IGX

I don't claim strong rhetorical ability, and I don't care for it. I leave it to politicians and lawyers. What I said was: there is point of view ion Ukrainian conflict that is different from the mainstream media version, namely "bad Russia, good USA and Europe and poor Ukraine". You can find answers to all your questions in the book when it comes out or, if you wish, check out Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, he covers the methods of influence pretty well.

Smet wrote: You can find answers to all your questions in the book when it comes out or, if you wish, check out Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, he covers the methods of influence pretty well.

Check out Chomsky's After the Cataclysm, in which he plays the apologetic for Pol Pot (a position he's never publicly changed). He's not exactly an authority on anything but linguistics.

I will, but one should be careful using an argument against the author by his previous books. Something along the lines of "how can we listen to the medical opinion of this/that guy if he doesn't even believe in global warming?"

If we take into account history, USA administration has been discredited long ago and should be wrong by default.

Smet wrote:I will, but one should be careful using an argument against the author by his previous books. Something along the lines of "how can we listen to the medical opinion of this/that guy if he doesn't even believe in global warming?"

When you're that spectacularly wrong, and won't adjust your theory in light of facts, you deserve mockery.

Smet wrote:If we take into account history, USA administration has been discredited long ago and should be wrong by default.

Are you talking about our mistake in supporting Stalin and Lenin? If so, that's fair.

Poroshenko = Yanukovich after 3 months of vodka :)

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:I will, but one should be careful using an argument against the author by his previous books. Something along the lines of "how can we listen to the medical opinion of this/that guy if he doesn't even believe in global warming?"

When you're that spectacularly wrong, and won't adjust your theory in light of facts, you deserve mockery.

Smet wrote:If we take into account history, USA administration has been discredited long ago and should be wrong by default.

Are you talking about our mistake in supporting Stalin and Lenin? If so, that's fair.

Oh yeah, a mistake. A mistake by a kind and naive government which couldn't possibly know what they are dealing with. The same mistake they made supporting Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and many others. They also sincerely believed Iraq had the Weapons. And... Well, there isn't enough space in this forum to complete the string of innocent mistakes of US government.

Just like with insults, mockery is your unless I accept it. Which I will not. I am getting bored with the armchair political analysis. Nobody really knows what's going on, and the "discussion" is a waste of time and catecholamines. The only use of this tread for me is exercise in self-awareness, and there are considerably better and more productive ways to do it.

Smet wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:I will, but one should be careful using an argument against the author by his previous books. Something along the lines of "how can we listen to the medical opinion of this/that guy if he doesn't even believe in global warming?"

When you're that spectacularly wrong, and won't adjust your theory in light of facts, you deserve mockery.

Smet wrote:If we take into account history, USA administration has been discredited long ago and should be wrong by default.

Are you talking about our mistake in supporting Stalin and Lenin? If so, that's fair.

Oh yeah, a mistake. A mistake by a kind and naive government which couldn't possibly know what they are dealing with. The same mistake they made supporting Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and many others. They also sincerely believed Iraq had the Weapons. And... Well, there isn't enough space in this forum to complete the string of innocent mistakes of US government.

Nobody is arguing that the US is perfect, but most of the 'mistakes' you mention have to be considered in the context in which they occurred. The context being a long term geopolitical conflict with your mother country.

In the name of democracy...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05m9gLftj5M[/youtube]

Bill what is the footage of? Where is it from?

Ukrainian army airstrike in Lugansk.

http://rt.com/news/163076-ukraine-lugansk-clashes-jet/

At least five people are reported killed after an explosion in Lugansk administration building. The blast came as Kiev deployed fighter jets to the city in eastern Ukraine. This and heavy gunfire on the ground caused panic among civilians.

terrible stuff

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:I will, but one should be careful using an argument against the author by his previous books. Something along the lines of "how can we listen to the medical opinion of this/that guy if he doesn't even believe in global warming?"

When you're that spectacularly wrong, and won't adjust your theory in light of facts, you deserve mockery.

Smet wrote:If we take into account history, USA administration has been discredited long ago and should be wrong by default.

Are you talking about our mistake in supporting Stalin and Lenin? If so, that's fair.

Oh yeah, a mistake. A mistake by a kind and naive government which couldn't possibly know what they are dealing with. The same mistake they made supporting Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and many others. They also sincerely believed Iraq had the Weapons. And... Well, there isn't enough space in this forum to complete the string of innocent mistakes of US government.

Nobody is arguing that the US is perfect, but most of the 'mistakes' you mention have to be considered in the context in which they occurred. The context being a long term geopolitical conflict with your mother country.

But this is pretty much what I was saying from the very beginning: all political events are about struggle between big players, and have virtually nothing to do with the democracy, human rights, truth, justice and so on. A pendulum swung by the outsiders, whereby the naive and innocent get caught in believing all this shit. The tragedy of Ukrainian events is that Ukrainians and Russians are basically the same people ethnically and culturally. Even worse, the events escalated to the level of the civil war, the worst war possible.

Smet wrote:But this is pretty much what I was saying from the very beginning: all political events are about struggle between big players, and have virtually nothing to do with the democracy, human rights, truth, justice and so on. A pendulum swung by the outsiders, whereby the naive and innocent get caught in believing all this shit. The tragedy of Ukrainian events is that Ukrainians and Russians are basically the same people ethnically and culturally. Even worse, the events escalated to the level of the civil war, the worst war possible.

Stop your simpleton. Ukraine is a failed state largely because of poor choices made by it's government.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2 ... s_disputes

Neither Russia nor the US forced the Ukraine's government to make decades of bad choices. US desovietization development efforts have been pretty universally unsuccessful, but it has been in the US national interest for a long time to have a successful, stable, and prosperous Ukraine-- both for political and economic reasons.

The economic stuff actually matters. You can bitch about Pinochet from a human rights perspective all you want-- it's fair. However, if you don't factor in that Allende (his predecessor) was very successfully and rapidly turning Chile into a third world shithole; and that Pinochet turned their economy around-- you're missing something pretty important.

The matter is more complicated than making bad decisions. No country, especially a small one, exists in a vacuum, and its government's decisions are tightly bound with those of major players. The economy of Ukraine virtually belongs to a few wealthy individuals, who have heavy influence on government decisions. And no, I disagree that strong Ukraine is in US national interest. To the contrary, profit is made from war, chaos and disorder, and profit is the only thing that matters to politicians.

Which is supported by your mention of Pinochet's role in the economy. Economic goals seem to justify any means. I don't think economic progress brought by Pinochet matters much to 35,000 of victims of his regime. But you're right, money rules the world. I only wish politicians admitted it openly and didn't hide behind human rights, democracy, freedom etc.

Smet wrote:The matter is more complicated than making bad decisions. No country, especially a small one, exists in a vacuum, and its government's decisions are tightly bound with those of major players. The economy of Ukraine virtually belongs to a few wealthy individuals, who have heavy influence on government decisions. And no, I disagree that strong Ukraine is in US national interest. To the contrary, profit is made from war, chaos and disorder, and profit is the only thing that matters to politicians.

That's a unique economic theory, would love to see some evidence.

Smet wrote:Which is supported by your mention of Pinochet's role in the economy. Economic goals seem to justify any means. I don't think economic progress brought by Pinochet matters much to 35,000 of victims of his regime. But you're right, money rules the world. I only wish politicians admitted it openly and didn't hide behind human rights, democracy, freedom etc.

That's a little simplistic...

Smet cares about the 35,000 victims of Pinochet but not the 35,000,000 victims of Bolshevism.

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:The matter is more complicated than making bad decisions. No country, especially a small one, exists in a vacuum, and its government's decisions are tightly bound with those of major players. The economy of Ukraine virtually belongs to a few wealthy individuals, who have heavy influence on government decisions. And no, I disagree that strong Ukraine is in US national interest. To the contrary, profit is made from war, chaos and disorder, and profit is the only thing that matters to politicians.

That's a unique economic theory, would love to see some evidence.

Smet wrote:Which is supported by your mention of Pinochet's role in the economy. Economic goals seem to justify any means. I don't think economic progress brought by Pinochet matters much to 35,000 of victims of his regime. But you're right, money rules the world. I only wish politicians admitted it openly and didn't hide behind human rights, democracy, freedom etc.

That's a little simplistic...

Evidence in an abstract science like economics is not a feasible concept. We are back to Orwell who states the case very well. If he is getting old on this tread, here is another opinion:

War Is a Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

Simplistic? Of course it is. So is losing a husband or a wife for economic goals.

I get it, success needs to be measured by concrete things-- like casualty counts.

Turdacious wrote:I get it, success needs to be measured by concrete things-- like casualty counts.

How would you measure it?

Smet wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I get it, success needs to be measured by concrete things-- like casualty counts.

How would you measure it?

Using concepts you would consider abstract and non-feasible concepts.

"Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, uphold any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -JFK

this pic dose not connected with previous posts, i just like it.

May both of these turd world countries burn. Namaste and hail Sinestro.