Thread: USA government gone rogue (well... not exactly. L.)

Originally Posted by Alex_krsk

Lately it's become pretty clear that all that western/US anti-Soviet and anti-Dictatorship propaganda was just a mask for plain russophobia. Russia is no communist (at least less comunist then theUS) andno authoritarian any more but those old propaganda patterns are still being brough to the media, and the post above is perfect exmple of it

=> !!! "It is laughable the amount of sugarcoating from those pro-Putin on this site. The anti-American/anti-EU rhetoric is fine and dandy but then so many are defending the Putin positions. "

Originally Posted by 14Russian

=> !!! "It is laughable the amount of sugarcoating from those pro-Putin on this site. The anti-American/anti-EU rhetoric is fine and dandy but then so many are defending the Putin positions. "

And why are you personally defending Putin positions?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I agree with you that there are no good sides. Every government is evil by its nature, and the current implementations of both EU/US and Russian governments have obvious dark sides. Though, why I think that the EU/US governments are better in some ways is because EU/US leaders at least are ok with people criticizing them, while in Russia and the Russian speaking world it's totally a different story.

No, it's not any better, just different. They are both weeds of the same root.

The problem is that either side is heavily brainwashing the populace and the issues do become confusing since both have different objectives. My point is, there are a lot of posters that all can agree with the wrongdoing by the West but when it comes to Putin/neo-Soviet Russia, you have apologists who are from Russia or apologists to the Putin regime and even Westerners who are sympathetic who have little clue about Russia except for what the neo-Soviet posters here tell them. Thus, there is an imbalance and the reporting is skewed one way. That doesn't mean that one is 'better' than the other, however.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

My point is, there are a lot of posters that all can agree with the wrongdoing by the West but when it comes to Putin/neo-Soviet Russia, you have apologists who are from Russia or apologists to the Putin regime and even Westerners who are sympathetic who have little clue about Russia except for what the neo-Soviet posters here tell them. Thus, there is an imbalance and the reporting is skewed one way.

You point is clearly descrideb by "Putin/neo-Soviet Russia".
People have different opinions and the fact that number of posters who share one opinion is bigget then the number of posters who share the other point can be caused by some pretty random circumstances. So any "imbalance" is hardly explainable imho. But still a person has a right to have his own opinion and right to express it regardless which group he happened to belong to.

There's a very clear distinction between admiration and patriotism. For example, the US founders idolized the teachings of a British subject named John Locke. He wasn't an American but he inspired the Constitution of the United States of America. And don't forget, England was America's worst enemy at that time.
It didn't mean that the founders of the US were loyal to Great Britain and it didn't mean that they were traitors. What it meant was that anyone - whatever country they lived in - could be idolized for their strategies, philosophies, and ideals.
Other people who contributed to the US Constitution were Samuel von Pufendorf (German) and Charles-Louis de Secondat (French).
Btw, the founders were never accused of being pro-Locke, pro-Pufendorf, or pro-Montesquieu.
Recently President Putin called the PRISM surveillance system a "workable idea". Does that mean President Putin is loyal to the US? I mean, he did admire part of the US system of government, right?
No I don't think anyone's accusing him of being pro-Bush or pro-Obama, lol.

A great politician and historian of the 19th century, Lord Acton, said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
What we're seeing in the US is an example of that. Another example occured in Nazi Germany. Those who didn't support Adolf Hitler, the invasions of other countries, and the exterminations of the Jewish people were called traitors. And don't forget, the leaders of the interim government in Ukraine were hand-picked by the US assistant Secretary of State. And they are all Ultra-Nationalists (ie. Bandera). The Bandera were protected by the US after WW2 and were never included in the war crimes trials.
So, how much should loyal Americans accept while innocent people are having their lives destroyed and being slaughtered?

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

There's a very clear distinction between admiration and patriotism. For example, the US founders idolized the teachings of a British subject named John Locke. He wasn't an American but he inspired the Constitution of the United States of America. And don't forget, England was America's worst enemy at that time.
It didn't mean that the founders of the US were loyal to Great Britain and it didn't mean that they were traitors. What it meant was that anyone - whatever country they lived in - could be idolized for their strategies, philosophies, and ideals.
Other people who contributed to the US Constitution were Samuel von Pufendorf (German) and Charles-Louis de Secondat (French).
Btw, the founders were never accused of being pro-Locke, pro-Pufendorf, or pro-Montesquieu.
Recently President Putin called the PRISM surveillance system a "workable idea". Does that mean President Putin is loyal to the US? I mean, he did admire part of the US system of government, right?
No I don't think anyone's accusing him of being pro-Bush or pro-Obama, lol.

