Thread: Putin's increasing police state and smth about some other countries

Originally Posted by Hanna

Hehe Croc! There are always different ways to interpret history.

True words.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But it's interesting that lately there it is always the same country that invades other countries and builds up endless stories of how gruesome these countries are, and why they need to be invaded for everyones best. Yet when you scratch the surface; oil, currency or spreading commercialism is always there in the background. If I see a clear pattern then no amount of hype can get me to look around it. And I feel there is a pattern.

Good catch! The only problem is to find out what's behind that pattern. As Mr. Lenin used to say: "The politics is the most concentrated expression of the economics." As I mentioned earlier, I think the sole purpose of the local armies is to either promote or defend the local economies. What else would you expect? Do you think Charles XII of Sweden was any different? Any politician would use the force if he could, be it the US or Sweden, or Russia, or China, or New Zealand, no exceptions. The NATO presently is the most dominant military power on the planet, and that's what is observed from the outside as a "pattern". If you still don't believe me, have a closer look at the African military conflicts of the recent history. Still the same pattern.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Most of the people who work in politics in my US are idiots - far below the requisite intellect of folks who can fool the people en-masse.. Hanna, I for one don't doubt we're being fooled. But I know the puppeteer has got to be better than the ones we've seen.

Yeah, I can see your point. The only thing is that the politicians of any other country are no different. And I think if you take a closer look, you'll find that in the constant power games the fools are being eliminated first. Those we see on the top of the political food chain are not necessarily well-educated, but very smart evil men with no principles and empathy whatsoever. If they act like idiots, that means they have their reasons to look that way at that moment. As to the shoe incident... well, give them a break, they are still people. Others chew on their their ties just as easy as they chew on their political opponents. You get the picture.

Originally Posted by Ramil

People, when you say that it's senators or congressmen and presidents who make the politics these days, you are wrong. As kidkboom has just pointed out - they are dump people mentally incapable of doing anything real.

Сперва добейся. (ТМ)

Originally Posted by Ramil

Moreover - they have no real instruments of doing anything major. A government (any government) simply represents the owner of money who had brought them on the political pinnacle to express their views and interests.

That used to be true long time ago, but these days the same businesses contribute to both parties. How on Earth a government could represent all those with the different business needs?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I still think that this world is ruled by 200-300 powerful families (or clans) and everything that is happenning in the world is done for their profit.

Yeah, we had a long talk about it some time back. I see it differently.

Originally Posted by Ramil

When some political or economical event happens I ask myself - who benefits from this? Old buddy Hercule Poirot used this trick many times and always succeeded in finding out who the criminal was.

Right, but Hercule Poirot is a character in a book. There are other books in which a criminal is not the one who seems to benefit the most, but commits the crime to make the police imprison another person for life as a revenge. IRL, we have an assasination of General Lev Rochlin and his wife was prosecuted on the grounds she benefited from his death. And so on and so forth. It's true the one who commits the crime benefits from the crime in some way, but it's not always the one who benefits the most and/or "the most" is subjective.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I won't ever believe that Nicolas Sarkozy or David Cameron or Hillary Clinton could start a war merely for the defense of 'innocent civilians molested by the evil regimes'. I won't ever believe that political circles in France, UK or USA even cared about these poor victims of dictatorships. I won't believe they ever cared about anything but their continued well-being.

I agree with each and every word you said.

Originally Posted by Ramil

@Crocodile: I don't know whether the Gaddafi's intentions triggered an attack on him or not

You kidding me, right? Earlier, you insisted you know that for sure in a rather certain way: "Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country." But now you back off and say you don't know? After all the homework you sent me?! That's just mean!!

Originally Posted by Ramil

but the official story they tell us about why we are bombing Libya is even less plausible.

Yup. Sadly it's not worth a dime.