World Politics

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

I take neither side because I think neither is in 'the right'. I could criticize the recent Yemen debacle more vociferously, but then I would likely get accused of domestic political partisanship because my dislike of Trump and his entire party is obvious. <shrugs> I didn't like the drone policy of Obama. Could I have been more vocal about that? Yes and I do own that shortcoming.

Fear as a result of knowing facts is rational. Fear due to propaganda and disinformation is dangerous. That is why I brought up inaccuracy.

Political football ehe?

That Yemen debacle would have went down regardless of President Obama or Copperhead. same same as they say.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

"Side" meant jingoism in this case with forceful hostilities as one of implied first options rather than an unwanted resort. If only in the public mind and ghosted in the US thread. I wasn't really invoking the migration of postmodern relativism and differential outcomes to that of geopolitics. (Even if it's happening.)

The air around these parts is a general recrudescence of nationalism. After decades of unwanted resorts, should we really be that surprised by first options? The differential outcomes have arrived at their logical conclusion. O tempora o mores!

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

I take neither side because I think neither is in 'the right'. I could criticize the recent Yemen debacle more vociferously, but then I would likely get accused of domestic political partisanship because my dislike of Trump and his entire party is obvious. <shrugs> I didn't like the drone policy of Obama. Could I have been more vocal about that? Yes and I do own that shortcoming.

Fear as a result of knowing facts is rational. Fear due to propaganda and disinformation is dangerous. That is why I brought up inaccuracy.

Political football ehe?

That Yemen debacle would have went down regardless of President Obama or Copperhead. same same as they say.

Hillary for peace.

@rhub, well the lie of the differential outcomes for most was that relativism allow self-realization under the unspoken hegemon.

 

[djpbaltimore]

We'll never know if Obama would've ever approved of this type of mission (as he saw it as escalation according to one of his NS advisors.) Both Obama and Clinton very well could've green-lighted it, but neither is president. I imagine Clinton would've been too busy plotting regime change in Russia and the droning of Assange to pay much attention to Yemen.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

I take neither side because I think neither is in 'the right'. I could criticize the recent Yemen debacle more vociferously, but then I would likely get accused of domestic political partisanship because my dislike of Trump and his entire party is obvious. <shrugs> I didn't like the drone policy of Obama. Could I have been more vocal about that? Yes and I do own that shortcoming.

Fear as a result of knowing facts is rational. Fear due to propaganda and disinformation is dangerous. That is why I brought up inaccuracy.

Political football ehe?

That Yemen debacle would have went down regardless of President Obama or Copperhead. same same as they say.

Hillary for peace.

@rhub, well the lie of the differential outcomes for most was that relativism allow self-realization under the unspoken hegemon.

It wasn't spoken about to safegaurd dreams, their everlasting solace.

 

[python]

Re:

Whitewash, no. I think the bigger mistake is to think that one is on the "right" side, rather than by accident of birth, historical events, etc. on "a side."

While that's not likely to change, one wonders how things might be different to be honest about being on "a side."

I said nothing about inaccuracy.

it is not about white washing but about a brain washed. rinsed in fact. check how the assertion of the mutual 'fear of each other' evolves into it's more dangerous to 'white wash russia' and compare it to the sudden earlier label of calling those pointing to fog of war in aleppo - calling them the stooges of russia.

get the discontinuity? i see the pangs of trying to look 'balanced' while internally having the emotional hate attack b/c it is kremlin allegedly 'supporting' some politician . the entire posting history points to an emotional, irrational attitude in certain cases quite devoid of rational analysis...

the very simple, indisputable facts that it is america that owns 600 military bases all over the world, that is is the us military budget equalizing the rest of the world, that it is the nato expansion east and not the other way around. that it is the us that still dominates and controls the economic, financial and trade levers to add to the military supremacy should and can be whitewashed ...those little inconvenient facts cant enter a mind bent on ignoring them.

any honest and intelligent american in my book should first and foremost get busy looking into their own country's reality and its very ugly record in the last 2-3 decades BEFORE exaggerating other minor states. this is not to diminish the us exemplary role in rebuilding the post-war europe and defeating communism.

an attitude different from the reflective one in my book is a variety of a fading emperious superiority complex steeped on insecurity but actually driven by ignorance of a wider world. :redface:

 

[djpbaltimore]

Because I can multitask effectively, I can criticize both simultaneously. (And whoever else deserves condemnation like Australia for their poor treatment of refugees.) I also don't exaggerate about anything Russia has done. I have backed up my assertions with links at all times.

