Putin likens U.S. foreign policy to that of Third Reich
By Andrew E. Kramer

Wednesday, May 9, 2007
MOSCOW: President Vladimir Putin of Russia obliquely compared the foreign policy of the United States to the Third Reich in a speech Wednesday commemorating the 62nd anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, in an apparent escalation of anti-American rhetoric within the Russian government.

Putin did not specifically name the United States or NATO but used phrasing similar to that which he has used previously to criticize American foreign policy while making an analogy to Nazi Germany.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5642323


If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

Putin really has no room to knock ANY government, considering all the corruptness and gangsterization of his own gub'mint.

"Hey Pot, this is Kettle. I just wanted to let you know that you are black."

Wait a tick! The same guy who's erasing what little freedoms the Russian people have left, squishing Chechnya like a bug, and who's political opponents [both at home and abrad] end up dead, is comparing the UNITED STATES to the third Reich?!

uh-HUH.... sure.

~String

Wasn't Putin criticising US foreign policy not too long ago?

Wasn't Putin criticising US foreign policy not too long ago?


The more apt question would be, "When hasn't he...?"

~String

Not as openly.

Observations:

1. Everybody wants to rule the world.
2. Just because he is a robber too, that doesn't mean he can not describe a burglary correctly.
3. Russians love him WAY more than Americans love Bush...

3. Russians love him WAY more than Americans love Bush...

I'm sorry... but how is that relevant (even if it were true [which it may well be] or provable)? Besides, there isn't a credible organization on Earth that can provide such statistics SINCE the state run and/or harrassed media cannot portray Putin in anything but a shining light.

~String

I'm sorry... but how is that relevant

He is a robber, but at least he is a WELL LOVED robber... :)

Wait a tick! The same guy who's erasing what little freedoms the Russian people have left, squishing Chechnya like a bug, and who's political opponents [both at home and abrad] end up dead, is comparing the UNITED STATES to the third Reich?!

And why not? The Russians didn't like Hitler. Putin's more along the Stalinist lines, if anything. Which is an interesting point about the late Saddam Hussein. Americans insisted on the Hitler image because, despite having a half-century "cold war" with the Soviets, they still don't understand Stalin. Hussein admired Stalin, was something of a Stalinist. Apparently, that's not evil enough.

I'm still reeling from that wise soul who said the Third Reich is better than the current US administration. I hope/pray this person wasn't serious...

Wait a tick! The same guy who's erasing what little freedoms the Russian people have left, squishing Chechnya like a bug, and who's political opponents [both at home and abrad] end up dead, is comparing the UNITED STATES to the third Reich?!

uh-HUH.... sure.

~String

You are using child logic.

If (fat person 1) calls (fat person 2) fat does that mean that fat (person 2) can't be fat because (fat person 1) is also fat?

Even if Putin was the biggest villain on the planet, his observations are not suddenly null and void just because he is a bit of a bastard. Ever heard the expression "takes one to know one"? As someone who uses the reasoning of a child in a school playground a childish phrase like that should be familiar to you ;)

That's all very clever reasoning on your part, G.F. But let's slice through the rhetoric and get to the bare bones of it all: Do you think Putin was right?

Well, he didn't specifically mention the US so I won't bother to comment on that.

I'd personally say the US is similar to the third reich, but a completely spineless, cowardly, gutless, lying and most of all hypocritical version that refuses to attack anything that's not technologically backwards and completely defenseless and that hasn't been starved for ten years first.

That's all very clever reasoning on your part, G.F. But let's slice through the rhetoric and get to the bare bones of it all: Do you think Putin was right?

Of course he is right.

See all the criticims in a million threads in WEP.


I'd personally say the US is similar to the third reich, but a completely spineless, cowardly, gutless, lying and most of all hypocritical version that refuses to attack anything that's not technologically backwards and completely defenseless and that hasn't been starved for ten years first.

That's a rather interesting comment. Indeed Hitler went for the strongest nations all the time.

Do you think Putin was right?

I'll stick my nose into this one.

Once upon a time, I was flying from Seattle to Las Vegas. It wasn't a bad flight, except that a storm kept us in a holding pattern around McCarron for an hour or so. By that time, ye gads, did I have to piss. I digress, however. Point being, I may have been approaching Vegas, but I wasn't there yet.

Analogously, the U.S. has not achieved Third Reich status. Given enough time, however, the people, like the storm in Vegas, will break. We are currently circling the Fatherland. Er, excuse me, the "Homeland". The question is whether we descend to Sin City or break the pattern and fly off to another airport.

Right now the pilots, navigator, and even the hijackers, are determined to touch down in Reichland.

This is definitely a problem.

Oh, and if China doesn't have a right to comment on our prison system because they are human rights abusers, and if Russia shouldn't comment on the state of our society simply because theirs is in the trash, what freaking right do the greediest people in the history of humanity have taking down Saddam Hussein? Why not just hire serial killers as cops in order to reduce the murder stats?

And don't say it's just because we're "better". Saddam managed to pull off health care, at least.

