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

Originally Posted by diogen_

How are you going to withstand such a threat without American aid and army? It sounds next to impossible. Remember, the Axis of evil is not slumbering

I'll take my chances without America! The silly myth that it "saved" Europe from the Nazis is just nonsense propagated by Hollywood. The USSR would have got around to it, it would just have taken a bit longer. As for the ideology and the possible expansionism of the USSR after the war: That also didn't worry me then, as a child, any more than modern Russia does today. It turned out that my country's only two major incidents with the USSR were caused in connection with US involvement. Plus, after the radical Bolsheviks and Stalin, what's scary about the USSR? I even visited on holidays in my childhood. Quirky and different, no shopping destination.. But not scary. But according to the US at the time, the scariest place on earth.

The whole idea with NATO is a bit like a Mafia protection scheme...!

I remember when people in the UK were genuinely expected to support invasion of Iraq, and send troops, because "Saddam's nukes could reach London". How totally proposterous! And then it turned out that he didn't even have any nukes. And the reason why he would randomly target London was never explained either. Makes 0 logical sense.
And oh yes, North Korea could *maybe* reach Hawaii with one of their nukes, that they may or may not have. Never mind the fact that there is absolutely no logical reason for them to do it, and they never saidthat they would.

—Japan has tried to get the US to leave Okinawa island for decades, but it hangs on like a leech, against the wishes of the locals and the Japanese government.
—Afghanistan won't sign an extension of US bases, but they won't take no for an answer and probably made sure that somebody who'll sign the agreement won the Afghan election
—Germans loathe it, but because of the war stigma, they can't speak up. Despite the fact that modern Germany has the most peace-loving and anti-war population of all of Europe.

I don't see why the US can't just leave the rest of the world alone. Or if it must meddle in other countries, meddle in bordering countries, i.e. Canada and Mexico. That's at least somewhat understandable.

But across the Atlantic or the other side of the earth?! There is no excuse other than imperialism, general evilness and greed!

Originally Posted by Eric C.

You probably never consider the possibility of a pink elephant electing himself

Not my business, and not yours. As long as its not a direct threat, it's not our business. And no country in the Middle East or Africa is a realistic threat to Europe at present time.

And the fact is: Iraq is a total dump today. Dangerous, criminal, full of violent and dangerous gangs. Syria was considerably better before the Western backed uprising. It really wasn't bad.

Likewise Libya in many ways was the most advanced nation in North Africa. Afghanistan today is an extremely dangerous and violent place. Marginally better for women, maybe, but at what price? Anyway, it's not for us to dictate, how Afghans should live their lives, in their country. It's arrogant to think we understand their culture and history.

And saving women was just an invented reason to meddle there anyway. It sounds good, and it's hard to challenge.
There are plenty of places in Africa where women have it as bad or worse than it was for women under the Taliban. But because there are no oil pipeline or strategic importance, those African women are left to their own devices.

I'll take my chances without America!...

But across the Atlantic or the other side of the earth?! There is no excuse other than imperialism, general evilness and greed!

Coming back to the "axis of evil". The bottom line of your message is that these states are not evil in the slightest. They are just normal states that are insidiously compromised by the US propaganda. Right?

Originally Posted by diogen_

Coming back to the "axis of evil". The bottom line of your message is that these states are not evil in the slightest. They are just normal states that are insidiously compromised by the US propaganda. Right?

1) I am not God, so it's not for me to say what's good or evil in terms of politics. Their populations will eventually rise up if the situation is intolerable. That's exactly what's happened in the past historically across the world. And their leaders will one day have to answer for how they how exercised the leadership that was given to them.

2) I have visited enough countries labelled as "evil" by the USA to know that it's hugely exaggerated, at the very least. The USA sees the world through its star-striped specs and believes its own interpretation and value judgment is the only valid one. Plus, only countries that don't play the US game, are even judged in the first place. Look at Saudi look at Bahrain.

3) I am not going to let a country that still practices the death penalty, keeps political prisoners indefintely, without charging them, and under sub-human conditions tell me what's moral or immoral! Or a country where the majority of the population can't find even one out of two countries on the map, that they've been at war with for over 10 years!

4) The countries the US are putting judgments on, usually have a radically different history, culture, religion, economic situation etc, etc. To apply European or American standards on what goes on in these countries is presuppositional and arrogant.

