Skip to main content

View Diary: Ukraine 101 (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really. (3.60)
    I'm shocked to see this crowd swallowing the Bush position on this hook, line and sinker based on what they've been seeing in the mainstream media and on obviously partisan Ukrainian sites.

    I really thought that after all we'd been through over the last 12 months -- the last four years, really -- that they'd be more discerning consumers of official U.S. propaganda.

    Okay, go ahead and troll rate me out of TU status, but it's really what I think.

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" -- Sinclair Lewis

    by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:17:42 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't Be A Dick (2.33)
      We don't agree with a you--I know, we're deficient in the Russian soul category--but because we're not knee-jerk believers in Western Imperialism as the explanation for what's going on in Ukraine we're a bunch of rubes seduced by Bushian propaganda?  

      Don't be a dick.

      And it's not "what you think," it's what you believe.  There's a difference.  

      •  I don't think Western imperialism is the answer. (4.00)
        I just don't think people should uncritically accept what the media is telling them without considering that there just COULD be another side to this story.

        And I also don't think people with front-page posting privileges should be calling individuals "dicks" when all said individuals are doing is expressing an opinion or a belief or whatever you want to call it.

        I've been civil.  I shall continue to be civil.  I'm always civil and do not engage in namecalling.  I ask that you return the favor.

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" -- Sinclair Lewis

        by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:34:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please, Do Not Be Coy (1.00)
          I'm shocked to see this crowd swallowing the Bush position on this hook, line and sinker

          Now you're using weasel words.  OK, so you didn't call anyone a name, but on this site, where there's almost complete unity that Bush is awful, the above quote is not my idea of "civil."  It was an insult to those who find your claims unconvincing.  

          •  That's okay. (none)
            You don't have to put up with me anymore.  I'm history.  See my note above.  You've run off user #3294, DHinMI.  Are you happy now?

            "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" -- Sinclair Lewis

            by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:47:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Accept Responsibility... (none)
              ...for your arguments, and for your reaction to people pointing out the implications of your arguments.

              I didn't run you off, you decided to leave and blame it on me.  Why? I don't know.  Maybe you should ask yourself that same question.  

    •  Are they swallowing Bush? (none)
      (Sorry for that.)
      But seriously, they're probably interested because the EU, OSCE, NDI, Socialist International, Vaclav Havel, and other decent and trustworthy people have spoken clearly about the electoral fraud in Ukraine.

      I think that the US doesn't have that much more credibility on this one than Russia, to be honest. But Russia stands alone.

      (I know... I forgot Kazakhstan!)

    •  if there is any place where people won't swallow (none)
      the "Bush position" hook, line and sinker, it's dKos. And in any case, from what I understand, the Bush Administration up until now has not been very supportive of Ukranian nationalism.

      Is there a pro-Yuschenko bias here? Yes, I think there is. But I think it has very little to do with the American government coming out and saying that the election was a fraud. It has more to do with Americans liking the underdog. And whether Yuschenko is a saint or a crook, the story that he may have been poisoned by his opposition makes him a sympathetic character.

      The other problem is that most Americans just plain don't like Putin. Nobody cares that Bush likes him. If Putin is against Yuschenko, Yuschenko must be an OK guy, he must be fighting for independence against the remnants of the old Soviet guard.

      Are Americans subscribing to a myth? Yes, sure. But it's our myth, not Bush's.

      •  in the Laughland article *and* in articles cited (none)
        in the diary, there is ample evidence of strong pro-Yuschenko bias in U.S. media and heavy U.S. institutional involvement in the election protest.
      •  Evidence? (none)
        The other problem is that most Americans just plain don't like Putin.

        What is your evidence for this assertion?  Putin was the first leader to call us on 9/11.

        •  evidence? (none)
          It's completely anecdotal.

          Look, my whole comment was opinion. There's no hard evidence in there. How can you prove that "Americans root for the underdog"? I think they generally do but I can't prove it. Is there evidence that the "poisoning makes Yuschenko sympathetic"? Nope.

          And I also happen to think that most Americans don't like Putin, but I have seen no polls on the matter, so again it's just shooting from the hip. If you have evidence to the contrary, put it out there.

          I understand what you are saying about the media but I don't know how much influence that is having. People on dKos are generally skeptical of the media. But I think people here prefer to root for the nationalists for some reason.

          I'd like to really understand who is the good guy here. Perhaps there is no good guy at all.  Present the facts. If enough facts get out there, perhaps people will decide that they are both rotten and hope that nothing changes.

      •  I'm guessing you weren't (none)
        here pre-Iraq invasion and have never looked at the more recent polls of dKos users as to how much of the Bush great WMD scare they bought into -- a high percentage bought it all. Just as the bought into the notion that the Northern Alliance was better than the Taliban.  Readers here may not be a gullible as the general public, but they can easily be fooled some of the time.
        •  Call me gullible (none)
          but I still come to the conclusion that the Northern Alliance is better than the Taliban.  Angels?  No.  Even positive overall?  No.  But, one doesn't have to do much to improve on the Taliban thank you very much.

          I'll take soft core Shariah warlords over hard core return me to medieval witch hunt kind of Shariah supporters any day.  The Northern Alliance doesn't want autarky, isn't as committed to grinding women entirely into the ground, and are willing to tolerate some semblence of elections -- not perfectly clean, but not total shams either.

          •  The Taliban rose to power (none)
            because the Northern Alliance was so brutal.

            As for which one is more of a threat to the west -- depends on whether one believes more lives were lost on 9/11 or from all that lovely heroin that flows are way from Afghanistan.

            •  was the Northern Alliance (none)
              as intolerable of other religions as was the Taliban? To this day I am horrified that the Taliban destroyed those ancient Buddhist statues.

              I'll grant you that the Northern Alliance wasn't a great bunch of guys. But I was concerned that the Taliban was going to decide to destroy entire cultures if it suited them, Pol Pot-style. I consider few things more brutal than that. So that's my argument against the Taliban. If the Northern Alliance was up to the same crap, well, then I'd like to hear about it.

            •  The Taliban rose to power (none)
              as much as anything else because they were cohesive, while the Northern Alliance was just that, an alliance, as much as anything else.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site