Thread: Most Russians believe US is hell-bent on world domination

...

...

Originally Posted by Seraph

What is necessary is legal system that prevents kleptocracy and outrageous, non-competitive advantage.

I don't believe in law either. What are you going to do? Sue the US Treasury? The problem with this system lies in the fact that it's too abstract. Any commitee that shares responsibility really can't be held responsible for anything. It is men who run the whole thing and usually these people are above the law. They're like demigods in this world. They have all governments in their grasp and nobody can do anything. Laws are for odinary people not for the ones who write them.

...

...

Originally Posted by Seraph

How many girls have been fooled by that one. You're talking to grown men. Make it real or forget about it.

And that is perhaps the best way to describe what the modern money is. Should the conditions change and many of the agreements become void, the money would be worthless. Like, if there's a war, the value of the numbers on a bank account would evaporate by itself rather quickly. That's because when that money was earned, it depended on the agreements at the time, and those very same agreements change or disappear in the wartime. So, as the value of the money. Under the different circumstances (like a wartime) everything changes its value: the gold, the oil, the lumber, the food, all the commodities change their value. If you have lots of gold, you might probably still not get any food in a city under siege. Also, if you happened to purchase a lot of oil, you still can't sell it to anyone as all oil would be nationalized by the government. So, you'd have to give it to the government for free or face legal prosecution. And so on. So, the modern money's value heavily depends on the certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by Seraph

and IMF is lap dog/puppet.

I was talking about some kind of the international money. Something that would be backed up by the worlds GDP. Something which is not the local currency.

...

Originally Posted by Seraph

Some gold (or other store of value) is useful or even necessary to have because turmoil will occur with the current system. There are financial system/market participants purposively propagating destabilization. Something bad will happen. Sigh.

Have you noticed how cheap the gold has become over the last decades? (The same thing about the diamonds.) I mean, gold and diamonds used to be the best money (in terms of keeping the value) over thousand of years! Have you ever thought what had happened that it isn't anymore?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have you noticed how cheap the gold has become over the last decades?

See for yourself I observe stable growth over the past decade.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/st ... tryCode=us

Another BAD thing about the USA is that it doesn't stick to it's promises, or deliberately tricks other countries. It is incredibly prone to hippocracy. Just off the top off my head, stories that I recall from recent media reports:

1) It promised Russia never to deploy weapons in the former Warsaw pact countries. A decade later it is poking in practically every one of these countries, including ex Soviet republics...! Then it accuses Russia of being too militaristic and aggressive.. Meanwhile they themselves have 200,000 troops and nuclear weapons deployed across Europe. Stones.. glasshouses....

2) 1990s: Signs an agreement with North Korea in the that it will provide oil and fuel as well as an entire electricity plant in return for North Korea dismantling its nuclear power plants. North Korea does exactly that, and follows the agreement to the letter. But hardly no oil is delivered, and certainly no electricity plant. The US did not bother to follow it's part of the agreement. North Korea realises it's been tricked and proceeds with the nuclear power plant because they have no other way to get energy. The US leashes its' full fury, seizes foreign assets and launches an embargo. With this, I am not saying I support the current regime in North Korea.

3) 1980s: Tricks Sweden into believing that the USSR was swarming its coasts with submarines, to spy.. Making everyone nervous. The purpose was to ruin the reasonably good relations between countries, and also to run "realistic" exercises against a real navy. This was no joke, it became a major diplomatic incident and there was plenty of drama on the sea. A few years ago, tests and witnesses confirmed the US was behind the incidents, not the USSR. Beggars belief to treat a peaceful European country in this way. And that's not all they did in our country.

4) Accuses countries like Russia of having no respect for human rights (I am not saying that Russia is an innocent lamb though...), but kidnaps people from other countries, detain them for almost decade without trial at Guantanamo. Regularly executes its' own citizens, incidentally the weakest poorest disadvantaged citizens whom the state has let down.

5) Touts itself as the torch bearer of freedom and democracy; yet its own democracy is VERY questionable: Florida vote count; state representation; lobbying by business in Washington and support of business to election campaigns. Has put in place and supported countless very un-democratic right-wing dictators. Actions speak louder than words.

6) Falsifies evidence to support claims of WMDs in Iraq.

7) Things that it did in the name of fighting Communism are just beyond belief. How can anyone trust a country that kills millions of civilians in countries that they've got nothing to do with.. Then refuse to admit they were wrong, or apologise. Americans ought to be shown some things I saw in Vietnam and Korea, just like the Germans are shown concentration camps. Maybe then they'd be less willing to participate in these endless wars and invasions that the US start.

