Is Greece to be Putin's "Big and Better Crimea"?

There is full agreement that formally the US colonies are independent states. So, from a formal point of view, the use of "US-colonies" is false. And you know very well, that my use of this phrase is polemical.

Of course, the US allows the local politicians some independence. The USSR has been much more stupid in this relation. But French independence is also in the past of de Gaulle. Today, if a french politician is considered dangerous for the US, he disappears like Strauss-Kahn.

LOL. Once you measure success economically, you probably have in mind the opium market, where Afghanistan is now the world leader - an economic prosperity which the evil Taliban have destroyed. From all reasonable criteria, Afghanistan is a failed state, and all its neighbour states are afraid of the danger that what happens in Afghanistan can have negative consequences for their own countries.

Just for your information, the Iraq has no civil government, or, if you count differently, three - the one of the shia-controlled regions, the one of the Kurdish regions, and the IS. It is considered by everybody as a failed state.

A nice exercise in describing in nice words the complete failure of the US strategy.

I know those things. And I know that this does not change the point that against the will of the US Ghaddafi would have been in power yet. And it also does not change the fact of the complete failure of the US action in Somalia.

Feel free to name "invasion" and "annexation" where what has happened was a peaceful referendum where a great majority of the citizens of Crimea has been in favour of joining Russia.
By the way, how you name the situation in Kosovo?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well this just gets to my point, you cognitive biases prevent you from acknowledging inconvenient facts and reason. Without your biases, the evidence and reason presented to you would be obvious to you. I suggest you google cognitive dissonance.

Oh, so you would rather revert back to the medieval or dark ages.

So you are good with autocracies as long as they are not communist autocracies? Where your evidence is “most non-communist” has been US puppets? I’m looking for quantifiable data here, not just the silly bullshit you are so fond of. And has been repeatedly put to you, the US has never been a colonial power. The US doesn’t have nor has it ever had colonies.

You have just now and after much prompting have just now made that statement. If decentralization is your measure of democracy, I hate to tell you, but the US is much more decentralized than Switzerland. The US is a federal republic; it is a federation of independent states. Powers of the federal government are limited by the US constitution. Switzerland is a unitary republic where all power is centralized in a single government entity, though it does have an independent judiciary.

Well you are mixing unrelated issues again. Transparency is the ability to see the inner working of government, access to documents and the decision making processes. That has nothing to do with the NSA whatsoever. Two, the NSA isn’t surveilling US citizens without probable cause or a court order. I assume you are referring to a database of phone calls which the NSA formerly maintained. The NSA maintained a database of all phone calls coming into and out of the US. It didn’t “surveil content. Now that database is being maintained by phone companies. Unlike Mother Russia, any kind of surveillance in the US requires a court order, and unlike Mother Russia the US has a functional independent judiciary.

LOL, this gets back to those cognitive biases I mentioned. You want to pick and choose the data you want to accept and reject. That is a logical fallacy. It’s called cherry picking. There is nothing wrong with the data. Mother Russia has consistently been found to be one of the 20 most corrupt countries in the word.

Well I guess all we have is your word for it. But your biases are obvious and you have continuously pushed/advocated the Russian cause verbatim and summarily discount and ignore inconvenient facts and reason. So you are getting Putin’s message and are promulgating his propaganda.
The fact is after eons of persecuting dissidents Russians are indeed a docile people. They are not like the Greeks in any way. There is a big cultural breach between Russians and Greeks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No need, I was aware about the method to name political opponents insane already in Soviet Breshnew time, it was quite popular then. Fortunately, you don't yet have the powers to send your opponents by force into an asylum for the insane.

Why? I also prefer a world with an internet. But this does not prevent me from admitting that there are some aspects of civilization and education where we have a decline.

You disagree? What particular example would be, in this case, the exception?

