- Jul 30, 2011
- 7,737
- 193
- 17,680
Echoes said:Climate change is an excuse for more globalism and, in fine, more free-trade
It's not an excuse for, it's a function of. And no part of it is "free".
Come on: even you can do better than this.
Echoes said:Climate change is an excuse for more globalism and, in fine, more free-trade
Buffalo Soldier said:That does not relate at all on how Climate change politics are a cover up to enforce free trade.
fatandfast said:I have often wondered just what globalism means. What is free trade?
What is mendacious about it?Echoes said:You can't solve the climate issue at national level alone, you at least need to do it at European level. That is the mendacious argument that the Greens (+ some independent ecologists) are constantly putting up here in Europe.
python said:Just finished reading several dozens pages from the recently published bill gates book…
to put it frankly, despite being consistently critical of the us foreign policy, I was impressed and - concerning certain passages -quite agreeable with the views of this cold war warrior.… he wrote the book before the current Ukrainian crisis, but quite remarkably, his opinions on Ukrainian vs. Russian issues jive perfectly with what actually happened.
To remind, he served under several presidents from both parties including the bush jr and obama govts. He held posts from the cia chief to the minister of defense…
Hard to believe, but this faithful servant and implementer of american interventions actually called the us post-cold war policies re. nato expansions into Russia’s realm arrogant and ill-conceived. He asserts he did his best to alert his bosses to the fact, but when unheeded, resorted to carrying out the policies.
He states he clashed with the super hawks like chainy , almost always
He clearly states his frequent objections to Israel’s unilateral moves which took place in blatant disregard of the us national interest and sometimes at american expense. He, without mentioning Jewish ethnicity/religion of some american politicians, hinted at their incredible influence
He portrays himself as moderate regarding iran..said he objected the military option as the 1st choice.
Despite his realistic assessment of Russia’s grievances, he states his hatred for putin and, somewhat inconsistently, calls the man behind what he called justified grievances a ’cold-minded killer’. I sensed, but could be wrong on that, he disliked putin as a person who got outfoxed by a fellow intelligence professional on several occasions. By a contrast, he sang songs to medvedev.
The most interesting observation I got, perhaps it was a set up, how difficult it is to actually move the us allies and how little direct influence america had over even minor partners in the eu.
Also, it was obvious the book was written to present bill gates in the most favorable light, iow, a self serving work. The examples failing an elementary sanity check are multiple. never the less, a great book to read for any student of international affairs.
aphronesis said:The US has had a good run--several decades--of backing "stable" (anti-populist) govts. abroad only to do successive damage controls as that short-term strategy falls apart. With Obama ratcheting up the "clean-hands" aspect of that approach, there's no need to feel bad about it now.
RetroActive said:Stage 3: bargaining.
thanks.Bustedknuckle said:Robert Gates..not Bill Gates. Bill gates head cheese(former) of microsoft and bazillion-aire.
Robert Gates smart cookie, makes Hagel look like a punt...
aphronesis said:structural compliance; containment of cultural choice.
RetroActive said:Understandable though not acceptable. No need to argue about it though; time is not on your side.
It was popular revolution and popular revolutions are always messy. If you look at people at Maidan, you can see all kind of different sorts: left, right, conservatives, liberals, old, young. They had a backing of the parliament and this parliament is totally legitimate, chosen in free elections. At the end president flew the country and his own party (Regions Party) denounced him. If you say that those who took power in Kiev dont represent thier people in large, then who does?python said:sometimes, in fact more often than sometimes, in today's indifferent and tired europe, people rally behind various 'isms' out of contrarian reasons rather than true beliefs. one does not have to love putin, to see that the putschists who took power in kiev dont represent their people at larged, are anti-democratic and were in fact puppets of the west who installed them.
if they were not the direct victims of the prevailing double standards - say kosovo aloud - they at least feel like holding a mirror to their complicit, corrupt leaders. that putin gets credited for the duplicity of europe, is hardly his fault or weakness.
Von Mises said:then who does?
Von Mises said:It was popular revolution and popular revolutions are always messy. ... They had a backing of the parliament and this parliament is totally legitimate, chosen in free elections.
There's fights like that in Russian Parliament too. Not in US parliament.blutto said:...is the following what you mean by "messy"....
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/fistfight-erupts-ukraine-parliament-100914299.html
...wonder where the wonderful gun bearing defenders of the glorious revolution were when this little fracas erupted....I mean they were certainly there with their guns when the glorious revolution was rubber stamped, errr, sanctified by the legitimate parliament ( in fact some members of that parliament were so thrilled to do this they expressed their joy by voting several times...see photo posted earlier in this thread...yup, real super duper legitimate....democracy at the end of a gun barrel is the best kind of democracy ain't it )...
Cheers
Buffalo Soldier said:The answer is: no, the video you posted is totally off topic, and has nothing to do with legitimacy of the 2013 Ukrainian parliament.