8 ) "We like Saddam because he opposes Khomeini; let's give him money and weapons. But wait, now he's evil, a threat to the Europe (yeah, right) and must be destroyed" --- followed by 20 years of hardship for the people there, and millions dead during this period who would otherwise be alive today.

Disclaimer: I really like a lot of things about the USA and its' people. I like some US TV series and films. I have several American friends. I am NOT anti American per se and I certainly do not wish anything bad on the US or its people. All I am saying is that its foreign polices are terrible and I wish the US would stop its aggressive and scheming foreign policy.

Oh dear, there will be a terrible flame when Dogboy or DDT see this....

Johanna: All I am saying is that its foreign polices are terrible and I wish the US would stop its aggressive and scheming foreign policy.

Consider what would likely happen if we weren't proactive, and turned isolationist. I would be willing to bet that..
1. China would become increasingly aggressive against Taiwan, Vietnam, and India.
2. Israel in all likelihood would come under attack from either non-state actors (Hezbollah), states (Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt), or both would.
3. Again, like before, 2001, nobody would really care much about the Middle East and it still wouldn't be peaceful.
4. Western Europe becomes increasingly isolated.

Which country would you rather have possessing greater influence around the world? Sure, we (US) have our faults, but remember international relations pretty much is a zero-sum game; if we step down, China will step up, because if they don't, someone else necessarily must fill the void. Do you want China becoming increasingly aggressive and its influence extending across Africa, Middle East, and Europe?

You Europeans think we are terribly repressive here in the US and we are so aggressive. At least we care somewhat about our PR image, China doesn't give a shit. Look at Tibet, it's almost entirely Han Chinese at the moment. Look at all of your liberal journalists who are getting their GMAIL accounts hacked.

So consider who is going to fill the void if we stop being aggressive. Some country will do it.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have you noticed how cheap the gold has become over the last decades?

See for yourself I observe stable growth over the past decade.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/st ... tryCode=us

Nice chart. I actually meant over the last decades. The chart you refer to is the relative price of gold in the USDs. But the USDs have also became cheaper over time. So, if both the gold and the USD are losing their value, they might do so in different rates, so the fluctuating ratio might still change in favour of gold. That doesn't change the big picture.
What I meant by "cheap" is how much gold an average person could typically purchase using his income. Nowdays, gold is much more accessible than a hundred years ago. Meaning, the value of gold is going down comparing to the GDP. You don't need a graph to realize that.

Originally Posted by Marlow

Johanna: All I am saying is that its foreign polices are terrible and I wish the US would stop its aggressive and scheming foreign policy.

Do you want China becoming increasingly aggressive and its influence extending across Africa, Middle East, and Europe?

Well, I don't mind China very much. And I don't think it will be that overly oppressive as USA is. Certain accents in the world politics will be shifted of course but nothing all that drastic will happen. US has not been behaving very delicately as well so the question is: who's going to bomb third world countries USA or China? Well I don't really care as long as somebody will anyway. From the Russian point of view I think it'll be easier to come to terms with China rather thatn with USA. During the past several decades US's become a sanctuary of many political enemies of Russia (including those having much influence). China's attitude towards Russia is neutral.

So consider who is going to fill the void if we stop being aggressive. Some country will do it.

This place can theoretically be occupied by Russia as well

Originally Posted by Marlow

So consider who is going to fill the void if we stop being aggressive. Some country will do it.

I think we need to come back to the Persian Gulf War and reflect on the outcome. The allies have got tactically a very successful campaign (and an epic strategic fail), so I think since then they're trying to make that model work everywhere.

So, here's my question: should there be a police in the neighbourhood, or we'd rather let the gangs settle things with each other? And who will guard the [s:26fk5w8c]guardians[/s:26fk5w8c] police if it becomes corrupted?

I see double standards here. If US butchers a bunch of civilians in some third-world country this is called 'collateral damage' and the US is called 'world's policeman'. But when the same thing is done by some other country you refer to them as 'gangs', 'rogue states', 'dictatorships', etc.
I would never believe in good intentions of the US. I won't believe in striving to bring justice and peace to some part of the world which is currently in turmoil. Leave these fairy tales for American children (if they are still capable of eating this bull$hit).

Originally Posted by Ramil

I see double standards here. If US butchers a bunch of civilians in some third-world country this is called 'collateral damage' and the US is called 'world's policeman'. But when the same thing is done by some other country you refer to them as 'gangs', 'rogue states', 'dictatorships', etc.

