Tiberius Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Today I learned that GG considers himself a Russian apologist. Because this is the text book definition of equivocation, complete with disingenuous qualifiers. How bout we look at the last 15 years: Russia has invaded two countries: Ukraine (controversial) and Georgia. The US has invaded and or toppled: Afghanistan (controversial), Iraq, Syria, and Libya while sustaining long bombing campaigns in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. In 15 years Russia has retaken the swath of land where every invading European army since the beginning of time has crossed to invade Russia while the US has fought wars of convenience across the ME -- not to protect our own borders (which are an ocean away) but to protect the corporate interests of our plutocracy. You might take pointing out reality as being a Russian apologist, I know you love to use your neocon talking points on this subject, but all it is in actuality is honesty. What corporate interest was Bush fighting for in Iraq? I'd argue he really was trying to promote democracy, but like a clumsy, drunken idiot trying to feed a cat that was afraid of him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Your list:. "Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine are all within the last 50 years." The break up of the USSR (and withdrawal of Russian troops). Two separate questions were asked and answers. Which countries were invaded by USSR/Russia and which countries appreciate a stronger US/NATO presence to prevent another Russian invasion. BTW, Russia withdrew the troops because they were bankrupt. Funny how the troops were mobilized again when Russia started making money thanks to western/capitalist help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 17, 2017 Author Share Posted February 17, 2017 What corporate interest was Bush fighting for in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) Today I learned that GG considers himself a Russian apologist. Because this is the text book definition of equivocation, complete with disingenuous qualifiers. How bout we look at the last 15 years: Russia has invaded two countries: Ukraine (controversial) and Georgia. The US has invaded and or toppled: Afghanistan (controversial), Iraq, Syria, and Libya while sustaining long bombing campaigns in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. In 15 years Russia has retaken the swath of land where every invading European army since the beginning of time has crossed to invade Russia while the US has fought wars of convenience across the ME -- not to protect our own borders (which are an ocean away) but to protect the corporate interests of our plutocracy. You might take pointing out reality as being a Russian apologist, I know you love to use your neocon talking points on this subject, but all it is in actuality is honesty. See answers above. USSR was among the most vile and evil creations of mankind, and its current leader believes that the demise of that union was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. Yet, I'm the one who's equivocating. PS, if you think that I'm bothered by the neocon slams, think again. Neocons have been far more correct in calling out trouble spots than the usual parade of apologists for evil regimes. Edited February 17, 2017 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Seriously, war for oil? Military industrial complex? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Today I learned that GG considers himself a Russian apologist. Because this is the text book definition of equivocation, complete with disingenuous qualifiers. How bout we look at the last 15 years: Russia has invaded two countries: Ukraine (controversial) and Georgia. The US has invaded and or toppled: Afghanistan (controversial), Iraq, Syria, and Libya while sustaining long bombing campaigns in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. In 15 years Russia has retaken the swath of land where every invading European army since the beginning of time has crossed to invade Russia while the US has fought wars of convenience across the ME -- not to protect our own borders (which are an ocean away) but to protect the corporate interests of our plutocracy. You might take pointing out reality as being a Russian apologist, I know you love to use your neocon talking points on this subject, but all it is in actuality is honesty. I think living in California you haven't met enough Eastern Europeans and Russians who lived through the worst of the USSR and current Russian regime. Very naive if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Seriously, war for oil? Military industrial complex? What? Health care. And Monsanto. Really, I always figured the root cause was Cheney and Rumsfeld having "boys with toys" syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 So by the same argument, Japan granted Korea independence in 1945... The Soviets invaded and forcibly took control of most of those countries. I'm not saying they "granted" independence. GG asked how many neighboring countries they invaded, and I made the facetious statement. The Soviets weren't coerced into breaking up the union, and they signed an agreement creating an "independent commonwealth." The issue now seems to be which country is the evil empire? Some argue Russia is the aggressor and others see the US and NATO as the aggressors. The neocons wanted the US to use its uni-polar power to shape the world in its image. The US has had a hand in pushing the Ukraine, Georgia, and many other former east bloc countries into the west's fold. I'm sure Russia sees US as the threat. I'm not a Putin apologist, but I'm also don't turn a blind eye to our own policies which of course are guided by freedom and democracy.... Regardless, it plays right into the hand of what some of us see as the behind the scenes control in this country, what some call the Deep State. Nothing like a good threat to boost the defense budget. However, that can't happen in an era of rising social spending, so there is also a need to attack SS and Medicare. These are more important issues than debating semantics, though I started it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Health care. And Monsanto. Really, I always figured the root cause was Cheney and Rumsfeld having "boys with toys" syndrome. Bush was the same way. There were more than one reason for the war. We will never agree one what or how important any were, but I'd say: Boys with toys, ya "I'm a war time President" Wanting to look tough on terrorism after 9-11 "He tried killing my daddy" Spread democracy ---I still hope that eventually works Mid term election advantage since he was a minority voter prez Saddam was a complete piece of filth and perhaps a threat at worst but a road block to progress in that region for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) See answers above. USSR was among the most vile and evil creations of mankind, and its current leader believes that the demise of that union was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. I agree. Yet, I'm the one who's equivocating. You absolutely 100% were. PS, if you think that I'm bothered by the neocon slams, think again. Neocons have been far more correct in calling out trouble spots than the usual parade of apologists for evil regimes. I don't mean them as slams towards you. I know you're proud of your chosen geopolitical philosophy. You also believe regime change is simply wishing people better lives. Both are short sighted and dangerous of course, but I know you're proud of them. People can disagree, as we do, and still converse. I think living in California you haven't met enough Eastern Europeans and Russians who lived through the worst of the USSR and current Russian regime. Very naive if you ask me. I know plenty of Russians, former and current, and have studied their history pretty extensively. I'm very aware of the nature of the Soviet empire. The mistake GG makes is thinking that criticizing our nation for it's poor choices is somehow the same thing as being an apologist for Putin. It's lazy, inaccurate and right out of the communist playbook -- which is ironic and why when he makes those claims it always makes me laugh. Just because the Soviets were bad does that automatically make everything the US does good? Of course not. People are capable of holding many nuanced positions, as you know, but lots of that nuance gets lost when people make assumptions about people's positions. Edited February 18, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 Tillerson presides over abrupt shakeup at State Department http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/17/politics/tillerson-state-department-shakeup/index.html For reference: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/17/fbi-releases-100-new-pages-on-clinton-email-probe.html http://nypost.com/2016/10/17/the-state-departments-shadow-government/ Lots of butt hurt over this one coming up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 I think living in California you haven't met enough Eastern Europeans and Russians who lived through the worst of the USSR and current Russian regime. Very naive if you ask me. The average American's exposure to the USSR typically revolve around interviews of Mila Kunis, or watching the movie "Red Dawn." I wonder if Russians are as concerned about Putin's relationship with Trump, as Americans are about Trump's relationship with Putin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 I want to read that one by Glennon. I read in the Shout Box he might be our QB this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Why Was the FBI Investigating General Flynn? "No fewer than seven veteran Times reporters contributed to the story, the Gray Lady having dedicated more resources to undermining the Trump administration than the Republican Congress has to advancing Trump’s agenda. Remarkably, none of the able journalists appears to have asked a screamingly obvious question — a question that would have been driving press coverage had an Obama administration operative been in the Bureau’s hot seat. On what basis was the FBI investigating General Flynn? To predicate an investigation under FBI guidelines, there must be good-faith suspicion that (a) a federal crime has been or is being committed, (b) there is a threat to American national security, or © there is an opportunity to collect foreign intelligence relevant to a priority established by the executive branch. These categories frequently overlap — e.g., a terrorist will typically commit several crimes in a plot that threatens national security, and when captured he will be a source of foreign intelligence." More at the link... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 I don't mean them as slams towards you. I know you're proud of your chosen geopolitical philosophy. You also believe regime change is simply wishing people better lives. Both are short sighted and dangerous of course, but I know you're proud of them. People can disagree, as we do, and still converse. You're getting a lot of mileage from the regime change mantra. Tell me, other than Saddam, which regime change was supported by neocons? You conveniently ignore that regime change in Lydia wasn't a neocon platform and everyone was appalled at how Mubarak was tossed aside. Yet somehow these monumental Obama failures are somehow attributed to neocons. Here's a hint, because Hillary was behind many of those moves should give more than enough proof that she's nowhere near a neocon. Of course we get to your favorite regime change claim - that neocons were behind the Orange Revolution. But if you really studied the region and understood what's going on, you'd know that there would have been no need for the revolution if Yanukovich didn't steal the election with help from Vlad. So whatever help the US provided to the opposition parties pales in comparison to what Putin has done in Ukraine. Yet, you're clinging to a sole comment made by Neuland that US staged the revolution, despite very little evidence of direct support or even logistics to aid a revolution. Meanwhile, Russians are sending in heavy artillery and blowing up passenger jets. But I know, US does bad stuff too. Right, Mr trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 You're getting a lot of mileage from the regime change mantra. Tell me, other than Saddam, which regime change was supported by neocons? You conveniently ignore that regime change in Lydia wasn't a neocon platform and everyone was appalled at how Mubarak was tossed aside. Yet somehow these monumental Obama failures are somehow attributed to neocons. Here's a hint, because Hillary was behind many of those moves should give more than enough proof that she's nowhere near a neocon. Of course we get to your favorite regime change claim - that neocons were behind the Orange Revolution. But if you really studied the region and understood what's going on, you'd know that there would have been no need for the revolution if Yanukovich didn't steal the election with help from Vlad. So whatever help the US provided to the opposition parties pales in comparison to what Putin has done in Ukraine. Yet, you're clinging to a sole comment made by Neuland that US staged the revolution, despite very little evidence of direct support or even logistics to aid a revolution. Meanwhile, Russians are sending in heavy artillery and blowing up passenger jets. But I know, US does bad stuff too. Right, Mr trump? The PNAC document which was the neocon blueprint named the countries to be targeted for regime change: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran among others. Hillary's foreign policy was certainly aligned with the neocons, and they supported her in the election. The fact that it doesn't matter which of the two parties was in control and the policies continued is telling. There's good reason for why people should be skeptical of relying on the MSM in the US. While the link I'm providing dates to the late 1970s, it would be naive to think the influence has waned. CIA and the Media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 ANDREW KLAVAN ON CHOOSING SIDES: Donald Trump vs. the Deep State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) One of the more interesting parts of all of this is how much light it throws on the hypocrisy of the left. People like PastaJoe and Gator insist that the election was rigged and Hillary lost the election because of the FBI. It was wrong, and an abuse of power, they argue...before quickly extolling the selfless virtue of an intelligence community that tries to bring down a US president they don't like. Edited February 19, 2017 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 The PNAC document which was the neocon blueprint named the countries to be targeted for regime change: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran among others. Hillary's foreign policy was certainly aligned with the neocons, and they supported her in the election. The fact that it doesn't matter which of the two parties was in control and the policies continued is telling. There's good reason for why people should be skeptical of relying on the MSM in the US. While the link I'm providing dates to the late 1970s, it would be naive to think the influence has waned. CIA and the Media It's a common mistake to confuse Never Trumpers with Hillary supporters. BTW, you guys must be using a lot of toilet paper if rumors of Bolton becoming head of NSA are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 It's a common mistake to confuse Never Trumpers with Hillary supporters. BTW, you guys must be using a lot of toilet paper if rumors of Bolton becoming head of NSA are true. Bolton? Crazy. How do they even know each other? The Apprentice maybe? FWIW his Netflix Valentines Day special was surprisingly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts