurate then ours so they built more than we had to compensate. They also built tanks in immense numbers, presumably for an attack on Western Europe. This scared the shit out of us because we could only defend a tank attack on Europe by using nukes which would probably result in the end of the world. Western Europe became very pacifistic and Social Democrat economically. They were on our side, and were protected by us, but they knew if anything happened they would be the victims, and historically they were much more scarred by war then we were. When Reagan got elected (he may or may not deserve the credit)he decided to outspend the Soviets economically. The Soviets could keep up with us militarily, but since our economy was so much more vibrant, they couldn't provide any comfort to their people, and life was shit in a police state in USSR and Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe, earlier, rebellions were staged and put down in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and later towards the end in Poland.
      This was when Mikhael Gorbachev, a visionary leader, somehow got control of the Soviet Union and convinced them their communist system could not be sustained. It was gradual process. Andropov was the Soviet leader and started to reform the system, but he died, and then they put in another hardliner, and then Gorbachev took control and with his allies talked the Soviet Union out of communism.
    This was the only other time we weren't enemies with the Russians. The Gorbachev revolution eliminated communism and freed the satellites and all the non Russian republics (many Muslim). Most of the world was ecstatic, and it did end up good for the Eastern European satellites, except Yugoslavia which had a horrific civil war.
    The U.S., in a fit of naivety thought everything was hunky dory. Russia was capitalist and free and they would be just like us. While the world was in love with Gorbachev, the Russians grew tired of not being a military superpower, and pushed him out, which was followed by Boris Yeltsin, who I could never form an opinion of. He seemed like a drunken good time Charlie, reminded me of Bill Clinton somewhat. This lead to Putin. The Russian people like power and they like a strong boss, even if he is a really bad man (like Stalin). Putin was a KGB officer and a trained thug. Since he took power Russia was on an expansion craze to take back what they had. We have felt threatened by them ever since, and they act the way they do because they feel threatened by us.
    At any rate the U.S. and Russia have been enemies for most of the last 100 years.



I generally agree with your post, up until the end where you said "the Russian people like power and they like a strong boss, even if he is a really bad man (like Stalin)."  Now THAT'S what I call propaganda, unless you can show Putin is "like Stalin", who killed millions of Russian citizens, or prove he "is a really bad man".

You also said "Since he took power Russia was on an expansion craze".  PLEASE help me understand this expansion craze - the only expansion I'm aware of is NATO expanding towards Russia (unless you count Crimea, which overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia and did so without a single military casualty.)


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Crumist]
    #23569051 - 08/23/16 12:45 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

I just realized I missed part of your previous post, because your new comments were formatted to appear as my old comments.  I'll respond to those first.

Quote:

Crumist said:
You do know he is ex-KGB/once KGB always KGB.



Huh?  What does that mean?  Now that's propaganda if I ever saw it.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Has it gotten as bad as US elections where non-establishment candidates are prevented from winning?



Yes, Russia prohibits observers, harasses voters, and has a turnout around 30%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Russia#criticism_of%20recent_elections



All of the above have been observed in US elections as well (let me know if you want a link).  I know many people living in Russia, none of whom see any of the above when they vote.  But see the next comment below.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91W said:
I just visited Moscow this year and was surprised by the amount of anti-Putin journalism there.  The press is much freer than we give them credit for.



Anecdotes are nice, but watchdog groups are better, 148 out of 197 according to Freedom House, US is 30 for comparison.



I agree that watchdog groups are nice, but not Freedom House.
Quote:

Freedom House ranks Russia's political rights on the same level as the United Arab Emirates, which, according to Freedom House, is a federation of absolute monarchies with no hint of democracy anywhere in the system. Freedom House also ranks Russia's civil liberties on the same scale as those of Yemen. In Yemen, according to the constitution, Sharia law is the only source of legislation, and allows assaults and killings of women for alleged immoral behaviour. Criticising the president is illegal in Yemen. Treisman contrasts Freedom House's ranking with the Polity IV scale used by academics and in which Russia has a much better score.

On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate."

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have criticized the organization for excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to regimes supportive of US interests. For example, Freedom House described the Rhodesian general election of 1979 as "fair", but described the Southern Rhodesian 1980 elections as "dubious", and it found El Salvador's 1982 election to be "admirable".




Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Crumist said:
And the US might have tacitly supported the Ukrainian reaction, but Ukraine's last unified election wasn't up to standards and Russia literally invaded and began hostilities. Russia had the coup



More imagination and make believe, or can you support this with evidence?




http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/timeline-ukraine-political-crisis-201431143722854652.html



Can you be specific, as that timeline appears to support my point of view?

Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Even Russia helped us in Afghanistan by sharing intelligence and allowing logistical and military supplies through Russian territory.



Sure, but my point was our NATO allies have always backed us when called upon. How could we abandon them at their moment of need?



Please explain what you mean by "their moment of need"?

Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
He made his fortune the way all Russian oligarchs made their fortunes; when the Soviet Union turned capitalist, high ranking officials got huge shares of the newly privatized companies.  In order to increase his wealth, Russian companies would need to do well (I don't think his current sub $200,000/year salary is making him rich).



