On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:09:07PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
> > 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:
> > 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".
> >
>
> The mercantilists do Orwellianly name their trade restriction agreements
> "free trade agreements", I'll give you that. But what I mean is ACTUAL
> TRADE, which requires no special agreement. Just stop telling your people
> who they're allowed to trade with and stealing from them every time they
> engage in a transaction.
>
> But yes, the US does pretend to be pro-free-trade when it is anything but.
> But Trump is promising to take that to a whole new level. If you thought
> the US used trade as a weapon before, what do you think Trump will do?
We can only hope: amp up trade protectionism, and rebuild or "vertically
integrate" America again - bring back manufacturing and domestic
agriculture and the consequent jobs and longer term - genuine -
prosperity, rather than prosperity by the few, of the few and for the
few via endless war.
Ok, so you do not understand the first thing about economics. That explains your Trump support.
> > 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).
>
> Not saying it hasn't happened. Are you saying Russia, which clearly has an
> even greater interest in Ukraine, hasn't been up to the same thing far
> longer?
You can wax lyrically all day long on generalisations and say "they've
done it here anhd there, so it's ok that we did it in Ukraine recently".
I have a few choice words to that position.
What the CIA and America has done in Ukraine is despicable towards the
Ukrainian people, despotic in its specifics, abhorrent re any concept of
"international diplomacy" and just generally entirely fucked up. On
every level.
I think you mean toward the Russians who have colonized Ukraine.
Go feed your empire apologies to your work mates.
> > 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.
>
> A coup is just a revolution you don't like or that failed.
You are full of it today..
> I'm sure the US
> had some hand in it.
Since when is it appropriate to conflate a foreign state sponsored coup,
with an internal grass roots (or 'genuine') revolution?
Oh that's right, when you're compromised by employment and benefits from
the USA government with which you are closely associated.
You should try learning some history. The American "revolution" was sponsored by the French. To the extent that it bankrupted the French government and became a major factor leading to the French Revolution. The rest of their funding came largely from outright theft.
> Did the US create all the conditions that led to it or
> even a majority? Doubt it. Too expensive and too unlikely to succeed.
Easy to say in hindsight.
Yes, it's possible the CIA were just stupid, but possibility is not actuality.
That's also called post facto justification - and you know where you can
stick that.
Justifying what, exactly? I didn't make the decision, nor am I trying to excuse the US. You are the one attempting to excuse the Russians' generations of deplorable behavior toward the ACTUAL Ukranians.
Up until Lybia, the CIA's coups were quite "successful" I'm sure they
would say.
Actually the US's track record there is quite abysmal. But as we've already established you can't be bothered to learn history.
> > 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.
>
> Meaningless to anyone who hasn't already swallowed the Russian perspective
> hook line and sinker.
Right back atcha.
LOL "I know what you are it what am I?"
> > > But the Russians seem to want the US to be run by a Putinesque
> > > strong man, too.
Let's see if that's actually how Americans, as in voting citizens of
North America, actually vote in November.
They won't.
> > > One who thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only
> > > when it suits one's own interests.
This is a concept of empire. The USA empire has and continues to
"deploy" trade as a weapon. Standard fare in fact.
> > Your words are ignorant. And simplistic. And bombastic.
>
> And accurate.
The USSR had ideological empire building built in. Russia does not (not
with Putin at the helm anyway).
Right. Putin is simply a Russian nationalist. Granted.
American think is "everything is a weapon to be deployed", and Americans
(humans generally, but Americans and yourself in particular in this
instance) typically project their belief systems upon others, and upon
other nations.
That's bombastic.
It's also simplistic - generalizing your own nation's implied intentions
as manifested over decades of actions in support, upon others.
To not realise that Russia the nation is not USSR the empire, and that
is ignorant.
I never claimed that, but the history of the relationship with Ukraine largely happened under the USSR, so you cannot simply pretend the USSR didn't happen. The USSR is also the most recent period where Russia was a world power, a period many Russians look back on with rose colored glasses the same way many Americans look back on the Reagan era, the 1950s, and WWII.
So to conclude, I'd say my words are accurate.
I'm sure they accurately reflect the propaganda youre attempting to spew.
> > > You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear
> > > button, but
> >
> > so you seem to agree
>
> Actually I don't have a position on whether she does or not. I was just
> accepting as a given your earlier post about Hillary believing in some kind
> of "first strike policy" toward Russia.
Oh that's right, she does! I'd forgotten that - I didn't even state
that, but thanks. Why you would retract your position I have no idea,
but hey, whatever floats your boat, Mr Moral Relativist.
You don't seen to understand the difference between accepting something for the sake of discussion and holding a position. But as we've established your worldview has only black and white, good and evil.
> > > the fact of the matter is Trump does too.
"Trump does too" was not ambiguous - but I accept your retraction of
your position that "Hillary does not necessarily have her finger on the
war button". Feel free to make more stupid retractions..
Lybia certainly demonstrates Hillary Clinton's evil "street creds".
And Hillary's statements around Ukraine and Syria clearly imply
otherwise.
And Hillary's first strike against Russia policy bluntly tells
otherwise.
Hillary's record is abysmal, shocking, despotic and altogether very sad
from a human perspective. It is an example of how far USA has fallen.
Hillary laughs and expresses flippancy over the murder of foreign nation
state leaders for example. What better example to the common man of
"evil incarnate" can there be?
Unfortunately for the world, Hillary Clinton is a very evil woman.
And Trump is a moronic narcissist and even more authoritarian than Hillary. We're you supporting someone other than one of the two you'd have some credibility. Personally I will be voting for Johnso, if I vote at all.
How can USA be seen, in the example of Hillary Clinton, as anything
other than a despotic, evil, war mongering empire gone rogue ?
The US has not ever NOT been these things. Not in my lifetime, anyway. Russia isn't now but only because they lack the capability. But Russia has a far longer history of empire than the US does. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to learn any history
Seriously?
> > As has been said before, Trump is possibly (hopefully) more like
> > flipping a coin. Whereas for war, Hillary is a certainty.
>
> War is a certainty for both candidates.
Yes yes, that's your CIA perspective.
We got it.
The whole damn world gets it.
This endless push for endless war, has to stop.
I agree that it has to stop. Trump won't stop it. Hell just steer it like a drunken truck driver.
> Hillary is the only one with the
> experience and, frankly, the rationality to be able to prevent escalation
> to an all out direct war that could result in a nuclear exchange.
The CIA and their shills are very strange humans. They speak publicly in
total denial of reality, continue to assume absolute supremacy and
power, and generally fuck up any nation that gets in America's way
financially, militarily, or simply wants a piece of their own pie (their
own natural resources).
But Sean, by all means, continue to spout your lunacy.
> Trump is a narcissist who doesn't understand the first thing about
> international politics.
May be so, but he has said repeatedly "we should probably fight ISIL
together with Russia" and "it might be good if we could be friends with
Russia, at least diplomatically".
How very "un"diplomatic of you Sean :)
I think the US should be more friendly toward Russia. but Russia isn't the only player out there. Iran is also important, as is Ukraine. Your idea of diplomacy is very simplistic.