That's exactly what I mean. Look out at the streets. What's going on out there? If Vasek is preparing to shoot Seriy over who will control the west-side of Cherkizovskiy market we call them gangs, and if uncle Stepa is shooting both of them in order to control the WHOLE market, we call him the police.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I would never believe in good intentions of the US.

Do you believe in good intentions of uncle Stepa?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I won't believe in striving to bring justice and peace to some part of the world which is currently in turmoil.

Uncle Stepa is striving to bring justice and peace to Cherkizovskiy market which is currently in turmoil by CONTROLLING THE ALL OF IT.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Leave these fairy tales for American children (if they are still capable of eating this bull$hit).

http://lukoshko.net/mihal/mihal13.shtml

So, after addressing your emotional speech, let me repeat my question: should there be a police in the neighbourhood, or we'd rather let the gangs settle things with each other? And who will guard the [s:tnd4be1u]guardians[/s:tnd4be1u] police if it becomes corrupted?

This time please answer more carefully.

Class comments by both of you as usual. I am just not as knowledgeable, or good at debating. So I'll just answer Croc's question:

I think: Let these countries mind their own business!
If they want to live fundamentalist religious societies; let them! If they want to try communism - go ahead.. If they want tribal law and a feudal society -- it's their call!

Somebody will then say: Oh but what about the women in Afghanistan...? What about the people who are sent to 'gulags' in North Korea....? And Saddam committed mass murder against the kurds... it was the Wests duty to stop him... ETC!!

Yeah - some of this is very bad, but our countries did not always have great respect for human rights.. our countries have been "dictatorships" if you look far enough back... etc!

But nobody from a foreign continent invaded our countries with superior weapons when we had all these faults! And told us that we must use their great system called "democracy", have more respect for human rights (and of course, sell our natural resources to them at a price that they think is reasonable...)

Instead we gradually evolved into slightly more fair and safe countries to live in. We did it at in our own way, on our own terms. We should allow these countries to do the same! It's evolution. They might not even WANT Western style democracy in the end -- even though their countries are prosperous. Saudi Arabia has made that choice, for example.

Then, a lot of the "policing" is really about oil!
And I don't care for the oil driven economy anyway!
I don't want wars for cheap oil!

-Yes, I realise that cheap oil is part of the foundation of my lifestyle, but I would be willing to pay more for goods, consume slightly less overall, and travel less by car and plane. Seriously.

Also, I really don't think China or Russia have any interest at all in being "world police", at least right now. Both countries have enough to worry about within their own borders.. And they are not half as self-righteous as the US...

EU is only participating because it's following in the US footsteps. It would not bother otherwise. All major European countries are done with obvious imperialism/colonialism, and with serious wars too. But unfortunately we're "in bed" with a country that's not....

Last argument is about "the great game" i.e super power domination in certain areas.
What happens if no-one polices these areas?

For Europe (mostly) and the USA (certainly), what happens in that part of the world doesn't affect us! Even if the whole area is in total chaos and everyone wants to leave, they cannot (in theory) enter Europe easily. Obviously they certainly cannot get to the USA.

The problem would remain LOCAL, and their neighbouring countries would have to step up and take some responsibility and resolve the problem!
Or, the populations could make a revolution and try to improve things themselves in that way. Either way; let them sort their own problems!

I suppose right now the problem for Russia with chaos in that area would be 1) spreading of religious fanaticism into Russia... 2) possible refugee crisis; 3)problems with smuggling and criminality spilling over into Russia....

But the area is not directly neighbouring Russia, so I am not sure how serious the problem would really be.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, after addressing your emotional speech, let me repeat my question: should there be a police in the neighbourhood,

I would grudgingly agree with a police acting on the basis of the UN mandate after due 'paperwork' (official resolution approved by everyone). And if the peace-keeping forces were truly international (well, at least its command staff should not be subordinate to NATO HQ) I wouldn't mind very much.

or we'd rather let the gangs settle things with each other?

Since nobody really cares about human life (and I would never believe some American politician does) this would probably be the wisest course.

And who will guard the [s:2hq43lpm]guardians[/s:2hq43lpm] police if it becomes corrupted?

This can only be achieved if a peace-keeping force consisted of the troops from the countries whose political interests in the region are opposite. This way they will watch each other.

I recommend everybody to watch some of the documentaries by/about Noam Chomsky (particularly) or Michael Moore (for a more populistic, entertaining version). Americans who have no illusions about their country.

Available on OneBigTorrent. Just get a few onto your hard drive and watch when you feel inspired.

For example "Manufacturing Consent" - about Chomsky and his views on media and information in democracies in general and the USA in particular.

...