Vladimir Putin: The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II

 kurtster wrote: 
First of all, the goal of Russian communism was the eradication of a czar (literally and figuratively).  The term "czar" as an appointed executive branch official in the US has been informally used at least since the 1930s, but the term wasn't as widely used until an official "Energy Czar" and 'Drug Czar" were appointed during the term of the noted communist sympathizer Richard Nixon.

 kurtster wrote: 
"I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
Leaving aside the absurdity of judging someone by their 1960s political thoughts in response to systemic and institutional racial abuse, there is a big difference between Marxism and being a member of the Communist Party (and I am neither). Given your language, I ask if you condone the actions of the House Committee on Un American Activities and McCarthyism in the 1950s? And while we are at it if Russia was acting to influence the election which the government and private security experts say their compelling evidence indicates, would that then be something to be up in arms about in your opinion? 

Bonus conspiracy theory: It is likely a lot easier to rig the votes in the Republican primaries than in the general election. I'm surprised the rest of the Republicans don't seem to be worried about that.

 kurtster wrote: 
What's the matter? Having trouble rationalizing your choice in the face everything going on now, so your slapping around here instead of facing up to your own hypocrisy? How deep is your swamp now?

Russia and Communism were no big deal to Democrats when Obama installed card carrying Communist and self identified 9/11 Truther Van Jones as a White House Czar. 

Czar, that's funny.  Definitely a Russian term.

No one cared when they hacked the WH's computers or other government agencies.  Now y'all are all up in arm's over Russia's alleged playing around with our latest election.

Gimme a freakin break.  Freakin hypocrites. 

Hillary lost, get over it. 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Along those lines:

Remind Me Why Russia is Our Adversary?

The change in Republican voters' views of Putin since Trump's rise is remarkable

 aflanigan wrote: 

Yea I hear ya, but I think we misunderstand and underestimate the Russian people.  They have been through many, many cold winters, are fiercely patriotic and do not respond to coercion very well.   And did I mention all of those nuclear weapons?

 sirdroseph wrote: 

The Russian economy is suffering mostly from self-inflicted ills, as Krugman pointed out in his op-ed. Putin's attempt to use sanctions as a scapegoat ignores his mismanagement's role in their current predicament.
See the GAO report. If the attempt is to simply isolate a country economically or hamstring their economy, then absolutely sanctions do not tend to be effective in the long term. But the reasons for imposing sanctions are not limited to achieving economic ends.  Sanctions can be effective to coerce different behavior down the road, particularly in nations we consider allies, and also when significant political opposition exists in a country being sanctioned.  

 aflanigan wrote: 

I think your definition of "effective" is different than mine, if you mean by effective as in hurting the Russian economy substantially, yes they will be effective. The point is that the sanctions being effective is the problem.  Read the article completely and get back to me.....or not.  It's all good.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Sanctions sometimes are effective and sometimes they are ineffective, as the GAO discovered. Russia is a somewhat different sort of country from Cuba, politically and economically, I would say.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Wow, I can't even begin with all the issues with that article. Clearly written by a Russian apologist for Putin. It is as though the Ukrainian people had no say in their desire to be more westernized, they were just influenced by neocons. Why doesn't the articla talk about what we should do about Putin? Nothing? Really?

A key reason why Putin and his autocratic style have such a strong political base is that he took on some of the oligarchs and restructured the economy to improve the lives of many Russians.

  
He took on oligarchs that opposed him politically. Pretty much anything you do moving communist economy to a semi capitalistic is going to improve things, but corruption was endemic in there communist society, and that really kinda double up now in their so called democracy. I am sure the neocons dream of regime change, but those more practical, see it as a legitimate punishment, and, yeah, it will weaken him. There is practical aspects to the sanctions, and frankly we have done very little in sanctions. His buddy oligarchs started moving buttloads of money out of the country and all, but the major hit was from Saudi's dumping the oil, which they did for entirely different reasons.

I still see the whole thing as more of a Euro issue then ours, but we should support them in sanctions and all. To compare to Cuba is idiocy. 50 Years for Cuba on sanctions, and we are pretty much the only ones, so yeah, they are  adjusted to it.. If we would have lifted the sanctions 20 years ago, I firmly believe things would be different now and much for the better, between us. Frankly I want to go there for the music.

 

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Thank you, this was my point.

There is some irony here in that just as President Barack Obama finally begins to lift the ineffective, half-century-old U.S. embargo against Cuba, the U.S. Congress and the entire mainstream U.S. news media have jumped on another high horse to charge off against Russia, imposing new economic sanctions and dreaming of another “regime change.”

The promiscuous use of sanctions – as part of “regime change” strategies – has become almost an addiction in Washington. One can envision some tough-talking U.S. diplomat confronting the leaders of a troublesome nation by going around the room and saying, “we sanction you, we sanction you, we sanction you.”

Beyond the trouble that this pathology creates for American businesses, not sure whether they’re stumbling over one of these sanctions, there is the backlash among countries increasingly trying to circumvent the United States in order to deny Washington that leverage over them. The long-run effect is surely to be a weakening of the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy.

However, in the meantime, U.S. politicians can’t seem to get enough of this feel-good approach to foreign disputes. They can act like they’re “doing something” by punishing the people of some wayward country, but sanctions are still short of outright war, so the politicians don’t have to attend funerals and face distraught mothers and fathers, at least not the mothers and fathers of American soldiers.

In the past, sanctions, such as those imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, took a fearsome toll, killing some half million Iraqi children, according to United Nations estimates.

Another example of how the sanctioning impulse can run amok has been U.S. policy toward Sudan, where leaders were sanctioned over the violence in Darfur. The United States also supported the secession of oil-rich South Sudan as a further penalty to Sudan.

But the U.S. sanctions on Sudan prevented South Sudan from shipping its oil through pipelines that ran through Sudan, creating a political crisis in South Sudan, which led to tribal violence. The U.S. government responded with, you guessed it, sanctions against leaders of South Sudan.

So, now, the U.S. government is back on that high horse and charging off to sanction Russia and its leaders over Ukraine, a crisis that has been thoroughly misrepresented in the mainstream U.S. news media and in the halls of government.

The Crazy US ‘Group Think’ on Russia | Common Dreams
Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the neocon empire...

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Honesty can be an admirable quality, but for many supposedly "honest" politicians it does not seem to extend to being able to honestly recognize when you are incompetent and ought to  either step down, or acknowledge your missteps and seek out good counsel about how not to repeat them. An honest person doesn't spend time in a three hour press conference looking for scapegoats to blame.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Thanks !  It made me hungry.  

Off to the grocery store, which is a very dangerous place to go when your hungry ...

It's all yer fault ...  
Some food for thought ...

I took deep throat's advice to heart all those years ago ... follow the money ... 

Here's where I go first every day.

Some read the sports page or the funnies first thing in the morning, here's what I look for first ...

Friday's Forex Analytical Charts

Friday's Analytical Charts for Gold, Silver and Platinum and Palladium

 aflanigan wrote: 

I stand by every word and still think that he is an honest, blunt myopic selfish dictator that is right on some very important issues.  This does not make me a Putinphile. Unlike you, I hold no blind allegiance to any leader regardless of political persuasion or geography.  Though admittedly Ron Paul is close.  You know what, basically I am just raging on fake ass people.  This pretty much sums up all of my points of view on just about everything.

Edit: also thought I would post the entire post that you picked from, really do not see how I could be more clear:


Though I am not oblivious to his bigotry and authoritarian rule, I do admire his rugged individualism, bluntness and you have to admit he is right on some very important issues such as sheltering a very important whistle blower, brokering a peace deal to at least delay the outright bombing of Syrians though we are still getting involved directly and indirectly in bringing more weapons and killing into the war torn country.  He appeals to those of us who are tired of political correctness and bullshit and also those of us who prefer honest and blunt myopic selfishness to veiled, humble and dishonest myopic selfishness.  However let us be perfectly clear, I have no illusions that he is not an evil dictator and of course do not support his ruling methods or how he treats his own people. Nor do I support him in his proposed Jihad against Muslims, violence is not the way to defeat terrorism. I am merely explaining why some otherwise reasonable lovers of peace and populism might have a soft spot for him.  Now, there are others whose very life is built upon hatred of Obama and those people of course support Putin merely because he is a rival to Obama and they clearly dislike one another.  Just wanted to be clear that I am not one of those, to me Obama is just the latest representation of American Imperialism.

 kurtster wrote: 
Nice word salad!

 sirdroseph wrote: 
OK, so you still "admire his rugged individualism, bluntness and you have to admit he is right on some very important issues. . .  He appeals to those of us who are tired of political correctness and bullshit and also those of us who prefer honest and blunt myopic selfishness to veiled, humble and dishonest myopic selfishness", as you put it below. I got the impression from your reaction to my post that you felt defensive about having stuck up for him and his leadership style given the current situation in Russia. I aplologize if I misunderstood.

Just want to be clear where you stand, Tammy.





 

 sirdroseph wrote: 
WINDEX !!!!

I had to read that twice.  But spot on !