There is way too much Russophobia on this forum

[JVS]

Vladimir Putin does not want to blow up your house, eat your children, or shoot you in the face. He and his buddy Medvedev are simply trying to get Russia back on track after many years of disastrous policies pursued by a corrupt and incompetent government. Naturally one of the consequences will be an increased role in promoting stability along its borders, but this is ultimately a good thing for us. We claim to be tired of being the world's policeman and now with Europe, China, and recently re-emerged Russia, we don't have to be the policeman. At least not in the areas near Russia, which includes Iran. So chill people, it's going to be ok.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Meh, it's only a handful of trolls.

And the usual suspects.

[mitchum]

2. But they want to put flouride in our drinking water and force the New Math on our children!

[JVS]

15. Oh noes! We better nuke um!

[sendero]

115. Yeah but at least it's not..

.... THE MATH :)

[Turbineguy]

3. Please be kind to us

Old Cold Warriors.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Our brief spell of being "The World's Number One Superpower" is over.

And, all the flag-pins, "USA! USA!", and sappy renditions of "God Bless America", won't bring it back.

Hopefully, we will fall gracefully into the just another 2nd rate power slot.

But, I fear we will follow in the footsteps of other empires and totally bankrupt ourselves in the process.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Thankfully, that's not even close to being true.

The USA still has far more influence (and military and financial clout) than either of its possible challengers (Russia and China), and given that both of their regimes make George W. Bush look like Mahatma Ghandi, that's a damn good thing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Both of their regimes make George Bush look like Mahatma Ghandi?

Really?

[AllentownJake]

12. No they are about equally as corrupt

and bad. Difference is Bush is leaving in a few months. Putin is in power till he decides he doesn't want to be in power anymore.

[truebrit71]

19. You must be mad...

For the last five years the US has been pissing it's money down a hole in the middle east...What have Russia and China been doing? Making money, staying quiet, and building.

Ths US is almost totally impotent to stop anything either the Russians or the Chinese choose to do. Who is responsible for that? The tough talking chickenshit in the Whitehouse....that's who...

[malaise]

29. BIngo n/t

[arendt]

20. We have the highest imprionment rate in the world, but we are Ghandi? What are you smoking? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. Tibet, Falun Gong, Chechnya, mass executions, free sp... oh, hell, you've heard it all before...

The flaws of the Russian and Chinese government are matters of public record.

Look, if you choose to ignore or forgive what Russia and China do because it would mean facing up to the fact that George W. Bush is not the antichrist, nothing I can say or do will change your mind. But I hope that, even if you don't admit it, being reminded that you're willfully denying something you know to be true makes you feel a little guilty.

[arendt]

100. Its all about agenda control. The violator of the law here is Georgia, and the neocons who...

put them up to it.

You refuse to talk about Georgian culpability or U.S. culpability. Instead you are now on to smearing CHINA, who has nothing to do with this crisis.

You put out more smoke than a burning oil tanker. This is classic agitprop. Your tactics are as obvious as they are relentless. Right down to the snide "you must be feeling guilty even if you don't admit it" psycho-babble.

geez do they send you guys to the same school.

Propagandist.

arendt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

116. No, the violator of the law is Russia, who have invaded sovereign Georgian territory.

South Ossettia is Georgian territory; Georgia has been trying and failing to repel a Russian invasion aimed at annexing Georgian territory.

And it was Georgia's decision, not America's - not everything is the fault of Neocons. This particular conflict is the fault of the ex-KGB man in the Kremlin, and to a lesser extent of the Georgian president who, while perfectly within his rights to stand up to him, was unwise to try it.

[blindpig]

119. Sure,

our mass executions are mostly off-shore for now and and are often done with aircraft instead of rifles. And I guess our incarceration rate doesn't bother you. Apparently the jackbooted thugs of ICE meet your approval too.

But no, I wouldn't lay the blame for our predicament at bush's door, too easy and dishonest. He is but an errand-boy for his class. Not to say that he isn't a criminal. It is the whole stinking, rotten structure of our economic system which requires changing, the ass which warms the big chair in the Oval Office is a distraction.

[blindpig]

120. Sure,

our mass executions are mostly off-shore for now and and are often done with aircraft instead of rifles. And I guess our incarceration rate doesn't bother you. Apparently the jackbooted thugs of ICE meet your approval too.

But no, I wouldn't lay the blame for our predicament at bush's door, too easy and dishonest. He is but an errand-boy for his class. Not to say that he isn't a criminal. It is the whole stinking, rotten structure of our economic system which requires changing, the ass which warms the big chair in the Oval Office is a distraction.

[daleo]

27. Gandhi invaded Iraq?

Gandhi invaded Afghanistan? Gandhi ignored New Orleans while it drowned? Gandhi laughed about capital punishment? Gandhi stole elections?

Some guy that Gandhi.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. Ghandi didn't occupy Tibet, or Chechnya, or torture the Falun Gong.

Bush is far from a good leader.

