LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by Lampada
Ага, ты не знаешь, что там ещё вроде и Израиль был замешан?Вроде нет. Хотя, с Израилем до конца ни в чём быть уверенным нельзя. :"":
Ага, ты не знаешь, что там ещё вроде и Израиль был замешан?
Send me a PM if you need me.
Вывод простой, нужно не забывать, что "Держи вора!" кричит убийца. Не имея противовеса, США творят, что хотят. Пока у нас не было нормальных самолетов и ПВО, дружелюбные американские самолеты-разведчики над СССР как дома летали (свыше 10 тысяч полетов в 50-е и 60-е). Сбили Пауэрса, они и угомонились.That's true and is definitely a strong point. So, what's the conclusion? That the US can't tell anyone not to have nukes?
В оригинале был вор, насколько я помню. Но кроме США в МАГАТЭ состоят и другие страны. And the official mission of the IAEA is "to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes." And Iran is a member of the IAEA, so IAEA has all the rights in the world to ask Iran any questions and attempt to stop some of Iran's initiatives should they be considered suspicious or violating the rules. And if Iran's cooperation with IAEA leaves a lot to be desired, all the other IAEA members (including Russia, France, Israel, and the US) have their right to be concerned. Iran can't justify their poor cooperation with IAEA by stating it's intervention in their domestic policy. That "justification" doesn't make much sense to me.
Ok, so that is your personal opinion and I respect that. However, mine and your opinions would differ on this topic. For example, I would suggest there is not much use for the mobile missile launch pads for Israel, as you can see through a significant portion of Israel with the military binoculars from the neighbouring Jordan. So, it leaves not that much space for the mobility of the units. Israel just doesn't have the real estate. There are no respectable forests in Israel, and overall the landscape of Israel is not well suited for the mobile units to leave them unnoticed.
But, don't forget what we're talking about is pure speculation from both of our sides.
Also, there's a certain specifics in the army, that their headquarter planners produce all kinds of scenarios and plans. Then the political government makes a political decision and the army pulls out the suitable plan off their sleeve. I tend to think Iran has several plans of attacking Israel (and several others of the defense). And one of such plans would be a nuke once it becomes available to the Iranian army. That might not be the best plan, but it might be better than the others. And in every plan risk factors always exist (had Georgia really planned to lose the recent fight in SO??). Had Hitler planned to lose to the USSR? I think not.
I think the Iranian nuclear war against Israel is feasible.
So, let me summarise this topic:
1. There's no evidence that Russia is helping Iran with nuclear technologies that can be utilized in some war effort against Israel.
2. There's not enough material in Iran to produce even a single nuclear bomb and there won't be enough in the near future even with the new production facility working at 100%.
3. Iran has agreed to let the international experts visit its nuclear facilities and inspect them.
4. Aside from the threat 'to wipe Israel' off the map there's really nothing Iran can do at the moment.
5. Israel threatened many times that it would resort to military force to neutralize Iran's nuclear effort.
6. Israel is a nuclear power and still it denies that.
7. I find the notion of fanatic Iranian rulers ready for suicide and destroying their country absurd.
Send me a PM if you need me.
You forgot to mention that is the summary of what YOU said.
Exactly.You forgot to mention that is the summary of what YOU said.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Plato, the greatest political philosopher of the classical era (possibly ever) did not believe in democracy either. His view was that people are not qualified to understand what decisions need to be made and that they were too easily manipulated. That's quite true today, I think..
Didn't expect that, do you? That's the whole point. Everyone in the west has been brainwashed about the democracy. They keep saying that it's the only possible choice. Well, they're wrong or so I think, and I'm not alone in this.
Plato argued that democracy lead to the fall of Athens.
The communist/socialist political philosophers were of the sincere opinion that a socialist one-party state was more democratic and "higher form of government" than regular Western democracies. There is a quote by Lenin about it, for example.
The Social Democratic political parties were formed to pave the way (prepare society) for a socialist revolution -- not a very democratic objective but it is the reason behind much of their cultural and other programs. (Not sure if they still keep this in their manifests or not.)
