Skip to main content

View Diary: When it comes to war, Americans learned their lesson. Even conservatives (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So easy to call all of those people neo-Nazis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, Crookshanks

    You and Mr. Putin are reading from the same book.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:02:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Here was Svoboda's old flag (3+ / 0-)

      Flag

      Now they have three ministries in the provisional government.

      •  You're talking ministries. Lots of people were (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crookshanks, Judge Moonbox

        out there in the streets.

        Were they all neo-Nazis trying to bring down that benevolent prince of a guy, Yanukovych.

        And, honestly, what if they are neo-Nazis?

        Why would that matter?
        They certainly couldn't threaten Russia.  The Ukrainian military is a ragtag joke.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:12:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doesn't matter if they're neo-Nazis? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          travelerxxx, writeofwinter

          What if the Tea Party takes over Texas and decides to secede?  Expels federal officials at gunpoint from their offices.  You cool with that too?

          These people are intimidating their fellow citizens, throwing not just Yanukovych out of office by hundreds of local officials as well.  No due process.  No election.  Brute force.

          But of course, who's the head honcho?  Nuland's pal, "Yats."

          I'll have to give credit where credit is due.  Kos's post is dead on.  The people in this country are wise to this crap.  We've heard it so often.  It's all about "freedom" and "democracy," when really it's all about business and money and power.

          Let the fucking plutocrats fight the wars themselves and let the 99%, who have served as their cannon fodder in war after war, stay at home and straighten out this screwed up country.

          •  Ukraine is not a part of Russia. It is a sovereign (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Crookshanks, Judge Moonbox

            nation.

            The only brute force I can see is thousands of Russian troops invading the Crimea, killing a number of locals in the process.

            Exactly what due process was required to throw out Yanukovych? The Ukraininan parliament kicked him out.  The governing body of the nation kicked aside its leader in response to a popular uprising.  Not that it's any of our business.

            Not our country.
            Not Putin's country either.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:32:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rail at Putin all you want. (0+ / 0-)

              Nobody can defend him.

              But let's not pretend:

              1) that the U. S., if it's sane, can do a thing about it; and

              2) that the U. S. has any right to do anything about it, or, for that matter, say anything about it.

              If you as a individual don't like it, fine.  I don't either.  But I don't like a lot that this country does, and that is where my responsibility lies.

              •  We have every right to express outrage. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Crookshanks

                We have every right to curtail joint efforts.
                We have every right to encourage the international community to isolate the Russians economically.

                If Ukraine were to ask for our military aid, we would have every right to give it, though I sincerely hope that we have the good sense not to exercise that particular right beyond things like supplies and repair parts.

                The acts of nations have a way of spilling on to other nations. That is the lesson of history.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:57:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There's also a lesson about blowback. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dinotrac

                  History's karma.  And the U. S. has enough of that coming already.

                  Military aid?  Really?  WTF?

                  •  So -- if you really believe in blowback -- (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Crookshanks, Judge Moonbox

                    isn't it reasonable that Putin should expect some sort of blowback for invading a sovereign nation?

                    Or do you only believe in it for the Great American Satan?

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:27:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sure. Let it happen. (0+ / 0-)

                      He's not winning any friends for himself, is he?

                      What annoys the hell out of me is how our government can't help but be the agent for the same Capitalist forces that are oppressing us here.  Nuland has no business stirring up trouble in the Ukraine in our name, all on behalf of multinationals looking to rape the people of the Ukraine.

                      Hey, the one side I could support in the Ukraine would be a revival of the Makhnovists:

                      http://libcom.org/...

                      •  Thanks for the link. That was very interesting, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Crookshanks

                        Including the excerpt form Makhno's conversation with Lenin.

                        The idea of anarchist-communists strikes me as being about as stable as matter/anti-matter.

                        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                        by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:43:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually, it's the only thing that makes sense. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dinotrac, Judge Moonbox

                          Opposition to all forms of oppression, State and Capital.  "Communism" does not mean State ownership.  It simply means application of the principle of from each according to ability and to each according to need.  The same is true of "libertarian," a word that anywhere else in the world is equivalent to anarchist.  Here, the Randian Propertarians have tried to appropriate the word to hide their real ideology of property rights above all.