But he's *immeasurably* better than those of either Russia or China.

That's not high praise...

[daleo]

110. Immeasurably better than Russian and China's leaders?

occupy Tibet, - Bush invaded and occupied Iraq
or Chechnya, - Bush invaded and occupied Afghanistan
or torture the Falun Gong - Bush tortured Iraqis and many others.

It is one thing to attack other leaders, but to claim that Bush is *immeasurably* better is pure U.S.-centric bigotry.

Not only is Bush's behavior as bad or worse in absolute terms, it is much worse in relative terms. Bush made torture and aggressive warfare as American as apple pie, bringing the U.S. down in the world's esteem to a level no better than the regimes you upbraid. The U.S. used to stand for an ideal in the world's eyes, even if it usually fell short of that ideal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

114. I'm afraid I think you're suffering from lack of perspective.

Bad things close up always look worse than bad things far away; from a non-American, non-Russian, non-Chinese viewpoint, Bush's regime is nowhere near as bad
as the other two.

I agree that Bush is "worser" compared to previous US leaders than the current Russian and Chinese regimes are compared to their predecessors (the current Chinese regime is actually less awful than it has been for most of this century); I don't think that's a terribly meaningful measure, though. Absolute terms are what counts.

[daleo]

126. Relative and absolute are both important measures

Relative is important too, because it shows a trend. Country A may be better than Country B on some measure, but if Country B is going up while Country A is going down, Country B is in a better position.

Compare the current Russian government to Stalin.
Compare China's current government to Mao.
Compare the current U.S. government to FDR or JFK.
Then consider who's improved and who's declined in the eyes of the world.

I grant that the U.S. is still a more desirable place to live than Russia and China, for the average neutral citizen. It may remain that way in the future, but nobody can be certain. Bush has brought the U.S. down in world perception, while the current Russian and Chinese leaderships have brought their countries. Those are important things to keep in mind.

I hope a change in government can undo the damage Bush has wrought.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

127. By that measure, Konrad Adenauer could have eaten babies and still count as a good leader, surely?

I don't think "the one before him was even worse" is a good defence of a leader, or "the one before him was even better" a good reason to criticise one. Was Truman a bad leader because he wasn't as good as FDR?

[northernlights]

36. ha!ha!ha!

good one! :rofl:

While we've been pissing our military and financial wealth all over the middle east, not to mention dissing our former allie France, Russia has been quietly building oil relationships around the world. France and others in Europe, S. America and elsewhere are now involved in profit and management sharing deals with Russia, securing their oil supply.

The neocons stupidly goaded Georgia into a preemptive strike, in a stupid move to try and divert the Caspian oil pipeline, only to find Russia has rebuilt its military along with its economy. And we have no power over Russia, none.

[fascisthunter]

40. What Good is Power WHen it's Abused, Regardless of who is in power

we all pay directly for it.... I think people's Nationalistic pride gets the better of them. It really is a shame.

PS - the neo-cons have destroyed what power and influence we once had... you are in denial.

[Caliman73]

82. What they said.

The US does have more influence and military muscle than the other two re-emerging powers. Finances are another thing. The US is definitely the most economically powerful nation still, but your Ghandi has been steadily draining our wealth and prestige.

To be sure China and Russia have a history and a present of repression. They were successful in disarming their populations and instilling fear in them. The US as a nation and a system of government is only 8 years into that kind of bent with the wiretapping and scare tactics concerning Orange alerts and such.

We should recognize the many advantages and blessings this nation has, but we should not beat so loudly on the drum of false patriotism that we deafen ourselves to the many problems we still have to address. Saying "America is the best and if you disagree you are disloyal" is just plain ignorant. America is the best for us, but the rest of the world doesn't agree. We need to learn to share and live within the demands of a growing world. If we don't then we face the fate of all other Super powers that came before us. Ask Persia, Greece, Rome, Spain, England, and China what happened? They were all on top of the world at one point and then lost it. Now we have been dominant for only the last 50 to 80 years and some of us think we have the right to call ourselves the best place ever? Let's have some perspective here.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. I would say the reverse - there's far too much Russophilia.

An awful lot of people are willing to overlook e.g. Russia's abominable human rights abuses in Chechenya, it's murder of Alexander Litvinenko in the UK (the man who probably did that is now in the Duma), its government's naked contempt for democracy and human rights, etc, and to try to justify its invasion of Georgia.

What's really worrying is that it's very obvious that most of the people doing so are doing so not for the reasons they claim, but for the very simple reason that Russia is an enemy of George W. Bush, and they're willing to applaud anyone who is that, no matter how bad.

Putin is a far, far worse leader than Bush. He's not just "trying to get Russia back on track"; he's trying to consolidate his own power, and he doesn't give a damn about the Russian people or anyone else.

[JVS]

16. As though we've never had any political assassinations!

Was the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic party not slain the other day?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. Um... not on the orders of the government, so far as I know...

I think you've slightly missed the point...

