Skip to main content

View Diary: With Friends Like This... (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please help me understand your thinking here (24+ / 0-)

    -The US and its Western allies antagonized Putin into attacking Ukraine.

    -They did this so that the Ukraine would join the IMF and World Bank.

    -Now that everything is going as the Neo-liberals planned, they are going to wash their hands, let Putin take control of Ukraine, and walk away without having changed anything except more geographical power for Putin.

    How does this make sense?

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 12:33:02 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're first issue to overcome is (5+ / 0-)

      that you think any of this should make sense.  

      It doesn't when hegemony and overt control of perceived strategic assets is in play.'re pretty feisty over the past few days.  I like it!

      "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

      by EdMass on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 12:36:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      Recommended by:
      puakev, Matt Z

      If you can't understand it, then Ray's can't help you.

      SHOCK DOCTRINE!!!!!!!

      Look, I tried to be reasonable...

      by campionrules on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 12:37:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It doesn't....but I suspect you knew that already. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador, aliasalias

      The US has, ever since the Soviet Union broke apart, tried to overtly and covertly make Eastern Europe into "NATO Land".

      They've done pretty good too, 12 former Soviet nations have joined NATO.

      The Ukraine was the next on the list.

      The Russians do have the right to keep the peace, in their own backyard.

      It's clear to me that the Ukrainian nuclear weapons are now in the hands of terrorists.

      What would we do if it happened in Canada?  We'd march our asses right in there.

      Enforcing American Hegemony.

      We instigated revolution so that the banksters and corporate elite could control, rape and pillage another country.

      The "humanitarian tools" they come with are commonly known as the World Bank and the IMF.

      See Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine for details.

      That is if you want to have an honest debate today.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 01:52:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've read the Shock Doctrine (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not sure why people bring that up as though it's the be all, end all of foreign policy. It's not.

        I am certainly interested in having an honest debate about this. But first, we have to establish that both debaters are being honest.

        If you believe, as you state, that Russia has a right to do what it's doing in order to keep the peace "in their own backyard," (which I must remind you is not its own backyard, but a sovereign nation that has a right to defend itself), would you feel the same if, say, your analogy happened? Would you be okay with invading Canada?

        At the same time, are you okay with Canada invading us since we have nuclear weapons? We are, after all, in their backyard and, according to your logic, they have a right to do that.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 07:09:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe read Shock Doctrine again BB. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          some weird hypocrisy going on here, I think. Your 'kindness' sounds more like sarcasm to me.

          "Life without emotions is like an engine without fuel."

          "It's said that the honest man has nothing to hide. Not true. The honest man has to hide himself, because honest men are the prime targets of those who lie."

          by roseeriter on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 12:36:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Recall in 1962 under Kennedy we did invade (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Cuba.  Okay...we failed but we did try, see "Bay of Pigs Fiasco".

          And those nukes were 90+ miles away.  Imagine if Cuba was landlocked to North & South Carolina.  We would have walked right in and seized them.  

          And aren't we talking about our invasion and muckraking for the past 20 yrs and now we're angry at the results the actual players in the region were forced to take?

          As for your theoretical, that was one of mine that I've used to elucidate this manufactured crisis by the NeoCons that have infiltrated our gov't and pushed their foreign policy agenda for the past 30 yrs.

          What if the Russians spent billions supporting the Hutaree Militia and sent in NGO's to "bring democracy"?  

          That's exactly what we did:

          CANVAS: The Belgrade US-Financed Training Group Behind the Carefully-Orchestrated Kiev Protests

          A copy of the pamphlet that was given out to opposition protestors in Kiev has been obtained. It is a word-for-word and picture-for-picture translation of the pamphlet used by US-financed Canvas organizers in the 2011 Cairo Tahrir Square protests that toppled Hosni Mubarak and opened the door to the US-backed Muslim Brotherhood.
          Imagine that the Hutaree trained and expanded their program into all major cities within the US and then started protesting by the millions, bringing our economy and society to a stand still.  Our gov't would deem them terrorists and summarily act to stop them.