5) The US supports, and has supported regimes that most people would consider disgusting. Countless across South America, the Shah, Saudi, Bahrain, Phillipinrd, military junta in South Korea and much, much more. For such a country to then come and say that certain other nations are evil in comparison to the brutal examples I mentioned, is just hypocritical and lacks credibility.

Who is this "Axis of Evil"? What country is posing a serious threat to the security of any other country today? Please name the country and explain how it's imminent that they will invade and take out another country. "Axis of Evil" is a term used to describe a country that's a real and serious threat to another country.

I have to agree with Hanna. The only appropriate time to invade another country is when that country has declared war against another country. Internal issues have to be resolved by the people, not another country. When Russia couldn't deal with the Tsar any more, did the US jump in and solve the problem? Did Europe? How about China? No. The Russian people solved the problem.
If another "evil power" exists in the world then it must be the people in that country that resolve the problem.
When a foreign country tries to solve the problem, it's like a hockey team jumping in to solve bad calls made by a baseball coach. Only the people in that country really know how to solve their problems. And if their not trying to solve their problem, then it must not be a very serious problem.

Btw, congrats Komsomolskaya Pravda for winning the All-Russian Best News Raido Station Award! Also, congrats Russian News Service for winning Best Information & Kommersant FM for winning Best Business!

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

... The only appropriate time to invade another country is when that country has declared war against another country. Internal issues have to be resolved by the people, not another country... D

applying your logic would mean Russia had to stay out of Crimea

Originally Posted by eisenherz

applying your logic would mean Russia had to stay out of Crimea

Nope. If we leave out of account "annexation", "invasion" and other propaganda stuff. We would see the will of Crimean population to return back home. So that logic doesn't apply here.

Originally Posted by Hanna

And saving women was just an invented reason to meddle there anyway. It sounds good, and it's hard to challenge.
There are plenty of places in Africa where women have it as bad or worse than it was for women under the Taliban. .

as far as i know, the US attacked Afghanistan not to save Afghan woman, but in retaliation to the 9/11 attack and for the ruling Taliban refusing to stop housing and protecting Al Qaida. Unless you really believe it was all a conspiracy, it is hardly disputed that the twin-towers did come down, that Al-Qaida admitted to the attack, and that the Taliban were housing them. So I would say that for once the US had a valid point that was not directly related with oil.

I do agree with you though that the Irak evidence was largely fabricated; and simply a pretext for war.

From a philosophical point of view, the question arises of how to deal with brutal, torturous and dictatorial regimes. (Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein's Irak, the abusive Gaddafi regime, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, North Korea and many more). Personally I do not know the answer - but it is not as easy as saying; it is an internal affair, let them sort it out themselves. History might judge us harshly for just standing by watching the abuse next door and do nothing. Remember the millions slaughtered in Rwanda? Nobody helped them - surely you cannot want that?

On the other hand you do not want a self-interested bully (the USA) that applies justice only as itself sees fit and for reasons beyond humitarian (eg oil etc). The ideal would be to really have a neutral / effective worldbody with a mandate to interfere, but interfere in a consistant manner. Unfortunately the UN with its five permanent members - each always seeking to protect their own interest - does not fit the demand any longer - they are obsolete as a world policing body. But doing something is still better then doing nothing.

Originally Posted by Alex_krsk

Nope. If we leave out of account "annexation", "invasion" and other propaganda stuff. We would see the will of Crimean population to return back home. So that logic doesn't apply here.

hi, i am trying to point out that you cannot just pronounce a set of rules to fit a particular argument; and on the next occasion have to make exceptions or amendments because the desired outcome would be in conflict of someones personal view. If someone want to judge one side on a set of rules, the same rules have to be applied to the other side.
I only referred to the Crimea to highlight this inconsistant application.

My personal view on the Crimea is that the annexation by Russia in strict legal terms is probably illegal; but I do understand that historical factors and wide support from the population makes a case for it. If really the majority (and myself I have no means to verify or know the genuine numbers) of the population out of free will want to join Russia, then they should.

Originally Posted by eisenherz

hi, i am trying to point out that you cannot just pronounce a set of rules to fit a particular argument; and on the next occasion have to make exceptions or amendments because the desired outcome would be in conflict of someones personal view. If someone want to judge one side on a set of rules, the same rules have to be applied to the other side.
I only referred to the Crimea to highlight this inconsistant application.