[arendt]

21. We don't have russophilia, we have neocon-phobia. Any enemy of the neocons is a friend of mine. n/t

[rockymountaindem]

53. So you support Mugabe and the Myanmar junta then?

'Cause that's basically what you're implying.

[Ex Lurker]

89. Some here clearly do

especially Mugabe, and I'll throw in Chavez. There have even been a few pro-Iran posters. This is the kind of thing that keeps progressives from being taken seriously on foreign policy. On Russia, it's pretty transparent what's going on here. As other have stated, it's anti-Bush, anti-neocon, and it's a cut off nose, spite face kind of attitude. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. As bad as Bush and his ilk are, the czarist wannabes in Russia are orders of magnitude worse.

[arendt]

102. Welcome. Red-baiter. We have now moved on from reality to pure agitprop.

Iran, Chavez.

whose next, Che Guevara?

This is nothing but spewing neocon propaganda points.

The U.S. spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined. We are occupying two countries, threatening a third (Iran), intimidating a fourth (fleet off Venezuela). But, I should support the neocon crazies who are pissing away my tax dollars?

You are delusional.

arendt

[Ex Lurker]

109. thanks for putting words in my mouth

nobody said you should support the neocons. But that doesn't mean the other side is blameless. It's quite possible, and is indeed the case in this example, that they're BOTH wrong. Keep this up and come November you'll be wondering why the Republican won again.

[arendt]

101. AFAIK, the neocons are happy to do business w Myanamar. You can't even smear w/out making a mistake.

Pathetic.

arendt

[rockymountaindem]

103. Yet they wouldn't let our military in there post-tsunami

Is your memory that short?

Also, there's this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/world/25cnd-bush.html?hp

"Sept. 25 — President Bush today chided nations to live up to the rights and freedoms the United Nations promised six decades ago, announced new sanctions on Myanmar and denounced the governments of Belarus, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Zimbabwe as “brutal regimes.”

Mr. Bush’s sharp comments were typical of his attacks on countries that the United States groups among the least democratic in the world. In the case of Myanmar, Mr. Bush excoriated the country’s military government, which in the last few weeks has faced the most extensive public protests in nearly two decades.

He outlined a tightening of financial sanctions on Myanmar and an extension of a ban on visas of officials “responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights” and their families.

“Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear,” Mr. Bush said. “Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common.”

So aside from ordering campaign sweatshirts from Myanmar sweatshops, it appears that Bush is not the biggest friend of the government there.

[arendt]

106. They wouldn't let ANYBODY in. does that mean they hate the Russians? Non-sequitur. n/t

[DrCory]

113. That you would regard Putin...

As a "friend" speaks volumes about your character, doesn't it?

[AntiFascist]

22. You may want to look into why Litvinenko was killed...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1992516&mesg_id=1999342

now tell me that there isn't something that really stinks about our presence in Afghanistan?

[truebrit71]

23. You seem to be missing an obvious point....the US is now almost impotent militarily...

....EXCEPT for airpower and maybe nukes...The Russians have done a 'reverse-Raygun'. They have sat back and watched as the US has been worn down by a guerilla war in Afghanistan and Iraq and had it's coffered completely emptied.

When Raygun did that to the USSR eventually the old dynasty collapsed...

The former USSR is now watching history repeat itself...only this time THEY are the ones with the money and the oil and the guns.

Way to go Georgie!!

[chatnoir]

28. Thank you for that sane response

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.

People's hatred of Bush & Co seems to blind them to the reality of Putin and what Russia is up to now. His motives are far more nefarious than what the Russian officials are putting out there but b/c they are standing up to Bush ppl seem to turn a blind eye.

[fascisthunter]

44. nope

[chatnoir]

64. ?

Well, that was elaborate...

[fascisthunter]

67. yup.... your agreement with the absurd post above

if you really meant to call it "sane" and imply the rest are "insane".

[chatnoir]

72. Was not implying others are "insane", of course.

I hate the neo-cons as much as the next person on here but that does not mean I trust anything Putin is doing either. His record is as bad, if not worse.

[fascisthunter]

76. Believe Me When I Say This

nobody here thinks Putin is a good guy.... that's not why this thread exists, nor is it the sentiment of any one on this thread. I see these names everyday, and can tell you honestly, the reason JVC and others are pointing out that the media is hyping anti-Russian sentiments, has more to do with oil then anything else. And this latest military invasion/retaliation, whether justified or not, is feeding into the Neo-Cons wet dream. They want the US to grab a foot hold in that area of the World, and they are using Georgia and Russia to stoke anti-Russian sentiment for that purpose.

All JVS is doing, is saying, "hold off on the rhetoric". Don't feed into the neo-con/GOP/McCain talking points. And that is going on here.... not you in particular but others are doing that here.