Christ said to obey the government in ones country and to pay taxes that are owed. He didn't mention anything about it having to be a democracy.
Is it really democracy when the only choice is between two very similar parties and when the candidate who wins is not necessarily the one who got the most actual votes? These are scenarios that are true for many of the larger democratic countries today.
Singapore is an example of a country that is not a democracy by anybodys definition, but that which has a government that is well liked by the population, which has acheived very good economic/social results and that has good relationships with its neighbours.
From the point of view of a Russian person in his/her 30s and what that person might have experienced in their lifetime, it is certainly not surprising that he takes a sceptical view of democracy! Anyway, whether or not Russia is (and will remain) a democracy is the Russian peoples' problem, not mine. I imagine most people in Russia might care a lot more about having law and order, economic and personal safety and about practical day-to-day matters than they do about the finer details of how democracy is executed.
Democracies have existed in a small minority of the countries of the world for under 150 years of human history stretching over thousands of years. There is a certain arrogance to think that we have now found the only useful form of government, particularly when you look at the state of the world.
When it's said "democracies don't start wars with each other" that is a good point. But they still start wars with others for some very muddy reasons, as people from the Serbs to the Vietnamese (and countless in between) could attest to...
I think the more important thing is how the governments treat their own citizens. Try to draw your comparison based on that.
When the ancient Greek "invented" democracy they had something entirely different in mind than what we mean today. They never would have dreamt it would it could be applied to anything larger than a city. Their 'countries' were really nothing more than a medium-sized city. Democracy referred to the possibility to bring up subjects relating to the running of the city and have the suggestions put to vote (like a referendum) among free men. Many political thinkers today argue that it is not really possible to run a modern large country as a true democracy.
I agree with Ramil that Americans seem to have been brainwashed to some degree about "freedom" and democracy. The word "freedom" seems repeated ad-infinitum there, to the degree that Americans assume without even reflecting on it, that this is the very essence of their country. But in what way are they so much more free than anybody else? I think it's marginal for the most part, and not true in some situations. There is freedom there to do certain things, for sure -- and no doubt the system is more pleasant for the average person than most..
But think of how they treated suspected "communists" in the 1950s-60s! Same with suspected Islamist terrorists today. No freedom unless you think *right*! Plus, the freedom is only open to legal citizens... Others can forget it.
Death penalty, people going bankrupt to pay medical bills, many young people doomed to a crappy education because they can't afford to buy good schooling or afford university. Regular people have hardly no legal holiday - something like 10 days a year. This is apparently what the "people" want in America.
Then when voting, there is VERY little difference between the two (only) political parties which are almost exclusively sponsored by big business. Once in power, there are something like five times more corporate / big business lobbyists in Washington than there are politicians. Naturally, the corporations expect something in return for their financial backing, and they get it.
You might argue that business rules America, not the people, but because of general elections it's got a nice democratic stamp on it. If you repeat something enough, people will believe it.
But democracy is questionable in most countries:
To prove that I am not just ranting against the US or conservativism, take my own country -- Sweden. It has six main political parties, but all are essentially Social Democratic (although slightly less so now than in the past). Even the "conservative" party ("the Moderates" lol) wouldn't dream of suggesting any "real" conservative political measures such as privatising public housing or threating the welfare state in any way at all. The Social democratic party has had 100 years of almost uninterrupted power to shape society so thoroughly that it would take decades to undo. It's democracy in the sence that this is what the majority want - but there really isn't much choice unless you are a social democrat (and lately a west-sympathising one).
And take the EU - anybody who knows it, knows that the real power in the EU lies with the Commission (not democratic) and not with the Parliament (somewhat democratic). The European Commission is strictly a meritocracy. Brains, good education and contacts is what's required to get a job there. These elite bureaucrats are shaping Europe today - their decisions are mainly just rubber-stamped by the democratically elected Parliament.
The number of Europeans who vote in the EU parliamentary election is well below 50%. Those who do vote mainly use it to support specific issues. I am not sure Socrates would agree that this constitutes a democracy.