                          Emma explains it pretty well here:

                          Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.
                          But the most thorough explication of libertarian communism comes from another Russian, Peter Kropotkin.
                          •  I've always thought that libertarianism and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Judge Moonbox

                            communism were the same thing in different wrappings.  I've always never thought that either could work in the real world, except, perhaps, as ideological guideposts.  Maybe you're right that anarchy would be more compatible than the trappings that have been tied to both, but that leaves me only more convinced that many flavors of utopian worlds can be wonderful so long as people rise to the occasion of their better angels (yeah, a religious reference -- so sue me!).

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:08:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That really is the argument, isn't it? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dinotrac, farmerhunt

                            Are human beings, by nature, violent and selfish?  Can their evil tendencies only be restrained by force or the threat of force?  Did Hobbes have it right?

                            Or have humans evolved with a tendency toward mutual aid and cooperation?  Can that tendency be encouraged so that humans become more capable of living together in peaceful and just circumstances?

                            Kropotkin was a naturalist whose observations convinced him that all higher animal species have tendencies toward mutual aid and that this had served the survival of those species.    Modern evolutionary biologists are agreeing with him more and more.

                            Kropotkin thought that our social and economic systems should reflect these positive aspects and be based on direct democracy, egalitarianism and maximum freedom from coercion.  Some anthropologists, like David Graeber, who have observed other systems of social and economic organization in other cultures, agree.

                            Urusula Le Guin explored some of these issues in her science fiction novel The Dispossessed.  Octavia Butler explores the impact of religion on these issues in her Parable series.

                          •  Here's my take (0+ / 0-)

                            “Spoot” and The Really Bad Fix We’re In

                            Let’s say we first jumped out of the trees and spent a good bit of time both as a bipeds and facile tree dwellers, as recent evidence suggests, at about six million years ago (Orrorin tugenensis).  From then on, until some 15,000 years ago, our ancestors got around literally on their feet.  Wherever they had to go, whatever they had to carry, whatever they had to chase to exhaustion, whatever of nature’s rough ways they had to flee, was done at the “speed of foot”, or “Spoot”, if you will.  All, all of our survival skills, the entire sensory package came together during that period; or to put as fine a point as possible, that’s exactly 99.9975% of our genomic history.  That was all Spoot time.  

                            (Of the numerous, distinct hominid species, with many more to be discovered, all except Homo sapiens failed to make some crucial adaptation.  The last to die out were the Neanderthals,  some 35,000 years ago, give or take a few.  We’re next.  Nature doesn’t favor species that miss an important detail or two.)

                            During all those Spoot millennia, our entire provisioning effort, all that we needed to survive, was within our “genomic reach”.    Virtually all human transactions occurred within the context of what has come to be known as “Dunbar’s Number”. “Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.” (wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/... )

                            Robin Dunbar, the “discoverer” of DN has hypothesized that the size of this number among social primates is directly related to the size of the neocortex.  So as our brains grew, so did our DN.  

                            Look at it this way; it’s the maximum number of people who can sustain a working relationship while keeping track of the liars.  It’s a web of trust that depends on reliable verification.  That verification must feed all of our sensory apparatus, because that’s how we’ve evolved for virtually 100% of our existence.  Our survival as a species has depended on this web of trust.  All that we needed to survive had to be found within this group.   In reality, “close up and personal”.

                            We then changed all that by structuring society away from community and its web of trust, to principalities – large, complex, inter-connected structures that extend far beyond the reach of trust.

                            So, this is our true context, the unassailable duo of limits, Spoot and DN, of six million years, or 99.975% of the genomic history of our known bipedalites.   Then, “yesterday” (in evolutionary time), some 15,000 years ago, give or take a few, we got into domesticating plants and animals for the production of food.  Agriculture, with its myriad consequences for the structures of human society, became the root of all evil.  Mainly, what we did was move from place to place much faster, thus missing and ignoring critical detail because our sensory apparatus has not evolved to take in all that important information at such speeds.  We’ve fled the vagaries of the seasons.  And all along, accelerating global entropy bit by bit, exponentially, until reaching this most critical, “hockeystick” juncture.   "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller  

                            Any increase in velocity causes a corresponding increase of entropy, the practical symptom of which is chaos.  So look around and see the works of nature’s rogue species.  I have no doubt whatsoever that our species’ most formidable challenge to adapt lies just ahead, and the prospects for many, if any, survivors are quite dim.  We did not evolve to be safely doing the things we’ve been doing.

                            "If it ain't local, it ain't organic"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site