[chatnoir]

99. I can't speak to how the MSM is playing it as I don't watch much US news

My understanding was that the thread was addressing Russophobia on DU (as opposed to in the media), which I honestly haven't seen all that much of. It seems I've seen more anti-Georgia posts than any anti-Russia rhetoric...'Saakashvili is a murderous maniac' or 'good for Russia if Putin wants to nuke Poland, re-take Ukraine', etc, etc. Then again I don't spend as much time in GD as in LBN.

I don't trust what the Neo-Cons have in mind and fear that the people of Georgia are just pawns in all this. To me it seems Bush & Co are letting Georgia get ravaged to further their own agenda. But I am no expert.

Your points are appreciated.

[Caliman73]

93. History is written

By whoever has the most resources. I agree that the whole "enemy of my enemy, is my friend" is a shortsighted POV. I disagree that people are blind to what Russia is. They are another country that is trying to build it's powers. They are doing it in a way that is wrong and in a time where scrutiny is almost instantaneous. We don't have too wonderful a "Human rights" record either. Ask the indigenous people about how the US honors treaties. Ask Latin American countries about our policies of non interference. The reverse is true as well. Just because Russia is acting like the bad guy, doesn't mean that we are the good guy.

It's like the convict who murders a family getting all indignant about the rapist who comes on to the cell block. "Yeah I cut them all up, but at least I didn't rape anybody".

[Codeine]

41. Had this happened during an Obama administration,

DU would have reacted 180 degrees from what it did. It's god-damned pathetic on some level.

[fascisthunter]

42. Show me where?

I think you are purposely mischaracterizing motives of many on DU. DUers know Georgia's actions started this thing off.... they also know there is a pipe-line involved, and many neo-cons are connected to the Georgian leader. They also know the media is lying to the American public by painting this as all Russia's doing.... context, my friend. You take this out of context to paint posters on DU as pro-Russian, when it's anything but pro-Russian. And I have to wonder why???? Maybe because you too want us to stop pointing out that Georgia started this mess with US neo-con hands being all over this?

[Mudoria]

125. Well said..

sometimes the enemy of your enemy isn't really your friend.

[DarthDem]

6. Thank You For This

So refreshing to see this kind of sanity after some of the frankly ridiculous nonsense that has been spouted about Russia in the past 72 hours or, heck, in the past week. The first responder is probably right that it's just trolls and the usual suspects, but thanks for this thread nonetheless.

I actually find very little fault with Russia's actions in the entire scenario, particularly since they seem to achieved their objectives almost bloodlessly - - in contrast to the bombing of civilians by that maniac Saakashvili. As a bonus, McSame came out looking like an unhinged mental patient.

P.S., the Rove-McSame conspiracy theories are just utterly absurd.

[magellan]

7. I keep saying it, there are NO good actors in this

Choosing between Russia and US-backed Georgia is like taking sides between the Crips and the Bloods. Why go there.

[EFerrari]

8. Putin is a murderous thug but other than that part, I agree with you.

[martymar64]

17. Bush is responsible for more deaths than Putin, by a long shot.

Besides Chechnya and now South Ossetia, what massive swathes of death has Putin reaped? With Bush, the answer is obvious (Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans). I think the Bush death toll is likely much larger, probably at least by a factor of ten (my wild guess).
I'm not saying Putin is a nice fellow, far from it. But he is no Joseph Stalin, a Georgian BTW, along with Lavrenty Beria.

[EFerrari]

25. Oh, I agree. Our thug is the bigger thug. And, I wasn't being sarcastic

at all.

Putin is a thug. But the torture president outdoes him, not doubt.

[martymar64]

38. No argument there.

He is much smarter than Bush or McLame and Deadeye Dick put together. He has the current advantage in this theater with his control of the oil and gas spigot to Europe. And that's why the US needs to take care not to antagonize Russia, because they're not dealing with some chump.

[gatorboy]

9. Pffft. They hate us for our freedoms.

Get with the program.

[AllentownJake]

11. Sorry I disagree

Putin has acted like Bush/Cheney and sometimes worse than Bush/Cheney in the past 8 years. Just because Bush and Putin are having a little tift over whose the biggest asshole doesn't make one an asshole and the other a good guy trying to get his country back on track.

Russia doesn't want to invade America but it isn't exactly a friendly human rights supporting powerhouse either. Russia invaded Georgia for the same reason we invaded Iraq. I find it hard to understand why people so against the Iraq war are so OK with a Russian invasion of Georgia.

[martymar64]

18. But you're OK with Georgia ethnically cleansing South Ossetia?

Remember who started bombing first.

[AllentownJake]

46. Just as I wasn't ok with Sadam ethnically clensing the Kurds

Or the atrocities Sadam committed. Doesn't mean I want a country with ulterior motives coming in.

[LittleClarkie]

88. Which justifies cluster bombs on civilians how exactly

I am not going to trust former KGB, thanks, any farther than I trust my own government.

Making excuses for Putin here is as bad as Freepers making excuses for Bush.

[EFerrari]

30. Really? How many millions has Putin killed and displaced?

I must have missed that part.