A great politician and historian of the 19th century, Lord Acton, said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
What we're seeing in the US is an example of that. Another example occured in Nazi Germany. Those who didn't support Adolf Hitler, the invasions of other countries, and the exterminations of the Jewish people were called traitors. And don't forget, the leaders of the interim government in Ukraine were hand-picked by the US assistant Secretary of State. And they are all Ultra-Nationalists (ie. Bandera). The Bandera were protected by the US after WW2 and were never included in the war crimes trials.
So, how much should loyal Americans accept while innocent people are having their lives destroyed and being slaughtered?

The Ukrainian interim government legally ceases to exist in a few days, ruining any efforts to make accusations like the one just made. And I hope the new legal one will have more authority to deal with those AK-47 carrying apes breaking into people's houses, and robbing and intimidating them. And by dealing with those, I certainly do not mean talking to them or something like that.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

The Ukrainian interim government legally ceases to exist in a few days, ruining any efforts to make accusations like the one just made. And I hope the new legal one will have more authority to deal with those AK-47 carrying apes breaking into people's houses, and robbing and intimidating them. And by dealing with those, I certainly do not mean talking to them or something like that.

The facts of everything that's been happening in Ukraine (and everywhere else in the world) have already been recorded. A million elections can't erase that. And everything I've posted has already been said by politicians in Washington DC and almost all of my sources have been the mainstream American media. Btw, a Congressional investigation has been started to find the facts surrounding the Benghazi incident and it's not the first. There's a huge list of Congressional hearings over a lot of things that have been happening in both the Bush and the Obama administrations. Also, the American support for the Bandera isn't hidden and it was never denied. So my last points are valid. At what point does a nation step over the line drawn by human conscience?

The voting in Ukraine is already underway. At 11:00 in Kiev, voter turnout was 17.5% with Poroshenko as the leading and favored candidate. Since part of eastern Ukraine has declared itself an independent region then it really doesn't matter if nobody votes there. So, with a few objections concerning the banning of Russian journalists, I do accept the vote as the choice of the Ukrainian people. If Poroshenko can get 50% of the votes before 20:00 then there won't be any need for a runoff. The official results will be announced on Monday.
After that, It's probably Poroshenko's decision how to deal with the crisis in Ukraine - not yours or mine. Who knows, maybe he can even find a way to keep the Ukrainian troops from killing each other.
Oh, and Vice President Biden can go fight the Turks for the gas in southern Cyprus so he can sell it to Europe. All he has to do is convince the Turks to kiss the Greeks and reunite the island.........................................
and build the infrastructure............................

Originally Posted by Eric C.

The Ukrainian interim government legally ceases to exist in a few days, ruining any efforts to make accusations like the one just made. And I hope the new legal one will have more authority to deal with those AK-47 carrying apes breaking into people's houses, and robbing and intimidating them. And by dealing with those, I certainly do not mean talking to them or something like that.

Today's so-called elections will not change anything. Poroshenko who will be elected by estimeate 8 million voters from total 35 million voters will never unite the people who live on the now-cursed lands previously known as "Ukraine" into one nation. So most probably we shall have new Somalia in the middle of Europe. Sane people should think about security of 4 now-acting nuclear plants located there to prevent another Chernobyl(s).

Originally Posted by Basil77

Today's so-called elections will not change anything. Poroshenko who will be elected by estimeate 8 million voters from total 35 million voters will never unite the people who live on the now-cursed lands previously known as "Ukraine" into one nation. So most probably we shall have new Somalia in the middle of Europe. Sane people should think about security of 4 now-acting nuclear plants located there to prevent another Chernobyl(s).

It won't be another Somalia, unless too many people consider taking off armed terrorists to be "fascist methods" or something. The rest of it is fine. Even if a significant part of the eastern Ukrainian civilians aren't too patriotic about their country doesn't mean they necessarily demand for major geopolitical changes in the area.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

It won't be another Somalia, unless too many people consider taking off armed terrorists to be "fascist methods" or something. The rest of it is fine. Even if a significant part of the eastern Ukrainian civilians aren't too patriotic about their country doesn't mean they necessarily demand for major geopolitical changes in the area.