He, his family, and his close friends make lots of money on the decisions of Putin's government. In the US we would call that bald-faced corruption



Please cite the specifics of how Putin is doing this, and stop with the propaganda.

Quote:

Crumist said:
He has totally messed up Russia's strives towards democracy though, what with taking three extra terms and playing dirty with the competition.



He has a favorability rating of 80%+.  Of course he's getting reelected.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Please reread this post and then correct any mistakes or omissions so I better undersand "Russian Aggression".



Perhaps the issue is I figured you were talking about the armed conflict as the "coup" as I understand a coup as where the military takes over the gov't, sometimes as an agent of a political faction.



I don't see military in the definition of a coup:
Quote:

a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.




Quote:

Crumist said:
I am sure the CIA and Euro spy agencies were encouraging Euro Maidan, but the eventual admittedly illegal removal of Yanukovych must have been a result of his brutish crackdown on the student protests. You skip over the details of the protest and just point out that Crimea was traditionally Russian. THe gist is: students gather to celebrate trade deal with the EU, Yanukovych says "jinks!" fuck the EU, Im going to sign deals with Russia instead, disappointed students protest, police assault square with clubs, fatalities, but ultimately they are repelled [url=trailer of "Winter On Fire" a good, but admitedly pro-Ukraine and therefore pro-West perspective. The film has good footage of Maidan 1st]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RibAQHeDia8[/url], the protestors erect baracades, un-uniformed Russian special forces aggression (as was suspected and as has been since admitted) support police and infiltrate the protest, escalation until eventually the police are using live ammunition aggression. Cease-fire called, Yanukovych runs away to Russia, Russian troops occupy Crimea aggression. They do have the naval base, but this was clearly an occupation, not exercises.

Again, I admit Obama and Merkle were probably all for Euro-Maidan as Russia supports Occupy Wall Street and BLM, but you can't incite all those citizens to fight the armored Berkut with fisticuffs, or a man with an assault rifle with stones and captured riot gear.



So you're saying that when George Bush had an approval rating of 22%, it would have been ok to violently oust him from power rather than wait for the next election???  :facepalm:

Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Do you mean their attacks against ISIS are hurting ISIS's chances of taking out Assad?



That is objectively true, but as there are many parties to the conflict in Syria, bombing the Kurds and groups that are both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS have lost us ground against ISIS.



We should just step back and let Russia finish off ISIS, as they're doing a much better job than the US.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 3 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #23569109 - 08/23/16 01:08 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Thats because the West is either indirectly or directly supporting ISIS.


I think we're using Erdogan to funnel weapons into Syria. Wikileaks all but confirms this.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #23569864 - 08/23/16 05:44 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Red Scare stopped working to keep the public frightened, so they switched it up to terrorists, and now that people have become somewhat inured to the dangers of terrorism, boom, back to the scary Russians.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrumist
Stranger
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: ballsalsa]
    #23570202 - 08/23/16 07:06 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Nope, not going to quote your post and go point by point. You win infinite internet points by reason of poster laziness. Haha

Aww damn it, here I go again, :

Quote:

let me know if you'd like a link


yes please.

You ask I provide all these links I feel are quite readily found and post few yourself. I check your claims myself. Then I feel you avoid my now cited arguments to knit pick elsewhere and accuse me of making things up.

Good catch with freedom house, that was Wikipedia's default. Rsf.org reporters without borders have US 41, Ukraine 107 Russia 148. These are (as were the FH figures) press freedom rankings, sorry if that wasn't clear.

I was trying to point out that we understood different events as being the coup. You say the ouster of Yanukovych was the coup, I'd call it a revolution. I was thinking the desertion of Ukraine forces to fight for Donetsk or Crimea being the coup. Either way, we are talking about Feb. 23 2014. Russia doesn't admit to having troops in Ukraine at this point, but there were plenty of Federal Security Service (FSB) "advisors" going back to December '13. The FSB's implication in key kidnappings, murders, and sniper attacks is rumors, as are any US involvement in Ukraine. Prove to me the 2014 revolution was a foreign plot in opposition to Ukrainian ideals.

There is only a bit more information about Putin's finances (imagine the POTUS not having to disclose and divest every minute financial detail) Perhaps it is all propaganda, but I didn't make it up, the NYT, again, and Reuters, and Telegraph and some German paper did. I only skimmed the articles, and most of it is real boring dry stuff, but in the USA anything remotely close to this is !!corruption!! Here we worry about Exon-Mobile's influence purchased with a donation. In Putin's Russia, Gazprom's CEO is the head of state with all the insider trading tips and a cadre of industry barons he bestows favors upon.

By Estonia or Lithuania's moment of need, I mean I understand these former Soviet states enjoy their independence but are terrified by Russia's involvement in 13 conflicts in former ssr's and now annexation. And a new faction in us politics that approves military conquest, corrupt elections, press suppression, opposition suppression.  Yes, the US has been in many more conflicts in that time frame, but Im not currently making a morality judgment of such conflicts (truly though, they suck) but trying to illustrate how really fucking scared the tiny Baltic countries are.