[AllentownJake]

47. 100,000 as of today as far as being displaced

Who knows what will happen if Estonia or the Ukraine don't please their former masters.

[EFerrari]

48. That's horrible and we don't have an inch of high ground to stand on.

[AllentownJake]

50. No George W. Bush and the Neo-cons don't have an inch to stand on

and the Democrats who authorized the war don't have an inch to stand on.

Bush fucked us for foriegn policy for 50 years.

Bush is an asshole and so is Putin. Who is the biggest asshole at this given moment is a matter of debate.

Putin isn't going anywhere hopefully Bush is going to Dallas or if we are real lucky the Hague.

[rockymountaindem]

54. Ask the Chechens n/t

[AllentownJake]

55. Shhh

Don't point out all the hypocrisy going on right now. Putin "protecting" separist, George Bush telling people not to invade another country with limiting pretense.

SHHH...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. The Chechens?

You mean the ones currently fighting the Georgians under Putin?

[rockymountaindem]

97. Uh huh, them

The same people who had their turf ripped apart for years under Putin, who sprung to the Presidency of Russia on the promise that he would really stick it to them. Those guys. A few Chechens, who don't get along with the Georgians either, fighting alongside the Russian army doesn't undo the two wars Russia inflicted on them, doing the very same things to the Chechens that the Kremlin is accusing the Georgians of doing to the Ossetians.

[cynatnite]

13. Of course, invading another country is the way to solve the problem...

:sarcasm:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Two words:

Litvinenko.

Yushchenko.

What's that about corruption again?

[DevonRex]

24. I dumayu chto bui skazhite pravilno. nt

[stillcool]

26. I don't get it...

I guess because I've only read some newspaper articles.. American newspaper articles..so I'm not even close to the realm of having an opinion based on any kind of facts whatsoever.

[damntexdem]

31. And, man, is Russo going to be mad about it, too!

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[noamnety]

33. You are lying!!!

I know, because I read on CNN that "The Russians want to kill the idea of freedom."

(Really, I read that there.)

[Arrowhead2k1]

34. You guys need to get over your Russophilia.

Obama is no fan of what the Russians are doing either. Yes, America has many shortcomings with all of its neocons, but make no mistake, Russia's way is ten times worse and more brutal. Keep your eyes on what's right for America. Don't turn to Russia.


Viktor Yushchenko: Before and after Russia attempted to silence him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. "Russia's way is ten times worse and more brutal."

Ten times worse? Really? So there are 12 million dead Georgians, to Iraq's 1.2 million?

[Arrowhead2k1]

37. Oh give me a break.

I'm not defending the blunder that is the war in Iraq, but America certainly did not intentionally kill that many Iraqi civilians. Muslim extremism bombings and death squads did much of the civilian destruction.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. How many Georgians did Russia intentionally kill?

And if Russian apologists claimed it was really Georgian death squads who really killed most of the Georgians, would you be equally gullible?

[Arrowhead2k1]

49. My problems with Russia are bigger than the petty conflict in Georgia.

Remember, Russia is no longer a super-power and doesn't yet have the oppurtunity to abuse its powers on a global scale. But it's not hard to imagine what they're are capable of.

Anyways, here's a a little taste of their human rights.
http://www.voanews.com/english/figleaf/wmafilegenerate.cfm?filepath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Evoanews%2Ecom%2Fmediaassets%2Fenglish%2F2008%5F03%2FVideo%2Fwmv%2FRussianPrisonBrutality%2Dvb%2Ewmv

If you claim to truly stand with fairness and morality, Russia is the last government you should be seen alligning yourself with.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Oh, I know.

That torture camp they have in Cuba is just absolutely disgusting.

[Arrowhead2k1]

60. What is a dreadful product of Bush's neocon policy is just another day under the Russian tyranny...

you seem to love to defend for some strange reason.

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/12/video_human_rights_abuses_at_y.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. ...

[Arrowhead2k1]

65. So why do you defend Russian brutality?

Hypocrite!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. Where did I defend Russian brutality?

You're the one claiming the U.S. is ten times better than Russia.

[Arrowhead2k1]

68. I've condemned Bush's policies. You're doing nothing but answering my concerns to Russia's brutality

with attempts to equate them to recent American scandals. You're clearly defending Russian interests here.

Tell me, which nation would you rather live under, ours or theirs?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. Actually, you were just defending them.

"They didn't really want to kill Iraqis. It was Iraqis who did all the killing. Blah blah blah blah."

"Tell me, which nation would you rather live under, ours or theirs?"

I'd rather be in the company of average Russians, rather than Americans like you.

[Arrowhead2k1]

70. That's not a defense. It's the goddamn truth.

You can't fight neoconism by being ignorant to how they do business. Are you saying most Iraqi casualties occur at the hands of our service men? If yes, then proof?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. That's a dipshit, neocon defense of the invasion of Iraq.

