But RUSSIA

[Ethereal]

Throughout history, rulers have accused their critics and opponents of being disloyal to the country. Not only do such accusations distract audiences from the message of those critiquing their rulers, they also serve to harm the reputation and sometimes even the safety of political dissidents. And as the historical record clearly shows, this tactic usually works for rulers, which is they kept using it.

The US ruling class are no different.

They, too, accuse their critics of being disloyal. And just like rulers of the past, they make these accusations in order to hide or excuse their own bad behavior. This tactic has worked well for the rulers of the US, too.

Instead of a rapprochement with Russia, like Trump repeatedly called for during his 2016 campaign, we now live under the specter of a new and dangerous "cold" war. So much for that vaunted "democracy" we're supposed to saving from the evil Russians.

And that brings me to my main point: This ruling tactic of accusing one's opponents of disloyalty has taken many forms, but I think everyone would agree that accusations of "Russia puppet" and the like constitute the overwhelming majority of this tactic's use in US discourse. Such a tactic, distilled to its essence, is little more than crude anti-Russian prejudice and xenophobia, but I digress...

Perhaps the most perplexing and frustrating variation on this tactic is the eagerness with which the US ruling class points its collective finger at Russia, usually in the form of a BUT RUSSIA argument.

For example, someone might be making an argument that the US government's policies inside Ukraine are damaging to international security and stability or not in the interests of Americans, and someone else will respond with BUT RUSSIA!

Sometimes, they will just go straight to accusing the other person of being a Russian, even though the other person repeatedly insists that they are not Russian. On another forum where I post, I have been accused MANY times of being some kind of Russian agent or foreigner. Strangely enough, I only became a secret Russian agent AFTER Hillary Clinton LOST to Trump in 2016. Must be a coincidence.

Just curious: Does anyone REALLY believe that there is some far-reaching Russian conspiracy to infiltrate every corner of western civilization, up to and including obscure political forums like this one? Also, does anyone really believe that merely being Russian or in some way associated with Russia makes a person unworthy of basic respect? Reagan was actual friends with Gorbachev. If it's okay for Reagan to personally befriend the highest Soviet official in the USSR, then why isn't it okay for regular Americans to give "pro-Russian" arguments at least a fair hearing?

[pjohns]

Instead of a rapprochement with Russia, like Trump repeatedly called for during his 2016 campaign, we now live under the specter of a new and dangerous "cold" war. So much for that vaunted "democracy" we're supposed to saving from the evil Russians.

Certainly, there is no good reason to imagine that the Russian people, as a whole, are "evil." But the autocrat, Vladimir Putin, is the very embodiment of evil.


[S]omeone might be making an argument that the US government's policies inside Ukraine are damaging to international security and stability or not in the interests of Americans, and someone else will respond with BUT RUSSIA!
This is a viewpoint formulated from a purely materialistic perspective--with no consideration given to higher motives.


Reagan was actual friends with Gorbachev.
Ronald Reagan oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As he, himself, phrased it: His plan was "We win, they lose."

[Ethereal]

Certainly, there is no good reason to imagine that the Russian people, as a whole, are "evil." But the autocrat, Vladimir Putin, is the very embodiment of evil.

Putin is very popular with the Russian people. And he is fairly popular with people outside Russia, including people in western countries.


This is a viewpoint formulated from a purely materialistic perspective--with no consideration given to higher motives.

Yes, that's right. My foreign policy arguments generally rest on materialist assumptions, since those are the only assumptions shared by most of the country. Your "higher motives" are not representative of what the country as a whole believes. If US foreign policy cannot be justified on the basis of its material benefits to the country, then it should not be done. And there is nothing wrong or anti-American about believing that.


Ronald Reagan oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was deeply flawed from the very beginning. It was always collapsing. Reagan's contribution was to convince the Soviet leadership that collapse was inevitable and unavoidable. And he did that primarily through diplomacy, not militarism.


As he, himself, phrased it: His plan was "We win, they lose."

Yeah, but he won using mostly diplomacy. And unlike the neocons running the show right now, Reagan actually won. The "war on terror" has no end in sight. Al Qaeda is far more extensive now than they were prior to 9/11.

[The Xl]

It's amazing how many citizens of our country blindly bend a knee to a bunch of bought megalomaniacs and their financiers operating from the shadows.

