US Politics Thread

[britbox]

This is one of the most insidious things I've read on this site I must say. Truth is a little bit more than that. For a start if interpretation is dishonest you can't say the conclusion is truthful.

As for the anti-Russian rhetoric, it seems that one side sees malign intent in Russian activities and the other doesn't. I guess this is interpretation of events as you say. I can see the malign intent of Russian aggression in Ukraine or genocide in Syria and still see the possibility of CIA intervention in Ukraine and manipulation of the Arab Spring. One doesn't have to drink the Kool-aid of one side to the exclusion of everything else. That would be a lack of objective thinking.

The world is a strange place to me these days. I don't understand this desire to pledge unswerving allegiance to one side and surrender one's own values. Far better to maintain a critical view of all parties. In that way there will be things that one side does that you approve of and others that you don't. To me politics is like shopping in a supermarket. You buy the products you want, and skip the ones you don't. You don't sit at home and let people tell you what you want or should like. At least that's the way I think it should be

I agree with your last paragraph and subscribe to it but I'm not really seeing it in practice from you... even the preceding paragraph contradicts it...

Russian genocide in Syria and the "possibility" of CIA intervention in Ukraine?

Really dude? "Possibility..."??

The Americans spent a fortune in the Ukraine funding NGOs, after bringing down the (democratically elected) Ukranian government, they went even further by basically picking the top brass in the political establishment... remember Nuland's "Fuck the EU" tape? Your comments sound like you think of it as some minor technicality... when in fact they were all over the Ukraine like a cheap suit. Even the shooting of government protestors by unknown snipers to cause mass unrest is textbook CIA.

It was fairly obvious from the beginning what the Russians were going to do in Ukraine. Protect Sevastopol and the Crimea and have a buffer zone in the East. I said this before it happened.

https://www.tennisfrontier.com/tennisforum/threads/whats-going-on-in-the-world.2859/#post-130929

Malign intent or protecting one's interests?

One person died during the Crimean episode. Russian governance is welcomed there. The vast majority of people living there are Russians. The Donbass region in the East also has a majority Russian population.

The Russians don't want NATO and the west on their borders... NATO already broke an understanding that they wouldn't bring ex-Soviet countries into the fold... it's pretty easy to figure out why the Russians don't trust the west one bit.

The Cuban missile crisis showed us the hysteria that engulfs the west when the boot is on the other foot.

---

With Syria, we have a civil war that is effectively a proxy war... a pretty complicated one. Huge numbers of casualties... Yes, the Russians have propped up Assad together with the Iranians and Hezbollah... Likewise, the West and the Saudis have been flooding the place with arms and money to bring him down... but for every Raqqa we have a Mosul... except the reporting in the western media calls one a "massacre" and the other a "liberation".... what gives? Propaganda at it's finest... There you have a crystal clear example of the "Truth" I was talking about - how events are interpreted.

 

[mrzz]

Likewise, the West and the Saudis have been flooding the place with arms and money to bring him down

Not just that. There are a lot of Syrian and Lebanese people here in Brazil. According to them, all/most of the rebels are either jihadists or mercenaries/convicts from the west.

Two days ago I was watching CNN and someone in a panel, which was from the former US government, said explicitly "if we get out of Syria, Russia, Iran and the Syrian regime will get the natural resources". It was so spectacularly blunt... Obviously I get that Assad is a dictator. What I don't get is how can one buy the notion that any other country has some kind of moral authority to get in and "fix" things. They simply don't. You do not need to believe any fair-fetched theories to get that. You don't even need non-mainstream media. All you need is to read the official positions.

 

[mrzz]

Please may I interrupt you 2 gentlemen? I've got something relevant to say pertaining to what you're both saying.

EquineAnn, don't way for an invitation. It is a public forum (yes, I know you are being polite, as you always are). They are assuming you can jump in at any moment (as I just did!).