And holds about as much intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

[Arrowhead2k1]

73. Again, proof?

So you're saying American servicemen have slaughtered Iraqi civilians enmass(Which even I can't find evidence of), but are willing to turn a blind eye to evidence of injustices committed by Putin's government? And I'm the one being intellectually dishonest? Get real.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. Proof for your claim? You're the one who made it.

We know all of the deaths are directly due to Bush's policies, or did the Iraqi death squads trick Bush into doing it?

[Arrowhead2k1]

75. They're not directly due to his policies, they're indirectly due to them,

Or did Bush hire the Iraqi death squads to go around killing people?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. The casualities in Iraq are not directly due to Bush's policy of invading Iraq?

Wow.

[Arrowhead2k1]

78. I'm afraid not. They're INDIRECTLY due to them.

For them to have been directly due to his policies, his policies would have had to specifically target all of the casualties sustained, which they certainly do not. These are basic English definitions we're using here.

[fascisthunter]

80. didn't you know.... it's the Iraqi's Fault

they made Bush invade... pre-emptively, mind you. :sarcasm:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. You think blaming the murderers for committing murder is silly?

However much you blame Bush for creating a political situation which has resulted in people committing all sorts of atrocities in Iraq, and for failing to stop them, surely you have to blame the (mostly Iraqis, some probably come from other nearby nations) insurgents actually perpetrating them more?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Oh, Lord.

"surely you have to blame the (mostly Iraqis, some probably come from other nearby nations) insurgents actually perpetrating them more?"

1. I've no reason to believe that the Insurgents actually are perpetuating them more. You shouldn't believe everything you listen to on Rush Limbaugh.

2. If it weren't for Bush, the insurgents wouldn't be insurging.

[fascisthunter]

95. After Crap Like That... I just place them on ignore

I don't mind arguing, but when folks start playing games with people instead of engaging honestly, they try to ignore you and the points you are making. So I just do the same to them... ignore them.

[fascisthunter]

94. oh...puhleeese. But Seriously, nice try... really, I wouldn't lie to you

buh bye meathead

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. To readers: please note that no attempt at response or rebuttal has been made.

It's an inconvenient truth, and a lot of people would rather just ignore it than face up to it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

87. "Chechens" is probably a better nationality than "Georgians" in that question.

Remember, the Russian invasion of Georgia has only just started.

And I'm afraid I don't have a better answer than "lots", but I'm sure the internet can tell you.

[fascisthunter]

58. lol.... show us where you see this....? Be Specific...

[Igel]

39. I don't see how maintaining breakaway "provinces"

promotes stability. Seems that by helping Abkhazia, S. Ossetia, Trans-Dniestria remain quasi-independent he's fostering instability. Had S. Ossetia been resolved in 1994, we wouldn't have today's problem, in all likelihood; or, had it been a problem, perhaps the Chechnya solution would have worked and solved the "instability".

Encouraging S. Ossetia to secede ... doesn't that foster the hope in Ingushetia and Chechnya that *they* might secede?

Helping Belorus' to remaing virtually Stalinist. Meddling in Ukraine and helping the Russian minority to protest massively. Creating problems over the Krym.

Nagorno-Karabakh, not a problem. Kosovo, not a problem, as long as the Russian allies had the upper hand. Bosnia? Eh. Stability? No, "stability" was rushing Russia troops to a Kosovo airbase to prevent NATO from getting there first, and making sure they had a seat at the table with Serbia--the Kuril Islands redux. Slavophiles are not extinct.

I don't see this as "stability", I see this as hegemony. In the late teens and early '20s, the empire broke up, and Russians were displaced from preeminence. They managed to return their errant provinces to their control by hook or by crook. They started with old, internal areas--the Civil War. Georgia was one of the first non-Slavic areas "retaken". Stalin managed to get them to exceed their old boundaries, and some of his rhetoric--we're encircled, they hate us, we're about to be attacked, we need to be strong, take respect that's ours, yada-yada, with a cult of personality ... has echoes today.

All the talk of "stability" is exceeded by talks of "pride" and "honor", "dignity" and "respect." A return to glory. When did the Russians have glory? When where they proudest of themselves? Ah. There's also a lot of disgust at how Russia's glory has been trampled by peoples like the Georgians, the Latvians, etc., who have to learn proper respect. One Russian government official was personally insulted after he was at a meeting between Putin and Saakashvili--he had never heard anybody show such a lack of respect for Putin, and, well, how *dare* he not show proper respect?

One would call this "arrogance" if * talked like this. But Putin's talk along these lines puts * to shame. And has, since before Putin was elected.

"Back on track" is ambiguous. Kudos. It could mean "back on a path to prosperity and acceptance in the commonwealth of mankind", "back on track to virtue and rule of law". It could mean "back on the old Russo-Soviet imperialist track." Or any number of different things. A good Rorschach test. I always fail Rorschach tests--I just see black blobs; same with optical illusions a good part of the time--sometimes I neither see vases nor a women in profile unless they're pointed out to me, sometimes I just see white and black shapes, and sometimes I see all the options and can't decide which one I think it's meant to be.