[Ethereal]

It's amazing how many citizens of our country blindly bend a knee to a bunch of bought megalomaniacs and their financiers operating from the shadows.

It's somehow amazing and pedestrian at the same time. Because as shocking as it is to observe, it's largely consistent with the behavior of every other large civilization in history. In other words, this kind of slavishness is pretty standard among human populations. Probably the biggest difference is that many Americans have convinced themselves that things are fundamentally different for the US. Perhaps that was true a long time ago, when the US government was very small, but that era came to an end at least a century ago when "progressives" like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson started transforming the republic into an empire.

[countryboy]

It's amazing how many citizens of our country blindly bend a knee to a bunch of bought megalomaniacs and their financiers operating from the shadows.
Nobody is "bending a knee". Most of us just want to earn an honest living, and work hard toward that end. We vote for those who we feel best represent our interests. Don't try and make it into something it's not.

[Ethereal]

Nobody is "bending a knee". Most of us just want to earn an honest living, and work hard toward that end. We vote for those who we feel best represent our interests. Don't try and make it into something it's not.

How does fighting endless wars all over the world best represent your interests? Because that's what Republicans generally vote for.

[MisterVeritis]

How does fighting endless wars all over the world best represent your interests? Because that's what Republicans generally vote for.
I vote for one representative who will do what he can to stop the massive spending. I would prefer we had no wars. But I never get my preference. It is what it is.

[MisterVeritis]

Nobody is "bending a knee". Most of us just want to earn an honest living, and work hard toward that end. We vote for those who we feel best represent our interests. Don't try and make it into something it's not.
Game of thrones has bent the culture.

Retribution is coming.

[Ethereal]

I vote for one representative who will do what he can to stop the massive spending. I would prefer we had no wars. But I never get my preference. It is what it is.
Many of the wars fought by the US are unnecessary and therefore harmful to the country. Much of the spending on the US "national security" apparatus is unnecessary and therefore harmful to the country. Even Trump believes that. Repeatedly throughout his campaign, he scorched the Iraq war and its architects. Two trillion and counting down the toilet. And that's just the direct costs. The indirect costs are probably just as large, if not larger. The Iraq war was a historic disaster for the country. It left a massive wound on our society that is still festering.

[Ethereal]

Game of thrones has bent the culture.

Retribution is coming.

Game of Thrones is an honest depiction of the political class. Americans could learn many lessons from watching that show.

[Tahuyaman]

This Russia hysteria is embarrassing.

[Tahuyaman]

Game of Thrones is an honest depiction of the political class. Americans could learn many lessons from watching that show.

No.

[MisterVeritis]

Many of the wars fought by the US are unnecessary and therefore harmful to the country. Much of the spending on the US "national security" apparatus is unnecessary and therefore harmful to the country. Even Trump believes that. Repeatedly throughout his campaign, he scorched the Iraq war and its architects. Two trillion and counting down the toilet. And that's just the direct costs. The indirect costs are probably just as large, if not larger. The Iraq war was a historic disaster for the country. It left a massive wound on our society that is still festering.
It is always best to go to war very slowly. Although I have studied wars throughout the ages I find it very difficult to know whether a war is necessary or not. Sometimes the impacts are not obvious for many years.

I know your war was the Iraq war. I do not think we can judge it for at least two more decades.

[MisterVeritis]

Game of Thrones is an honest depiction of the political class. Americans could learn many lessons from watching that show.
I think it accurately reflects the human condition at all levels. Do you not play your own Game of Thrones, wherever you are?

[pjohns]

Putin is very popular with the Russian people.

Just how much do you suppose that the Russian people actually know about Vladimir Putin, given that Russia is not exactly an open society?

Oh, an addendum: Putin seems to believe that the Russia-America relationship must necessarily be a zero-sum game--if America does well, then Russia must do poorly, and vice-versa--and that, or course, is an utter absurdity.


My foreign policy arguments generally rest on materialist assumptions, since those are the only assumptions shared by most of the country. Your "higher motives" are not representative of what the country as a whole believes.

Are you suggesting, then that "the country as a whole" is utterly amoral?

Because that is certainly what it sounds like...


The Soviet Union was deeply flawed from the very beginning. It was always collapsing. Reagan's contribution was to convince the Soviet leadership that collapse was inevitable and unavoidable.
What is your proof of this (other than some left-leaning
periodical, perhaps)?