          We've already seen their criminal actions against OWS.  Imagine OWS on steroids and 10 times bigger and then imagine the Hutaree getting control over our nuclear weapons.

          What do you think Canada would do?  Would the world condemn us for attacking "peaceful protesters"?

          What if a group of those "peaceful protesters" took over the UN building in NYC?

          As for your claim that you read Shock Doctrine, please read it again, you missed something.

          And I'd seriously suggest you read my link above on Enforcing American Hegemony.  It make take you a couple weeks to read and follow the extensive links that documents our Imperialism but read it you must.

          It ain't pretty and it's long overdue that we call the spade here, the spade.

          What You Didn't Know About The War

          "They don't hate us because of our freedoms, they hate us because everyday we are funding and committing crimes against humanity."

          And when you're done reading and re-educating yourself to the horrors we spread throughout the'll know the debate here on DK and more specifically in Ray's dairies has been anything BUT honest.

          People so desperate to believe that we are the righteous liberators our propaganda has told us we are that they'll attack and deny any truths from being presented. They'll rationalize it all away not truly understanding that we've been had and lied to.

          This crisis is all about an American economic occupation that will last for generations.  Stripping the natural resources, the labor and soul of yet another nation to serve our corporate overlords through the World Bank and the IMF.

          No thank you.  We've all suffered enough.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:34:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't understand what this has to do (0+ / 0-)

            with Russia's actions. I am educated on the actions of the US. I understand that part.

            But I don't understand how any of our atrocities validate Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

            Also, I am not someone who believes we are righteous liberators, and I rarely participate in Ray's diaries. You made a lot of assumptions about me in that comment, but avoided the question that I asked in the beginning.

            P.S. I am not a crackpot.

            by BoiseBlue on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:03:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hummm...I'm sorry that was not the intent... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              roseeriter, Ray Pensador

              I thought I was explaining the connection to the World Bank, the IMF, Shock Doctrine and Russian actions.

              The pamphlets are the smoking gun.

              This situation was our doing.  We created the entire mess through our destabilization efforts that have resulted in violent and illegal regime change.  Yanuk was and still is the legally elected President of the Ukraine, at least until the new elections in May.  That was decided prior to the criminal protesters started tearing up the cities and he fled the area.

              The Russians have as much right to preemptively invade any country that is an imminent threat to their national security.  Just as we have claimed since Powell went to the UN and gave his "mushroom cloud" speech.

              Remember how we pushed Japan into WWII?  Sanctions and blockages.  We tried to "encircle" them.  They came out fighting.

              Our actions have real consequences.  We've been INTENTIONALLY pushing them.  And when they react, we're supposed to say, "Oh, how evil?"

              I don't buy into the propaganda.  We are threatening the Russians directly by subverting the nations that are directly on their borders!

              The Ukraine government itself has already threatened Russia with nuclear war, just give them 6 months to get their systems up and running again, as per the article I finally had to translate from Russian and I provided here.  (I kept thinking they still had their nuclear weapons.)

              In the final analysis, the Russians aren't going to suffer nor are we...the people living in the Ukraine will.  The IMF deals will strip them of their sovereignty, something the Ukraine Constitution forbids.

              The protests started in earnest with them protesting against the criminal elites influence and control..the movement was highjacked and then they were demanding to be part of the criminal elite from the EU.

              This is all laid out in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

              You seem to want to now only focus on Russian actions but ignore what we did to create this crisis in the first place.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 08:49:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Please ignore my first few paragraphs below (0+ / 0-)

          My age is catching up to me...I keep thinking the Ukraine has nuclear weapons...they don't  But they have threatened to start making them again and use them against Russia.

          This would still be legitimate justifications, by American standards for "preemptive" actions.

          The rest of my rant, I must stand by.


          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:37:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. (11+ / 0-)

      applause photo: applause! applause.gif

      Excellent summation of why this makes no sense.