[Codeine]

43. That made WAY too much sense, sir.

How dare you bring up logic! Bush bad, so all things unBush good!

[rockymountaindem]

56. Excellent post

[bemildred]

52. You are interrupting the daily two minutes of hate.

You must be a commie-lover terrorist well fuck, I don't know what the new official term is yet.

[TwilightGardener]

57. It's not Russophobia to believe that Putin is not acting in good faith

and with innocent motives. Just the weirdo relationship with Medvedev (who's in charge, there--really?) says that he isn't acting like a guy who can give up power. And he couldn't wait to finally have an excuse to let Georgia have it, and flip the US the bird as well. Russia is feeling its oats, trying to see what it can get away with now, especially because Europe needs its oil and gas and we're tied down militarily and worn out from two wars. There's middle ground between cartoonish demonization and fear-mongering, and an unrealistically rosy view of Russia's motives.

[Evoman]

59. I kind of like her.

[fascisthunter]

61. Gee JVS... I Had no Idea You Loved Russia... according to Some Posting Here

:eyes:

I guess your message is pissing them off a bit. How dare you warn DUers not to get sucked into the anti-Russian rhetoric. I mean, dude! DO you realize how hard the media and the Bush Administration are trying... then you come along and snuff out their fire. Damn .....

[moondust]

62. The New Oil-Rich Russia.

Appears to be relatively happy with what they've got. More land than they know what to do with and getting rich off their oil. Pretty bright future ahead.

Would they really want to blow that newfound wealth on wars to conquer the old troublesome republics? And risk losing their oil customers over it? For what?

Russians love their Putin but would they if he let little Saak go in and seize South Ossetia without a fight? Putin's no dummy.

[go west young man]

107. Well said.

Having been to Russia four times and having many Russian friends I can attest without a doubt they all love Putin. He has made their country economically strong again and I can see the wealth increasing there every time I visit. If Putin/Medvedev wanted to be real bad guys they could have taken Tablisi. The fact that they didn't won't look tough enough to the Russian politiburo but Cheney/Bush will still slander them anyway it goes. Russians know how America operates. They know Americans control Azerbijan and are counting on that pipeline. Hell my Russian father in law was the one who sent me the Fox news clip of the 12 year old girl out trumping Shepherd Smith in regards to Georgia's bombing first. Russia has a long way to go but unlike the U.S. with our Corporate/propaganda media, Russia can only go up. After all they have the oil. We on the other hand are definently in decline. Ideology is where empires crumble. And at the moment our ideology is costing us all over the world. The rest of the world isn't taking us seriously anymore. Only as serious nutjobs. The emporor has no clothes. And those that continue to believe the drivel that comes from the U.S. corporate media especially after the Iraq fiasco are doomed to a life of psychosis. Russia could be our best friend if we only used our brains instead of creating an enemy. I guess we can thank the neocons for that one. They are the one's who will benefit the most from cold war II. Al Qaeda and Muslim extremism can only be exploited so much. Gotta have that new bogeyman. I remember when they first started slandering Putin. About the time that Cheney went to Estonia and Yuko's was taken over by Putin effectively puttin Cheneys friends out and giving Russians back their oil. Right around that time there was a "news" report of Putin kissing a little boy on the cheek. I thought to myelf at the time "Here come's the slander." Since then it's been the Litvinenko affair in London, now they attempt to say Medvedev is Putin puppet with no knowledge of they're long term working relationship. America needs a bad guy. It takes years to paint that picture but eventually you have even so called "liberal democrats" here at DU calling for the bad guys head. That media works great. Goebbels would have been proud. Peace.

[L. Coyote]

79. Maybe just too much reactionism, posting without research.

Plus a big dose of decades of "bend over and place your head between your knees" propaganda.
(Remember that prescription for what to do in case of a nuclear attack?)

[fascisthunter]

81. ahhh... shit, man....

I can't do that... I pulled out my back...

[BeHereNow]

86. Yes and may I add, FAR too many smart assed one liner posters these days.

I swear, Bill O'Reilly is posting at DU under a hundred different names.

Hurl an insult and "N/T"

Has DU become the new 'Hate talk radio" station or something?
I've never seen so many jingoistic "we hate the commies" posters
in all my thousands of days on DU.

People need to do some research, that's for FUCKING certain.


BHN

[JerseygirlCT]

98. Well, in spite of your post, I shall remain decidedly skeptical

about both his intentions and his motives. I don't think we're dealing with a decent person. He reminds me a great deal of our own fearless leader, as a matter of fact. Too much ego, too much hunger for power, not enough ethics.

[MellowDem]

104. Sarcasm?

Unless you really think that a tyrannical Russia having more influence on its border regions (by invading them) is good for stability and will decrease our role as world police. I don't think Russia will ever want direct conflict with a nuclear armed US, or vice versa, those days of conventional warfare are gone with the nuclear era.

Personally, I have many more freedoms living in the US than I would in Russia, of that there is no doubt, and there is a bright future ahead in America that things can change for the better politically. Not so in Russia. They have never had a true democracy and look to be moving farther away from it, with the consent of the people, as long as the economy keeps growing and the oil keeps flowing. I think the US is starting to turn away from its fear-driven 9/11 hangover of national security.

And for those who compare Bush to Putin, that is a useless exercise. Some of you claim Bush is worse than Putin, but that is incredibly bad logic. For example, what do you think would have happened these last eight years if Putin had been in control of the most powerful nation and military on Earth instead of Bush? Hmmm. That is a much fairer and more accurate comparison. Putin is restrained by Russia's relative weakness. He actually has more control over Russia than Bush has over America.

As for comparing deaths, you would have to say Stalin was worse than Hitler in that case, or Chairman Mao actually... in other words, the amount of deaths directly or indirectly caused by a regime does not necessarily equal how "bad" that regime is. That is neo-con simple black and white logic, and does not work in the real world. In that case, FDR is much worse than Bush, not to mention Lyndon Johnson. If you want to be smart about it, compare regimes theoretically under the same circumstances and relative power, and even take into account direct vs. indirect deaths etc. etc, you know, the gray area.

[Arrowhead2k1]

105. Well said. nt

[go west young man]

108. Everything you've posted is speculation on your part.

What if America continues to become a corporate state?
What if more of your freedoms are revoked?
What if Medvedev/Putin continue to lead Russia to a more democratic free Russia?
What if Russia gathers more credibility than the U.S. in Europe?
What if America is trusted less and perceived as more of a threat world wide?
What if America financially continues to decline and continues to expend it's wealth in wars?
What if Russian oil/natural gas helps Russia to become a better country?
What if? I'm speculating just like you just did.

[MellowDem]

117. Oh, I know

That's why I said comparing Bush to Putin is a useless exercise, as it would all have to be based on speculation. But if you want to speculate, there is a smarter way to do it.

[go west young man]

121. Your response is nonsensical.

Actually here's what you wrote. "Some of you claim Bush is worse than Putin, but that is incredibly bad logic. For example, what do you think would have happened these last eight years if Putin had been in control of the most powerful nation and military on Earth instead of Bush?" That my friend is speculation.

[MellowDem]

123. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer

Comparing Bush to Putin has to be based on speculation, hence it being a "useless exercise". But when speculating, comparing Bush to Putin only on the amount of deaths they supposedly caused is "incredibly bad logic". So I was indeed speculating, and by doing so showing how when you look at the comparison another way, it can change everything. This reinforces the idea that trying to compare Bush and Putin in terms of "badness" is pretty hard to do, in fact I think it probably can not be done. That was my intention, though I didn't express it very clearly.

:hi:

[JVS]

111. See your post is a perfect illustration of Russophobia

The question isn't US life vs. Russian life, it's life in Western Asia with the influence of Russia or life without the influence of Russia. For some regions this would mean devolution into ethnic violence comparable with Iraq. Clearly Russia helps in this situation, and is a stabilizing influence.

Also, why is our authoritarianism an anomaly to be corrected, but Russia's is a fate to which the country is doomed? Maybe because you are willing to only consider Russia in the most dire terms possible.

Finally you resurrect the old RW claim of Stalin being worse than Hitler. Why?

[MellowDem]

118. I don't have Russo-phobia

Believe me, I love the Russian people, but I definitely don't trust their government. And I was thinking of a Western Asia with a democratic Russia would be obviously better off, not with no Russia at all.

Our recent revocation of some of our freedoms is an anomaly, in that most of our history has been about expanding, not detracting from our freedoms (depending on your outlook). Not so in Russia, they are just returning to form after a short sojourn. By the way, when I say Russia, I'm referring to their government, not everything Russian. I don't think Russia is doomed to authoritarianism forever, but at this moment, their outlook for democracy is worse than ours. I hope one day Russia will be able to turn away from authoritarianism, but they have history and their economy running against them. The US has its history and its economy running for the expansion of freedom. When the economy is bad, people will throw out the government, in this case, the Republicans. Not to mention we have a lot of those institutions so necessary for democracy, and a lot else besides.

And I brought up the old Stalin Hitler debate, which I didn't realize was a RW claim, to prove a point. I don't really think that Stalin and Hitler (or a lot of regimes) are "comparable" personally. I was just saying that if the amount of deaths equal how bad a regime is, this would make such complicated figures of history be easily placed into orders of "badness", which I think IS a Right Wing way of looking at the world.

[DrCory]

112. Russian behavior and policies...

Toward it's neighbors, whether during the Czarist, Soviet, or post-Soviet periods, is hardly worthy of praise and hopeful anticipation. "Back on track" you say? From and to what?

[DireStrike]

122. Does this mean we have to take care of central and south America?

Oh god... Can we get back to policing the "rest" of the world first?!

[Orsino]

124. Vladimir Putin would blow up my house, eat my children AND shoot me in the face...

...if he thought he had something to gain.