Set of rules is something that seems to be only used for depicting made up reasons in media. In reality there mostly exceptions and amendments.

as far as i know, the US attacked Afghanistan not to save Afghan woman, but in retaliation to the 9/11 attack and for the ruling Taliban refusing to stop housing and protecting Al Qaida. Unless you really believe it was all a conspiracy, it is hardly disputed that the twin-towers did come down, that Al-Qaida admitted to the attack, and that the Taliban were housing them. So I would say that for once the US had a valid point that was not directly related with oil.

having good excuse doesn't mean that that's the only reason. And if there was a real retaliation i can't understand why they attacked poor Afghanistan but not the SA.

From a philosophical point of view, the question arises of how to deal with brutal, torturous and dictatorial regimes. (Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein's Irak, the abusive Gaddafi regime, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, North Korea and many more). Personally I do not know the answer - but it is not as easy as saying; it is an internal affair, let them sort it out themselves. History might judge us harshly for just standing by watching the abuse next door and do nothing. Remember the millions slaughtered in Rwanda? Nobody helped them - surely you cannot want that?

You are right. Nobody helped them. Like nobody helps NK people, Somalian ppl (and many others in Africa). How much affort would it take to demolish those gangs of Somalian pirates who terrorize 1/6 of the coastal marine traffic? I think American army could easily do that instead of killing thousand of innocent ppl on fabricated evidence.
But instead of helping people who are really being slaughtered they kill people who live quiet and relatively prosperous.
That's the set of rules.

On the other hand you do not want a self-interested bully (the USA) that applies justice only as itself sees fit and for reasons beyond humitarian (eg oil etc). The ideal would be to really have a neutral / effective worldbody with a mandate to interfere, but interfere in a consistant manner. Unfortunately the UN with its five permanent members - each always seeking to protect their own interest - does not fit the demand any longer - they are obsolete as a world policing body. But doing something is still better then doing nothing.

World police just can't exist withut that set of rules. But any police is just a departament of government. Who want to be that world government now we know.


imho

@ Alex-krsk
regarding Somalia
- agreed, but where is China and Russia with helping in Somalia?
why should always the 'west' on their own help? besides, if the US would get involved in Somalia, many commentators here would reproach them; they get reproached for activity and non-activity; yet the other Superpowers (China, Russia) refuse to get involved either directly or they use their Veto power in the UN to block decisions.

Originally Posted by eisenherz

@ Alex-krsk
regarding Somalia
- agreed, but where is China and Russia with helping in Somalia?
why should always the 'west' on their own help? besides, if the US would get involved in Somalia, many commentators here would reproach them; they get reproached for activity and non-activity; yet the other Superpowers (China, Russia) refuse to get involved either directly or they use their Veto power in the UN to block decisions.

There something interesting going on with those somalians.
Those guy who had been captured by russians were released in a few days Two somalians who were captured by french are now free citizens of France. Americans just never detain them.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Who is this "Axis of Evil"? What country is posing a serious threat to the security of any other country today?

Ah, “Axis of Evil” is the “motley crew” of remnant quasi communist and radical Islamism dictatorships that are known for its poor record of bulling its own citizens and some terrorist activity abroad.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Please name the country and explain how it's imminent that they will invade and take out another country. "Axis of Evil" is a term used to describe a country that's a real and serious threat to another country.

It’s self-evident if you analyze thier doctrines. Both commies and Islam radicals have certain bogus messianic feelings about liberating humankind from supposed corruption and degradation from which they promise to “cure” the world before long. You might need to analyze the works of their founding fathers to understand what they may aspire to contrive. Practically all of them end up with outrageous examples of human rights violations.

Just for fun, you may start with “World Revolution” idea if you like.

World revolution is the Marxist concept of overthrowing capitalism in all countries through the conscious revolutionary action of the organized working class. These revolutions would not necessarily occur simultaneously, but where local conditions allowed a revolutionary party to successfully replace bourgeois ownership and rule, and install a workers' state based on social ownership of the means of production. In most Marxist schools, such as Trotskyism, the essentially international character of the class struggle and the necessity of global scope are critical elements and a chief explanation of the failure of socialism in one country. The end goal is to achieve world socialism, and later, stateless communism.[1][2]

World revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I enjoy your posts eisenherz. I have perhaps a slight different flavour in my worldview, but I always respect people who are well informed and logical in their reasoning.