And don't say it's just because we're "better". Saddam managed to pull off health care, at least.

snap!
and this is why i usually enjoy your posts. :)

Well, you know. If I throw enough darts .... :cool:

Of course he is right.

See all the criticims in a million threads in WEP.



That's a rather interesting comment. Indeed Hitler went for the strongest nations all the time.

Going to war with Poland and invading the low countries meant almost definite war with the UK and France. Two huge empires at the time. Hitler knew that, and he also invaded the USSR, so (if you were indeed being sarcastic as I suspect) don't give me that nonsense.

All those countries the Nazis invaded were more than completely and utterly backwards.

Well, you know. If I throw enough darts .... :cool:

youll be invaded...errr....ahem...."liberated".
heh.

Well, he didn't specifically mention the US so I won't bother to comment on that.

I'd personally say the US is similar to the third reich, but a completely spineless, cowardly, gutless, lying and most of all hypocritical version that refuses to attack anything that's not technologically backwards and completely defenseless and that hasn't been starved for ten years first.

...

I would say a completely spineless, cowardly, gutless, lying nonentity is lucky it can say things like that because of the anomynity of the internet.

Be careful, big brother is watching.

I would say a completely spineless, cowardly, gutless, lying nonentity is lucky it can say things like that because of the anomynity of the internet.

indeed, reported.

I would say a completely spineless, cowardly, gutless, lying nonentity is lucky it can say things like that because of the anomynity of the internet.

I'd say:

1) You feel emasculated because someone made an opinion you didn't agree with and you couldn't take a swing at them.
2) Free speech. If you're american then you have to suck it up.
3) Don't make assumptions about people you have never met.

indeed, reported.

....and just how is that worth reporting me for? It was 2Inquisitive that made a personal attack on me, he should be reported.

3) Don't make assumptions about people you have never met.

this never applies to your condemnation of the american people.
we have gone round and round on that subject before, im glad to see i have convinced you to be reasonable when judging people you dont know anything about.

If (fat person 1) calls (fat person 2) fat does that mean that fat (person 2) can't be fat because (fat person 1) is also fat?

Even if Putin was the biggest villain on the planet, his observations are not suddenly null and void just because he is a bit of a bastard.


Logically, you're right. If the pot calls the kettle black, that doesn't mean the kettle isn't really black.

But it certainly makes the pot a hypocrite and undermines any credibility or authority it has on the subject.

Why should we trust a hypocritical pot? Let's verify for ourselves whether or not the kettle is black.

this never applies to your condemnation of the american people.
we have gone round and round on that subject before, im glad to see i have convinced you to be reasonable when judging people you dont know anything about.

Mine aren't assumptions.

this never applies to your condemnation of the american people.
we have gone round and round on that subject before, im glad to see i have convinced you to be reasonable when judging people you dont know anything about.

One doesn't need to know 300 millions, or even a single American to form an opinion. Since the american masscult, media, corporations, military, government, etc. penetrate every hole on this Planet. Naturally, one judges the tree but its fruits and it's not that tasty.

You can hate on America and disagree with its policies all you like, but to compare it to the Third Reich is to automatically remove yourself from the sphere of sane and lucid debate and enter into the realm of the ridiculous.

For starters, the US has more freedoms enshrined in its Constitution that any other country in the world. For seconds, even the most brief examination and comparison between the current US administration and the Nazis of old will reveal some very obvious differences for anyone with a functional cranium.

1. The US is not rounding citizens based on their ethnicity or religion and sending them to death camps.

2. The US is not invading friendly countries on its borders that have done nothing to provoke them to war.

3. The US is not repressing free speech (by burning books and the like) or restricting the political beliefs of its citizens.

4. The US is not signing international agreements and then breaking them.

In closing, I'll ignore the usual Iraq rants (must everything devolve into a groan about that war?) and ask the people who say glib things such as "we are currently circling the Fatherland" to talk in detail about what they mean and provide some evidence that backs this incredible claim up...

For starters, the US has more freedoms enshrined in its Constitution that any other country in the world. For seconds, even the most brief examination and comparison between the current US administration and the Nazis of old will reveal some very obvious differences for anyone with a functional cranium.

1. The US is not rounding citizens based on their ethnicity or religion and sending them to death camps.

2. The US is not invading friendly countries on its borders that have done nothing to provoke them to war.

3. The US is not repressing free speech (by burning books and the like) or restricting the political beliefs of its citizens.

4. The US is not signing international agreements and then breaking them.



That's what one would have said about Third Reich circa 1932-33. USA is pregnant with nationalism (you call it - patriotism), well cared for by the state, one can march Americans anywhere using proper words, flags and kicks. Despite all their formal freedoms Americans are very sheeplike (as people anywhere else though), since "free market" societies can be way more totalitary uniform than Joseph Stalin's USSR, because "free market" people are their own jailers, the system doesn't need death camps. That's ingenious. Seriously, USA has many features similar to the Roman Empire and Third Reich. One couldn't care less about that, but for time being USA is an attack dog on the service of the transnational capital, the dog, which under certain circumstances, can go mad.

Mine aren't assumptions.

so you have spent at least six months in close, everyday contact with at least 1 american, in his/her own cultural setting?

One doesn't need to know 300 millions, or even a single American to form an opinion.
the opinion will be based on idiocy, in that case.

To begin with, I will address the four points of comparison:

(1) True. We've tried that in the past, and it isn't something most Americans like to admit; we often still pretend that the WWII internments--even without the death camps--were somehow justified.

(2) We've already done that; it's how we got the U.S. in the first place. Furthermore, relying on the technicality of a country "on its borders" is insufficient, as seen in the case of Iraq. Additionally, since our habit is to sponsor proxy wars, we don't need to be invading our neighbors. We'll just fund some monstrous group within that country.

(3) The United States is, in fact, repressing free speech. Booksellers and librarians have stood off with the government about people's reading habits, college students have been investigated by federal authorities for criticizing George W. Bush (and let's be clear here, most of these were not threatening Bush, but rather accusing him).

(4) The United States has withdrawn from two international agreements during the Bush administration, Kyoto and ICC. The latter is telling. Additionally, we're signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and our government has, of late, made a habit of breaking these.

Our hands are not clean on any of these counts. Does that make us Nazis? Hardly. But it is discouraging to see how many Americans, even among Bush critics, either support or simply do not oppose these maneuvers.

Toss in the infamous Goering quote that drives conservatives crazy--

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

--and we see one more dangerous correlation.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, or so the saying goes. Except, of course, when the vigilant are, for their vigilance, accused of being cowardly, unpatriotic, and treasonous. As to this point, we're already there.

The Bush Doctrine, previously rejected for its barbaric goals and methods, simply seeks to establish a new generation of warfare in the Arab world to fuel our economy and patriotism as our irrational Cold War did.

the opinion will be based on idiocy, in that case.

Do you have an opinion about third Reich, Joseph Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Chingishan's Mongols, Turkey circa 1554? Have you met at least one person who lived at that time, or your opinion (if any) is based on idiocy? BTW, I've met hundreds of Americans.

Yes, America should watch out. America deserves better. But Putin didn't say this because he cares about America; he said it because such political manoeuvring will make the puppet dance he has in mind for Russia more effective.

Oh, and Godwin pwns Putin.

so you have spent at least six months in close, everyday contact with at least 1 american, in his/her own cultural setting?

What does that have to do with disliking the actions of the US government?

Do you have an opinion about third Reich, Joseph Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Chingishan's Mongols, Turkey circa 1554? Have you met at least one person who lived at that time, or your opinion (if any) is based on idiocy? BTW, I've met hundreds of Americans.

of course i have opinions, but i dont attribute those opinions to the common folks that lived under those regimes.
i know a woman that lived under the third reich, and another that lived under stalin..couldnt tell you about the rest.

What does that have to do with disliking the actions of the US government?

you and i both know it goes further beyond the government (your dislike).

you and i both know it goes further beyond the government (your dislike).

I will be watching you. Be careful what you choose to dislike on these forums, for I shall be there, making sure you have spent more than 6 months in the presence of whatever object that may be.

I will be watching you. Be careful what you choose to dislike on these forums, for I shall be there, making sure you have spent more than 6 months in the presence of whatever object that may be.
fair enough, as long as i am broadly sweeping my dislike over all 300 million examples of what said object is.
:)

That's a nice try Tiassa, but Putin wasn't talking about the America of the past (however you choose to interpret it), he was talking about the Bush administration and the America of today, which is doing none of the things I've posted. But since you do address the present in two of your points, let's deal with them.

Your comments about booksellers and college students, both of which are unsubstantiated (though I know of one case where a bookseller refused to share her customer list and was taken to court) describes nothing that stifles free speech or prevents the formation of political parties that stand against the one in power, which the Nazis very clearly did. Is it your really your position that people in the US can't criticize Bush in a way that would have been impossible to criticize der Furher? If that's the case, then you really are deluded. There's enough Bush-bashing on this web site to have the lot of you thrown in a boxcar and sent to Dachau, if you weren't put down with a Luger first. Not to mention, everyday on television and in print, someone, whether they be a politician, commentator or private citizen is running off at the mouth about our president. The latest and most famous example would be the comments former president Jimmy Carter made to an Arkansas newspaper. No one ever could have said those sort of things about a certain former Bavarian corporeal. Based on that alone, I assert your claim is goofy in the extreme.

Secondly, there is a very real moral and logical difference in breaking agreements (as Hitler did) and allowing agreements to expire (as the US has done). If you can't understand that, look to the simple idea of a lease. Break the terms of a lease and you're out, let it expire and both parties can do whatever they like.

In closing, you very obviously choose to ignore the very likely possibility that "Putin didn't say this because he cares about America; he said it because such political manoeuvering will make the puppet dance he has in mind for Russia more effective" simply because what he said squared with your own appreciation of America's strengths and faults.

You'll need to explain why the Cold War was "irrational" just as the poster who writes the "USA has many features similar to the Roman Empire and Third Reich" will need to explain that bit of unsubstantiated opinion before anyone takes it seriously, but I doubt this thread is the place to do so...

Putin's statement doesn't need to be taken too seriously. Victory Day is really big over there, and he needed to be kind of epic in his speech. Trying to draw similarities between then (WWII) and now isn't a crime, and it isn't exactly false.

Of course the US isn't the Third Reich. To say we are is just silly. In every government, there is some form of propaganda, and some form of suppression when it comes to Leader-Bashing. And honestly, there are plenty of people who get the opportunity to bash Bush on a regular basis, so the only thing going on are some of the media outlet spin doctors who try to make this whole thing seem successful.

But...this whole War on Terror has been handled very poorly. We took the war to Afghanistan, which was probably the best move in terms of getting the people behind the idea, because it was an easy target. But beyond that, the US has moved for reasons that do not include defeating terrorism.

We haven't made an attempt to attack Iran, who has probably been the biggest terrorist-harboring state in the region. Considering the rhetoric that surrounded Bush's initial "plan", Iran should have come long before Iraq.

That could all be moot, however, if the US attacks Iran from its new strategic locations of Afghanistan and Iraq...

Regardless of the motives, we have gone about this whole thing the wrong way. If you want to be a realist about this, the only logical reason to invade Iraq was to turn it into a launching pad in a future attack against Iran...we should have found a better way to spin this information to the leaders of the world. Instead, we lied to everyone by saying that Iraq was anything more than a threat to their own people...which they most certainly were, but Saddam was no threat to anyone else in the region, let alone the US. And there was no hope of them ever being a threat, either, as they hadn't even rebuilt their armed forced in the time since Desert Storm.

But are we like Nazi Germany? No. At worst, this administration is an inept one that has taken it upon itself to wage a war that would offer us no benefit; terrorism will always be around, regardless of how many nations we invade. Our best bet would have been to attack whatever cells we could in the region, and try to fracture them the best we could. And we've done a good job at that, by taking out numerous leaders...but taking the war beyond that is folly. Even if we did attack Iran, what purpose does it serve? Oil prices haven't dropped.

I don't want to be the guy who says that we invaded Iraq so we could jack gas prices to make the oil companies rich...but the facts sort of point that way, as despite the reasons the government has given for the increases, the oil companies are still making record profits...how would that be possible if what they said was true?

That's a nice try Tiassa, but Putin wasn't talking about the America of the past (however you choose to interpret it), he was talking about the Bush administration and the America of today, which is doing none of the things I've posted.

It's a nice try of your own, but stop refusing the dialectic value of history. Furthermore, you're wrong:

(1) The only reason that we're not rounding up "homeland" Muslims and Arabs is because the people simply won't tolerate it. This is for two reasons: liberals, libertarians, and some conservatives simply believe such things are wrong. There is, however, a conservative bastion that happens to have much political power (e.g. the executive) that only believes this is wrong because they can't get away with it. To hold out on the lone idea of the death camp is wrong. We have, in the past stolen property, livelihood, and life from American citizens because their skin was the wrong color, eyes the wrong shape, or names just too foreign-sounding. We have a history of this, and there is no indication in the current policy that we would not for the fact that it would lose us the war entirely. What is missing from the current administration is a decent respect for humanity, and resting in wait of one of the strongest deviations from human progress we've ever seen is no decent pulpit from which they might preach their decency, compassion, and support for the human endeavor. Circling Sin City, some would choose to land elsewhere, but this administration has yet to break its flight pattern. The passengers are right to be concerned.

(2) Splitting the hair of adjacent borders is insufficient in a global community, especially since the entire premise of the War on Terror (from which the Iraqi Bush War and other slouchings toward Babylon derive) seeks to move the issue beyond adjacent borders. Well-calculated on your part, I admit, but still insufficient and ultimately dishonest for requiring the rejection of the foundations of the virtuous assertion.

(3) If the U.S. is not repressing the Free Speech of its people, it is only beacuse the courts are holding the line. Quite clearly, this administration could care less about free speech. In fact, your best argument against the Bush progression toward fascism is that his assault against the courts is incomplete, and unpredictable even to him. As the country is structured, Bush and Co. cannot become the Fourth Reich. This does not mean they're not doing their damnedest. That they haven't time to finish the project does not detract from its repugnance. The War on Drugs set the stage for invasions of library and bookstore records in the War on Terror. "Embedded" journalism, the best deal the journalists could get, is a ridiculous ploy, and there is a record of what happens to non-embedded journalists. Our people are no less dangerous than the terrorists. Students have been investigated and harassed by federal authorities including the SS (convenient coincidence, eh?) for displaying posters, wearing t-shirts, and otherwise expressing non-threatening criticisms of the President. Frankly, this is the sort of thing that takes statements like saying the Bush administration "is doing none of the things I've posted" beyond the point of your being simply mistaken. It's a calculated lie. Don't get me wrong; most Bush supporters can't formulate even that level of lie. But still, CZ, you're reaching.

(4) I repeat: Geneva Conventions, International Criminal Court. There's not much calculation in this portion of your "being mistaken". Given that these are two really important agreements that relate even more toward the Third Reich comparison than, say, environmental or banana-trade treaties, I wonder how it is you've managed to overlook them. We've flat-out broken the one and withdrawn for the other.

Secondly, there is a very real moral and logical difference in breaking agreements (as Hitler did) and allowing agreements to expire (as the US has done). If you can't understand that, look to the simple idea of a lease. Break the terms of a lease and you're out, let it expire and both parties can do whatever they like.

We withdrew our signature from the ICC because Bush didn't want to answer to anyone for the human-rights travesty his posse had planned. Furthermore, the administration has violated the Geneva Conventions and even mocked them as a matter of official policy. Moral differences, indeed.

Both parties can do what they like? Great, now we're in league with other great parties like Joseph Kony, Pol Pot, Stalin, and ... oh, wait ... we're not supposed to make that point, even though the administration's point is to stand in the same realm of "do whatever they like".

Moral and logical? Interesting that you mention those two points.

In closing, you very obviously choose to ignore the very likely possibility that "Putin didn't say this because he cares about America; he said it because such political manoeuvering will make the puppet dance he has in mind for Russia more effective" simply because what he said squared with your own appreciation of America's strengths and faults.

Americans have a way of writing off the criticisms of people they don't like. Which is convenient, since a standard for not liking someone is if they criticize our people or nation.

Point being, when another neighborhood's asshole calls you an asshole, and all the neighbors nod and shrug and mutter, "Well, he's got a point, even if he is an asshole[/i]," most of us would stop and think about why those ordinarily sympathetic to us would pause to give the asshole his due.

If the criticism didn't have merit, nobody would stop and nod and shrug. They would just shrug and give two fingers.

You'll need to explain why the Cold War was "irrational"

We started it. We didn't need to. Millions suffered so that we could have a fight that never should have happened. In the meantime, we boxed in Marxism in a successful effort to stave off the optimization of labor, economy, life, and satisfaction. We could have fought with ideas, but that was a lot more demanding of the average American than playing the truculent poseur. The world at large and Americans both at home and abroad are still paying the ticket price for this needless romp through human depravity. The current war in Iraq is a tragic symptom of that very folly. (If we hadn't overthrown a democratically-elected Prime Minister almost sixty years ago, perhaps things might have been different? Ah, but we did, so we'll never know.) Remember, the rise of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda both are through the cooperative efforts fo the United States in its Cold War crusade. The Liberian crisis of recent years is a direct effect of the Cold War and its end. Modern totalinarianism in the Arab world can be linked both to colonialism and the Cold War: these systems developed in response to conditions put in place by Western powers.

It didn't have to happen this way. But it did because fiscal conservatives could not countenance the notion of treating their fellow human beings with dignity and respect.

Neither the reasons, the process, nor the outcome have been remotely rational. The Cold War is our greatest folly, beyond even the attempted genocide of the indigenous peoples. Biological warfare? Weapons of mass destruction? We've learned better on that count, and we should have known better when we whipped up the "Cold" War.

Remind me again, please: Why, exactly, did we invade Russia? And why did the President see fit to lie to the American people? If our efforts were noble, why should we be ashamed?

If nothing else, Tiassa, you are a committed Marxist, and you deserve some credit for that in this day and age, when the politics of your faith has ebbed to such a low point that only misguided misanthropes like Hugo Chavez and backwards nations such as Cuba and Mongolia seem to be the only believers still interested in trying to convert the masses to your particular flavor of brandy. You seem to see history through your own ideological prism, which is your option, but not terribly honest, intellectually speaking. But I'll come back to that later.

Now, to take your other points one-by one:

1. You concede my point and admit that we're not rounding up people and sending them to death camps, which would have to be true in order for Putin's statement to be true, but say this only so because some "liberals, libertarians, and some conservatives simply believe such things are wrong." However, Bush and the executive branch "only believes this is wrong because they can't get away with it." You offer no proof of this, then enter into a historical, and frankly unrelated, ramble about all that past grievances you no doubt learned about while you were in college. Again, stick to the issue. Putin's statements were about Bush & Co. and not about Indians in the 19th century and blacks or Japanese Americans in the 20th.

2. It was not my attempt to split-hairs. I was merely following the framework this argument is supposed to work within: IE, Putin compared the US and the Bush administration's foreign policy to Hitler and Nazi Germany. For the most part, Hitler invaded countries that bordered his own, and until the Second World War really got going, didn't seem to care about places whose territory wasn't easily annexed and adjoined to the Fatherland. To return to the here and now, the US is very obviously not interested in invading its neighbors to acquire more territory. In other words, if you don't like what I wrote, your argument is really with what Putin said and what happened in history, not my mention of the one and comparison to the other.

3. Again, you concede my point and allow that the US is not repressing free speech, but say this is only because "the courts are holding the line," as the "administration could care less about free speech." Even if I conceded your clairvoyant reading about what the administration care about, that doesn't change the fact that they have not moved to repress free speech. Next you write, "as the country is structured, Bush and Co. cannot become the Fourth Reich," to which I would respond, well then isn't Putin's statement ridiculous, and this entire discussion moot? Apparently, not. You see motive and intent somewhere, though you never specifically offer in evidence of either, and find that to be enough to reach your conclusions.

As a journalist, I have a major problem when you write: "'Embedded' journalism, the best deal the journalists could get, is a ridiculous ploy, and there is a record of what happens to non-embedded journalists. Our people are no less dangerous than the terrorists." So is it your position that the American government and the American military are intentionally killing journalists in combat?

4. You should try reading the Geneva convention sometime, if you're going to run about and lean on its eminence so frequently. It speaks very specifically about men in and out of uniform and doesn't deal anywhere with terrorists on a battlefield, so while you may disagree with how the Bush administration has chosen to handle the terrorists, you really can't rely on a century-old document to do your heavy lifting for you. It simply doesn't say what you want it to, because it says nothing about terrorists at all.

As for the ICC, there is no compunction for the US to treat it as "really important" agreement, just as there is no requirement for us to sign it or honor its tenants. Again, you have a difference of opinion with the administration. That's fine. But your difference does not amount to the same thing as signing a document and then ignoring the document's contents, as Hitler did with both Britain and the USSR. Apples and oranges, my dear. Apples and oranges. The fact you fail to see this and try to cast Bush in the same company as Pol Pot and Stalin is equally as dubious as what Putin said. Bush pulled out of the ICC because he didn't want American troops having to answer to foreign judicial powers, and the Pentagon, the services and a heck of a lot of Congressmen and citizens agreed with him. So let's not try to paint that as something it isn't.

About the Cold War, I am willing to concede that much of what you say about its outcomes is fairly true. However, I'm not willing to allow that "we started it," when it was Stalin who made it very clear at Ypres and Yalta that he would not be letting go of the territory his armies had entered in the final days of the war. During this time, Stalin was also keen on rearming and had his spies hard at work on stealing America's nuclear secrets, which he ultimately managed to do. Blaming the American prosecuting of the Cold War on "fiscal conservatives" is just another silly example of where you cannot help but show your bias. Or haven't you heard of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, two staunch Cold Warriors who originated from the other side of the aisle? Regardless of who really started the Cold War, and I think that question is much to complicated to be answered with a one country response, I'm just as glad that we won it, as the NATO nations and various other Western powers who were not trapped within the yoke of the former USSR have very obviously outpaced those that were in economic growth and opportunity, infrastructure improvements, technology and all the other general standards of living and happiness that are associated with open markets and freedom, a term your Marxist brothers seem to know so little about. Or do you honestly think Marxism has worked out well in the places where its been given the old college try?

1. You concede my point and admit that we're not rounding up people and sending them to death camps, which would have to be true in order for Putin's statement to be true, but say this only so because some "liberals, libertarians, and some conservatives simply believe such things are wrong." However, Bush and the executive branch "only believes this is wrong because they can't get away with it." You offer no proof of this, then enter into a historical, and frankly unrelated, ramble about all that past grievances you no doubt learned about while you were in college. Again, stick to the issue. Putin's statements were about Bush & Co. and not about Indians in the 19th century and blacks or Japanese Americans in the 20th.

Look, perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the last five or six years, and in such case, I see no reason to review the whole thing for you.

In the meantime, no, we need not be operating death camps in order for Putin's expression to have merit. You're seeking such a literalist truth as to render communication sterile, utilitarian, and suited only to political and economic discourse. Sacrificing the passion of language in order to badmouth a Russian twat is not a good deal.

Furthermore, your piss-poor attitude shows through: You present yourself as grossly ignorant--to the point of invalidating your own opinion--of world events. Asking folks to rehash several years of Bush history, from spying against Americans to seeking commercial, phone, and library records for no good reason, sending the SS after college students who'd broken no law and approached no mythical line in the sand, and exploiting, apropos the Goering quote, the tyrant's path to elective war, only depicts you as having your head crammed in the sand (at best). That innocent people have rotted in jail cells for years only because of their name or ethnicity is the kind of crap "America" is supposed to oppose. Dismissing human rights as quaint is not part of our American heritage. In fact, Putin's statement that Bush &. Co's attitudes "are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world" as the Reich seems more and more apparent the more you ask me to look at it.

Had Putin said, "The Americans have become the Nazis", your argument might be valid. But he didn't.

2. It was not my attempt to split-hairs.

And yet that's exactly what you accomplished. If you hold Putin in such contempt for his duplicity, why be duplicitous in your criticism? Or are you immune from being contemptible?

3. Again, you concede my point and allow that the US is not repressing free speech, but say this is only because "the courts are holding the line," as the "administration could care less about free speech." Even if I conceded your clairvoyant reading about what the administration care about, that doesn't change the fact that they have not moved to repress free speech. Next you write, "as the country is structured, Bush and Co. cannot become the Fourth Reich," to which I would respond, well then isn't Putin's statement ridiculous, and this entire discussion moot? Apparently, not. You see motive and intent somewhere, though you never specifically offer in evidence of either, and find that to be enough to reach your conclusions.

That they can't doesn't mean they're not trying. Fighting a futile battle does not necessarily suggest you acknowledge the obvious. Think about what that says about Bush & Co.: They're so dedicated to the overthrow of liberty that nothing, not even the scale of the task, will deter them.

Something about "contempt for human life and claims of exceptionality" goes here, but I won't confuse you.

4. You should try reading the Geneva convention sometime, if you're going to run about and lean on its eminence so frequently. It speaks very specifically about men in and out of uniform and doesn't deal anywhere with terrorists on a battlefield, so while you may disagree with how the Bush administration has chosen to handle the terrorists, you really can't rely on a century-old document to do your heavy lifting for you. It simply doesn't say what you want it to, because it says nothing about terrorists at all.

And when there is doubt, you err to caution. Maybe if you're going to take a contemptuous attitude about things, you ought to consider carefully. Besides, what you're prescribing is an appalling consideration: If we can find a way around the law, then there is no real problem with torture and murder. If the only difference between respect of life and otherwise is whether one can construe a legal agreement to do so, then we ought to admit that "America", "justice", "morality", and "civilization" are all lies, and get on with the slaughter in some honest fashion. Be proud to be a bloodlusting dog of prey. Don't let the birds and mice and all the little foodlings define you. Just because they think it's bad doesn't mean it is, right?

So stop worrying about our President's aspirations to the Fourth Reich. (more to come, I'm sure)

On review, it seems there's not much more to cover.

I should make the point that if it's not a war on a battlefield, it's a police action, and if it's a law-enforcement issue, then the U.S. Constitution is in charge. Of course, you do have a point on technicality if you point out that George Bush never signed to his oath.

:rolleyes:

A couple of quick points:

As a journalist, I have a major problem when you write: "'Embedded' journalism, the best deal the journalists could get, is a ridiculous ploy, and there is a record of what happens to non-embedded journalists. Our people are no less dangerous than the terrorists." So is it your position that the American government and the American military are intentionally killing journalists in combat?

(A) You're a journalist? Is this one of those things where, like an acquaintance of mine, you write freelance for muscle-car magazines? Really, I have no problem with arcane specialty journalism, but its tenets aren't quite the same.

(B) Our forces already are deliberately killing journalists. Of course, you might not be aware of this if your policy is to criticize any bad news about the war.

(C) Removing our name from the ICC in an attempt to avoid its reach while sponsoring war crimes shows both a contempt for human life and a claim for exceptionality.

(D) We did start the Cold War. With a hot poker in the Russian butt. So let's be clear here. Stalin became General-Secretary of the Bolsheviks in April, 1922. American troops invaded Russia in 1918 and withdrew before Stalin ascended. This game was afoot, by American declaration, before Stalin was ever in a position to start it.

American troops never invaded Russia, unless of course you're referring to the White Army, which no doubt had some Americans in it (just as the Communist forces in Spain had George Orwell and some Brits with it). Still a hodgepodge force of Russians and ideological warriors from all nations is not the same thing as the United States government sending Sgt. York to Moscow, but such logical distinctions are obviously lost on you, as elsewhere you claim that I am only interested in "literalist truth as to render communication sterile." What I'm interested in is arguments based on facts, not arguments of pure opinion that arrived at through your very personal and very Marxist interpretation of history. (Are you really arguing that the Cold War started prior to World War Two? Funny we were allies with the Soviets in the 1940s then).

Look, Putin compared the US foreign policy to the Nazis, not me. If you don't like the tenets of Nazi foreign policy I chose to focus on and debunk when I compared them to US policy, then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us all which of the Nazi policies the US policy is emulating, and then we can see where you think Putin's statement has merit. So far as I can tell, you've already conceded several points and talked in vague and metaphorical terms of "circling" Nazism but not quite landing there, none of which seems to add many chits to Putin's (or your) position, if you ask me. I suppose your retort to my "piss-poor" attitude would be all the instances of spying and phone-tapping you take such joy in recounting for us, instances that in many cases I abhor also (Yes, me. The person you stop just short of calling "immune from being contemptible").

However, labeling the infractions you take such umbrage with as evidence of a "Fourth Reich" (and how many of those has the Left cleverly spotted in the past 40 years) and Nazi-like behavior is a rhetorical bridge too far. It is, in other words, rank hyperbole. You might and I might not like Bush (see my post in another thread) by calling him a Nazi and claiming he has Hitler-like intentions is the juvenile stereotype I would expect from the uneducated college freshman, but then Leftists are always harking back to the Nazi mantel to describe people, and I can't for the life of me understand why. Do you not get it that people just shut down and ignore you when you stoop such levels? For someone who seems to love the game of semantics, I think you can do better...

And while we're on about words, I would appreciate it if you restrained from trying to shove them in my mouth to make it look as though I said something I didn't, for I never suggested that "if we can find a way around the law, then there is no real problem with torture and murder." All I said was relying on the Geneva Convention to bolster your argument about alleged abuses to battlefield detainees was not logical, because the document does not speak to what a nation does with persons like terrorists who are caught on the field of battle in a war. In other words, if you were in court, you'd lose, because you're argument lacks a logical and legal foundation...

My policy about the war is to talk about it like it is, but the war isn't what we're talking about here. However, in typical fashion, you follow the trend of your type in bring in all sorts of other issues in an attempt to create a web that somehow proves your slanted world view, just as you do when you talk your rubbish about journalists being deliberately killed by US forces. That's a bunch of hooey. While it's true more journalists have been killed in Iraq than in recent wars, the reasons have nothing to do with Americans gunning down reporters looking for bad news and everything to do with the fact the insurgents or the terrorists or whatever you want to call them deliberately target journalists and kidnap them, because uneducated as they are, the thuggish killers causing all the havoc in Iraq understand it's PR war as much as it is a combat war, and killing journalists gets attention. I don't have to drag out my credentials and dangle them at you to know that, nor do I have to suffer you anecdotal evidence from friends in service and friends reporting over there to bolster this very obvious point.

You're a journalist? Is this one of those things where, like an acquaintance of mine, you write freelance for muscle-car magazines? Really, I have no problem with arcane specialty journalism, but its tenets aren't quite the same.

The Counte is a "real" journalist working as reporter for a REAL newspaper in a REAL city within the USA. As a person who is far more acquainted with Counte than you, I can say for certain (having read a number of his articles) that he is a journalist in every sense of the word. Much to your disapointment.

(D) We did start the Cold War. With a hot poker in the Russian butt. So let's be clear here. Stalin became General-Secretary of the Bolsheviks in April, 1922. American troops invaded Russia in 1918 and withdrew before Stalin ascended. This game was afoot, by American declaration, before Stalin was ever in a position to start it.

You are aware that the cold war started AFTER WWII somewhere in the latter half of 1946. The term "Cold War" was introduced by Walter Lipman (a journalist, I believe) shortly after the war ended. You can, of course, be speaking "in spirit" and not in fact, but if that's the case, you'll have to do a little better than bringing up the pittance of forces that were REQUESTED by the, then, Czar of Russia, who was still the recognized leader of the Russian Empire.

~String

The Counte is a "real" journalist working as reporter for a REAL newspaper in a REAL city within the USA. As a person who is far more acquainted with Counte than you, I can say for certain (having read a number of his articles) that he is a journalist in every sense of the word. Much to your disapointment.

Is it a Gannett newspaper? Seriously, String, that's fine with me. But I do wonder at the seemingly deliberate lack of journalistic principles about his posts. Really, as a reporter, he ought to be aware of at least some of the events over the last six years, and if he disagrees with such notions as he reads here, truth is that as a reporter he's well-armed to dismantle those arguments. But he doesn't. Instead, he plays stupid-possum.

You are aware that the cold war started AFTER WWII somewhere in the latter half of 1946. The term "Cold War" was introduced by Walter Lipman (a journalist, I believe) shortly after the war ended. You can, of course, be speaking "in spirit" and not in fact, but if that's the case, you'll have to do a little better than bringing up the pittance of forces that were REQUESTED by the, then, Czar of Russia, who was still the recognized leader of the Russian Empire.

If I punch you over and over and over again, at what point do you believe me hostile? Does "hostility" begin only on the day when you put your foot down and say, "Enough"?

And the request of a Czar who had lost the people and his office is not exactly the most valid of justifications for our invasion. Furthermore, we're in no less than three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, "Terror") because a pittance of 19 men from countries not even included in these wars entered our country under pretense of war.

Your argument is thin. We invaded Russia, we then hung them out to dry in WWII, and yet we're supposed to be offended when they're no longer interested in sucking us to orgasm?

Really, his statements such as, "American troops never invaded Russia, unless of course you're referring to the White Army, which no doubt had some Americans in it (just as the Communist forces in Spain had George Orwell and some Brits with it)" bear no real integrity as a journalist, a poster at Sciforums, or otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't think any of the generals and officers who served in Russia are alive today to tell the both of you how full of crap such assertions are.

Next time you see an assembly of 15,500 U.S. service personnel prepraring to operate independently of foreign command in a foreign land, make sure you remind them that they are insignificant, a mere "pittance".

A "deliberate lack of journalistic principle?"

What the hell are you talking about?

And why the hell do you continue to make this about me? As a moderator, you should know better and act better.

The real problem between you and I is that I reach different conclusions than you do, because I'm not a Marxist viewing everything through the prism of a historical dialectic and class warfare. For some reason, you can't stomach that, so you lob clumsy grenades and my real world character, try to assert I'm a dummy, presumably because I'm not smart enough to hold the same opinion you do, and try to put words into my mouth in thread after thread. It's juvenile, pathetic behavior.

Apparently, as a journalist, I'm required to know all things about all topics or I have no integrity. Well, I'm sorry to dissapoint you. I freely admit, because I lack your enthusiams for Russia, my knowledge of its history is not encyclopedic. Still, even in my relative state of ignorance, I'm well aware the White Army had about 15,000 Americans in it, and I know that they spent most of their time in Siberia and other remote places protecting American property and arms given to the Russians in the First World War and not fighting all that much. I think the total amount of cassualties was in the low hundreds. Iwo Jima, this was not...

String's argument is thin? So far as I can tell, you posted nothing but opinions that he and I are supposed to accept as facts. How typical of you...