[U]nlike the neocons running the show right now, Reagan actually won [the Cold War]. The "war on terror" has no end in sight.

Well, I will gladly own up to being a neoconservative, myself. (But not a "neocon," as that is clearly a pejorative term, intended to conjure up images of "con" men; so it is hardly a neutral term.)

And you are correct about the war on terror having "no end in sight." But that is not America's fault. It is simply because the terrorists are precisely that--terrorists--who use guerrilla tactics, of a sort not used in, say, WWI or WWII.

[Ethereal]

It is always best to go to war very slowly. Although I have studied wars throughout the ages I find it very difficult to know whether a war is necessary or not. Sometimes the impacts are not obvious for many years.

I know your war was the Iraq war. I do not think we can judge it for at least two more decades.
Trump said it was a disaster. Said it over and over again. Many Americans voted for him because he said that. If Trump isn't going to do what he said and end these wars, then he should not expect those same people to vote for him again in 2020. So while you wait for two decades to assess that war, most of the country has already decided it was a historic disaster and not worth it. Naturally, they will vote accordingly, and people like me will encourage them to vote that way.

[Ethereal]

I think it accurately reflects the human condition at all levels. Do you not play your own Game of Thrones, wherever you are?

There are a lot of characters in GOT, so you'll have to be more specific.

If you're referring to the evil acts of the GOT ruling class, then my answer is most definitely no. I am no saint, but there are lines I would never cross.

[Ethereal]

Just how much do you suppose that the Russian people actually know about Vladimir Putin, given that Russia is not exactly an open society?

It makes no difference to me. The only thing that really matters is that lots of Russians support Putin. That is the reality and it's not going to change. Given this, your attitude towards Putin, carried to its logical conclusion, is essentially a declaration of war against the Russian nation-state. No other political figure better reflects the broad sentiments of Russians than Putin does.


Oh, an addendum: Putin seems to believe that the Russia-America relationship must necessarily be a zero-sum game--if America does well, then Russia must do poorly, and vice-versa--and that, or course, is an utter absurdity.

Quite the opposite, actually. Putin has always been very clear about his desire for a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with the US. That's why he kept publicly referring to the US as "partners" for years even though US leaders were regularly comparing him to Hitler. I believe he may have recently discontinued the practice, however, given the avalanche of hostility that's been directed at him and Russia in recent times. Yet another sign of the dangerous deterioration in relations overseen by Bush, Obama, and now Trump.


Are you suggesting, then that "the country as a whole" is utterly amoral?

No. I'm suggesting that the country as a whole does not share your personal morality. I do not believe it is "moral" to invade other countries who haven't actually attacked us. Nor do I believe it is "moral" to let spies secretly overthrow governments who haven't attacked us. You're free to disagree, naturally, but do not act like your moral code is representative of the country as a whole.

By the way, any morality that doesn't place high importance on materialist considerations isn't a very practical morality, especially for a large federation of States like the US.


Because that is certainly what it sounds like...

I am sorry that you got confused, but I felt like my point was pretty obvious. Just because you personally believe it is moral to wage all these wars does not mean the rest of the country agrees. The US constitution was not ratified to carry out some abstract moral vision in faraway lands. There is nothing in the constitution that supports this moral vision foreign policy. And everything the founders ever wrote or said on the subject of foreign policy contradicts you. NONE of them believed in using the US government to export morality. That is a purely PROGRESSIVE belief.


What is your proof of this (other than some left-leaning
periodical, perhaps)?

I find it amazing that you and other "conservatives" constantly accuse me of being a member of the "left" when everything I believe is based on the exact same beliefs as some of America's founders, whereas your beliefs are based on the same beliefs as the founders of the progressive movement, namely, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

There is nothing "conservative" about your foreign policy. Your foreign policy ideology is easily one of the most radical visions in world history. Bring MORALITY to the entire world, by force if necessary! That's pure PROGRESSIVISM. And that makes you a progressive!


Well, I will gladly own up to being a neoconservative, myself. (But not a "neocon," as that is clearly a pejorative term, intended to conjure up images of "con" men; so it is hardly a neutral term.)

That isn't how I intend it. It's just a happy coincidence that the two often correlate to one another.