Then there are plenty of countries that have the word Democratic in their official name, and would argue (but are not believed as much as America) that they are Democratic. Such as many countries in Africa, the DDR (East Germany) and many others.
To summarise: Frankly this word (democracy) is quite hollow and misused. Some countries are a bit closer to the ideal than others, other countries are very good at singing their own praise and convincing others that they are democratic.
I want to add, that i have more freedom under 'Putin's tyrany' in Russia than I would have in America or EU with all these restrictions, regulations, prohibitions, political correctness and other cr@p.
Send me a PM if you need me.
I agree with Ramil that Americans seem to have been brainwashed to some degree about "freedom" and democracy. The word "freedom" seems repeated ad-infinitum there, to the degree that Americans assume without even reflecting on it, that this is the very essence of their country.
=> Again, the "brainwashing" part. Who is not brainwashed? Let me ask you a question: do you think it's right to eat other human beings? If you can't answer me logically and elaborate on your opinion within five minutes, my congrats to you: you've been BRAINWASHED too!! And you don't reflect on many things you believe in.BTW, Ramil is a nice and smart guy and he's an anarchist. The anarchy looks nice on paper, but so did the communism.
Death penalty, people going bankrupt to pay medical bills, many young people doomed to a cra@@y education because they can't afford to buy good schooling or afford university. Regular people have hardly no legal holiday - something like 10 days a year. This is apparently what the "people" want in America.
=> Whoa! Have you ever heard what is a political party? If you're a US Democrat, just say so. What you're saying I hear them saying all the time. If you don't believe, read Obama's Audacity of Hope first two chapters.
Then when voting, there is VERY little difference between the two (only) political parties which are almost exclusively sponsored by big business. Once in power, there are something like five times more corporate / big business lobbyists in Washington than there are politicians. Naturally, the corporations expect something in return for their financial backing, and they get it. You might argue that business rules America, not the people, but because of general elections it's got a nice democratic stamp on it.
=> Have you ever heard what is a balance of power? The sole power of the Unions is as corrupt as the sole power of the corporations.
If you repeat something enough, people will believe it.
=> And you're free of the sin?
To summarise: Frankly this word (democracy) is quite hollow and misused. Some countries are a bit closer to the ideal than others, other countries are very good at singing their own praise and convincing others that they are democratic.
=> And why the true "democracy" is an ideal? If you don't want to call the modern western democracies that way, call them as you like (e.g. "westernocracies"). But, as you said in your historic background, the true democracy has its own flaws. So, why is it so bad that the modern democracies are not the same as the ancient Greek democracies? The geometry has changed since then too ...
Too right! Good thing I'm learning Russian, huh? Might have to seek political asylum with you guys one day,lol
The other disturbing thing is that as soon as Russia tries to explain its position, then Western media immediately calls it "propaganda"!
It's very hard to read an article about politics in Russia without coming across this tiresome and very overused word.
It's very convenient for these journalists that there actually WAS some propaganda in Russia ca 30 years ago... But frankly, propaganda can take many forms! A red banner with a simple slogan, or an editorial in a state owned paper is probably the most basic form! Everybody who sees it knows exactly what it is! Such propaganda seems practically preferable to the creepy hidden type that sneaks up on you.... With Fox "News", Sky News and many of the films from the cold war era, people just don't realise that they are watching essentially.. propaganda.
I once worked with a really cool Russian guy (this guy was a programming GENIUS - he walked on water...) One evening at the pub when people were asking him about the USSR, he said: "The US is SO much better at propanda than the USSR ever was". The English people were totally shocked. And another time when the American boss (who was pretty nice) listenened in, this guy said that in Russia ppl say "b*llshltocracy" when they talk about democracy, because there was a lot of hype about it but it hasn't achieved a lot. Our boss was so shocked that he just got up and left, without saying a word. He later told me he would have fired the Russian guy on the spot if it wasn't for the fact the entire project depended on him. (his capitalist objectives won over is political views, lol)
Yeah, well political correctness in the EU is totally insane and the EU area is sure becoming more and more regulated. At the moment this is restricted to fairly harmless things, like food imports and health and safety and the laws are not consistently applied across the EU. But eventually there might be privacy-intruding new laws. Internet/telecom legislation is really interesting in this respect because that's were you can first spot the trends.
