Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-05-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(07-05-2014 11:13 AM)frankksj Wrote:  It's not disputed that these anti-Russian-Ukrainian laws sparked the whole thing.

That is certainly a factor. Your characterization of these laws, however, is beyond ridiculous, and sounds almost verbatim like some of the stupid hyperbole that Sergey Lavrov spouts. I have no doubt that there are right-wing ultra-nationalistic anti-Russian Ukrainians that wouldn't mind if they didn't hear a word of Russian spoken ever again. What you posted, however, had nothing to do with those people:

(07-05-2014 08:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  What did the idiots in Kiev think was going to happen when they passed laws banning the Russian-speaking Ukrainians from speaking their own language and practicing their own culture?! Of course they would break away and it would lead to a civil war if they tried to make them stay. Dumb asses. Is it really worth war and loss of life to ban eastern Ukrainians from speaking Russian? Was it really so painful for those in Kiev to know that in a distant part of the country people spoke a different language?

The law the idiots in Kiev passed was to repel the two-year-old law that granted minority languages official status in some areas. The repelling was not ratified, however, since the acting president vetoed it, and as of today I'm not aware of anything that would have changed the status quo. There is absolutely no ban on "speaking Russian or practicing their culture" anywhere in the horizon.

I have no idea what your beef with this issue is but given that you pull numbers like these out of thin air:

(07-05-2014 11:13 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Fine, let's assume that a French border state had 90% German-speakers, as was the case with Crimea. And let's assume that Paris passed laws to oppress them, such as banning them from speaking their native tongue and other anti-German laws.

...when a glimpse here and here gives 60% ethnic Russians in Crimea and almost 80% of Crimeans considering Russian their native language, the overall credibility of the rest of your post plummets.

I'm not by any strech an advocate of the acting regime in Ukraine, nor the previous one for that matter, but blatant partisan misinformation like the end of your OP drives me nuts.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like John's post
07-05-2014, 09:41 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(07-05-2014 01:47 PM)John Wrote:  but blatant partisan misinformation like the end of your OP drives me nuts.

You're mired in insignificant details and ignoring the overall point. Sure you point to a study that shows "only" 60% of Crimeans self-identify as Russian. I was referring to something on cnn that said that 90% of the people in the Crimean capital spoke Russian. But that's not really material. Also, how oppressive Kiev's anti-Russian laws were is immaterial: the fact is Crimea had a vote, with 83% turnout, and the result was that 96% voted to secede from Ukraine. And, whether absent Russian influence that number would have been less is immaterial. Even Western leaders don't dispute that the majority of Crimeans wanted to leave Ukraine. So bickering about the numbers is immaterial. The question is: "Should the people of Crimea be allowed to secede through a democratic process?" yes or no. The point of my OP is that it's an ironic twist when Russia is saying "yes, every people has the right to self-determination" and it's the west that is saying "no, even if the vote is 100% unanimous and even if Crimeans feel they are being oppressed, they must endure it and are not allowed to leave--ever", even though the west has always backed secession votes whenever a region is trying to secede from an enemy state. It's hypocritical to say that people have the right to secede, but only if they are leaving an enemy state to join our side, but not the other way around.

Also, don't forget Crimea's official name when it was handed over to Ukraine was "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", and, a condition to giving Crimea to Ukraine was that Crimea must remain autonomous and be able to self-govern. It is the pro-West side in Kiev that broke that agreement by trying to force them to abide by their right-wing national laws.

The point in my OP is that the right to self-determination, the right to leave an arrangement that isn't working out, is the fundamental definition of freedom. If it's 1850 and a black man is working in a cotton field, toiling every day in an arrangement he can't stand, what determines if he's a slave or a free man? The free man can leave. The slave cannot. What determines if a man is a prisoner or a free man? Again, the free man can leave. So, whenever one says that a group of people, like Crimeans, are not allowed to leave, it fits the definition of slavery.