      This is what happens when conspiracy is assumed in the premise.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 01:53:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the face of evidence, it would be CT to deny (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that deny that the US and Western allies antagonized Russia, and that there has been policy considerations when it comes to getting the IMF involved in the aftermath of the putsch.

        •  Even accepting that, Mr. Pensador, (5+ / 0-)

          that is not the same thing -- by a long shot -- as claiming this is all some orchestrated effort to deliver Ukraine into the waiting predatory arms of the IMF and World Bank.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 02:06:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have you read anything about this issue? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            There are many respected journalists and commentators who have written about the IMF angle and have come to similar conclusions.

            Should I get a few (from mainstream sources) and list them for you?

            Regardless, I clearly stated in the diary that that was my conclusion and that others didn't need to agree with it.  You are free to hide your head in the sand if you want, but you can't expect other thinking people to do the same.

            •  Always fascinating (9+ / 0-)

              how many variants of "Wake up, sheeple!" you can come up with.

              If the Boston Globe opinion article is one of such sources, it doesn't support your conclusion. But please do. I always believe it's incumbent upon the one making these sorts of claims to provide supporting evidence.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 02:16:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Reading your provided links (6+ / 0-)

              they support tangential points from which you seem to have extrapolated a conspiracy based on your imagination.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 05:09:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting because you have provided no links (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                to proof the conspiracy theory you are pushing about the US not doing these things.

                •  For you to call the absence of a conspiracy (5+ / 0-)

                  theory to be itself a conspiracy theory is the most absurd form of sophistry imaginable -- akin to proclaiming atheism to be a religion.

                  I seriously doubt even your most fervent supporters will back you on that.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 05:57:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Insisting that something that is true or may be (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    true is a conspiracy is in itself a conspiracy theory.

                    I shared an opinion stating that the US is engaging in a destabilization campaign in Ukraine, and I've shared links to opinion pieces of people who share that opinion.

                    I believe there is evidence, like the leaked call I included here, to back up my assertion.

                    You are of course free to reject all that and say you don't agree with it.  But when you cross into claiming that you know those things are a conspiracy theory without providing any proof, then yes, I call that the worst kind of conspiracy theory.

                    Let's try this: Can you prove that your theory about the US not being involved in a destabilization campaign is true?

                    •  Congratulations. (6+ / 0-)

                      You've provided a canonincal example of the fallacy known s argumentem ad ignorantiam. You do not get to shift the burden of proof by claiming that is on the onus on a doubter to disprove your assertion.

                      And no, I don't reject your links -- rather, I recognize that your links put forth a related but very different claim from the one you are putting forth. They claim the US among other nations is involved in influencing Ukraine's politics. They claim the IMF will demand austerity in exchange for financial aid to the nation. They do not claim the US is influencing Ukraine's politics for the purpose of forcing them to accede to the IMF's demands. That claim is yours, and yours alone.

                      And I think you realize this, as your uncharacteristically desperate effort to shift the burden of proof away from yourself shows.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 06:44:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  canonincal? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        duhban, mahakali overdrive

                        Hm. Silly typos. I don't even drink so I can't blame the whisky.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 06:48:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  This is what I wrote in the diary: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        This comment focuses only on one aspect of the crisis, and that is U.S. and Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine with what I've (and many other commentators) have determined to be a not-so-covert attempt at isolating (and encircling) Russia on the one hand, and delivering Ukraine into the welcoming arms of the Neo-liberal (predatory) embraces of the World Bank and the IMF.

                        Now, I don't expect everybody to agree with that characterization, and that's fine--people can agree to disagree when it comes to such complicated geopolitical dynamics.

                        But be that as it may, I will find it hard to believe that at this point anybody could argue that the U.S. and Western partners did not play a role in the crisis, both covertly and overtly.

                        It's my opinion; I reached that opinion based on many different sources of information.  You don't have to agree, as I plainly stated.

                        Now as to your theory: Do you have any prove that can show convincingly that the US wasn't engaging in a destabilization campaign in Ukraine?

                        If you have prove to back up your theory I'll be glad to examine it.  If it is convincing I'll be glad to change my opinion.

                •  usually people provide links to (5+ / 0-)

                  support their ascertations not require them to be disproved.

                  This space for lease

                  by Drewid on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 05:59:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A red-herring to distract.. public infomation (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    roseeriter, Ray Pensador

                    has reported on for months in our news media.

                    Google would by raptivio's friend.

                    Ray was not obligated to prove anything or argue over sources.  He made that clear in his diary.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:14:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  If that's the case (0+ / 0-)

                  I'd like you to please prove that Robot Zombie Jesus wasn't the other gunman on the grassy knoll.

                  Oh yeah and btw Lincoln? That Me in about 30 years.


                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 07:07:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You mean there was (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, Ray Pensador

                    more than one gunman on the grassy knoll? Interesting.

                    Nothing to add to the diary I assume?

                    •  you mean other than I found the diarist's (0+ / 0-)

                      assertion that we should believe things without any evidence presented silly at best? Sure I find the isolationist tone of the diary ignorant of history and the reality that isolationism was a failed policy even before the changes of the last 20 years.

                      That enough? Because I'm really just getting warmed up but seeing as how others have not only already said just about everything I could say about how off this diary is. They've said it better.

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 10:27:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Was it about Isolationism? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gerrilea, Ray Pensador

                        I get that part. He has asserted that we shouldn't be in this affair at all and I agree. Non-isolationism, if that's even a word. Doesn't mean you jump into every dust up the planet has to offer. From how I see it.... Putin is sick of the NATO creeping up unto his neighbors. With Bush crying about missile defense in countries that have no threat from Iranian missiles which don't exist in the first place to inviting former Soviet states into NATO when Russia was weak during the Clinton years to the attempt from Georgia to take 2 territories which use the Russian Ruble as their currency. It's pinned him geo-politically and maybe economically.

                        This is a situation that Russia isn't going to back down. Do you see that yet? He took Crimea without a shot being fired and the Ukrainian soldiers are stuck staring out the fences of their base. Armed forces in that region have defected. He is waiting for a rational response. You push Russia further and they will take more.

                        You also don't send members of your admin to talk shit on Sunday talk shows.

                        I'd like to hear your rational response.... Probably asking for trouble though....

                        •  the word was not used (0+ / 0-)

                          but yes it is isolationism that is being advocated. Arguing that a nation invading another nation is an 'internal issue' is passive aggressive isolationism, way of saying well we really shouldn't get involved.

                          I don't really give a flying fuck what Putin is sick of you don't get to invade other nations. And that is really all there is to say on that topic. And really? You want a rational response when yours seems based on a combination of fear and false equivalency? Tell you what you can insult my thought process when you're not not busy trying to sell me on one nation invading another because 'Putin haz sad'.

                          Appeasement has never worked and isolationism is as I has said a flawed and failed foreign policy. That doesn't mean I think we should or will go to war over the Ukraine but nor will I tolerate the excuse making for Putin because it gives some here to vent about history.

                          Der Weg ist das Ziel

                          by duhban on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 09:02:42 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Your blatant disregard for the threat (0+ / 0-)

        that Ukraine's Nuclear Weapon arsenal represents in the hands of these 'terrorists' makes me weep for this country.

        Would you stand so idly by if the Tea Party had seized control of Belize's nuclear arsenal and stood ready to use them against the democratically elected government?

        How about the Bahama's? Or the Dominican Republic? Would you just stand by and watch these country's nuclear weapons in the hands of neo-nazi's?

        Look, I tried to be reasonable...

        by campionrules on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 02:04:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is the most sensible comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      serendipityisabitch, BoiseBlue

      I have seen all day.  Great refutation of CIA conspiracy theories.  I added you to my Follow list.

      The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

      by amyzex on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 02:18:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site