Africa

The US is sending both food, drones and special forces soldiers to Africa, so it's a mixed blessing what they are doing. A lot of the problems in Africa are caused by colonialism, and then the unrealistic expectation on Africa to "catch up" with Europe in next to no time. While we had hundreds of years of slowly developing and getting used to technology, learning to get on reasonably between nations, and Christianity as a sort of moral compass and system of reference -- they were expected to go from a rather primitive type of lifestyle and worldview and adapt to Western values and system overnight. It was bound to work poorly! Colonialism is partly only gone on the surface I think. It's being continued by multinational corporations and by the US' own brand of colonialism/imperialism that is a bit less obvious than the European, old, version. And there is no shortage of European companies, individuals and countries still pursuing their agendas there, as if colonialism was still on.

It's interesting that in some of the colonies that France held on to (smaller places, called "overseas territory") are actually doing better - people have a better life, than the ones they dropped (mostly African). They have the same rights as any normal citizen of France. Just basing that on people I have met, haven't visited any such place myself. But they see themselves as EU citizens etc, etc even if they are from Reunion, the Caribbean or somewhere in the Pacific ocean!

Russia in the guise of the USSR, has actually helped African nations quite a bit in the past. I'm sure it was partly geopolitically motivated, and ideological, but a university is a university, whatever the motivation, and a hospital is a hospital, a bridge is a bridge. They gave A LOT! And more useful things, not just food etc - things that will keep on giving. Quite a few leading figures in Africa were apparently educated in Moscow, for free.

I don't know what Russia is doing in Africa today; but Russia had no colonies in Africa and has not exploited it in the same way as, say, France or Britain. I don't see that Russia has any moral obligation to do anything there.

China's involvement in Africa is getting a lot of publicity and I personally like that they are treating Africans as equals and not as charity victims. I understand they make deals about raw material and in return build infrastructure that's needed. No doubt there's plenty of corruption involved, but at least it's a step towards Africa moving away from the legacy of colonial victims and aid dependents.

Afghanistan

Yes, well maybe you haven't seen the "women" argument as much. I read the Swedish press a lot and they seem to think that the whole thing was about Afghan women (feminism is the big theme du jour in Sweden at the moment). So the US on some kind of humanitarian, feminist quest... It's silly but a lot of people will immedately bring that up.

And of course, as you say, if Afghanistan was retaliation for 9-11 then they should have attacked either Saudi Arabia or possibly Egypt. There is no doubt at all, that al Qaeda, to the extent that it exists as an organised entity ---- like some kind of real-life "Spectre" from James Bond --- is funded with Saudi money and has Saudis pulling the strings.

Don't know if you've seen that video clip with the US General, Clark I think, who was revealing that the US had literally a roadmap with countries they were going to invade back in the mid 90s. Afghanistan was on it. Long before 9-11.
They've followed this very closely; almost all of the regimes on that original list have been taken down. Chance? No way - there's a bigger chance of winning the lottery, than those exact countries being invaded or destabilised. They had a geopolitical agenda, which involved regime change and/or invasion and destabilisinig a number of countries, and they've been working to it, using propganda, hype, psy-ops and twisted logic to justify it as "necessary".

Basically, they were just waiting for an excuse to invade there, and they could loosely get something together, linking Afghanistan with 9-11 so they went for it. And the US population, having never experienced a foreign terror attack on their soil were so totally worked up and distressed about it, that they would have bought into anything. After that the almost "holy" status of 9-11 in the American psyche means that it's been very hard for anybody to raise legitimation questions about the ""War on terror" - that would mean you are sympathising with the "evil" terrorists and your career or friendships could be cut short.

And now, we can see what the real objective is, with their fixation on keeping military bases there, against the will of the president that they themselves essentially hand-picked. (I don't think anyone is so naive as to think that there is democracy in Afghanistan. Real colonialism is so passé. You can achieve the exact same result by keeping some military bases, controlling the economy, influencing mass media and claiming it's democracy until you are green in the eyes and believe it yourself.

