On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 17:16 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant disdain for "the West".
Putin really is the most moderate politician that is actually acceptable/ electable in Russia.
And this is not a comment on the particular man, Vladimir Putin, but on the political positions or nature of him - by Russian sensibilities he is very moderate, excessively accomodating to the Western regimes, and a bit too much of a "weak pussy" who ought to have stepped in and militarily protected the Donbass (the area where the Russian people in Eastern Ukraine live), should teach the West a royal lesson in Syria, and generally dish out some Russian justice to the axis of Western evil.
You do realize you're insulting Russians by calling them jingoists, right? But I guess you don't realize that, since you seem to think calling someone a "nationalist" is a compliment.
I'm an Australian nationalist. And do you think I care how you and your pro-government, pro-USA, pro-hegemon and forgetful positions, view that?
This is like saying that we should be happy that PETA is only trying to ban horsemeat, and we shouldn't fight them on it, because what they REALLY want to do is ban ALL meat and pet ownership and force us to be vegetarians. Or let's go ahead and give Poland to the Nazis, because that's just a tiny thing compared to what they REALLY want!
I get that Russians are pissed about how they've been treated since the end of the Cold War. Far longer, really. Just like I get that Germans were pissed about how they were treated after they lost WWI. You see where I'm going with this?
The solution in both cases, by the way, is TRADE. When goods cross borders in sufficient quantities, ICBMs won't.
This is what USA government employees or "modern liberals" spout, and try to ram down the throat of the world. This is the PC term for "greed is good" which America backs up with "bend over or be bombed or have your country coup overthrown". As someone said some days ago - America, inparticular the CIA, plots and plans coups for years, decades even, and has a crack sometimes multiple times at the same country (see Syria history for example), and for you (in other emails) to implicitly deny that this is what has happened in Ukraine in the last 3 years is either incredibly ignorant or actively undermining of the truth (or "pro USA establishment" or whatever PC term you want to use). Ukraine's "revolution" was anything but. I could believe some folks genuinely got caught up in the coup, thinking it really was a revolution - that of course does not change the fact it was an American lead, CIA conducted, "most blatant and public coup in history" as EU officials and others around the world have repeatedly named this black kettle. Your blunt refusal to acknowledge the facts leaves you without credibility. Which is a good thing - the ignorance of North Americans is an excellent thing for others in the world to witness, especially those compromised by their employment and golden cage lives.
But the Russians seem to want the US to be run by a Putinesque strong man, too. One who thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only when it suits one's own interests.
Your words are ignorant. And simplistic. And bombastic.
You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear button, but
so you seem to agree
the fact of the matter is Trump does too.
As has been said before, Trump is possibly (hopefully) more like flipping a coin. Whereas for war, Hillary is a certainty.
The major difference between the two is that Hillary actually knows it, whereas Trump is suffering so badly from Dunning-Kruger (as are you, AFAICT, assuming you aren't simply a paid propagandist) that he genuinely thinks he'd make us safer by returning us to a pre-WWII world of 30% tariffs and trade wars.
Dichotomy. Projection. Lack of insight into alternatives. Implicit individual employment compromise. Not very entertaining for me right now, so I won't waste more time on this one. Feel free to try going a little deeper, though it looks from here like you're not particularly capable of that :/