 

[Horsa]

EquineAnn, don't way for an invitation. It is a public forum (yes, I know you are being polite, as you always are). They are assuming you can jump in at any moment (as I just did!).

O.K. Mrzz. I will later when I've got more time, then. I always got taught to mind my manners, watch my P's & Q's & never interrupt unless asking 1st (though sometimes I've accidentally done it when I've had something to say at the same time as someone else & chance had it we opened our mouths at the same time sometimes it worked out where we had the same thing to say at the same time) + I worked in customer service for 9-11 years so am used to being polite. Thank you very much for the information. I'll remember for next time.

 

[Federberg]

I agree with your last paragraph and subscribe to it but I'm not really seeing it in practice from you... even the preceding paragraph contradicts it...

Russian genocide in Syria and the "possibility" of CIA intervention in Ukraine?

Really dude? "Possibility..."??

The Americans spent a fortune in the Ukraine funding NGOs, after bringing down the (democratically elected) Ukranian government, they went even further by basically picking the top brass in the political establishment... remember Nuland's "Fuck the EU" tape? Your comments sound like you think of it as some minor technicality... when in fact they were all over the Ukraine like a cheap suit. Even the shooting of government protestors by unknown snipers to cause mass unrest is textbook CIA.

Ha! You would say that! There is absolutely no contradiction in what I wrote. The fact is there is documentary evidence of Russian bombing of non-participants. This is nothing new where Russian prosecutions of war are concerned. We even saw in the hostage situation in Moscow a decade ago that the Russians aren't particular about saving victims, their priority is the elimination of threats. It's what makes them so lethal quite frankly. I bet even ISIS would hesitate to act on Russian soil for fear of the extremity of the reaction. Now if you're arguing on the basis that the word 'genocide' is hyperbolic then that's a discussion I'm willing to have.

Moving on to the CIA in Ukraine. This has not been proven. Even the Russians don't make the accusation categorically. They merely contend that it was caused by Western influence. It seems that the difference in our positions is that I wait for facts before accusing, even though I state my suspicion that there was CIA activity (same with the Arab Spring). The reality is that our views here are not far apart, you are trying to attribute the difference to bias, when it's simply an objective appraisal of the facts at hand on one side. Remember, in all of this, I have never once said that Western intervention is benign while Russian actions are malign. They are both malign in my view

 

[Federberg]

It was fairly obvious from the beginning what the Russians were going to do in Ukraine. Protect Sevastopol and the Crimea and have a buffer zone in the East. I said this before it happened.

Again.. there's no real difference in our view point here. I believe I was the first here to state that the loss of Sebastopol was untenable for Russia as it's their only warm water port, so they had no choice but do what they did. We were in agreement at the time so you're preaching to the choir mate. I have actually made the same point about Russia's relationship with Syria. There is absolutely no way Russia will give up on that relationship as it's the only guarantee of a Mediterranean base of operations. It is possible to have a pragmatic understanding of the realities of geopolitics without making concessions on either side

 

[Federberg]

Malign intent or protecting one's interests?

One person died during the Crimean episode. Russian governance is welcomed there. The vast majority of people living there are Russians. The Donbass region in the East also has a majority Russian population.

The Russians don't want NATO and the west on their borders... NATO already broke an understanding that they wouldn't bring ex-Soviet countries into the fold... it's pretty easy to figure out why the Russians don't trust the west one bit.

Again.. I don't know why you are raising these issues, because I have made exactly the same points myself. When the Berlin Wall fell Russia was definitely on the wrong end of promises that weren't kept. My question to you is... so what? I believe the West's actions were malign then and I believe Russia's actions are malign now. Two wrongs don't make a right mate. Your argument seems to be that because the West did what they did Russia is perfectly right to do what it's doing now. I find that view point absurd. What we are seeing now is a severe escalation with unknown consequences. There is no established protocol for cyber-warfare. If Russia does have kompromat on Trump the consequences could be terrible if it comes out. Burying one's head in the sand and acting like the United States will just say "oh ok, we did stuff to you, so that's ok" is naive in the worst way

 

[Federberg]

The Cuban missile crisis showed us the hysteria that engulfs the west when the boot is on the other foot.