And while the US has constructed propganda-friendly reasons for why Bin Laden targetted the US "They hate our freedom!", Bin Laden very clearly said that the the reason for the attack was the presence of US bases in his homeland. If they hadn't had bases there, they would never have been attacked. Then, the US responds in a way that makes the situation a lot WORSE than it was before, generating more and more people annually who end up sympathising with moslem extremism. "Duh!"

Crimea

I agree with your view on it. Sure, that referendum was not legit from a legal international perspective. But I think we all know that the UN or international community would never have helped or supported with a referendum on this. The US would have vetoed anything that could have lead to a chance of Crimea going to RUssia. So they were being pragmatic and thought "why waste time on that when we already know the outcome". I am convinced the great majority there genuinely wanted to join Russia, and I think it was pretty cool that they acted the way they did. Obviously it was a bit of a coup by Russia, and no doubt Russia was pulling some strings in the background - green men etc. But who cares? Nobody died; the people in Crimea got what they wanted, and the US / EU was taught a lesson about unexpected results of meddling in the ex USSR.

East Ukraine

I don't agree with Russia's stance on East Ukraine though. I think Russia should either try a LOT harder to calm things down, and get the rebels to back off and dissolve the People's Republics. Or, Russia should go in, and occupy - if that is the "secret" objective (beginning to doubt that though). The "nothing to do with us" approach doesn't convince me, for one.

It's obvious that this region is just as much Russian, in terms of ethnically and people's loyalties, as it is Ukrainian. A bit like Alsace, Schleswig Holstein or Tornedalen in Sweden. Or people from ex-Yugoslavia who are almost never a clearcut case of one of the new nationalities or the other - and not loyal to the one that they happen to be citizen of.

People seem to be a bit of both - loyalties all over, language no clearcut question etc, etc... It's probably "swings and roundabouts" which of the countries it belongs to. It seems like independence would not be a good option, or realistic. Both Ukrainian under the Kiev government, or Russian would be preferable to living in a civil war zone indefinitely, for sure! This limbo situation with semi-civil war, death and destruction is tragic and Russia's "hands-off"/"not our business" stance is confusing and doesn't make sense.

From a philosophical point of view, the question arises of how to deal with brutal, torturous and dictatorial regimes. (Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein's Irak, the abusive Gaddafi regime, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, North Korea and many more). Personally I do not know the answer - but it is not as easy as saying; it is an internal affair, let them sort it out themselves. History might judge us harshly for just standing by watching the abuse next door and do nothing. Remember the millions slaughtered in Rwanda? Nobody helped them - surely you cannot want that?

It's worse in Iraq now, than under Saddam. Unemployment, civil war, destruction, shortages. They benefited nothing. Even Iraqis who were originally happy to see him gone, now openly say they'd take him back if they could - to have a stable country and reasonable finances. Millions have fled the country AFTER the so called liberation.

It's MUCH worse in Libya now, than under Ghadaffi. That seems to be the consensus of almost everybody. It's gone from the most prosperous and well organised North African country, to war zones with rival clans and tribes doing each other in. That's ironocially exactly what Ghadaffi's son Said repeatedly predicted and it worked out even worse than what he suggested.

North Korea is a very special situation. First of all it's the victim of an extreme propganda campaign. I have actually been there (very long time ago, as a teen, but have since stayed informed). I believe that leaving it alone is in the best interest of the country. Right now they are doing quite well and managed to improve living standards quite a bit. The country relaxes and is less paranoid and intrusive if not pressured. If they are open, the issues about human right can be gradually introduced.
Stop giving aid, let them take responsibility for their own econonmic decisions. Although, they probably do have very harsh labour camps etc - it's milked for all its worth in terms of propaganda value in Western Press.

The history is unique and when you take that into consideration, ideology + culture, the whole situation makes more sense. An invasion there would lead to an absolute bloodbath. They would fight almost to the last man.

If you had seen the war exhibitions there, you'd understand why they hate America. There was literally ONE house left standing in Pyongyang, and several other cities. The US slaughtered people indiscriminably with some truly horrific weapons - they used the full aresenal of now illegal weapons in Korea. They were "communists" at the height of McCarthyism. Their lives were worth nothing. Everybody there lost several family members in that war. Half the current government are war orphans. It's "the forgotten war" because it's too embarrassing for the US to remember the horrors they committed there and the fact that nothing came of the war - North Korea gained one city, that was all. Add ideology and confusian patriarchy/emperor worship to that, and you have the fanaticism explained. The population there are very, very firm in their beliefs. The rest of the world being friendly, doing cultural exchanges etc and then gradually bringing up human rights is the way to go.
All such countries loosen up eventually, and change can come from within.

Zimbabwe - I don't know enough about what happened there to have an opinion. But I think we have messed around more than enough in Africa. They ended up re-electing him though, didn't they?

Rwanda - Not a conflict I followed closely. But weren't there minerals or even oil involved at one corner of that conflicts. No I actually don't think we have a responsibility there. As tragic and awful as the situation was.

Originally Posted by eisenherz

applying your logic would mean Russia had to stay out of Crimea

Russia wasn't involved in the Crimean referendum. Russia had a military contract with Ukraine and had every right to protect it's naval base, including sending in troops and hardware. Violent uprisings coulda seriously damaged Russian assets in that region.
The decision to annex to Russia was totally a decision of the Crimean people. As for me, I totally do believe they made the right choice. If they were still part of southeast Ukraine, their homes, schools, hospitals, and everything else would be getting shelled by the Ukrainian army. I wouldn't consider the Crimean people very intelligent if they voted for that.
To the Crimean people - Stay with Russia! Stay safe from the bombing and bloodshed. Oh, and from being burned alive in Trade Union buildings.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Ah, “Axis of Evil” is the “motley crew” of remnant quasi communist and radical Islamism dictatorships that are known for its poor record of bulling its own citizens and some terrorist activity abroad.

What country were you NOT talking about... because I can't find it on Google Earth. What part of the globe did the GPS miss? Tbh - totally honest - I can't think of any country that hasn't seriously bullied it's citizens or terrorized another nation.

Originally Posted by diogen_

It’s self-evident if you analyze thier doctrines. Both commies and Islam radicals have certain bogus messianic feelings about liberating humankind from supposed corruption and degradation from which they promise to “cure” the world before long. You might need to analyze the works of their founding fathers to understand what they may aspire to contrive. Practically all of them end up with outrageous examples of human rights violations.
Just for fun, you may start with “World Revolution” idea if you like.
World revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By that logic, America is ancient Athens and a lot of Islamic people are heretics. Also, the USSR and China were the same country. Amazing!
Democracy is a system created by the ancient Greeks. To say that all Communists are clones of the precise doctine of the early Marxists is exactly the same as saying that all Democracies are clones of the precise doctrine used by ancient Athens Greece.
There's a word in the English dictionary and there's probably a similar word in most languages - Progressive. There's other words too like Evolved, Dynamic, Changing, etc etc.

Are you aware of the American ideal called "Manifest Desitiny"? It was almost identical to Hitler's ideal of a "Master Race".
And how is the American ideal of spreading Democracy all over the globe different from any other earlier ideal of global domination?
One planet - One form of government... Which one? Nazi, Democracy, Communism, Islam, Christian? Who conquers the whole planet?

So I'll ask again:
Who is this "Axis of Evil"? What country is posing a serious threat to the security of any other country today? Please name the country and explain how it's imminent that they will invade and take out another country.
In a real life - not feared or imagined - current crisis.

I'm not demanding an answer but my position can't be altered without one.

Btw, Somalia is not a legitimate case of internal affairs. Attacking another country's ships is an act of war.

So I'll ask again:
Who is this "Axis of Evil"? What country is posing a serious threat to the security of any other country today? Please name the country and explain how it's imminent that they will invade and take out another country.
In a real life - not feared or imagined - current crisis.

I'm not demanding an answer but my position can't be altered without one.

Come on, UhOhXplode. I’ve already given you a clickable link for the sinister "Axis of evil" in my previous post (hint, it’s in quotes). Feel free to make use of it or ignore it and stay further unaltered. I don’t mind in either case.))

By that logic, America is ancient Athens and a lot of Islamic people are heretics. Also, the USSR and China were the same country. Amazing!
Democracy is a system created by the ancient Greeks. To say that all Communists are clones of the precise doctine of the early Marxists is exactly the same as saying that all Democracies are clones of the precise doctrine used by ancient Athens Greece.
There's a word in the English dictionary and there's probably a similar word in most languages - Progressive. There's other words too like Evolved, Dynamic, Changing, etc etc.