Im all for "self determination" and agree with Donetsk independence and Crimea going to Russia, but it was done all wrong. Russia violently occupies Crimea and holds a referendum over the opposition of nearly the entire international community. Both options on the ballot lead to a Russian annexation of Crimea and again, the region is under foreign occupation. The justification is concern for the welfare of ethnic Russians, just like the Anschluss. Yet it was the antagonizing of pro-Russian Yanukovych and then Russia itself that escalated violence and endangered lives.

And ABSOLUTELY if George W. Bush ordered the use of live ammunition en mass upon protestors outside the white house would his government had serious legitimacy issues, especially given the questionable way he was elected in 2000. Its all fun and games until someone starts shooting to kill. Then we have civil war. If you have netflix please check out Winter on Fire. There is no defending Yanukovych's government. Ill agree to watch the best pro-Russian narrative propaganda in exchange :laugh:


--------------------
'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion
Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704


Edited by Crumist (08/23/16 07:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Crumist]
    #23570666 - 08/23/16 09:10 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Crumist said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Crumist said:
Yes, Russia prohibits observers, harasses voters, and has a turnout around 30%.



All of the above have been observed in USA elections as well (let me know if you want a link).



yes please.



Here's a large list of voter suppression and poll problems in the US from the 2012 election alone.

Quote:

Crumist said:
You ask I provide all these links I feel are quite readily found and post few yourself.



I'll happily provide evidence for any points you want.

Quote:

Crumist said:
I check your claims myself. Then I feel you avoid my now cited arguments to knit pick elsewhere and accuse me of making things up.



I don't think I'm doing this, but maybe you can prove me wrong with an example?

Quote:

Crumist said:
I was trying to point out that we understood different events as being the coup. You say the ouster of Yanukovych was the coup, I'd call it a revolution.



Tomato, Tomahto.  Is it ever ok to violently overthrow a democratically elected leader, especially with the backing of the US?  Is that what democracy is all about?

Quote:

Crumist said:
I was thinking the desertion of Ukraine forces to fight for Donetsk or Crimea being the coup. Either way, we are talking about Feb. 23 2014.



Then your argument is that there was a counter-coup in reaction to the initial coup.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Russia doesn't admit to having troops in Ukraine at this point, but there were plenty of Federal Security Service (FSB) "advisors" going back to December '13. The FSB's implication in key kidnappings, murders, and sniper attacks is rumors, as are any US involvement in Ukraine. Prove to me the 2014 revolution was a foreign plot in opposition to Ukrainian ideals.



The link above (with video evidence) is pretty damning proof.  The election results and the fact that people in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine wanted no part of the new Government are proof that not all Ukrainians had the same "Ukrainian ideals".

Quote:

Crumist said:
There is only a bit more information about Putin's finances (imagine the POTUS not having to disclose and divest every minute financial detail) Perhaps it is all propaganda, but I didn't make it up, the NYT, again, and Reuters, and Telegraph and some German paper did. I only skimmed the articles, and most of it is real boring dry stuff, but in the USA anything remotely close to this is !!corruption!!



I read the first three.  The first article explains how money was transferred from an international bank to a local bank to protect it from US sanctions and the freezing of funds (I realize that critical detail was left out, as most readers are too lazy to research why that happened).  The second article said Russia is continuing to privatize its assets to bring additional revenue to the Government (is that a problem?)  The third article says Putin's daughter is very wealthy, which I never disputed and I already explained how Putin became wealthy.  I didn't bother to read the fourth and fifth because the first three don't really support your point.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Here we worry about Exon-Mobile's influence purchased with a donation. In Putin's Russia, Gazprom's CEO is the head of state with all the insider trading tips and a cadre of industry barons he bestows favors upon.



Welcome to capitalism, my friend.  Darrel Issa (as an example) was a CEO now worth a half a billion dollars and is passing laws here in the US to enrich himself further.  Is it wrong for Russia to copy our model?

Quote:

Crumist said:
By Estonia or Lithuania's moment of need, I mean I understand these former Soviet states enjoy their independence but are terrified by Russia's involvement in 13 conflicts in former ssr's and now annexation.  And a new faction in us politics that approves military conquest, corrupt elections, press suppression, opposition suppression.  Yes, the US has been in many more conflicts in that time frame, but Im not currently making a morality judgment of such conflicts (truly though, they suck) but trying to illustrate how really fucking scared the tiny Baltic countries are.



They're "terrified"?  That sounds like propaganda.  Tell me about real Russian action.  The only country they should be scared of is the US.  As has already been pointed out, Ukrainian lives have gone to hell after the US backed coup.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Im all for "self determination" and agree with Donetsk independence and Crimea going to Russia, but it was done all wrong. Russia violently occupies Crimea and holds a referendum over the opposition of nearly the entire international community.



But it wasn't a violent occupation of Crimea.  No one died from a military attack there.  And I think by "over the opposition of the international community" you really mean "over the opposition of the US and its allies".

Quote:

Crumist said:
Both options on the ballot lead to a Russian annexation of Crimea and again, the region is under foreign occupation. The justification is concern for the welfare of ethnic Russians, just like the Anschluss.