Personally I have always supported the EU project (very actively at one point) simply because the European countries are too small to assert themselves alone in the globalised world. But like Crocodile said earlier - EU is still WAY to fragmented to be a useful political force. And also there is no guarantee at all that it will actually be a nice "country" - unless people are on the alert and make sure it develops in the right way. It is actually rather pathetic as a "democracy" though! At it's core, the EU is run by some elite bureaucrats (I know one of them) who practically unanimously want a federalist European Union (USE). The rest is mainly glossing.
I think it's really pathetic that EU is stupid enough to believe that Russia is a threat.
Who exactly (in Europe) benefits from the anti Russia hype?
That's what I can't quite figure out? Any theories?
If the EU promptly must be paranoid about anyone, it ought start with China with its massive economic surplus, rather ruthless government and a virtually unsatiable appetite for economic and industrial growth for its population. The next worry should be the US which actually has a rather sizeable army stationed in Europe already (this creeps me out!) and is the only country to ever have used the Bomb and has the habit of starting wars with countries that think differently, has raw material that it wants or is in a strategically important location like Panama.
Well, I would be wiiling to trade my political opinions for the benefit of democracy, but not the democracy model we're having now, but a direct democracy (without any proxies we 'assign' to decide for us what's good and what's bad as we do now with parliaments). Fortunately, we're getting close to a point when 'Direct electronic democracy' is possible. I think it's a thing that is worth trying although I'm aware of the difficulties and disadvantages of this method.
Again, I don't agree with the 'everyone votes' principle. We assume that as soon as a person reaches the age of 18 years old (or 21) he or she automatically becomes fit for voting. I propose some kind of a test must be taken before assuming that a person is ready for voting and he or she understands the responsibility and what's involved.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Actually I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Ramil is saying. Are you really an anarchist or just using the symbol on your avatar?
The type of direct democracy that you are talking about is practiced to some degree in Switzerland, I think. That's a fairly democratic country as far as I know, and they focus on having lots of referendums. Several a year. They want to create even more referendums by running them online - this was about a year ago, don't know what happened since.
I made this avatar myself.
And yes, I'm using it because I am thinking that any kind of political power is a crime.
Any political power is based on the threat of physical violence to the one who opposes it.
Send me a PM if you need me.
I think I know what you mean. By that line of reasoning then, the USSR communist party (as it was the 1980s) was only marginally worse than, say, the German gov't (West) in the 1980s which was known to be rather brutal at times.
I read about this philosophy at Uni, but I did not buy into it much although it did not seem abhorrent in any way either. I suppose the one big reservation is - without government power - what's to prevent society from sliding into total chaos? Theft, traffic regulations, violent crime.... Who's going to prevent it?
Do count me in.
Ramil said that, not me.
I think the keyword here is "energy". My theory is: if you see something seemingly stupid and unjust in modern foreign politics - cherchez la oil!
I think the keyword here is "energy". My theory is: if you see something seemingly stupid and unjust in modern foreign politics - cherchez la oil![quote:wyfggl10]Who exactly (in Europe) benefits from the anti Russia hype?
That's what I can't quite figure out? Any theories?
Yeah oil seems to be almost a curse as much as a blessing on the countries that have it (with the exception of Norway/UK). But if Europe wants nothing but energy from Russia -- then why critisise the situation in Caucasus and the state of democracy in Russia? You can still buy energy from an undemocratic country... (e.g. Saudi and many others) I guess some people miss the free-for all grabbing bonanza from the 1990s and think that Russia should remain like that.
But lately it has become "politically correct" to complain about practically everything that Russia does inside or outside of the country. To suggest that some things might have a good or understandable reason is "un-PC". Even Sweden has jumped on the anti-Russia bandwagon recently; very hard to understand because it totally goes against the policies of pre-1991 and even the 1990s. It's hard to understand how it could not be in the interest of a small country to not have good relations with a neighbouring larger country.
I am just totally mystified about what's behind this and I don't see how its in anybody's interest.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote