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:
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?
Which positions are those, exactly? I think you have me confused with someone else.
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.
So because those people say it, it's automatically wrong? Does that make you a Nazi because of your Holocaust denial? Give me a break.
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?
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?
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. I'm sure the US had some hand in it. Did the US create all the conditions that led to it or even a majority? Doubt it. Too expensive and too unlikely to succeed.
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. And amusing coming from someone who has been chided repeatedly on this list for re-posting from the same tabloid news sources over and over. Anyone who considers you credible is not exactly someone I care about believing me.
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.
And accurate.
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.
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.
War is a certainty for both candidates. 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. Trump is a narcissist who doesn't understand the first thing about international politics.
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.
Random words meant to distract from the fact that you haven't actually responded to any of my points. Probably because all you're capable of doing is copy-pasting from The Duran and Russia Insider. Perhaps if you can convince one of those fine publications to respond to me, they'll be able to come up with something better than you have that you can then copy and paste? 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 :/
Oh, right, I forgot, cpunks exists solely for your entertainment. Perhaps you should just stick to treating it as the write-only medium you have been, shouting The Duran and Russia Insider and a few Before Its News articles into the void since no sane person would ever see their content otherwise.