First of all, all this has started from my simple attempt to defend Russians from the defamation that they are docile. I have never had plans to provide you with any quantifiable data. I simply tell you what I think about this, that's all. And why you repeat the triviality that the US is not a colonial power, I have already clarified several times that I do not think that the US colonies are colonies in a formal sense, and that they are formally independent states.

LOL. In Switzerland many people don't even know who has actually the central power, because the mayor has more power than the central governement. Officially it is Confoederatio Helvetica, a confederation. Each canton has its own constitution, and its own parliament, government and courts.

LOL, you really believe this???

That would be correct about Jeltsin time. Today it is no longer that bad. It remains a problem, but I have seen enough evidence in various media about what happens in Crimea and about what experience Ukraine emigrants in Russia which show large differences between corruption levels in Russia and Ukraine, in favour of Russia. There have been no such differences in Jeltsin time.

This is simply a consequence of your obvious bias. The funny fact is that I have considered to emigrate to Russia during the Yeltsin time, but actually I don't consider this as reasonable. And this is also a result of some changes there. Last but not least, I'm a libertarian anarchist - so, in general I'm not in favour of a strong state.

My political support for Russia is, in fact, only implicit: It is the support for a multipolar instead of an unipolar world order. But, of course, the Western antirussian hysteria is dangerous in itself, it can be the cause of a nuclear WW III.

In fact, what I know about Greece (never been there) there is no such big cultural breach. Instead, a lot of things are quite similar. Cultural differences? I would suspect that the family plays yet a much greater role in Greece - in this relation, too much of traditional family has been destroyed during Soviet time.

The traditional persecution in the past has been banishment into some far away province, away from the capital. What they do far away from the capital? Nobody cared. Similarly, nobody has cared about what the people in Russia believe or think - no forced conversion to orthodoxy and so on. It was only the historically short period of communism where this has been different - and even here only the Lenin-Stalin time. After this, you had to be docile if you wanted to get political posts, but what you really think and do nobody cared, as long as you did not try to create a political opposition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That has nothing to do with the issues at hand or your cognitive biases; you know the cognitive dissonance which allows you to dismiss inconvenient evidence? Biases are not a mental illness. We all have them; some of us do a better job than others in managing them. And it’s pretty obvious my friend, you are clearly a victim of your programming (i.e. biases).

So you want the Dark Age with the internet? Ok. The unpleasant fact for you is that democracies have and continue to enjoy the highest living standards the world has ever known. The level of education has never been higher. The sciences have never been more advanced and people have never been as productive or as prosperous as they are in democratic states.

I asked you to support your claim that most democracies were US “puppet states”. You haven’t answered that challenge. You have made a claim, now support it with evidence.

Except if it is true, it isn’t defamation, one of those little facts again. You have thrown up a lot of chaff in order to distract from this very simple fact, for eons dissidents have been imprisoned, tortured and killed in Mother Russia. Mother Russia doesn’t tolerate dissidents well. As a result, Russia has become a very docile nation. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Russians, like you, are much more accepting of autocracy than people in the West. Putin’s alleged corruption would never fly for one moment in the West. In the West, we are very critical of our leaders and our governments. It isn’t illegal to be critical of our leaders or government as it is in Mother Russia.

Yeah, LOL, it’s one of those simple and verifiable facts which you find so amusing. You said Switzerland was the only democracy in the world today and you were asked to explain why. You said it was because Switzerland was decentralized and the others were not and now you have cited Swiss territorial subdivisions as evidence of that decentralization. Well here is the news for you; other democracies have similar territorial subdivisions. Switzerland isn’t unique in that regard. As previously referenced, the US if a Federal Union, it too has political subdivisions which have their own constitutions, their own judicial systems, their own military units, their own legislatures, their own law enforcement agencies. Further, every county has its own legislative body, police force, and legislative body. Every American city has its own legislative body, law enforcement and judicial system. And the US is not alone in that regard. So yeah, LOL, I ask you again what makes Switzerland the only democracy as you asserted?

By the way, centralization has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

Well the evidence, the data per the previously referenced material, says it is still that bad. You have no evidence to the contrary and no evidence to support your beliefs but that doesn’t matter to you, and that has everything to that cognitive dissonance I wrote about earlier.

Ok, most of that really isn’t relevant. What's with the LOL? Is someone giving you the feather treatment? Do you have evidence of my bias? If you do please show it, I am an investor. If I let my biases rule my decisions as you do, I lose money and I don’t lose much money. I have made a lot of money correctly playing Mother Russia (i.e. Mother Putin).

Well the funny thing here is the glaring contradiction and hypocrisy in your statement. Russia is anything but multipolar and you have consistently argued for autocracy over democracy. The libertarian author you cited has very openly stated his preference for monarchy (autocracy) over democracy citing democracy as too messy. Democracy is by its very nature multipolar (i.e. multiple centers of power). So you have some really confused thinking going on there.

Well the unpleasant fact for you is that repression of dissent in Russia didn’t begin or end with communism. And the treatment of Russian dissidents wasn’t as benign as you like to represent it to be. As I previously wrote, Russia has a long history of brutally repressing dissent, with beatings, imprisonment gulags, and execution. And it hasn’t stopped. Putin’s political enemies have a funny way of attracting exotic poisons in their food or being gunned down or being thrown into jail and their wealth confiscated by the state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcCxq32yGE

The fact is Russians are much more docile than their Western counterparts where dissent is accepted and praised. Whither you choose to recognize it or not there is a huge cultural divide between Russia and Greece. The Greeks like their democracy and their free press, and unlike Russia they do have a democracy and a free press. As I have repeatedly written, the stuff Putin does and gets by with in Mother Russia would fly for a minute in the West.

 

Stupid personal attacks deleted

No.

LOL

Not interested. Feel free not to believe it.

Repetition of defamations of Russians as docile deleted. The usual repetition of antirussian prejudices, so of no interest.

No, this was not my point. Learn to read.

I have no doubt about this, and mentioned also that this was the base for the american success. Unfortunately for the US, and the remaining world too, the centralization of the US is increasing.
And, again, learn to read, Swiss is not the only democracy, but the only state where democracy works nicely. In the US, it has worked nicely in the past too, for the same reason - decentralization.

Formally not. But a democracy has a big common good problem, and this problem increases with the number of people. The only thing one can do against this is decentralization. In a large state, democracy degenerates into lobbyism.

This is something which can be easily observed. There is much more lobbyism in Washington than in the states themself, as well as there is much more lobbyism in Bruessel (where the EU has its institutions) than in the capitals of European states.

Of course, your postings are full of them.

Not interested. I do not see any evidence that you are really interested in correcting your biases, so why should I care?

This is not the point of unipolar vs. multipolar world order. In the unipolar world order, the US rules the world. And everywhere everybody has to follow the US. With all the US stupidity inclusive.

In a multipolar world, there are different centers of power, the US will remain one of them, there will be others, like Russia and China. As a consequence, the remaining world does not have to follow the US. One can do this, but one can also follow other world centers or have an equal distance to them. And so none of the centers will be able to enforce its own stupidity on other states.

That's why in a multipolar world there will be much more freedom. Not necessarily in the large power centers, but far away from them.

You have a quite distorted understanding of Hoppe's argumentation. The problem with democracy is not that it have many power centers or that it is multipolar. The classical liberal tradition with separation of powers is not closely connected with democracy at all. (Ok, I know, democratic ideology claims differently, but who cares.)

Its nonsense. The theory of the docile Russians is, of course, not new, and there have been several attempts to test it, one by Napoleon, who has expected that the Russians would be as docile as the Europeans, and then by Hitler, who has had the same idea. It happened that the Russians in the occupied territories have been, somehow, a little bit less docile than expected from the European experience.

And nothing has changed in this relation. The Russians of the Crimea have not been docile to the new American colonial power in Kiew and started an insurrection. And they had taken the power in Sewastopol and some other towns already before the Russian army started to support them.

Your in the West obviously need acceptance and praise before you start to be indocile. The Russians couldn't care less about acceptance and praise - if they start an uprising, you would better go out of their way.
The tsars have known this, and send those uncontrollable to the borders - to defend Russian borders, in exchange for a lot of freedom. Russia is big, enough room for all. Quite similar to America, by the way, only with the difference that the Russians have never started a genocid against the natives.

 

Now that is an LOL, and what personal attacks did you delete exactly? The only personal attacks you can delete my friend are yours. The fact is you are making shit up yet again.

Oh, so when have more people been educated? When has our technology been greater?

I am not surprised. You are not interested in defending your assertions because you can’t. You cannot prove a lie to be truth.

As previously explained to you, truth isn’t defamation nor is it a prejudice.

Unfortunately for you this has nothing to do with my reading skills. You said Switzerland was the one true democracy because its government was decentralized. And you went on to cite Swiss canons as an example of that decentralization.
I then pointed out to you Switzerland was not unique in that regard. So again, since the US and other democracies have similar structures, why is Switzerland a democracy and the US and others are not?
I understand you don’t like details and facts because they conflict with your beliefs. But unfortunately for you fact and reason do matter.

LOL, ok so you are changing your story now, this is what you wrote, “If you want a state where democracy really works, ok, there is Swiss. That's all - everything else is only controlled democracy, with not many differences between the Russian and the American variant. “. You are changing your story. Now you are including the US as a democracy, before referred to the US as a “managed” democracy – whatever that means and you falsely equated the US with Mother Russia.

Here is another unfortunate point for you; the government structures of Switzerland or the US have not changed. The US and the Swiss are just as decentralized today as it was a decade ago or two or three for a century ago. It’s one of them painful facts again.
.

 

s

Hmm, so you think the common good is a problem and is a bad thing? I guess instead of the common good you would rather the good of the select few, the autocrats. All governments, be they autocratic or democratic have problems with corruption, but that is a different story and corruption has nothing to do with centralization or decentralization.

And you know this how? There is lobbyism and influence peddling everywhere, in democracies as well as autocracies, and your point is?

Well then you should be able to pull one out and use it as an example instead of doubling down on your unsupported allegations as you have done.

You have been repeatedly challenged to produce some evidence of the biases you claim are ubiquitous in my posts, and as of now, you have repeatedly failed to produce even one. Unfortunately for you my friend fact and reason are not biases.

LOL, oh, so the US rules the world does it. Well that is indeed news. Someone had better tell the Americans and her Allies that. What evidence do you have the world to back that assertion up? As previously pointed out to you, the US does not rule the world. When the US reconstructed Western Europe and Japan after WWII, the US created democracies which make their own decisions.

As I pointed out in my last post, it’s more than a little contradictory for you to advocate both for autocracy and a unipolar world. It sounds a little like penis envy to me. It’s pretty obvious you dislike the US and want to go back to the cold war era and restore Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe. And there is one little problem with that, Eastern Europeans, the people who live in Eastern Europe don’t share your feelings in that regard. They don’t want to go back to the corrupt, dictatorial fascist, rule of Mother Russia. They no longer want to be Russian vassal states.

I think the bottom line here is that you don’t like the US and her Allies putting the squeeze on Mother Putin for invading and annexing neighboring states and doing the same things Hitler did and which resulted in WWII.

And how is that different from today? There are different centers of power. Mother Russia just doesn’t happen to be one of them. The “remaining world” today doesn’t have to follow the USA and sometimes they don’t (e.g. the Great Recession of 2007-2009 or Iraq, or any number of issues).

As repeatedly pointed out, we already live in a multipolar world with multiple centers of power. That is a strength of the democracies you so abhor. Democracies by their very nature are multipolar, yet you distain them and prefer autocracy which is by its very nature unipolar. It’s a contradiction that your biases will not allow you to see.

Actually, I don’t. I understand Hoppe’s argument quite well and Hoppe is quite clear, he distains democracy and favors autocracy. Whither separation of powers is or is not closely connected to democracy, it really isn’t relevant to this discussion. Separation of powers does exist and the unpleasant fact for you is democracies do work.

As has been endlessly discussed, separation of power is a tool to contain and minimize corruption. But the crusade against corruption doesn’t begin or end with separation of powers. And corruption isn’t confined to democracies; in fact democracies tend to be less corrupt. Whereas non democratic countries tend to have more than their fair share of corruption and in fact have more trouble with corruption in part because they do not have a separation of powers (e.g. Mother Russia, China, etc.) or transparency.

Well, it isn’t a theory, it is a fact. Napoleon and Hitler were defeated not by Russians but by winter and their overextended supply lines. Napoleon was defeated by Western Europeans at the Battle of Waterloo, not by Russians.

Now, I know Russians have an oversized egos and like think of themselves as bad asses. But at some point reality has to matter. The truth of the matter is reflected in Russian history. And history clearly shows Russians are indeed docile for all the reasons I have repeatedly pointed out. Western folks would never tolerate what Russians routinely tolerate from their officials (e.g. Putin).

 

Except as endlessly pointed out the US has never been a colonial power and has never had colonies. Additionally, after his initial lies, Putin admitted his troops were the “green men” who took over Crimea under the cover of darkness. They weren’t ethnic Russians living in Ukraine and the people fighting the Ukrainian government are fighting on their own. They are Russian mercenaries who are being paid and supplied by Mother Russia. So ethic Russians didn’t rebel, Russians came across the border on orders from Putin.

If Russians were not docile as you assert, they wouldn’t tolerate Putin’s crap for a moment. Their parliament wouldn’t vote virtually unanimously on every issue. They would have debates. They would be critical of their government as citizens of Western countries are.

Ah, where do I begin? And where do you get this notion the West needs acceptance and praise in order to dissent and where is your evidence? Let me guess, you made it up and you have no evidence because it isn’t true. You are just making shit up again. If Russians didn’t need praise and acceptance, they would be a little less egotistical, actually, a lot less egotistical. If Russians were not a docile lot it wouldn’t have taken them 12 years after Bloody Sunday, where a thousand innocent people were slaughtered by czarist troops, to cause a revolution (i.e. replace on autocracy with another). The unpleasant fact for you is Russians are overwhelmingly docile. It's a simple matter of historical fact. In Mother Russia dissidents have been persecuted for eons with beatings, imprisonment and death and that persecution continues to this day. Russians have been purging dissidents for thousands of years.

As for genocide, what do you call what Stalin did? I think you need to beef up on your own history.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Two, the relationship between early Americans and American natives is a complicated one. There were atrocities committed by European settlers and by Native Americans. It wasn’t all a one way street. Native Americans were mistreated, but unlike Mother Russia, the US has never had or endorsed genocide against any group. It’s one of them facts again.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

The unpleasant fact for you and your fellow Russians is that your egos far exceed realty.

 

These are quite different and unrelated questions.

I have had the possibility to compare what I have learned in my childhood with what my children have learned, I have also some information about the de-facto analphabets actually leaving the schools, so I can tell you that the education 30-40 years ago was better. Formally, this may look quite different, with more people finishing higher education and so on, but this has to be combined with a decrease of the value of the same formal education.

Because it is not the formal construction which matters. What matters is who has the real power. And today there is far too much real power in Washington. In Swiss, there is a similar decline, there is also a power shift toward the center, but it is yet not decisive, the real power is yet local. At least is what is my impression. You have a different impression about the US?

Improve your reading abilities. I have acknowledged that in the past democracy has worked in the US, today it is managed democracy.

This is not unfortunate but irrelevant. The question is not who has formally the power, but who has the real power. These are very different things.

To explain the difference, I can cite out of memory a funny conversation between Churchill and Stalin. Letter Churchill to Stalin: Please do not acknowledge diplomatically the (communist) Lublin government of Poland, we should yet talk about this. Answer: "I would like to follow your request. Unfortunately, the Supreme Soviet has made an unanimous decision to acknowledge diplomatically the Lublin government. I'm very sorry, but I cannot do anything." When my friend has found this, and ciring it, the unanimous reaction of our company was ROTL, how Stalin has made jokes. But, formally Stalin was correct.

So, there is not even a difference between my claim that the US democracy is managed and you claims about what it is formally. Because in a managed democracy it is not important what is written formally in the law, but what matters is who has the real power.

 

You don't know the common good problem? Educate yourself.

No, it has a lot to do with this. And this is simply economy of scale.

The firm bribes a bureaucrat who makes a decision in favour of the firm. What is the value for the firm? It is roughly proportional to the number of people influenced by the decision of the bureaucrat. What is the sum which the bureaucrat would accept? It is proportional to his legal income. Now, compare the number of people influenced by the decisions of a bureaucrat with his official, legal income. And you will see that there is no proportionality. The major of a small town does not have a really big legal income, but it is certainly better than the average. His decision matters for, say 10000. Now, POTUS decisions matter for 300 000 000, which is a factor of 30 000 in comparison. Does he have a legal income 30 000 times of that of the major of that 10000 man town? No. That means, it is much easier to bribe him, for purely economic reasons.

The point is that is easier to bribe people who know that they rule only some time, and may loose the next elections. So they care less about the future of the state. The autocrat, instead, cares much more about the future of the state - once it is his state.

And you will obviously not change this belief, independent of any evidence I would provide. That's why I don't even try.

Feel free to believe these fairy tales for sheeple.

So what? I do not advocate an unipolar world, but a multipolar one. And I do not advocate autocracy, but anarchism - autocracy is simply less evil that democracy, but above are evil.

You would better stop stupid speculations. I have BTW some high opinion about the founding fathers of US. Unfortunately, their project of a quite minimal state failed. But it was successful enough to make the US the strongest power in the world. And I have not said about Eastern Europe, except about the Ukaine. I know very well that Poland and the Baltic states want to be US vasalls. Especially the Balticum needs this so that they can safely suppress their Russian minorities.

The US vasalls have some freedom, but not much. Nobody in Europe really likes the sanctions against Russia, but Washington has pressed hard to get them and got them.

Feel free to believe democratic propaganda.

Unpleasent? I have no doubt that management of democracies works very well - for the 1%. And for the sheeple who believe this propaganda nonsense it works fine too.

Yeh, the winter and the supply lines. As if the Russians would not have the same winter and similar long supply lines. Or do you think the supply line from Berlin to Moscow is longer than from Moscow to Berlin?
And, of course, that Napoleon started with 600 000 his attack against Russia with 400 000, and after this run away with nothing, doesn't count at all, what counts is that he was beaten with some 120 000 guys by a coalition of 700 000.

 

I have cared about this point, and Putin has not made any lies. He has not answered some questions, and made some jokes instead, so that every educated person has understood the point.

This is simply wrong. But, of course, you will believe the Ukrainian propaganda anyway.

There was a lot of disagreement, because many Russians wanted much more radical and powerful support for Novorussia. There are even now enough Russians who hate Minsk II and are in favour of war against the Nazis. You are, of course, unaware of such debates.

From your posting ;-) And, of course, from the almost complete subjugation under political correctness.

First of all, my text was about tsarist Russia, not about Soviet union. There are a lot of people who argue that the whole communist regime was essentially anti-Russian. With quite reasonable evidence, given the natioalities of all the communist leaders. The anti-Russian elements have been abandoned by Stalin during WW II, because he wanted to use Russian nationalism. But Russians as the leading nation came only after Stalin's (a georgian) death. By the way, the Soviet leaders after Stalin (Chrushchow, Breshnew, Gorbatschow) were Ukranians.

The famine was a consequence of collectivization, and in no way something anti-ukrainian. Your Ukrainian propaganda piece is inaccurate, there was no national revival movement after the civil war, except in the phantasy of the authors. Bandera at al was fighting agains Poland in the polish occupied parts of the Ukraine and had nothing to do with the Russian parts. The collectivization was horrible, but it was horrible everywhere, not only in the Ukraine.

If you want to connect Stalin with genocide, this is possible - but not with the example of the Ukrainians, but with the example of deportations of Crimean tatars, Chechens and Germans, all this during/after WW II with collaboration with the Nazis as the justification, but in fact simply for nationality. But this has happened under Georgian leadership, not Russian.

Ok, so you prefer to whitewash the genocide against the native Americans too. No wonder.

And, as usual, you cannot live without personal attacks.

 

Oh and where is the supporting evidence for that belief? That belief only makes sense if you believe Russian (i.e. Putin’s) propaganda which has been repeatedly discredited by a variety of independent sources. Putin has contradicted himself a number of times (e.g. the little green men).

Hmm, so you think Putin is wrong? Putin admitted he planned and invaded Crimea on Russian TV, that the little green men in unmarked uniforms were his.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226

That really isn’t much of a debate and that doesn’t change the fact that there is very little dissent in Mother Russia and it doesn’t change the fact the Russian parliament has become Putin’s rubber stamp.

In the West virtually everything is debated and it isn’t against the law to be critical of Western leaders. We have something called freedom of speech in the West that Mother Russia doesn’t have and has rarely had. And you just don't see that kind of dissent in Mother Russia where everyone follows along with the state.

The unfortunate fact for you is Russian folks are extremely docile. As endlessly pointed out to you, Western folk wouldn't for a minute tolerate Putin's corruption and shenanigans.

Oh and how can a rational person come to that conclusion? Please be specific and make a logical case to support your belief. Frankly, you are just making stuff up again in an attempt to cover your butt.

Oh, so now you are trying to rewrite history again and cherry picking. The fact is you said Russians had never conducted genocide; you didn’t limit it to czarist Russia. You were quite simply wrong, per my previous post.

You want to quibble, but the facts are Russia is guilty of genocide and more than that, guilty of many human rights abuses that continue to this day.

Except per my previous post and evidence, there is nothing to whitewash. Per my previous post, the US government never engaged in genocidal policies towards anyone. Native Indians and European settlers both committed atrocities, but that doesn’t amount to genocide. Unfortunately for you my friend words have meanings, but not the meanings you want or need, and historical evidence just doesn’t support your beliefs.

LOL, well the truth isn’t a personal attack my friend.

 

Take a look at the videos, in the original language. BTW, there cannot be, in principle, evidence for non-existence of lies - there can be only evidence of lies. So it is your obligation to present evidence of lies once you claim Putin has lied.

The question was about some armed men in unmarked uniforms. His answer was, with a smile, that uniforms you can buy in any military shop. If you would understand Russian culture, you would be able to ranslate this as a "F... you, the time is over when only the US uses its special troops whenever they like, now we do this too, and don't ask the West for permission."

No, I simply disagree that this was ever a secret to be admitted.

The Congress is a rubber stamp too, about the things which really matter. With a lot of discussion about completely unimportant things, which seem important for the sheeple. There was, essentially, only one oppositional politician over the years, Ron Paul.

My butt is in no danger, I simply don't take a forum full of politically correct sheeple serious. I see that nobody violates political correctness here, that's all I need. What you need I couldn't care less. And, no, I do not plan to defend here politically incorrect positions - if I start, this would be simply an indication that I want to leave this forum, because I would be banned after a few posts.

They have tolerated the bank bailouts. This is what matters for the 1%. And you obviously don't understand that it is not the Western people who decide which politician has to go because of some scandal, but the media owned by the 1%. If Wulff and Strauss-Kahn are not sufficient to understand this, nothings helps.

Of course, never never never. And the natives committed as much atrocities as a few poor European (not American) settlers. LOL.