Are you aware of the American ideal called "Manifest Desitiny"? It was almost identical to Hitler's ideal of a "Master Race".
And how is the American ideal of spreading Democracy all over the globe different from any other earlier ideal of global domination?
One planet - One form of government... Which one? Nazi, Democracy, Communism, Islam, Christian? Who conquers the whole planet?

So, the bottom line of this line of thought may be interpreted as that Demorcacy is worse off than Communism or whatever else, and it’s the root of all evil, right?

Btw, is there any point where you side with Americans and dissent from Russians or whoever stand up against the USA? Actually, I can’t follow your worldview beside the fact that it’s anti-American in every possible way. Sounds too good to be genuine.)) Are you a real US citizen fed up with the milk of American culture, or you are simply unscrupulously pulling our Russian legs?))

Originally Posted by Hanna

I

Zimbabwe - I don't know enough about what happened there to have an opinion. But I think we have messed around more than enough in Africa. They ended up re-electing him though, didn't they?
[.

It is quite hard not to win an election when:
you control the army
you control the police
you control the justice system
the party becomes the state
all state resources are misused to ensure continued stay in power
the voters roll is not open to scrutiny and is widely known to contain millions of ghost voters
western vote observes are refused entry to the country
violent youth brigades sponsored by the state intimidate and terrorize the rural population
dissenting voices just disappear in prisons

sorry for not being able to avoid sounding cynical about this - but there has not been a free and fair election in Zim for many years;
(there is a judicial report about the 2002 elections (the 'Khampepe report") by respected South African judges which the South African governement is desperately trying to keep under wraps (actually they are in contempt of a court order for refusing to make the report public) = it will show that the SA governement tacitly endorsed a rigged election for political expediency )

Originally Posted by diogen_

Come on, UhOhXplode. I’ve already given you a clickable link for the sinister "Axis of evil" in my previous post (hint, it’s in quotes). Feel free to make use of it or ignore it and stay further unaltered. I don’t mind in either case.))

Then I'll stop asking. But those countries in the link are "feared or imagined". Iraq was not a nuclear power. They did have terrorist training camps but terrorists were caught training in our country too and that didn't mean that our country should be invaded.
The nukes in Iran are being resolved and that only leaves North Korea. But it's getting friendly with Russia now so they probably aren't a serious threat.

Originally Posted by diogen_

So, the bottom line of this line of thought may be interpreted as that Demorcacy is worse off than Communism or whatever else, and it’s the root of all evil, right?
Btw, is there any point where you side with Americans and dissent from Russians or whoever stand up against the USA? Actually, I can’t follow your worldview beside the fact that it’s anti-American in every possible way. Sounds too good to be genuine.)) Are you a real US citizen fed up with the milk of American culture, or you are simply unscrupulously pulling our Russian legs?))

You must have read that into my post since I didn't say that. Tbh, I've never said that in any of my posts in any thread.
I said - and I still say - that I'm opposed to my country destabilizing other countries and invading them. I'm also opposed to the laws that over-support gays, the messed up culture, being lied to all the time, and all the extreme urban violence.
Btw, I don't care if people are Russian, American, Tasmanian, or whatever. I say what I think and if anyone doesn't like it then fine because the only person that has to agree with me is me.
But if you really wanna know more about what I think then keep reading.

1. I refuse to let my country convince me that Russia is evil.
2. I love my country more than any other country in the world except maybe Russia. The "maybe" is because I haven't lived in Russia yet so I really don't know. But I don't believe it will be that different from living here and they don't over-support gays and they have a cool stable culture.
3. If another country invaded America I would grab a gun and fight for my country. It's awesome here and we don't live anywhere near the urban violence.
4. I don't oppose the war my country fought in Afghanistan. They had Terrorist training camps there and that's where Osama Bin Laden was living so, imo, that was the country that attacked us.
5. I don't support gay propaganda but I do think America has better anti-discrimination laws for those people than Russia. Gay people should not be allowed to spread propaganda but they shouldn't be discriminated against either. They should have equal rights in workplaces and everywhere else. But I do agree that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids since that doesn't usually end very well for the kids.
6. Imo, America, Norway, and Sweden have the most epic bands in the world. When I move to Russia I will definitely be bringing my music collection. The Netherlands has the best Trance DJ's. My favorite classical composer is Igor Stravinsky.
7. America and Japan make the most epic video games in the world and there's always new civic improvements here. We have safe bike routes, safe parks, the police and the neighbors are friendly, and the roads get resurfaced about every 2 years...

