|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Please don't use words that you don't understand. |
The policies you advocate--confronting the Ruskies and bombing the middle east in the name of 'democracy' and 'human rights'--look remarkably similar to those put forward by Wolfowitz et al. |
The Neo-cons are above all else Americans and as such they have rather romantic notions about democracy and 'freedom'.
All I am saying is that the West has built a global order that works well and provides win-win outcomes such as regional security and economic progress. When that order is threatened the West should not hesistate to intervene or at the very least stand its ground.
I admit that it doesn't always go as planned, but that is because the US is still essentially an empire. As this century progresses and the US relative decline speeds up a more balanced relationship will develop between the pillars of what we call the West.
The Russians and Iranians just want to break things up so they can get a better position for themselves. The Chinese could go either way, but they are making a mint free riding off the current system. I would wager that the Chinese desire to simply change the rules rather than the system will leave system breakers like Russia doomed to failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
The Neo-cons are above all else Americans |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| aq8knyus wrote: |
The Neo-cons are above all else Americans |
No. |
Yes, technically as a political movement an adherent can be of any nationality.
So far so pedantic.
The movement was born in the US, defined by US political culture, gained its greatest victories in the US and its most influential thinkers were/are all americans.
Neoconservatism is as american as apple pie and plantation slavery.
BTW please don't respond with any far right nuttery about neocons and Jews. It is unsightly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grass is green, the sky is blue and neo-conservativism is Jew warmongering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
In order to steer this conversation away from talk of Neo-cons et. al. I've been doing research on the transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation, and it is one of the most ugly short sighted things imaginable. For example, during the 1990s, life expectancy for men in Russia dropped by more than 6 years- most of the country was impoverished, etc. In the interest of sparking debate- here are the people that I blame most for the failure.
1) Yeltsin- liberalized prices for bread, basic goods + subsidized prices for natural resources like oil and diamonds= A few people become oligarchs buying oil for a dollar and selling it outside the country for $40, everyone else becomes destitute
2) Gorbachev- perestrokia and the law on cooperatives was a disaster- Gorbachev tried to change the economic system while still maintaining the old corrupt officials- this leads those same officials and their criminal buddies to take the process over for themselves
3) Harvard team/western advisors- Gave terrible advice about how to manage an economic transition, more interested in Chicago school economics than looking at the actual ground situation
4)Anatoly Chubais- Economic advisor to Yeltsin, either stupid or corrupt, or more likely both |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
For some context:
http://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-lobby-protected-ukrainian-neo-nazis
| Quote: |
AlterNet has learned that an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have forbidden US assistance, training and weapons to neo-Nazis and other extremists in Ukraine was kept out of the final bill by the Republican-led House Rules Committee. Introduced by Democratic Representative John Conyers, the amendment was intended to help tamp down on violent confrontations between Ukrainian forces and Russian separatists. (Full text of the amendment embedded at the end of this article).
A USA Today/Pew poll conducted in April while the NDAA was being debated found that Americans opposed by more than 2 to 1 providing the Ukrainian government with arms or other forms of military assistance.
If passed, Conyers' amendment would have explicitly barred those found to have offered “praise or glorification of Nazism or its collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar symbols” from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense.
The amendment was presented by congressional staffers to lobbyists from Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two of the country’s largest established Jewish pressure groups. Despite their stated mission to combat anti-Semitism and violent extremism, the ADL and Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers’ proposal.
According to Democratic sources in Congress, staffers from the ADL’s Washington office and the Simon Wiesenthal Center rejected the amendment on the grounds that right-wing Ukrainian parties like Svoboda with documented records of racist extremism had “moderated their rhetoric.” An ADL lobbyist insisted that “the focus should be on Russia,” while the Wiesenthal Center pointed to meetings between far-right political leaders in Ukraine and the Israeli embassy as evidence that groups like Svoboda and Right Sector had shed their extremism.
|
This is a conflict between ethnic Russians, as represented by Vladimir Putin and ethnic Jews as represented by State, the entire media and a multitude of lobbies. The Jewish groups are behaving as a whole without respect to national residency. Whites should behave with similar ethnic solidarity towards the Russians. The ADL, Wiesenthal, NYT, etc, are defending ethnic interests. They use their old shtick of appealing to white reverence for ideals and universalist values when in reality it is an ethnic conflict. I understand that the simple act of pointing out an ethnic conflict hits Western ears very harshly. If we could be more adult about it the world could be saved quite a bit of suffering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
For some context:
http://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-lobby-protected-ukrainian-neo-nazis
| Quote: |
AlterNet has learned that an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have forbidden US assistance, training and weapons to neo-Nazis and other extremists in Ukraine was kept out of the final bill by the Republican-led House Rules Committee. Introduced by Democratic Representative John Conyers, the amendment was intended to help tamp down on violent confrontations between Ukrainian forces and Russian separatists. (Full text of the amendment embedded at the end of this article).
A USA Today/Pew poll conducted in April while the NDAA was being debated found that Americans opposed by more than 2 to 1 providing the Ukrainian government with arms or other forms of military assistance.
If passed, Conyers' amendment would have explicitly barred those found to have offered “praise or glorification of Nazism or its collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar symbols” from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense.
The amendment was presented by congressional staffers to lobbyists from Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two of the country’s largest established Jewish pressure groups. Despite their stated mission to combat anti-Semitism and violent extremism, the ADL and Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers’ proposal.
According to Democratic sources in Congress, staffers from the ADL’s Washington office and the Simon Wiesenthal Center rejected the amendment on the grounds that right-wing Ukrainian parties like Svoboda with documented records of racist extremism had “moderated their rhetoric.” An ADL lobbyist insisted that “the focus should be on Russia,” while the Wiesenthal Center pointed to meetings between far-right political leaders in Ukraine and the Israeli embassy as evidence that groups like Svoboda and Right Sector had shed their extremism.
|
This is a conflict between ethnic Russians, as represented by Vladimir Putin and ethnic Jews as represented by State, the entire media and a multitude of lobbies. The Jewish groups are behaving as a whole without respect to national residency. Whites should behave with similar ethnic solidarity towards the Russians. The ADL, Wiesenthal, NYT, etc, are defending ethnic interests. They use their old shtick of appealing to white reverence for ideals and universalist values when in reality it is an ethnic conflict. I understand that the simple act of pointing out an ethnic conflict hits Western ears very harshly. If we could be more adult about it the world could be saved quite a bit of suffering. |
All that aside, lets not ignore the Russian habit of creating and maintaining these destabilizing breakaway regions. They've got Transnistria in Moldova, the two provinces in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan, now this in the Ukraine. Most of these places are only recognized by Russia and at most a small handful of other countries, none are really thriving, and some, like Transitria are out and out criminal states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
I know you can and that's why I started my reply the way I did.
However, Nagorno whatever is nowheresville and really a local matter of no consequence to anyone who doesn't live there. Ukraine is another matter, and the coup was a State/Soros/NED color revolution which has created a human catastrophe (ie 700,000 refugees in Russia, indiscriminate shelling of cities, cluster bombs, etc) on a very important fault line in Europe.
Powerful nations will bully their neighbors. Always and forever. Russia does it, China does it, Germany does it and the USA does it. I'm primarily concerned with the risk of a major war. My secondary concern is cultural and economic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
In order to steer this conversation away from talk of Neo-cons et. al. I've been doing research on the transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation, and it is one of the most ugly short sighted things imaginable. For example, during the 1990s, life expectancy for men in Russia dropped by more than 6 years- most of the country was impoverished, etc. In the interest of sparking debate- here are the people that I blame most for the failure.
1) Yeltsin- liberalized prices for bread, basic goods + subsidized prices for natural resources like oil and diamonds= A few people become oligarchs buying oil for a dollar and selling it outside the country for $40, everyone else becomes destitute
2) Gorbachev- perestrokia and the law on cooperatives was a disaster- Gorbachev tried to change the economic system while still maintaining the old corrupt officials- this leads those same officials and their criminal buddies to take the process over for themselves
3) Harvard team/western advisors- Gave terrible advice about how to manage an economic transition, more interested in Chicago school economics than looking at the actual ground situation
4)Anatoly Chubais- Economic advisor to Yeltsin, either stupid or corrupt, or more likely both |
Is there any outcome that would have been moderate in impact for immediate post-Soviet Russia?
The Chinese Hands like to point out that China was more than 90% agrarian when gaigekaifang began and the Tiananmen crackdown occurred. Russia was fully industrialized, post-agrarian, and Communist to the core. Is there any scenario where a skillful leader could have "saved" Russia in that first decade? If there was, how difficult or likely would it have been? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
In order to steer this conversation away from talk of Neo-cons et. al. I've been doing research on the transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation, and it is one of the most ugly short sighted things imaginable. For example, during the 1990s, life expectancy for men in Russia dropped by more than 6 years- most of the country was impoverished, etc. In the interest of sparking debate- here are the people that I blame most for the failure.
1) Yeltsin- liberalized prices for bread, basic goods + subsidized prices for natural resources like oil and diamonds= A few people become oligarchs buying oil for a dollar and selling it outside the country for $40, everyone else becomes destitute
2) Gorbachev- perestrokia and the law on cooperatives was a disaster- Gorbachev tried to change the economic system while still maintaining the old corrupt officials- this leads those same officials and their criminal buddies to take the process over for themselves
3) Harvard team/western advisors- Gave terrible advice about how to manage an economic transition, more interested in Chicago school economics than looking at the actual ground situation
4)Anatoly Chubais- Economic advisor to Yeltsin, either stupid or corrupt, or more likely both |
Is there any outcome that would have been moderate in impact for immediate post-Soviet Russia?
The Chinese Hands like to point out that China was more than 90% agrarian when gaigekaifang began and the Tiananmen crackdown occurred. Russia was fully industrialized, post-agrarian, and Communist to the core. Is there any scenario where a skillful leader could have "saved" Russia in that first decade? If there was, how difficult or likely would it have been? |
Well, the transition was going to be messy no matter what, but it did not have to be as devastating as it was. The transition was rushed to the point where privatization was an end in itself, rather than developing a healthy law based society. Liberalizing daily necessities so quickly was dumb and resulted in tragedy, letting oligarchs buy oil, etc. for subsidized prices and sell at world market rates, and then send the money out of the country is obviously bad policy. Not cleaning house and getting rid of corrupt officials before the transition had obvious consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
This is a uniquely Soviet policy how?
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
Do you post here because Dave's is full of such chumps that nobody challenges you on the crap you post? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
This is a uniquely Soviet policy how?
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
Do you post here because Dave's is full of such chumps that nobody challenges you on the crap you post? |
1) I never said it was unique to the Soviets
2) Because they have engaged in a clear and consistent pattern over time- i.e. in transnistria, the nagorno-karabakh, the breakaway provinces in Georgia, and currently Ukraine. This started in the early 1990s and the latest case happened this year. It is a bit much for it to be a coincidence.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141210/jeffrey-mankoff/russias-latest-land-grab
3) If this is what constitutes a challenge, then I guess so |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
This is a uniquely Soviet policy how?
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
Do you post here because Dave's is full of such chumps that nobody challenges you on the crap you post? |
1) I never said it was unique to the Soviets
2) Because they have engaged in a clear and consistent pattern over time- i.e. in transnistria, the nagorno-karabakh, the breakaway provinces in Georgia, and currently Ukraine. This started in the early 1990s and the latest case happened this year. It is a bit much for it to be a coincidence.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141210/jeffrey-mankoff/russias-latest-land-grab
3) If this is what constitutes a challenge, then I guess so |
Clear and consistent eh? I'm toying with putting out a paper on this topic (I'm not an ESL chimp, although I was, hence this stroll down memory lane) so pray tell all, this could be useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