 

[python]

in your own brain, in your own rather limited knowledge of a wider world sometimes, some things are rather different. but of course it is a pat on a shoulder loaded with a huge chip. expected.

somehow quite several of us including aphro who started the very doubting of the limited perspective see it differently.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Last I checked, nobody who posts here has ever met me in the wider world. So any prediction about my knowledge of the wider world is almost assuredly going to be wide of the mark. And it does not take great perspective to see that blowing up a UN humanitarian convoy is not the action of a benevolent nation.

 

[python]

jesus. last i checked everybody here can read your post.

perhaps in your blind denial complex you think we cant. but that's not so. hope you can give the readers this much.

last time i checked anyone DID NOT NEED TO MEET YOU in a wider world to make an opinion of your knowledge of the wider world. mine is low. apparently several think so too. with the last sentence you have just provided more evidence of being highly unbalanced in the view of the world. in fact, the convoy deflection was rather lowly b/c no one mentioned it in the aphro inspired discussion. hating kremlin is not unfounded, hating for the single goal of ignoring your own gov'r atrocities is rather...well you know not very worldly.

 

[python]

my last post on the subject...

perhaps it is a total waste, but i am going to repeat here why i dont get the 'whitewashing of russia being more dangerous'. my only purpose here is stressing/repeating the well known facts...

gdp/economy: the us vs russia= 10 to 1
military spending: the us vs the world=1 to 1, the us vs russia= 12 to 1
military bases around the world: the us to russia= 600 to 3

i am withholding some more controversial parameters.

russia is a small, underdeveloped country still struggling to get together following the collapse of the su. the shrinking economy and the endemic corruption made it barely functional. any failure to see a spin on their latest moves b/c of the increased self assertiveness to the nato and the neocon aggression is rather ignorant

 

[aphronesis]

Are there as many bases as implied by the US/Russia ratio? I had a few less. Or likely I misremembered. And the US pays good rent on some of these bases to ensure "peace".

 

[python]

Re:

Are there as many bases as implied by the US/Russia ratio? I had a few less. Or likely I misremembered. And the US pays good rent on some of these bases to ensure "peace".

i stand corrected. it is not 600 but 800 military bases according to this source which based the count on the pentagon's own annual Base Structure Report the count had been going down with closure of 100s of bases.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

Are there as many bases as implied by the US/Russia ratio? I had a few less. Or likely I misremembered. And the US pays good rent on some of these bases to ensure "peace".

There are 'bases' and there are 'bases'. As seen on the chart, 'lilly-pads'..there are more than a few Russian 'outposts' in addition to their big ones.

The US is an 'island', far from any conflicts but have their hand in more than a few today and maybe more in the future. Far less expensive to forward deploy forces than try to get them there, quickly, from the US. BUT classic whale vs elephant situation. Island nation vs land nation and how to protect 'lines of communication'..read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War...first assignment at Naval War College..followed by Clausewitz then Sun Tzu ...

US/trump love fest? Well because Vald has the goods on donnie and wants 'favored nation' status. In addition, donnie wants to 'help' Vlad for the help he got from Russia in the 1016 election.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

I take neither side because I think neither is in 'the right'. I could criticize the recent Yemen debacle more vociferously, but then I would likely get accused of domestic political partisanship because my dislike of Trump and his entire party is obvious. <shrugs> I didn't like the drone policy of Obama. Could I have been more vocal about that? Yes and I do own that shortcoming.

Fear as a result of knowing facts is rational. Fear due to propaganda and disinformation is dangerous. That is why I brought up inaccuracy.

Political football ehe?

That Yemen debacle would have went down regardless of President Obama or Copperhead. same same as they say.

Doubt it. Obama was much more careful, IMHO. Not the cowboy donnie is.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/03/former-obama-staffer-its-b-s-to-say-obama-approved-yemen-raid

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

jesus. last i checked everybody here can read your post.

perhaps in your blind denial complex you think we cant. but that's not so. hope you can give the readers this much.

last time i checked anyone DID NOT NEED TO MEET YOU in a wider world to make an opinion of your knowledge of the wider world. mine is low. apparently several think so too. with the last sentence you have just provided more evidence of being highly unbalanced in the view of the world. in fact, the convoy deflection was rather lowly b/c no one mentioned it in the aphro inspired discussion. hating kremlin is not unfounded, hating for the single goal of ignoring your own gov'r atrocities is rather...well you know not very worldly.

And is something that I have never done here in this board. Show one single post where I ignore the atrocities committed by the USA or in the name of the USA. But guess what, you can't so you throw out absolutist arguments based on your own preconceived notions. You lack the perspective to discuss US politics, but you still weigh in on a regular basis. Maybe you should look in the mirror before calling other people out.