Again.. lol! you're not saying anything I disagree with. America felt perfectly fine about establishing missile bases in Turkey but then went crazy when the Russians reciprocated and established bases in Cuba. In the end, JFK was able to negotiate the closure of the Cuban bases by removing the Turkish missile base. The truly scary thing about America is that they believe that they're on the side of the light and therefore they can do no evil. Even though we have all the evidence of their actions in South East Asia, Africa and Latin America. And don't forget they're the only super power to actually use nuclear weapons. So again.. I repeat so what? Two wrongs don't make a right

 

[Federberg]

With Syria, we have a civil war that is effectively a proxy war... a pretty complicated one. Huge numbers of casualties... Yes, the Russians have propped up Assad together with the Iranians and Hezbollah... Likewise, the West and the Saudis have been flooding the place with arms and money to bring him down... but for every Raqqa we have a Mosul... except the reporting in the western media calls one a "massacre" and the other a "liberation".... what gives? Propaganda at it's finest... There you have a crystal clear example of the "Truth" I was talking about - how events are interpreted.

I'm not the Western media mate. I have my own views. I don't recall ever saying that one was a massacre and another a liberation. So I'm not sure what your point is here. Most of this seems to have been mis-directed. I'm no teddytennisfan character. I'm not going to drink the Kool-aid from RT, Sputnik and whatever other Pravda-esque media entities from Russia. If you're searching for truth that's one of the last places to look. Western media is diverse and has sufficient independence for a consumer who is willing to exercise critical objective thinking to extract reasonable conclusions. Perhaps you're misunderstanding my point of view? I don't know. But having values, and a core belief system, is more important than ever in this day and age. I think it would be a good idea if we all try to do that

 

[Federberg]

Not just that. There are a lot of Syrian and Lebanese people here in Brazil. According to them, all/most of the rebels are either jihadists or mercenaries/convicts from the west.

Two days ago I was watching CNN and someone in a panel, which was from the former US government, said explicitly "if we get out of Syria, Russia, Iran and the Syrian regime will get the natural resources". It was so spectacularly blunt... Obviously I get that Assad is a dictator. What I don't get is how can one buy the notion that any other country has some kind of moral authority to get in and "fix" things. They simply don't. You do not need to believe any fair-fetched theories to get that. You don't even need non-mainstream media. All you need is to read the official positions.

I agree mate. What I find stunning is after the mis-adventures in Iraq and Libya the West still hasn't learnt it's lessons. What's worse is that it is so clear that Western demands for democratic rule have been shown to be false by how they reacted when the Muslim Brotherhood won elections after the Arab Spring. The thing with democracy is that people choose what form of government they want. Anyone in the West who thinks that democratic government means Western clone governments is so deluded as to be dangerous!

I'm not sure why you think this is an indictment of mainstream media. Anyone who thinks media companies aren't going to have a natural proclivity towards the vital interests of their own countries is rather naive. I think we're all adults here, or at least most are, we should be smart enough to filter

 

[Federberg]

Here's some new news. UK scientists cannot prove that the novichuk nerve agent came from Russia. Of course that doesn't change the fact that this type of nerve agent was developed in Russia. And nor does it change the fact that it was a Russian double agent who was assassinated shortly after Putin declared that betrayal is the thing he hates the most before an election. So my personal views on what happened haven't changed

 

[Horsa]

Here's some new news. UK scientists cannot prove that the novichuk nerve agent came from Russia. Of course that doesn't change the fact that this type of nerve agent was developed in Russia. And nor does it change the fact that it was a Russian double agent who was assassinated shortly after Putin declared that betrayal is the thing he hates the most before an election. So my personal views on what happened haven't changed

If it can't be proven that it came from Russia, can it be dis-proved? If there's no evidence to prove it, is there any evidence to dis-prove it? Did the person doing it hide the evidence? You're looking at it through circumstantial evidence. I believe you though & see things your way. I just think it leaves many questions unanswered. When I feel questions are left unanswered I ask the questions. Did anyone else have a motive to do it? There are lots of questions that could/should be asked.