Ah, the Hitler comparison that always gets thrown in (propaganda).  :smirk:

Quote:

Crumist said:
Yet it was the antagonizing of pro-Russian Yanukovych and then Russia itself that escalated violence and endangered lives.

And ABSOLUTELY if George W. Bush ordered the use of live ammunition en mass upon protestors outside the white house would his government had serious legitimacy issues, especially given the questionable way he was elected in 2000. Its all fun and games until someone starts shooting to kill. Then we have civil war.



So if a group of angry Democratic protesters stormed the White House, Bush should be expected to give up his Presidency?  Interesting perspective.

Quote:

Crumist said:
If you have netflix please check out Winter on Fire. There is no defending Yanukovych's government. Ill agree to watch the best pro-Russian narrative propaganda in exchange :laugh:



Sounds like a deal.  Let me find a good one...


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Crumist]
    #23571233 - 08/23/16 11:32 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Crumist said:
If you have netflix please check out Winter on Fire. There is no defending Yanukovych's government. Ill agree to watch the best pro-Russian narrative propaganda in exchange :laugh:



Sounds like a deal.  Let me find a good one...



Here's one.  Quite interesting, but not terribly exciting:

Crimea. The Way Back Home.


I'll watch Winter on Fire.

Edit:  I can't seem to get the video to display properly, but the url is in the message.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (08/23/16 11:39 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Brian Jones] * 1
    #23571397 - 08/24/16 12:26 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The USSR/Russia has been our enemy since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.




There's your mistake right there. The USSR and Russia are two completely different countries. Conflating one with the other ignores the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Russia shows no signs of rebuilding the Soviet empire, rather they wish us to uphold our agreements not to mess around in their backyard. They were invaded twice, once by Napoleon and once by Hitler, through their belly and understandably wish to have a buffer there. We have been needlessly provoking them and prying on their chinks of armor there, adding those states to NATO when we had agreed not to, which makes them nervous and suspicious. I can't say I blame them.

Actually when you think about it, the USSR was good for us in a way because it kept our imperial ambitions in check. When it collapsed, all restraint was lost. Now much of the world hates us because we have been trying to create hegemony and dictate to the rest of the world.

We need to stop trying to make Russia a vassal state and mind our own business in places like Ukraine where we supported a coup to overthrow their democratically elected leader and install one friendly to us, provoking Russia. There is absolutely no need to do this. Russia is not our enemy.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Edited by zorbman (08/24/16 12:41 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,342
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 14 hours, 2 minutes
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: zorbman]
    #23571707 - 08/24/16 03:31 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

zorbman said:
Quote:

The USSR/Russia has been our enemy since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.




There's your mistake right there. The USSR and Russia are two completely different countries. Conflating one with the other ignores the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Russia shows no signs of rebuilding the Soviet empire, rather they wish us to uphold our agreements not to mess around in their backyard. They were invaded twice, once by Napoleon and once by Hitler, through their belly and understandably wish to have a buffer there. We have been needlessly provoking them and prying on their chinks of armor there, adding those states to NATO when we had agreed not to, which makes them nervous and suspicious. I can't say I blame them.

Actually when you think about it, the USSR was good for us in a way because it kept our imperial ambitions in check. When it collapsed, all restraint was lost. Now much of the world hates us because we have been trying to create hegemony and dictate to the rest of the world.

We need to stop trying to make Russia a vassal state and mind our own business in places like Ukraine where we supported a coup to overthrow their democratically elected leader and install one friendly to us, provoking Russia. There is absolutely no need to do this. Russia is not our enemy.





    I think you are mistaken. They became our enemy again shortly after Putin took power, and this is obvious to anyone who isn't young and can't put history in perspective. Putin was KGB all the way, and he is completely expansionist (not that we aren't expansionist). The new Russia was a dream with Gorbachev, but once Putin came in we are coming against something very similar to the USSR. The difference is the  Communist Party got replaced by a gangster state with many of the ex high party members selling off plutonium and anything else to the highest bidder, many of them that wish to do harm to us harm. If I sound like a right wing hardliner, I'm not; I'm more of a pacifistic liberal, but I am a realist and I know Putin is dangerous.

    As far as the comment that I am mistaking the USSR with Russia, its a partial truth, but you better grow up fast.

    On current events, the Crimea looks like a complete power play takeover. The Ukraine (which is much bigger) is more complicated. I don't know the exact percentage breakdown, but many people in the Ukraine consider themselves Russian and side with them. Everyone is waiting to see what happens when Putin attacks a NATO country, especially one of the new ones that we don't have a long relationship with. Then we either start WWIII, or the idea of NATO superiority is exposed as a myth. We are most likely looking at a new Cold War, or worse, and it will make our issues in the Middle East look like small potatoes. Russia like us, has enough ICBMs to blow up the world 500 times. And we seemingly have no potential of having a leader who can face down and play a game of "chicken" with Putin, and he is totally ruthless enough to call our bluff.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblechopstick
nobody
Male


Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,081
Loc: Chin's Wok
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Brian Jones] * 2
    #23572381 - 08/24/16 10:13 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

The problem with Hillary is that she's going to push for a bombing campaign against the Assad government in Syria.

This puts the US into direct conflict with Russia over ME territory.