While I personally do not like Russia at all (I've been there a couple times) and I think Putin is a grand-standing hypocritical tyrant as well, the reality is that, at least on paper, this ex-KGB officer is standing for the cause of freedom and liberty, arguing for local autonomy and self-determination, offering protection to whistleblowers who expose government corruption, and condemning the West for spying on their citizens and defending people's right to privacy. While the West is defending Stalin's positions, insisting that people have no right to privacy and the state should have full access to everything we do, that whistleblowers who expose corruption should be hunted down and taken out, that anybody who is a threat to the government can be summarily executed in a drone strike without being accused of a crime or having any judicial process, that people are not free to leave but rather must sacrifice their liberty for the good of the state, that power should be concentrated and centralized and that which group gets the majority should be allowed to oppress minorities. It is a bizarre twist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2014, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2014 10:16 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(07-05-2014 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  While I personally do not like Russia at all (I've been there a couple times) and I think Putin is a grand-standing hypocritical tyrant as well, the reality is that, at least on paper, this ex-KGB officer is standing for the cause of freedom and liberty, arguing for local autonomy and self-determination, offering protection to whistleblowers who expose government corruption, and condemning the West for spying on their citizens and defending people's right to privacy.

And he does this not for the benefit of the people, but purely because it benefits his own political gains and agendas. He is not an Enlightenment era freethinking champion of liberty and self determination, he supports them only insofar as their goals align with his. Would Putin give a flying fuck about the self-determination of a sizable German or Croatian minority in Ukraine? Fuck no. If that was the case he wouldn't of had unmarked special forces enter the country, take over government facilities, essentially start an undeclared war with Ukraine, vehemently deny this is exactly what he is doing, then have sham elections while his troops intimidate the local population.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
07-05-2014, 10:03 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Yeah, I find all the most credible referenda to be organised under the thoughtful auspices of invading foreigners self-defense militia helpfully enacting curfews and shutting down free media.

Nothing at all questionable going on there.

Stick it to the system, my tankie chum.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
07-05-2014, 10:51 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Was Jefferson against swearing ? Or is the analogy just a bit strained ?
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/ma...ooks-putin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(07-05-2014 10:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, I find all the most credible referenda to be organised under the thoughtful auspices of invading foreigners self-defense militia helpfully enacting curfews and shutting down free media.

Nothing at all questionable going on there.

Stick it to the system, my tankie chum.

Look, I agree 100% with @EvolutionKills that Putin is taking the high-road championing liberty only because it suits his agenda at this moment, and that Russia is likely encouraging this situation.

However, you've conveniently ignored the key point I made. _IF_ the Western media's reporting was accurate, that Russia was invading, shutting down free media, enacting curfews, etc., the west would have a very easy solution: simply demand UN election monitors to ensure the vote is fair and voters aren't intimidated. Obviously, they wouldn't willingly vote for an oppressive foreign invader. The fact that the west doesn't do this, and in fact insists that even letting the people have a vote is illegal, proves that the media spin is wrong, and the Crimeans and eastern Ukrainians who are on the ground, living this first hand, consider themselves oppressed by the west--not Russia--and see Russia as a protector, not an invader. You keep doing everything you can to avoid this. Answer the question: If Russia was truly an invading oppressor, why doesn't the west call for UN election monitors, given that after Putin's grandstanding he wouldn't be able to say no and this would therefore put an end to the crisis?