 

[Federberg]

Yup there are unanswered questions for now. There does appear to be some humint that there was a hit list with defectors and people who had damaging information about the Russian government. Ghristopher Steele and Bill Browder are both on the list. It's far more credible to me that Russia is responsible than some of these fantastical false flag stories.

 

[Horsa]

Yup there are unanswered questions for now. There does appear to be some humint that there was a hit list with defectors and people who had damaging information about the Russian government. Ghristopher Steele and Bill Browder are both on the list. It's far more credible to me that Russia is responsible than some of these fantastical false flag stories.

I agree. Another question to be answered is "did they actually have evidence but don't want to publicise it yet because they want to do something with it or are they hiding it for some reason?". We won't know for sure what happened until it all comes out in the wash then the newspapers will sensationalise it because that's what they do, the internet can lie to a certain extent because it doesn't have the rules newspapers have which is that they have to be representations of the truth, different representations of the truth & exaggerated representations of the truth maybe but still representations of the truth. Mind you, we get all different representations of the truth all our lives. We get taught to believe 1 thing then later on we're taught to find out the truth for ourselves but we only ever know a biased version of the truth depending on the media where we live & our critical readings of newspapers or what T.V. news says & how we've been taught which just sticks to us & the sense we make of things by what's going on in our heads. We can think something is true from the news but people in other countries are living it & seeing it in different ways to us from their perspectives which is why most of the time I only think I've got a right to an opinion on British stuff. We all know what a downright lie is but we all have different opinions on the truth due to our ways of thinking, beliefs, core values, upbringing & education. If we make something up we know it's a lie & we can sense other people's lies sometimes but sometimes what we think of as other people's lies may be their representation of the truth. We only understand the world through what's going on in our own heads. Often there isn't 1 universal truth & what the truth is, isn't black & white but there are many grey areas. Russia is a threat to us but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Russia. It just means I see the risks Russia poses. I'm not saying we're the good guys. I think it's a case of 6 of 1 & 1/2 a dozen of the other.

 

[mrzz]

Anyone who thinks media companies aren't going to have a natural proclivity towards the vital interests of their own countries is rather naive

I agree with that. I guess some people (my self included) react to the self-proclaimed (and non-existing) "objectiveness" of the big media organizations. Yes, we should just shake our heads knowing that this is part of the game. But this is easier said than done.Maybe living in a country that was basically remote-controlled by the media for 20 years didn't help...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here's some new news. UK scientists cannot prove that the Novichuk nerve agent came from Russia.

..... and I thought Novak Djokovic's agent is from Serbia

 

[Federberg]

..... and I thought Novak Djokovic's agent is from Serbia

 

[Federberg]

I'm so relieved to see Trump starting to get tough on Russia. The US doesn't have to be Russia's enemy, but they should call them out if they do bad things. It's been freaking me out since this administration started that he seemed incapable of standing up to Putin. It makes you wonder if there's some sort of Manchurian candidate scenario. And let's face it, Putin needs to know that the West will call him out if he steps out of line. That's the only way you'll get constructive behaviour. Of course if it does turn out that Putin has something on DT then we'll know if he crosses a line with old Vlad

 

[Federberg]

So Ryan not going to run again. This is seismic. We all heard the rumours now it's confirmed. Does this mean he'll now grow a spine and stand up for the rule of law? One can hope!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm so relieved to see Trump starting to get tough on Russia. Of course if it does turn out that Putin has something on DT then we'll know if he crosses a line with old Vlad

I am sure DJT has first obtained permission from Putin to act tough on Russia for a while.