You still have not admitted that the Russians even attacked the convoy, insinuating that it was the Americans. To me, that is much worse of a position to take and reeks of 'alternative facts'. The Russians killed more civilians than the USA in Syria every month in 2016 (According to your own source!), yet that is somehow not worthy of discussion in this thread?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

my last post on the subject...

perhaps it is a total waste, but i am going to repeat here why i dont get the 'whitewashing of russia being more dangerous'. my only purpose here is stressing/repeating the well known facts...

gdp/economy: the us vs russia= 10 to 1
military spending: the us vs the world=1 to 1, the us vs russia= 12 to 1
military bases around the world: the us to russia= 600 to 3

i am withholding some more controversial parameters.

russia is a small, underdeveloped country still struggling to get together following the collapse of the su. the shrinking economy and the endemic corruption made it barely functional. any failure to see a spin on their latest moves b/c of the increased self assertiveness to the nato and the neocon aggression is rather ignorant

So, they are only killing Syrian civilians because of NATO? That is laughable. To me, that is the very definition of white-washing. BTW, neocons have not been power for YEARS....

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

my last post on the subject...

perhaps it is a total waste, but i am going to repeat here why i dont get the 'whitewashing of russia being more dangerous'. my only purpose here is stressing/repeating the well known facts...

gdp/economy: the us vs russia= 10 to 1
military spending: the us vs the world=1 to 1, the us vs russia= 12 to 1
military bases around the world: the us to russia= 600 to 3

i am withholding some more controversial parameters.

russia is a small, underdeveloped country still struggling to get together following the collapse of the su. the shrinking economy and the endemic corruption made it barely functional. any failure to see a spin on their latest moves b/c of the increased self assertiveness to the nato and the neocon aggression is rather ignorant

So, they are only killing Syrian civilians because of NATO? That is laughable. To me, that is the very definition of white-washing. BTW, neocons have not been power for YEARS....

....here is what is really fcuking laughable, you prancing around on your high horse looking down your nose at someone and thinking the sun shines out your ar$ehole....

....here is a news flash for you sparky....there is a bit of a dust storm happening in this place called The Ukraine.....and can you guess who was in charge of starting that wee crisis.....it was this person named Victoria Nuland who, btw, is a fire breathing neocon of the highest order, read, she is neocon royalty....

Cheers

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

my last post on the subject...

perhaps it is a total waste, but i am going to repeat here why i dont get the 'whitewashing of russia being more dangerous'. my only purpose here is stressing/repeating the well known facts...

gdp/economy: the us vs russia= 10 to 1
military spending: the us vs the world=1 to 1, the us vs russia= 12 to 1
military bases around the world: the us to russia= 600 to 3

i am withholding some more controversial parameters.

russia is a small, underdeveloped country still struggling to get together following the collapse of the su. the shrinking economy and the endemic corruption made it barely functional. any failure to see a spin on their latest moves b/c of the increased self assertiveness to the nato and the neocon aggression is rather ignorant

So, they are only killing Syrian civilians because of NATO? That is laughable. To me, that is the very definition of white-washing. BTW, neocons have not been power for YEARS....

Neocons, neoliberals, what's the difference? They all want war and profit. It's a shame Americans will never fully wake up and realize this.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

....here is what is really fcuking laughable, you prancing around on your high horse looking down your nose at someone thinking the sun shines out your ar$ehole....

....here is a news flash for you sparky....there is a bit of a dust storm happening in this place called The Ukraine.....and can you guess who was in charge of starting that wee crisis.....it was this person named Victoria Nuland who, btw, is a fire breathing neocon of the highest order, read, she is neocon royalty....

Cheers

You might want to re-phrase that one. I don't think it implies what you think it does.

Nuland did not make policy. The WH did. Blame them, but don't erect a flimsy argument about neocons.

 

[djpbaltimore]

So, is anyone going to provide a reason why what happens in the Ukraine gives a country license to kill civilians in Syria? Do you think that the twin towers attacks gave the US license to kill civilians in Iraq? It seems like the same bogus argument.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....here is what is really fcuking laughable, you prancing around on your high horse looking down your nose at someone thinking the sun shines out your ar$ehole....

....here is a news flash for you sparky....there is a bit of a dust storm happening in this place called The Ukraine.....and can you guess who was in charge of starting that wee crisis.....it was this person named Victoria Nuland who, btw, is a fire breathing neocon of the highest order, read, she is neocon royalty....

Cheers

You might want to re-phrase that one. I don't think it implies what you think it does.

Nuland did not make policy. The WH did. Blame them, but don't erect a flimsy argument about neocons.

....absolutely correct....

you prancing around on your high horse looking down your nose at someone and thinking the sun shines out your ar$ehole

....thank you, I got it nailed good now eh....