Armed terrorist are the ones who use heavy weapons (artillery), fighters and helicopters against their own citizens. Armed terrorist are the ones who kill people only because they have another political views. These armed terrorists are in power in Kiev right now and soon after today's farce called "election" they will start to shoot not only people in the South-Eastern regions who don't agree with them but each other as well. We shall see that very soon.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Armed terrorist are the ones who use heavy weapons (artillery), fighters and helicopters against their own citizens. Armed terrorist are the ones who kill people only because they have another political views. These armed terrorists are in power in Kiev right now and soon after today's farce called "election" they will start to shoot not only people in the South-Eastern regions who don't agree with them but each other as well. We shall see that very soon.

You mean here those Donetsk & Lugansk masked "authorities" are innocent? Whatever, but I can tell you for sure, if some morons in masks with machine guns took over MY city, I would be rooting for anyone who was to put their existence to an end.

So you think they are not residents of those cities but Russian troops?

Originally Posted by dtrq

So you think they are not residents of those cities but Russian troops?

I think that would make no difference to me. First of all, they're violent assaulters. And if you claim they have no links to Russia whatsoever, I just wonder how so many Russians are involved in tons of arguments about that conflict.

Первое интервью премьера ДНР Александра Бородая: «Неделя» с Марианной Максимовской (24.05.2014)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I think that would make no difference to me. First of all, they're violent assaulters. And if you claim they have no links to Russia whatsoever, I just wonder how so many Russians are involved in tons of arguments about that conflict.

I wonder what are your sources of information, because even Western media have less extreme POV. To be clear I'm not supporting separatists, I think it was unnecessary, but people from there who I knew before the conflict and who are ordinary people with no links to political activism actively support "violent assaulters".
Also, who are more "violent assaulters", those who standing for their land and people or those who are using army against own people, bomb cities with artillery and kill foreign journalists?

A lot of Americans and almost all the politicians have their own media source. I think it's called The Jurassic Times. It's as progressive as fossils and it supports all the highly Xenophobic policies of the Stone Age...

Poroshenko has 56% of the votes in the exit poll so there won't be a runoff. I was so surprised, I yawned. The Ukrainian crisis and the election has sent a lot of clear messages.

1. The wealthiest nation on Earth can step into any country, stage a violent coup d'etat, and instal any leaders they like.
2. All protesters - even the ones torching the police - must be protected under International Law... IF AND ONLY IF they support the new government.
3. International Law doesn't protect protesters who don't support a new government. The United Nations and the Human Rights groups will ignore them.
4. American democracy is a system of government that uses military force to oppress people who don't agree with their opinions. Any country that doesn't use the military to attack it's own citizens isn't a true democracy.
5. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press must be approved by the American government. All other journalists can be banned, detained, or killed.
6. The West and the United Nations do not support self-determination or human rights. But either one can be used as a political tool.
7. True democratic elections do not require the absence of force, military threats, or any minimum number of voters. Ten people could have an election in Ukraine, with the army deployed against the population, and the results would be legitimate for the West and the UN.
8. The best way to be labelled a terrorist is to be a patriotic citizen and fight for your homeland. So if anyone tries to install a new US government and a new US Constitution then I will be a terrorist if I resist.
9. According to the US and the UN, it's legal for any other country to come to the US and overthrow the government. The only requirement is a few thousand protesters.
10. Western democracy is not a perfect system of government. The most important goal of the United Nations should be to respect other forms of government, not to attack them.
11. The best way to be patriotic is to buy an island and start your own country.
12. My red line has been crossed. The issue in Ukraine was economic, not political.

I support the separatists in Ukraine. Their rights to a representative government have been denied and their rights to self-determination are under military threat.
I'm an American and Americans are taught to condemn political and military oppression. And I do.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

1. The wealthiest nation on Earth can step into any country, stage a violent coup d'etat, and instal any leaders they like.

do you mean noway or switzerland? Determination of "wealth of a nation" is required foremost.

I support the separatists in Ukraine.

Don't you think, that they could fight without weapons and attacking governmental institutions? Political struggle.
At least for now, when their ideas are not praised too much.

Originally Posted by Alex_krsk

do you mean noway or switzerland? Determination of "wealth of a nation" is required foremost.

Wealthiest nation is the one, who has built more aircraft carriers than others, I think

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Wealthiest nation is the one, who has built more aircraft carriers than others, I think

If you consider wealth as military budget then you're right.