And I don't really consider you a "neocon" because you are not powerful or influential. You may follow some of the neocon talking points, but you are not a real member of their group. You are nothing to them but a cow to be milked, like the rest of us.


And you are correct about the war on terror having "no end in sight." But that is not America's fault. It is simply because the terrorists are precisely that--terrorists--who use guerrilla tactics, of a sort not used in, say, WWI or WWII.

I never said it was "America's" fault. I said it was the fault of the neocons who occupy high positions within the US government. Surely I don't need to explain the difference between those two things?

Last I checked, nobody elected Bolton to anything. Probably because NOBODY would vote for him if he did run for public office.

[Captdon]

Trump said it was a disaster. Said it over and over again. Many Americans voted for him because he said that. If Trump isn't going to do what he said and end these wars, then he should not expect those same people to vote for him again in 2020. So while you wait for two decades to assess that war, most of the country has already decided it was a historic disaster and not worth it. Naturally, they will vote accordingly, and people like me will encourage them to vote that way.

People like you. That's rich. Obama didn't end it and he won twice without breaking a sweat.

[montgomery]

Many of the wars fought by the US are unnecessary and therefore harmful to the country. Much of the spending on the US "national security" apparatus is unnecessary and therefore harmful to the country. Even Trump believes that. Repeatedly throughout his campaign, he scorched the Iraq war and its architects. Two trillion and counting down the toilet. And that's just the direct costs. The indirect costs are probably just as large, if not larger. The Iraq war was a historic disaster for the country. It left a massive wound on our society that is still festering.

You seem to have good intentions for an American, but sadly you're putting the cart before the horse and getting into it far over your head. Your politics have you forgetting that Trump got himself involved in a conspiracy with the Russians and he acted illegally to obstruct justice in several instances. The Dems say 10?

So overall, the result of Trump needing to submit to Putin's/Russia's blackmail is a good thing for world peace, but still crimes by Trump. If you're ever willing to face reality, I think you're worth a conversation at least.

p.s. don't you feel a bit foolish tryinig to make out that Trump opposed the Iraq war? Answer that if you think you're adult enoough to deal with it.

[montgomery]

It is always best to go to war very slowly. Although I have studied wars throughout the ages I find it very difficult to know whether a war is necessary or not. Sometimes the impacts are not obvious for many years.

Reallly dumb again veritas. The Iraq war has been judged and all that's lacking is the hangings in the Hague of the Bush2 perps.

I know your war was the Iraq war. I do not think we can judge it for at least two more decades.

[Just AnotherPerson]

But Saudi Arabia..........

[Tahuyaman]

The Blame America First crowd is in full form.

[MisterVeritis]

Trump said it was a disaster. Said it over and over again. Many Americans voted for him because he said that. If Trump isn't going to do what he said and end these wars, then he should not expect those same people to vote for him again in 2020. So while you wait for two decades to assess that war, most of the country has already decided it was a historic disaster and not worth it. Naturally, they will vote accordingly, and people like me will encourage them to vote that way.
President Trump may have said the Iraq war was a disaster. That doesn't mean we won't change our minds.

I believe President Trump will have a much larger victory in 2020 than he id in 2016. Your mileage may vary.

[MisterVeritis]

There are a lot of characters in GOT, so you'll have to be more specific.

If you're referring to the evil acts of the GOT ruling class, then my answer is most definitely no. I am no saint, but there are lines I would never cross.
The Game of Thrones is a story about the struggle for power and its maintenance. I do not believe for even one moment you do not struggle for power.

[MisterVeritis]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MisterVeritis http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2587591#post2587591)
It is always best to go to war very slowly. Although I have studied wars throughout the ages I find it very difficult to know whether a war is necessary or not. Sometimes the impacts are not obvious for many years.

Some goofball: dumb again veritas. The Iraq war has been judged and all that's lacking is the hangings in the Hague of the Bush2 perps.

I know your war was the Iraq war. I do not think we can judge it for at least two more decades.
Quote box failure. Feel free to judge the Iraq wars all you want. It won't change a thing as the adults come on line in a couple of decades. Maybe it will still be evaluated as a failure. Maybe it won't. I predict it will be views much differently in the future.

[pjohns]

It makes no difference to me. The only thing that really matters is that lots of Russians support Putin.So, it "makes no difference" to you if the Russian people largely support Putin because they have no real knowledge of him?That is simply an incredible statement...
Quite the opposite, actually. Putin has always been very clear about his desire for a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with the US.Did you get this from Russia Today, or Pravda?