Cheers

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

my last post on the subject...

perhaps it is a total waste, but i am going to repeat here why i dont get the 'whitewashing of russia being more dangerous'. my only purpose here is stressing/repeating the well known facts...

gdp/economy: the us vs russia= 10 to 1
military spending: the us vs the world=1 to 1, the us vs russia= 12 to 1
military bases around the world: the us to russia= 600 to 3

i am withholding some more controversial parameters.

russia is a small, underdeveloped country still struggling to get together following the collapse of the su. the shrinking economy and the endemic corruption made it barely functional. any failure to see a spin on their latest moves b/c of the increased self assertiveness to the nato and the neocon aggression is rather ignorant

So, they are only killing Syrian civilians because of NATO? That is laughable. To me, that is the very definition of white-washing. BTW, neocons have not been power for YEARS....

Why would Russia spend all the money it doesn't have to go and kill Syrians?

They wouldn't. Their biggest fear is Chechnya 3.0. Syria is only 600 km away from Chechnya. Russia has a VERY big problem with a growing militant Islamic army that may or may not decide to give their Chechen brothers a helping hand. As it is, Russia is at the absolute limit of its force projection in Syria. They're stretching themselves so that they can maintain the Syrian government and work towards a negotiated peace. The effect is that terrorists get zapped and deny the Chechens an incubator for another go at Russia.

Speaking of force projection... if 600 km is the extent of Russia's capabilities then they obviously aren't capable of moving against Europe, no matter what NATO or the US says. Not capable means no intentions.

Now let's look at the US force projection capabilities. Anywhere. Anytime.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

So, is anyone going to provide a reason why what happens in the Ukraine gives a country license to kill civilians in Syria? Do you think that the twin towers attacks gave the US license to kill civilians in Iraq? It seems like the same bogus argument.

They aren't killing Syrians. They're killing almost exclusively foreign, invading terrorists. Very unfortunately for Syria, the terrorists are bent on occupying and destroying the civilian population. Example: Daesh has cut off all water to Aleppo and has rigged the dam with explosives if the Syrians try to restore the supply - not that the press is reporting on it. So that's two months of no water for a million or more people. Which side do you think the government is on? So when Syria and Russia and Iran work together to defeat these bastards, they necessarily have to attack populated areas. What's the alternative?

John Swanson

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Why would Russia spend all the money it doesn't have to go and kill Syrians?

They wouldn't. Their biggest fear is Chechnya 3.0. Syria is only 600 km away from Chechnya. Russia has a VERY big problem with a growing militant Islamic army that may or may not decide to give their Chechen brothers a helping hand. As it is, Russia is at the absolute limit of its force projection in Syria. They're stretching themselves so that they can maintain the Syrian government and work towards a negotiated peace. The effect is that terrorists get zapped and deny the Chechens an incubator for another go at Russia.

Speaking of force projection... if 600 km is the extent of Russia's capabilities then they obviously aren't capable of moving against Europe, no matter what NATO or the US says. Not capable means no intentions.

Now let's look at the US force projection capabilities. Anywhere. Anytime.

John Swanson

I don't doubt that Russia has a rationale for what they are doing in the ME. Nor do I doubt that the US can do damage in a greater scope of places. However, I doubt that entangling themselves in the ME will calm Muslims within their territory. Preventing Chechnya 3.0 might be better accomplished with domestic policy, rather than what they are attempting militarily. Ymmv.....

I don't think Europe is worried about incursions from Russia. I think many Ukrainians are though. I don't see much of a conventional military threat to Russia from the ME, especially with nations like Iran as a close ally.

So, is anyone going to provide a reason why what happens in the Ukraine gives a country license to kill civilians in Syria? Do you think that the twin towers attacks gave the US license to kill civilians in Iraq? It seems like the same bogus argument.

They aren't killing Syrians. They're killing almost exclusively foreign, invading terrorists. Very unfortunately for Syria, the terrorists are bent on occupying and destroying the civilian population. Example: Daesh has cut off all water to Aleppo and has rigged the dam with explosives if the Syrians try to restore the supply - not that the press is reporting on it. So that's two months of no water for a million or more people. Which side do you think the government is on? So when Syria and Russia and Iran work together to defeat these bastards, they necessarily have to attack populated areas. What's the alternative?

John Swanson

The article we were discussing the last few days indicates that they are killing civilians. Python says it is a neutral source.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-coalition-killing-more-civilians-syria-russia-report-1850771101
I imagine you can make a case for doing the greater good by Assad and his Russian partners in some instances, but that doesn't explain things like UN convoy attack and the prison executions. And relating back to my quote above, that really has nothing to do with NATO "aggression" in the Ukraine that Python mentioned as a rationale for Syria.