Wake up! There's a bazillion things I like about my country and only 5 things I'm opposed to. If I decide I don't like living in Russia, this is the only country I'll move to from there.
And no, lol, I'm not fed up with America. You'd know that if you met me in real-life. And I'm definitely not anti-American. There's just 5 things I'm opposed to and I'm not patient. I want them to change and they probably will someday. But I've been here too long so I'm gonna try someplace different.
Oh, and unless you look a lot like Maria Brink then no, I wouldn't try to pull your legs, lol! That's totally reserved for her.

EDIT - You may have a point. My motivation for defending Russia is selfish so I may be over-reacting. I just want Russia to be Russia when I get there and not some western clone. I mean, why explore a new country if its the same as everywhere else...

Originally Posted by diogen

Come on, UhOhXplode. I’ve already given you a clickable link for the sinister "Axis of evil" in my previous post

Here's the Axis of Evil Speech



He went on to say "those who are not with us, are against us." Causing European nations to go against principles we hold dear out of fear of American punishment.

Practically everything he said turned out to be wrong, and he can't even pronounce the word "nuclear" correct.

The US went on to develop drones, make air travel intolerable, disrupt and wreak havoc across the Middle East. Not to mention starting 2 wars.

His propagandistic rhetoric makes me feel sick, about similar to listening to a certain other leader who started a major war during the 20th century. Makes me think of imperialism, fascism and warmongering.

If he had been GENUINELY concerned about 9-11 and terrorism, the key would have been doing something about the moneybag moslem fanatics (wahabis) in Saudi Arabia. Either through dialogue with the government there, or by invasion. The fact that he targetted 3 unreleated countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and eventually Syria shows that he never cared about actually preventing terrorism.

It was all about taking advantage of 9-11 to implement a global big brother regime and to control areas in the Middle East where the US did not already have its henchmen installed.

Wake up! There's a bazillion things I like about my country and only 5 things I'm opposed to. If I decide I don't like living in Russia, this is the only country I'll move to from there.
And no, lol, I'm not fed up with America. You'd know that if you met me in real-life. And I'm definitely not anti-American. There's just 5 things I'm opposed to and I'm not patient. I want them to change and they probably will someday. But I've been here too long so I'm gonna try someplace different.
Oh, and unless you look a lot like Maria Brink then no, I wouldn't try to pull your legs, lol! That's totally reserved for her.

Awesome post, UhOhXplode! I may probably need some more time to process, absorb,and digest the cornucopia of patriotic sentiments you described before daring to ask you to provide some more details to fill in the blanks of my extremely narrow outlook on the USA. It’s so much different from the domain of vileness, wickedness, and vice that Hanna presents in the post that goes immediately after yours and in hundreds similar posts she made before that. In fact, I’m experiencing a kind of cognitive dissonance when thinking that you both mean the same country. Could you explain how it is possible that the two respected members have so much different perception of the same thing. The big campaign against terrorism launched by Gerge W. Bush in the wake of 9-11 is not among those only five things that you don’t like about America and you seem to approve the Afghan war. Might it happen that you have a word or two to prevent my mental breakdown and clear away the clouds of doubt and uncertainty that shroud my mental horizon, or as it often happened before you here totally agree with Hanna and just missed a point in your list.

PS.I used to look a bit like Miria Brink but, serendipitously enough, not so long ago I sacrificed all my hair to Lord Siva to facilitate beneficent reincarnation of my poor soul to Kashmir. So, I don’t expect from your sweetheart to be too much jealous and, furthermore, I don’t have any intentions to compromise the future of your possibly still fragile relationships.

diogen_ - I don't dislike the American people, or the country per se. In fact I have a lot of good things to say about both.
Just the foreign policy for the last 60 years, which I loathe.
Mostly I just want Americans to wake up to the fact that what their government is doing is immoral and destructive, as well as not in their long term best interest.