No. I'm suggesting that the country as a whole does not share your personal morality.My own "personal morality" is hardly the point here.Most of the country--at least, outside of enormous cities in dark blue states--does, in fact, share a similar set of ethics (which you mislabel as "personal morality.")


By the way, any morality that doesn't place high importance on materialist considerations isn't a very practical morality, especially for a large federation of States like the US.

I suppose the sort of morality that I learned was not rooted in "materialist considerations"...


Just because you personally believe it is moral to wage all these wars does not mean the rest of the country agrees. The US constitution was not ratified to carry out some abstract moral vision in faraway lands. There is nothing in the constitution that supports this moral vision foreign policy. And everything the founders ever wrote or said on the subject of foreign policy contradicts you. NONE of them believed in using the US government to export morality.

If you really wish to discuss the ethics of waging war, you might wish to start another thread. But that is not at all the point of this thread. And it would appear that you hew to the doctrine of isolationism--dressed up, of course, in some appeal to the Founders (who were lived in a fundamentally different world).


Your foreign policy ideology is easily one of the most radical visions in world history. Bring MORALITY to the entire world, by force if necessary!

I really do not know exactly what you mean by "MORALITY" (caps in original)--unless, perhaps, you mean that we have shown, by example, the clear superiority of Western Civilization. Even countries that are not geographically a part of the West--yet have embraced Western Civilization (e.g. South Korea and Japan) have done quite well.(By the way, I am quite aware that South Korea and Japan are not exactly BFFs. But that is beside the point.)


That isn't how I intend it.

Well, since you now know, I do hope that you will cease using an offensive term. (It is no better to use it than it is to describe a black person by the odious "N" word.)


And I don't really consider you a "neocon" because you are not powerful or influential.

No, I am not.

And I would guess that you are not, either.

But I nonetheless have a right to my opinion (and yes, so do you).


I never said it was "America's" fault. I said it was the fault of the neocons who occupy high positions within the US government.

The last that I checked, those neoconservatives in the US Government were appointed by the president that America elected (with the exception of a few holdovers from the previous administration). They did not simply force themselves upon an unwilling American people.


Last I checked, nobody elected Bolton to anything.

He was appointed by the person who was elected to office: President Trump.

[Lummy]

It makes no difference to me. The only thing that really matters is that lots of Russians support Putin ...
Putin's positive public image in Western media agog at him seriously detracts from his dark personal political history that suggests he is a very dangerous man and definitely no one we want involved in American politics. The trail of dead people Putin has left behind during his career is similar to the Clintons' trail of dead. A smoking gun accompanies neither, but a good deal of unrebutted evidence points to Hillary bathing in the blood of Ambassador Chris Stevens and Benghazi US-dead.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/03/01/hillary-emails-betrayed-whereabouts-of-murdered-ambassador-chris-stevens/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226160/Benghazi-Murdered-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-warned-Consulate-withstand-coordinated-attack.html

It is time to prosecute her for her several crimes against our country -- a fundamentally good place where the likes of Putin should be barred.

[montgomery]

Americans have been told that Putin is evil, etc., etc.
The reason why that line of bullshit has been pushed so hard is because Putin is a strong and determined leader of Russia, and the US wants a weak Russian leader to deal with. America's hawks know that the only way to make any ground against Russia is a hot war, and that's out of the question. MAD (mutually assured destruction) Putin is not going to give dick all in any other way. Period!

So hate Putin and call him evil. We know why of course!

[pjohns]

Americans have been told that Putin is evil, etc., etc.
The reason why that line of bullshit has been pushed so hard is because Putin is a strong and determined leader of Russia...
I am guessing that this is to imply that Gorbachev and Yeltsin were (supposedly) weak leaders.

(By the way: Are you a Russian troll? Or merely someone who despises the West--and especially the US?)

[montgomery]

I am guessing that this is to imply that Gorbachev and Yeltsin were (supposedly) weak leaders.

(By the way: Are you a Russian troll? Or merely someone who despises the West--and especially the US?)

Yes, you get it! Gorby and Yeltsin were gifts to the US.

No, I'm not a Russian troll but I have no reason to even bother to convince you or your ilk of that. Think whatever makes you feel good.