Now, I know I'll be blasted as a conspiracy theorist, but I'll tell you what I think is REALLY going on.... See my posts from last year about how Nixon switched the $ to a fiat currency in 1971, a system which has been tried 3,000 times over the past 1,000 years and has a 100% record of failure and always collapses within 50 years. To prevent a repeat, Nixon immediately signed a deal with Saudi Arabia to ensure that the world's oil could only be sold in us$, ensuring a constant demand, and allowing the Fed to print all it wanted. I pointed out the undisputed historical fact that, without exception, every time an oil producing country has tried to sell oil in another currency, the US has fabricated some "crisis" to justify invading the country or sanctions to block the sale. It's happened in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and others. You'll note that last year I pointed out that Russia started selling oil to China in their own currency, and I was wondering how the US would stop this. China and Russia are too big to invade. Openly imposing sanctions on them simply for not selling oil US$ would expose just how fragile the monetary system is. So, a crisis will need to be fabricated to create a pretext for sanctions to block Russia's sale of oil. Now we have a crisis, which both Russia and the US are accusing the other of fabricating. However, the US's position that it won't honor the will of the people and won't allow democratic elections on the matter certainly does suggest there's an ulterior motive. My guess is that the US is going to try to escalate this until they get sanctions blocking Russia's sale of oil and can force Russia to only accept us $ again.

I know you'll say it's a crazy conspiracy theory, but, remember, it's indisputable that those who can predict the outcome of a complex system well in advance clearly understand the system better than those who cannot, and that their theories are based not on conspiracies but rather on insight. Given that all libertarians were openly debating what US vs. Russia crisis would be fabricated to justify such sanctions, and now we have the crisis, if this does leads to sanctions which force Russia to sell oil only in us $, you'll have a hard time insisting it's a conspiracy theory when it's predicted well in advance. When someone says the gov't was behind 9/11, it's a conspiracy theory. If, however, before 9/11 someone predicted exactly what was going to happen on 9/11, who was going to do it, and why, then, you're simply a fool if you dismiss them as conspiracy theorists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 10:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, I find all the most credible referenda to be organised under the thoughtful auspices of invading foreigners self-defense militia helpfully enacting curfews and shutting down free media.

Nothing at all questionable going on there.

Stick it to the system, my tankie chum.

Look, I agree 100% with @EvolutionKills that Putin is taking the high-road championing liberty only because it suits his agenda at this moment, and that Russia is likely encouraging this situation.

So you admit to the blithering histrionics?

That's progress, I guess. What was the point of them, though?

(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  However, you've conveniently ignored the key point I made. _IF_ the Western media's reporting was accurate, that Russia was invading, shutting down free media, enacting curfews, etc., the west would have a very easy solution: simply demand UN election monitors to ensure the vote is fair and voters aren't intimidated. Obviously, they wouldn't willingly vote for an oppressive foreign invader. The fact that the west doesn't do this, and in fact insists that even letting the people have a vote is illegal, proves that the media spin is wrong, and the Crimeans and eastern Ukrainians who are on the ground, living this first hand, consider themselves oppressed by the west--not Russia--and see Russia as a protector, not an invader.

They - by which I mean Russian-backed strongmen - turned away observers. The OCSE observers - the only ones in the area at the time - were shot at. So there's that.

The point of international law is that unilateral actions are not permissible, because unilateral actions are in no way jointly and fairly negotiated.

You keep doing everything you can to avoid this.
Rolleyes

(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You keep doing everything you can to avoid this.

How does one post constitute "keeping" doing anything?

But, keep on speaking to things people didn't say. Because that strategy has been so fruitful for you in the past.

(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Answer the question:

OOOH, is this going to be one of your patented belaboured simplistic inapplicable rhetorical questions? I love those.

(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If Russia was truly an invading oppressor, why doesn't the west call for UN election monitors, given that after Putin's grandstanding he wouldn't be able to say no and this would therefore put an end to the crisis?

Because they didn't want to legitimise an illegal act. Funny, that.

The Crimean people were free to vote for regional or separatist parties in generally-fair elections for over twenty years, and did not do so. Aksyonov's jokers won single-digit vote percentages in all those elections. But that was plenty mandate enough for Russian guns to put him in the governor's chair, as it turns out.

(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Now, I know I'll be blasted as a conspiracy theorist, but I'll tell you what I think is REALLY going on.... See my posts from last year about how Nixon switched the $ to a fiat currency in 1971, a system which has been tried 3,000 times over the past 1,000 years and has a 100% record of failure and always collapses within 50 years.

Oh, that ignorant insanity again.