Will they actually do it? Who knows.

What we do know is that the US needs to give up on its imperialist ambitions, including Syria, where it is actively supporting ISIS / Al-Qaeda as a proxy force for regime change.

The US' blatant support for Al-Qaeda and the MSM playing along with the effort to re-brand them as "moderate" is disgusting, and it has ruined the lives of thousands of innocent people...

The US knew that a no-fly zone in Syria would result in an ISIL capture of Damascus:

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russias-ambassador-uk-drops-bombshell-us-expected-isis-seize-damascus-october/ri12860

One can only conclude that the US' foreign policy goal is to have ISIL / Al-Qaeda takeover Syria and then re-brand them as a "moderate" legitimate Sunni government in the media, just like we did with Libya, meanwhile ignoring the massacres committed by our terrorist proxy forces against the innocent civilians of Syria.

It's time to wake up to the fact that our country is run by psychopaths and criminals, who openly support radical terrorists when it suits their goals, and who are actively using this country's MSM as blatant propaganda outlets to justify these crimes against humanity.

It doesn't matter who gets elected president, this policy will continue regardless of the puppet in charge.

We must put an end to the age of imperialism, once and for all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Brian Jones] * 1
    #23572426 - 08/24/16 10:28 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

With all we have observed regarding modern insurgency in the last 40+ years, i find it hard to believe that anyone is really afraid of Russia rolling former soviet states back up. Even if that came to pass, it would likely not end well for Russia, and here is why: Modern Mechanized Forces like those of Russia and the U.S. are designed primarily for defeating other mechanized armies.  Such forces are much less effective against relatively poorly equipped insurgents.  There are several reasons for this, but the most important one is money.  Throughout history, wars are rarely won or lost because of a lack of soldiers.  After all, a new crop of fighting age men is born each year.  Rather, it is a lack of money (or profit) that tends to end wars.  Now, compare the cost (in dollars) of 1 U.S. soldier to 1 irregular fighter for the Taliban, Isis, Viet Cong, etc. and it becomes clear.  To illustrate the point further, compare the cost of 1 Humvee or MRAP to the cost of an IED (these are often simply a High Explosive Anti Tank or HEAT shell rigged for remote detonation).  Just to drive the point home, compare the cost of 1 Apache helicopter  to 1 man with a shoulder fired rocket.  Imagine for a moment the amount of bombs that were dropped on empty Vietnamese jungle and the enormous cost of such things.  The more one looks at it, the more obvious it becomes.  Now, back to Russia and its "threat" to the Balkans. Russia has been trying to subdue Chechnya since the fall of the USSR, with dubious success at best.  They are now involved in the Ukraine, and Syria.  How many little occupations can they feasibly pull off do you think?  If Putin decided that he wanted to roll the former soviets back into the fold,  what are the odds that he could reasonably do it?  This isn't the 1940's anymore.  Armed insurgency is the method of the age, and as has been the case since T.E. Lawrence helped the Arabs demonstrate its efficacy against the Turks, massed armies can only make ham-handed attempts to crush insurgents with "overwhelming force".  Russia can't subdue 1 Chechnya. They couldn't subdue 1 Afghanistan.  How are they going to subdue several?  Indeed, if one were to view the world as a battle between "Russian Interests" and "U.S. Interests", and one were to favor "U.S. Interests", then one should welcome Russian expansion, as the almost inevitable result would be a long term, expensive conflict between Russia and our proxies that would almost certainly undermine Russia's political and economic security.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Brian Jones]
    #23572602 - 08/24/16 11:35 AM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Putin was KGB all the way



What does "KGB all the way" mean? I get the feeling it's supposed to mean "I'm so scared!" If not, what does it mean?

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
he is completely expansionist (not that we aren't expansionist).



Ignoring Crimea (which has been discussed ad nauseaum above) can you explain this Russian expansion?

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
I am a realist and I know Putin is dangerous.



So you are so scared!  Why do you think you "know Putin is dangerous"?  Has he done anything worse than what the United States has been doing?

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
On current events, the Crimea looks like a complete power play takeover.



It was a power play takeover.  But then the Crimean people voted to leave after the West took control.

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Everyone is waiting to see what happens when Putin attacks a NATO country, especially one of the new ones that we don't have a long relationship with.



There it is again - "I'm so scared!"

The reason Putin would attack NATO is if he felt overly threatened by them.  And that's where we're heading as NATO closes in on Russia's borders.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Brian Jones] * 2
    #23572884 - 08/24/16 01:46 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

They became our enemy again shortly after Putin took power, and this is obvious to anyone who isn't young and can't put history in perspective.




Quote:

..you better grow up fast.




Please. I am almost 49 years old, so there goes that theory. One problem I don't share with many older people is the inability to change my perceptions based upon new facts. People are always fighting the last war. It's human nature. For example, NATO, like all organizations, often seeks to justify its relevance, budget, and existence by ginning up unnecessary conflict with Russia.

Quote:

On current events, the Crimea looks like a complete power play takeover.




Only if you give credence to the corrupt media backing warmonger Hillary. The Russian "takeover" of the Crimea was a direct response to neocons like Victoria Nuland supporting a coup in Russia's backyard that overthrew the democratically-elected leader of Ukraine. Russia historically needs their only warm water port in the Crimea, having leased access to it through 2024, and wanted to make sure they had access to it after our provocations.

There has been an unwritten rule since WWII to not interfere with Moscow in its zone of influence in Central and Eastern Europe. Reagan sent weapons to anti-communists in South America, but only sent typewriters to Poland. We need to return to this prudent course of action instead of foolishly risking conflict with Russia by conducting military exercises involving thousands of NATO troops in Poland and Baltic states bordering Russia. This provocation is completely unnecessary for those not seeking another bogeyman.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: zorbman]
    #23572897 - 08/24/16 01:52 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

:toast:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: zorbman] * 1
    #23572922 - 08/24/16 01:58 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Its always about having a bogeyman. Just since the late 1800s its been a constant succession of bogeymen, from anarchists to communists to fascists, then back to communists for awhile.  Communists started to become less frightening, so a dash of terrorism was thrown in to wean the public onto this new threat. Then after the fall of the USSR, terrorism along with Baltic unrest became the word of the day until we could move to a full out "war on terror".  Now we've come back to the "russian threat".  its all so tiresome.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrumist
Stranger
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #23574192 - 08/24/16 08:47 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Here's a large list of voter suppression and poll problems in the US from the 2012 election alone.




None of my three are in that article. I raise political murder and imprisonment, gunfire at international observers, rigged votes, 30% turnout, carousel voting suppression of speech, press, and organization and you counter with voter ID laws and erroneous voting roll removal? No doubt, the issues in the US are serious and probably gave Bush the 2000 election, but there is a difference in magnitude for certain. In addition, that an American website (several websites and organizations) catalogues these is a credit. That shit'd get you run out of Russia

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Is it ever ok to violently overthrow a democratically elected leader, especially with the backing of the US?  Is that what democracy is all about?




What is that video supposed to prove? So some extreme pro-Russian politician predicted a civil war in already unstable and revolutionary conditions? He accuses the US embassy of sanctioning the teaching 300 of Ukrainians how to use computers and facebook... ooooooh scary. As if an American could teach an Eastern European anything about the internet. His accusation != proof. And the link directs to some conspiracy theory blog? Accusations of US lead ethnic cleansing and pro-Hitler indoctrination in 2014 Ukraine, yeah sure...

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Russia doesn't admit to having troops in Ukraine at this point, but there were plenty of Federal Security Service (FSB) "advisors" going back to December '13. The FSB's implication in key kidnappings, murders, and sniper attacks is rumors, as are any US involvement in Ukraine. Prove to me the 2014 revolution was a foreign plot in opposition to Ukrainian ideals.



The link above (with video evidence) is pretty damning proof.  The election results and the fact that people in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine wanted no part of the new Government are proof that not all Ukrainians had the same "Ukrainian ideals".




You got me, there is definitely a split in Ukrainian opinion regarding Russia. What I meant to ask for was an argument that the revolution was entirely foreign to Ukraine. An admittedly impossible task

Quote:

Crumist said:
There is only a bit more information about Putin's finances (imagine the POTUS not having to disclose and divest every minute financial detail) Perhaps it is all propaganda, but I didn't make it up, the NYT, again, and Reuters, and Telegraph and some German paper did. I only skimmed the articles, and most of it is real boring dry stuff, but in the USA anything remotely close to this is !!corruption!!



I read the first three. 
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:The first article explains how money was transferred from an international bank to a local bank to protect it from US sanctions and the freezing of funds (I realize that critical detail was left out, as most readers are too lazy to research why that happened).  The second article said Russia is continuing to privatize its assets to bring additional revenue to the Government (is that a problem?)  The third article says Putin's daughter is very wealthy, which I never disputed and I already explained how Putin became wealthy.  I didn't bother to read the fourth and fifth because the first three don't really support your point.




I went back and read all articles and you don't find anything offensive in them? I'll give my own summaries in contrast to yours. 1. NYT - it-pays-to-be-putins-friend - the bank Putin owns is given extremely cheap state property and given free bailout money, also an obscuring shell. 3. Reuters - Putin’s daughter, a young billionaire and the president’s friends: a list of Putin's friends and family given extreme wealth by Putin's government, Putin's daughter has world class academics "co-author" her publications and now is head of a massive project and a state budget of several billion US. 2. NYT - Midas Touch in St. Petersburg: Friends of Putin Glow Brightly - self descriptive headline. 4. Telegraph - essentially an ad for a biography of Putin, has tidbits like the $1billion palace built by the gov't for a friend and when Putin personally stole that super bowl ring and that museum piece 5. Sued Deutsche - Panama papers reveal how Putin has concealed a tiny fraction of his fortune

I said: He, his family, and his close friends make lots of money on the decisions of Putin's government. In the US we would call that bald-faced corruption

Falcon91 said: Please cite the specifics of how Putin is doing this, and stop with the propaganda.

Then I link 5 articles and you dismiss them. Well within your rights, but this is tiring. Whoever the hell is reading will decide for themseves.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Here we worry about Exon-Mobile's influence purchased with a donation. In Putin's Russia, Gazprom's CEO is the head of state with all the insider trading tips and a cadre of industry barons he bestows favors upon.



Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:Welcome to capitalism, my friend.  Darrel Issa (as an example) was a CEO now worth a half a billion dollars and is passing laws here in the US to enrich himself further.  Is it wrong for Russia to copy our model?




Differences between Issa (and other US scumbags) and Putin that are important to me. Issa is a nobody out of the spotlight, Putin is head honcho. Issa *was* CEO, Putin has neither disclosed nor divested as President, in fact he probably many plenty of acquisitions as president. Issa is worth .5 billion, Putin worth 20-200 bil (again, no one knows) And biggest point, I (and most Americans, likely) detest Issa and the revolving door politicians/lobbyists, but you are defending Putin and denying his corruption. This is not capitalism, it is theft on an epic scale.

political corruption: (wikipedia) Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.

Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, gombeenism, parochialism patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political corruption.


Quote:

Crumist said:
By Estonia or Lithuania's moment of need, I mean I understand these former Soviet states enjoy their independence but are terrified by Russia's involvement in 13 conflicts in former ssr's and now annexation.  And a new faction in us politics that approves military conquest, corrupt elections, press suppression, opposition suppression.  Yes, the US has been in many more conflicts in that time frame, but Im not currently making a morality judgment of such conflicts (truly though, they suck) but trying to illustrate how really fucking scared the tiny Baltic countries are.



They're "terrified"?  That sounds like propaganda.  Tell me about real Russian action.  The only country they should be scared of is the US.  As has already been pointed out, Ukrainian lives have gone to hell after the US backed coup.

US state media on Estonia

I can find similarly gloom articles about the US and Russia. Ukraine must of had a revolution because of how great a paradise it was beforehand.

Quote:

Crumist said:
Im all for "self determination" and agree with Donetsk independence and Crimea going to Russia, but it was done all wrong. Russia violently occupies Crimea and holds a referendum over the opposition of nearly the entire international community.



Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:But it wasn't a violent occupation of Crimea.  No one died from a military attack there.  And I think by "over the opposition of the international community" you really mean "over the opposition of the US and its allies".




There were deaths in Crimea, but more to the point, Yanukovich even as acting head of state, didn't have authority to invite Russian troops into Ukraine. Nor was any public invitation made to Russia. The un-uniformed "little green men", and then the regular Russian army invaded sovereign Ukraine. Important buildings in Kiev were forcibly held and the legitimate Ukrainian army was driven from its forts throughout the Crimea. The Ukrainian navy was fired upon by Russian warships in warning not to leave port.

Is Ukraine a sovereign nation or Russian property?

Quote:

Crumist said:
Both options on the ballot lead to a Russian annexation of Crimea and again, the region is under foreign occupation. The justification is concern for the welfare of ethnic Russians, just like the Anschluss.



Ah, the Hitler comparison that always gets thrown in (propaganda).  :smirk:

At least mine is somewhat relevant, Your Washingtonsblog.com link uses the word nazi like 20 times in reference to the US's role is Russia.

This was a violent takeover of the Ukrainian Government, by profoundly racist anti-Russian nationalist Ukrainians, who were in the pay of the U.S. Government. And, it sparked such terror into the hearts of Russians and of Ukraine’s minorities (who were especially large a proportion of the Crimean population), so that, first, Crimea broke away and declared its no longer being a part of Ukraine (it would return to Russia, of which it had been a part from 1783-1954, almost its entire modern existence); and, then, starting on May 9th of 2014, a Ukrainian civil war broke out when the U.S.-installed Government of Ukraine actually invaded the regions (other than Crimea) that rejected it; and the United States oversaw and sent even more mercenaries to this extremely bloody ethnic cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in the specific region (called “Donbass” and shown in dark purple on this map) of Ukraine that had voted 90% for Yanukovych.

This was the first outright nazi action ever undertaken by any American President. Ever. That’s how bad it is, as a historical precedent for this country. It is being carried out by proud racist fascists (nazis), who are specifically admirers and followers of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, which were the first, the original, nazi political party, and which are the pattern for Obama’s operatives in Ukraine — the perpetrators of this coup and its subsequent (also totally illegal) ethnic-cleansing campaign. (For examples: all these firebombings that Obama’s forces are doing to the residents in Donbass are against international law.) These Ukrainian nazis even send their children to nazi schools where kids are trained to hate Russians. Obama uses these people; he found this extermination of pro-Russians in Ukraine to be necessary; so as to get rid of the voters whose votes had made Yanukovych President. In Donbass, 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych; so, this was the prime area to be ethnically cleansed (and sometimes they’re driven at night to the countryside and shot at the edge of a ditch). If those voters were ever again allowed to vote in Ukraine, then a pro-Russian government could again be elected in Ukraine, and Obama’s action in that country (his turning it rabidly anti-Russian in its policies) could thus turn out to have been a mere waste for him — just a temporary matter. The strategy here is carefully thought-out, and this is also one reason why it has the support of almost every member of the U.S. House and Senate (even though 67% of the American public oppose it). A similar strategy would be as if Obama were to firebomb and otherwise lay waste Utah because it had voted in the 2012 election 73% for Romney and only 25% for Obama, and so killing the residents there would increase the future chances of electing a Democratic President in the U.S. But in Donbass, Yanukovych had actually won 90% of the vote, not a mere 73%; and, besides, nobody in the U.S. and its allies is even so much as criticizing Obama’s exterminations of the residents in Donbass (the people that Obama’s Ukrainian Government calls “terrorists” for simply living there), but instead Vladimir Putin is being criticized in the West for his “Russian aggression,” because he helps those forlorn people defend themselves from the Obama team’s firebombs, clusterbombs, bullets, and other killing-machines. (And here’s one of the Obama team’s firebombings of the city of Donetsk just a few days ago.)

The nazi United States Government today is ideologically, by its nazi actions, at war against the democratic United States that, by its democratic actions, had fought and shed blood to defeat Hitler’s Nazis in World War II. (And — unlike the firebombing of Nazi Dresden in February 1945 — Donetsk and the Obama team’s other Donbass targets are anti-nazi; the U.S. is this time the nazi invader, via its local Ukrainian surrogates. This is not to say that any firebombing should be allowed, but just to say that America has ideologically switched sides since then, which is atrocious.) Of course, there have been nazis in America even before Hitler came to power in Germany; but they were not running the U.S. Government until now; and, now, for the first time ever, the U.S. has itself a nazi Government, which is backed up by nazi American think tanks and media, etc., the entire panoply of political horror. The chief difference from Hitler’s (other than that this nazi government hasn’t yet gone as far toward its ultimate objectives as Hitler’s did) is that this one hates and seeks to destroy mainly Russians, whereas Hitler’s focused mainly against Jews. However, this one seems to be just about as obsessive about eliminating Russians as Hitler’s was about eliminating Jews. In fact, Obama’s hatred of Russia explains not only his Ukrainian policy but also his Syrian policy. Furthermore, Iran is also allied with Russia, and American policy there too might partly be a reflection of Obama’s bigotry against Russia — it should instead be a reflection of strictly U.S.-Iranian issues. Understanding Obama’s foreign policies without recognizing his vicious (and until fairly recently, secret) anti-Russian obsession, which is proven by his actions (not his rhetoric, which is basically dishonest and should simply be ignored except as his PR) can’t be done: it produces only misunderstanding (which is the real purpose behind most of his rhetoric).


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
So if a group of angry Democratic protesters stormed the White House, Bush should be expected to give up his Presidency?  Interesting perspective.




Lets invoke Godwins again. Hitler was democratically elected. The holocaust was entirely legal. Resistance to the Nazi's was illegal. You would support a madman mowing down unarmed protesters in the street? That is an interesting perspective. Lets say Hillary is elected and immediately signs the TPP. Protests at the white house escalate to snipers on the white house roof shooting at random. Youd better believe Id violently resist that democratically elected government, not only will Clinton be removed from office, she will have her day in court.

Russian aggression = Ukraine, Transnistra, Georgia, Chechnya. Former soviet states behave as good puppets or Russia spanks them while the world watches. Should the modern world be a community of sovereign states or the property of the biggest bullies?

Does "Hillary want[s] us to hate on Russia"? Yes but that is the American tradition.


--------------------
'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion
Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Crumist]
    #23574290 - 08/24/16 09:39 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Hey Crumist, nice to meet you.

I would like to know what you think about my hypothesis regarding Russia being unable to move further with any designs on eastern europe because of insufficient funds. 
I outlined it briefly in a post above in case you missed it.


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrumist
Stranger
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: ballsalsa]
    #23574337 - 08/24/16 09:57 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

Howd'y'do to you to.

I agree Russia would struggle to fight off several insurgent forces and even without further expansion there are several groups within the current borders with potential to violently resist Moscow. Occupation of a people is expensive, and Russia ain't rich. If you properly oppress and terrify and evict and cleanse, you just might be able to acquire territory and resources. I agree Russia wouldn't be able to annex any hostile territory, but that doesn't convince me the international community should permit the attempt.


--------------------
'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion
Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Hillary wants us to hate on Russia [Re: Crumist]
    #23574553 - 08/24/16 11:28 PM (7 years, 5 months ago)

How do you feel about the proposed U.S. annexation of Mexico?


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* turn your bullshit detectors on - Putin: Russia warned US Vvellum 424 0 06/18/04 11:30 AM
by Vvellum
* US officials think that Russia is guilty pattern 2,493 16 03/26/03 10:58 AM
by Murex
* Government Information Awareness Edame 630 1 07/13/03 06:04 PM
by Crobih
* The end of the internet is nigh
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 2,423 28 09/29/04 10:01 PM
by Grav
* Bush Administration Proposes System to Monitor Internet
( 1 2 3 all )
Evolving 4,557 42 12/23/02 11:41 PM
by frogsheath
* internet viruses and conspiracy. doktor_alternate 725 5 10/10/03 05:28 PM
by d33p
* informative war article page vampirism 689 3 11/04/04 07:54 PM
by Great_Satan
* Intelligence network worries the right, left ekomstop 858 0 10/05/04 01:38 PM
by ekomstop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,206 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.