(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  To prevent a repeat, Nixon immediately signed a deal with Saudi Arabia to ensure that the world's oil could only be sold in us$, ensuring a constant demand, and allowing the Fed to print all it wanted. I pointed out the undisputed historical fact that, without exception, every time an oil producing country has tried to sell oil in another currency, the US has fabricated some "crisis" to justify invading the country or sanctions to block the sale. It's happened in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and others. You'll note that last year I pointed out that Russia started selling oil to China in their own currency, and I was wondering how the US would stop this. China and Russia are too big to invade. Openly imposing sanctions on them simply for not selling oil US$ would expose just how fragile the monetary system is. So, a crisis will need to be fabricated to create a pretext for sanctions to block Russia's sale of oil. Now we have a crisis, which both Russia and the US are accusing the other of fabricating. However, the US's position that it won't honor the will of the people and won't allow democratic elections on the matter certainly does suggest there's an ulterior motive. My guess is that the US is going to try to escalate this until they get sanctions blocking Russia's sale of oil and can force Russia to only accept us $ again.

The United States fabricated a Russian invasion of Ukraine because oil moniez. Sounds legit.

(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I know you'll say it's a crazy conspiracy theory, but, remember, it's indisputable that those who can predict the outcome of a complex system well in advance clearly understand the system better than those who cannot, and that their theories are based not on conspiracies but rather on insight. Given that all libertarians were openly debating what US vs. Russia crisis would be fabricated to justify such sanctions, and now we have the crisis, if this does leads to sanctions which force Russia to sell oil only in us $, you'll have a hard time insisting it's a conspiracy theory when it's predicted well in advance. When someone says the gov't was behind 9/11, it's a conspiracy theory. If, however, before 9/11 someone predicted exactly what was going to happen on 9/11, who was going to do it, and why, then, you're simply a fool if you dismiss them as conspiracy theorists.

Any bunch of chucklefucks can make retroactive predictions.

"lol conspiracy" is the obsession of the vacuous.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
08-05-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 10:12 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 09:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If Russia was truly an invading oppressor, why doesn't the west call for UN election monitors, given that after Putin's grandstanding he wouldn't be able to say no and this would therefore put an end to the crisis?

Because they didn't want to legitimise an illegal act. Funny, that.

You should have stuck to not answering the question. You're now saying that it's a crime to even have a vote about seceding? So, whenever Montreal holds votes about secession, it's a crime. Ditto with Northern Ireland, Falklands, etc? Are you going to say all those people are vile criminals for even considering leaving their homeland? Should they all be executed for treason? You sound like another Polpot or Stalin when you say that it's a crime to try to leave when things aren't working out.

Oh, wait, let me guess.... It's only a heinous crime to have a vote to leave our side and go to the other side, but it's commendable to have a vote to leave the other side and join us....

(08-05-2014 10:12 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Any bunch of chucklefucks can make retroactive predictions.
"lol conspiracy" is the obsession of the vacuous.

Huh? Retroactive must mean something different in your language than in English. The fact is that the US has not even mentioned imposing sanctions on Russia's oil sales. So, if it does happen, that won't be a "retroactive" prediction. Second, as soon as Russia started selling oil to China in non us$ libertarians have been openly debating how the US would get sanctions to block that since Russia is too big to invade. I was talking about this a year ago, long before there was even a hint of tension in Ukraine. Besides, it's not a "conspiracy theory" when you simply recognize a pattern that has been repeating for half a century.

Can you name one time since the US adopted a fiat currency that an oil producing started selling oil in non us $ that did not result in the US invading the country, or blocking their sale of oil with sanctions?

If you can't think of even one exception to the rule and thus concede the pattern is unbroken, yet you cannot recognize the pattern, that says a lot more about you than me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2014, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 03:07 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:12 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Because they didn't want to legitimise an illegal act. Funny, that.

You should have stuck to not answering the question. You're now saying that it's a crime to even have a vote about seceding?

Oh, you hopeless failure. Never change.

No, friend, I didn't say that.

I hold less and less hope that you will ever be capable of an honest reply.

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, whenever Montreal holds votes about secession, it's a crime.

When Quebec held their referenda, it was at the will of a democratically elected provincial government under the approval of the federal government.

When Scotland holds a referendum later this year, it will be at the will of the democratically elected devolved government with the approval of the national government.

When Crimea held a referendum, it was at the will of foreign military occupiers and local collaborators, backed by your favourite bogeyman, literal men with guns on the streets, following no consultation or negotiation with any other relevant authorities.

Can you spot the difference?
(for those others reading, feel free to play along at home!)

Or are men with guns only bad when they enforce laws in democracies?

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Ditto with Northern Ireland, Falklands, etc? Are you going to say all those people are vile criminals for even considering leaving their homeland? Should they all be executed for treason? You sound like another Polpot or Stalin when you say that it's a crime to try to leave when things aren't working out.

Aaaaand you're off, deep into delusional straw man fantasyland.

How's the weather over there?

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Oh, wait, let me guess.... It's only a heinous crime to have a vote to leave our side and go to the other side, but it's commendable to have a vote to leave the other side and join us....

No, that appears to be another thing you literally invented from whole cloth.

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:12 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Any bunch of chucklefucks can make retroactive predictions.
"lol conspiracy" is the obsession of the vacuous.

Huh? Retroactive must mean something different in your language than in English.

Anyone can say they predicted something after something happens. It's either unverifiable, or else they predicted both X and not-X. What powers of prognostication!

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact is that the US has not even mentioned imposing sanctions on Russia's oil sales. So, if it does happen, that won't be a "retroactive" prediction. Second, as soon as Russia started selling oil to China in non us$ libertarians have been openly debating how the US would get sanctions to block that since Russia is too big to invade. I was talking about this a year ago, long before there was even a hint of tension in Ukraine. Besides, it's not a "conspiracy theory" when you simply recognize a pattern that has been repeating for half a century.

No, jacking off to phantasmal delusions isn't "recognizing a pattern".

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can you name one time since the US adopted a fiat currency that an oil producing started selling oil in non us $ that did not result in the US invading the country, or blocking their sale of oil with sanctions?

Canada sells oil in Canadian dollars.

I guess I should expect the Abrams tanks to roll across the Ambassador Bridge any moment, eh?

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you can't think of even one exception to the rule and thus concede the pattern is unbroken, yet you cannot recognize the pattern, that says a lot more about you than me.

To call your analysis one dimensional would be to imbue it with far too much depth.

This place just wasn't the same without you, old buddy.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
08-05-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You should have stuck to not answering the question. You're now saying that it's a crime to even have a vote about seceding?

Oh, you hopeless failure. Never change.

No, friend, I didn't say that.

Yes you did. It's right there in black & white. I asked why the West didn't call for election monitors when Crimea was voting on secession and you replied "Because they didn't want to legitimise an illegal act". WTF?! What "illegal act" were you referring to if not the vote on secession? I guess you're embarrassed to have called it an illegal act so you're denying you said that, but this is a written forum. We have a written record.

(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Anyone can say they predicted something after something happens. It's either unverifiable, or else they predicted both X and not-X. What powers of prognostication!

My prediction was that this would escalate into blocking Russia from selling oil in non dollars. You're response is that this has already happened!??!? Whatever...

And you can see my posts post #50 and post #244 are from February, 2014, about how the US would have to respond with an invasion or sanctions to protect the dollar, but that Russia is too strong to invade. True, Canada has always had a partnership with the US on this, and the "petrodollar" often refers to both the US and Canadian dollars. But you're delusional if you think the US doesn't use force to protect this monopoly. Are you seriously so naïve to think that counties which hate the US, like Venezuela, only sell their oil in US dollars because they want to do so??? And when a country, say, Japan, buys oil, you really think they want to go to the US as a middleman and buy it in US dollars, rather than buying it directly in Yen?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: